Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: jacob@cd.chalmers.se.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: posting on small arms development Message-ID: <11700@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 24 Nov 89 06:02:05 GMT References: <11643@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden. Lines: 52 Approved: military@att.att.com From: jacob@cd.chalmers.se.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen) > 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 > > 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'. > A very important factor in selecting a 5.56 mm weapon to succeed 7.62 mm ones is the training time. It takes 20% of the time and ammo to train an infantry soldier to a comparable level using the 5.56 mm rifle. In a conscript army like the Swedish one there is precious little time and money to spend on each soldier (7 months is the normal time) so with less time needed for basic training we can improve training in other areas which in turn improve the survivability of the soldier. When logistics are concerned, it is a very great advantage to have a single type of small arms amunition. A 5.56 weapon is so light that you can equip officers, hospital personell, motor cyclists etc with it. The caliber of a round is a rather small factor in the type of wound it makes. Speed at impact and the stability of the round are much more important. Here in Sweden we shoot pigs so our doctors can train wartime surgery. The wounds I have seen from the AK4 (7.62) and the AK5 (5.56) are very much the same, with small entrance holes and severe shock damage around the bullet path. The m/45 SMG (9 mm) produces less shock damage, but the exit hole is often quite large. The M16 produces uneven results. Sometimes the bullets go right through with very little damage and sometimes they tumble on impact, making such a great mess that there no point in trying surgery. In a streamlined system where lots of people are trained in a short time and where uniformity of equipment is important you can't supply the infantry man with the best weapons for each different surrounding. Good enough will have to do. Jacob Hallen