03-22-2011, 08:30 AM
Rumours are flying around concerning the US "trade study" of different small-arms calibres mentioned by General Brogan in my hearing at the NDIA in Dallas last May. The US Army's ARDEC has completed this, comparing the 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds with 6.5mm and 7mm over a wide range of criteria, assuming the use of similar lead-free bullets. The conclusion is that both the 6.5mm and 7mm were much better overall than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. The report has yet to be released, but the rumours seem pretty definite.
This should come as no surprise; the abstract of Ehrhart's 2009 study (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer) contains this:
"The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I."
How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?
This should come as no surprise; the abstract of Ehrhart's 2009 study (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer) contains this:
"The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I."
How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?