Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: climber@sol.UVic.CA Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: posting on small arms development Message-ID: <11597@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 21 Nov 89 04:20:31 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: I have noticed a lot of discussion concerning the relative merits between weapons of a smaller caliber (like the M-16) and larger weapons (7.62 or 9 mm). In addition, some have argued against flachette based weapons because if its relative lack of hitting power. The argument I hear most often in support of flachette or smaller calibers is that the idea is to wound, not kill, the enemy soldiers. The theory is since it requires additional resources to take care of him and because of the expected fast nature of a potential war, wounded soldiers do not come back into the fight before its over. This would appear to support smaller weapons that have great accuracy and long range as their primary design concerns. Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? I myself would probably want to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle) where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'. Craig climber@sol.UVic.CA ____ vroom /____\---- ~~~~~ \oooo/ disclaimer: the usual -----\ \ HETZER POWER! \