And here is another interesting point: All the data I've seen on the new wunder-cartridges share the same characteristic: They uniformly compare apples to oranges: They compare a specialty cartridge, in a specialty role, against a general purpose, or specialty cartridge OUTSIDE of it's specialty role. What if, instead of buying an entirely new family of weapons, you just reworked already existing cartridges? A 7.62 round with similar bc and sectional density to the 6.5 round will be superior in every way, except weight and weapon weight. A more useful statistic would be to compare like characteristics of similar rounds and honestly accept the compromises in suboptimal solutions.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
And in reference to your earlier post, I reject utterly the utility of CRISAT. A round capable of penetrating well will do minimum damage to flesh, unless you are able to suspend the laws of physics. I have no ideas why the EUROs are so fascinated with poking tiny holes in body armor. (Actually, one idea just came to mind: I would suggest that the lack of a "gun culture" results in a form of "magical thinking" about firearms effectiveness. That is, to a large group of people who view firearms as distant, imaginary objects, having ANY gun creates a perception of vast power.)
In general, rounds that create good trauma results are not good at penetrating armor, either, unless you scale them up. There is no free lunch, advertising hype notwithstanding.
One more element to throw into the mix. Small rounds may weigh 1/2 to 1/3 as much as large rounds, but I would suggest that soldiers will use more than three times as many rounds to compensate for their lack of perceived power. Resulting in reduced combat effectiveness for no gain. A "Lite Foods" unintended consequence for combat soldiers, if you will.
Bookmarks