Platoon Weapons

[JonathanF]

Thanks Wilf.

I am extremely familiar with Gel tests and the wounding literature to which you refer. Gel tests are excellent for comparison data, (as is CRISAT) but you can't use Police Firearms criteria for judging these rounds.

1. Military rounds are not just about what they do to humans.

I realise that, but it's increasingly a factor in weapon design and procurement, at least in the US. So what are your thoughts on the gel testing that shows a smaller permanent wound channel and neglible secondary "tissue stretch" effect?

The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.

I appreciate there's a difference in military and law enforcement requirements. Again I would suggest that attitudes in this respect are changing and I'd also ask why not consider wound ballistics? If it's important to a policeman to quickly incapacitate his target, why not a soldier?

I also accept that historically, armies have been happy simply to suppress and to score penetrating hits at range. But to equip infantrymen with what are basically less ballistically effective sub-machineguns, seems like a case of baby+bathwater to me. I realise you're proposing that GPMGs, MLGs and sniper weapons can take up the slack, but I just don't see the PDWs cutting the mustard even at the <300m range.

2. As I say in the article, no one ever says, "c'mon lads. They're only using 4.85mm. let's go!" Any round can suppress.

Yes, but not any round can incapacitate, nor make it through cover (see below). I concede that my suggestion that insurgents might adapt to take advantage of platoons armed primarily with short-range weapons was exaggeration to try to make a point.

3. PDW rounds have very low dispersion and good accuracy at <200m. Very few tests take this into account.

True, though of course so does 5.56, which can also work to mid-long range and (with the right ammo) cause reliably incapacitating wounds). Much heavier weapons, of course, which I recognise is really your point in the article - reducing carried weight.

So are you thinking along Project Salvo lines? Lots of grouped small-calibre rounds to increase hit probability, at the sacrifice of terminal performance?

Hoplophile = Lover of Weapons, or "gun nuts".

I did gather (after a google, admittedly) which is why I said it was a good line, didn't apply to the experts I cited, and used the term "gun nuts" myself. Just because a lot of gun nuts support something, doesn't lend it either credibility, or a lack of it.

In the expanded version of what I posted, Roberts (as does 120mm above) states that the 5.7mm round is NOT good at making it through cover, I presume in terms of maintaining velocity and vector (since it can do the CRISAT and soft armour no problem). This is because of its low mass/momentum - AP 9mm is (he says) better at this. So I wonder why you feel PDW rounds do meet this military criterion.

I'm still not sure how you can say that "4.6mm and even 5.7mm weapons are generally more effective in terms of measurable criteria (CRISAT performance and PERMANENT wound channel) than 9mm SMGs." Everything I've seen, and simple physics as Roberts says, strongly suggests otherwise. So whilst I'm not saying terminal effects in bodies should be the be-all and end-all of a military round and weapon, what I am saying is that the current 5.7 and 4.6mm rounds are not the compromise that you're looking for to save weight.

Now, once again, I realise that all I've read has all been online, whereas you have access to some real data that might totally trump the Fackler/Roberts tests. But if you could just clarify why you think those cited articles show a lesser gel result than 9mm ball, where other tests (presumably) contradict that, that would address my main concern (if for the sake of argument I concede that sub-carbine weapons are appropriate IWs). If you can point me to anything online or accessible via say, JSTOR, that would be a bonus for which I'd be most grateful.