05-18-2011, 01:21 AM
Regarding bullet lethality, I'm of the thinking that caliber in non-fragmenting bullets is much less important than shot placement. Pulling a number out of the air, I'd say 90% of lethality is shot placement, and merely requires of a bullet the velocity, construction, and sectional density to penetrate barriers, gear, and body mass to reach vital structures. The remaining 10% wherein we DO give a nod to caliber size, is more relevant to fragmenting bullets whereby a cloud of particles effectively increases the frontal area of the bullet and increases the odds of hitting a vital structure (we've been through all this before, at any rate).
Contrary to the fad of and fans for lethality via fragmentation for the past, oh, ten years, the latest U.S. military cartridges, M855A1 and Mk318, are largely non-fragmenting designs.
So I look at it this way: An icepick hole made by any bullet in the spectrum of 5.56 through 7.62 is going, in my theory, to be barely discernable to the enemy target. Slight differences come into play when yaw is introduced, and a longer bullet tears a larger swath.
So what role DOES bullet caliber play? External ballistics and barrier penetration, for the most part. There one seeks an optimum balance between caliber and bullet length and shape.
John
Contrary to the fad of and fans for lethality via fragmentation for the past, oh, ten years, the latest U.S. military cartridges, M855A1 and Mk318, are largely non-fragmenting designs.
So I look at it this way: An icepick hole made by any bullet in the spectrum of 5.56 through 7.62 is going, in my theory, to be barely discernable to the enemy target. Slight differences come into play when yaw is introduced, and a longer bullet tears a larger swath.
So what role DOES bullet caliber play? External ballistics and barrier penetration, for the most part. There one seeks an optimum balance between caliber and bullet length and shape.
John