FMJ yaw and upset performance

[LR1955]

Gene, can you please cite a .mil document for that claim?

Stan:

That gets into my personal experience with the RDTE system. If your cartridge only 'compares to' what ever it is intended to replace then you will not get anywhere as what exists is good enough. To get the attention of people, it must present a quantum improvement. What is quantum? In the early 90's it meant doubling hit probability and lethality to 300 or 500 meters (I can't remember which) given an 'average trained rifleman'. However it is my opinion that the Infantry School put this out because they weren't interested in going through another M-9 Pistol circus so they asked for something that couldn't be done to please Congress who insisted they bring up the lethality issue with the service rifle.

So, in reality the subject is much more than simply designing a cartridge and rifle that does everything and weighs nothing. If you want to get someone's attention, prove to them that your cartridge and rifle combination fired by an average rifleman can do everything you demand of it twice as well as what is already on hand. Do that and you have something going that may cause a change within the next ten or fifteen years.

That said, I sure do agree that a larger diameter bullet and more powerful cartridge should have been chosen in the late 1950's but it wasn't. Sure, a 6.5 or 7mm would have been a better bet but my bets are that even these two choices would be under severe criticism today for one reason or the other. If it wouldn't concern the weight of the ammunition it would be lethality or hit probability.

You see, no one will be satisfied with anything for long. Lets say we went to a 7mm which is something I would agree with like Tony. Within a few years as the novelty wore off and guys entered the service with no 5.56 experience, the complaining would start about recoil, noise, ammunition weight, over penetration / not penetrating enough / not penetrating and then being able to stop an African Elephant in full charge / not penetrating the frontal armor of a T-80 / not good for CQB / etc.

And I agree, the issued 855 is not a good choice for the type of doctrine and conditions we face today. However it was an ideal choice to meet the demands when it was designed and produced.

LR1955