As I said, I think that is nonsense. They may have said it to try and get people to adopt the round they want.
No round takes off unless its adopted widely by NATO. We can design the best bullets ever, but if NATO members do not adopt it, its not going to "fly."
Its a chicken and egg thing. Its not logistically sound to adopt a round not widely used by a NATO, yet a round needs to be widely accepted by NATO before more countries find it cost efficient to produce it.
5.56 is here to stay for while.
its a good trade off.... try shooting burst or Full auto on a 7.62x51 NATO rifle !not very controllable ! even comparing say an AKM with 7.62x39 over say an M4 with the 5.56 M855... the recoil and controllability of the weapon is significantly less on the m4... going to the AK74 with the 5.45 ! very smooth and soft recoil and thus better hit probability.
Not putting down the .30 caliber . but each round has its usuage and not one round can do it all!
DaveC
Just make sure dont wowo. Any round will do as long as you hit the target. If you dont believe , go to range and get shot by any of following rounds & tell forum which one didnt hurt so bad.
.22
.32
.38
9 mm
.45
.223
Just make sure dont wowo. Any round will do as long as you hit the target. If you dont believe , go to range and get shot by any of following rounds & tell forum which one didnt hurt so bad.
I got shot by a 6mm BB pellet from a Sniper. Man, it hurt like a @!#@!. I got so pissed off I charged @ him with my TMP-side arm and sprayed him with a 20 over pellets. Made sure I aimed for his thighs where he was not wearing protection too.
Originally posted by davechng:try shooting burst or Full auto on a 7.62x51 NATO rifle !
Dave, it's probably the lightfighter bias talking, but I can't see all that many situations that require flicking the selector to rock and roll - controlled fire with 7.62 would do the trick nicely IMHO.
IIRC, the M192 tends to tumble more upon impact than the M855 - why don't we go back to the older round?
IIRC, it was cos the M192 would be less accurate as well as dip more. I can't remember, but there was this site that explained why the M192 should not be used in the later series of M-16s. I'll try to dig up the site.
Found it, please refer to:
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html
Apparently its just degrade accuracy. My bad.
Davechng, can you verify that the information on that page is largely correct?