Not good enough. Certainly the US could do a better job if they wanted... but there is no incentive at the moment as all that would achieve is to prove how substandard the 5.56mm calibre is that they foisted on their own military and NATO.
No Wilf. I remember as a recruit and later as an officer cadet been taken to the field firing range to watch a demonstration of our weapons vs their weapons. Apart from which ammo/weapon was better I certainly left knowing more about the capabilities of our weapons and that gave confidence. No doubt what thickness of tree the FN (firing 7.62x51mm NATO) could penetrate.I suggest you just need a round that is mostly adequate. 5.56mm and 7.62mm ball will do 90% of what might be required.
OK, think about it. What happens if the internals of the engine block are damaged on an in gear moving vehicle?Agreed. I've never heard of any infantry targeting the engine block. I would just train them to shoot the centre of mass.
So now what is outstanding is the investigation into how they got it so wrong and what to do about it.Actually the story of how the US selected 5.56mm has been covered in exhaustive detail.
Since when has the infantry's individual weapon been down graded to 200m? Since they introduced the BB ammo?By close quarter weapon, I mean 200m, which is really the maximum range I would ever bother to teach your average bod to engage with, as an individual, from the standing position.
But seriously the Brit training is that even with the SA80 (family) there can be effective section fire out to 600m. Should that be revised?
Bookmarks