Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post

1. To hear soldiers speak of the M14 with reverance is amazing, for example, especially since the M14 had some serious drawbacks.

2. Now, having said that, I can see a way to make your proposed system "work". I think the way the US Army rolled out the "Stryker" family of vehicles was instructive.

3. I am chagrined that you like the "mid-velocity, low-caliber/weight" carbine rounds. The ONLY thing they are even marginally competent at, imo, is piercing body armor....

4. Of course, your "permanent wound channel" stats are really key, if the US Army is ever faced by a military force composed of ballistic gelatinous creatures. Wearing body armor, of course.

5. I will admit to being biased in favor of heavier, slower rounds, due to digging a large variety of rounds out of once-living flesh of various sized animals.
1. Oh yes, and I grew up on the L1A1 SLR that attracted similar silliness.

2. That is an excellent point. I am Stryker sceptic, but some of the theory that underpinned the concept was very sound - but generally remains hidden.

3. Well my preference is actually for a "good-enough" round. Not an all around man-stopper that everyone seems to crave. Case telescoped 5.56mm maybe 50% lighter than the current round. Good enough, but not a mature technology right now. Being able to perforate body armour at range is characteristic which buys you more than one might suppose.

4. If you can show me a better medium for assessing terminal effect than Gelatin, then I'm VERY interested to hear. If you have a round that can perforate 1.6mm of titanium sheet, (NOT CRISAT) backed by 30cm of correlated 10% Gelatin, at 200m, I submit you have an adequate IW round.

5. I have had some long discussions with the military medicine community on this, and it has merit, except for the fact that animals do not suffer from suppression, and that incapacity in animals is comparatively easy to judge/measure, unlike humans.