ORIGINAL: Tankerace
6.8mm huh? Well, at least they are inching back to 7.62mm... and then they can dump that BS and re adopt the .30-06. Call it the .30-2006.
I have a dummy .223 round on my desk at home. To compare, I have a spent .30-06 shell casing from my grandfather's military funeral salute and a .575cal Mini Ball I use in my '61 Springfield. The .223 is frigging tiny in comparison... I dunno what scares me more, the fact I read where the .223 won't take an enemy down, or just imagining what a big .30-06 or a mini ball could do to somebody. Not pleasent to think about at all...
I agree,
Without being Too much of a Ludite, musket/rifle ammunition has been continuously getting smaller since firearms have been developed centuries ago.
By the end of the 19th century-beginning of the 20th century, experts have found that at approximately .30 cal (or 7.62mm) and around 150 grain weight @ 2500 to 2800 fps velocity - the ultimate compromise was reached between range, stopping power, accuracy, and penetration - that a trained rifleman could handle.
Since WWII, I believe, wartime experiences have tried to push the parameters of bullet design even lower - based on many theroies (such as - wounding is as good as killing, the average soldier only really hits a target at around 100 yards, short range barrage fire power is better than long range accuracy and hitting power, etc.).
But having been a U.S. Army rifleman myself (PEACETIME ONLY), with a lot of practical shooting experience with many different weapons - I still believe that there is no real good reason to have general issue infantry rifles at less than full power 7.62, 30-06, .303, 7.92 (etc) auto-loading rifles (
insert your national favorite here).
Our predecessors could handle them, and several hundred rounds of ammunition to lug around - I see no reason why today's men cannot be expected to do the same.
My opinion anyway, so Tanker - Yep, I pretty much agree with you.
B
