Shahid
New Member
Very good link Surpluswarrior.
The article is an excellent overview of the medium caliber rifle round matter, and it's conclusions fit pretty much with what I figured out of my own researchs.
Unfortunately the author kinda remainds me of those european pre-WW2 military specialists that were obsessed with achieving accuracy at long-range (above 300m), and then the war happened to be a trench war where bayonnets killed more people than rifle bullets. Concentrating on bullets performances in place of real battle requirements will lead to nothing,.. and the author doesn't say a word about the 'range' question!
And also I think he is seriously mistaken about the relation between kinetic energy and penetration. A hign energy bullet do have good penetration performance, but it is like using a mace on a steel plate armore instead of a crossbow arrow. In simple terms, high energy allows the bullet to "punch through" obstacles, while penetration is about "cutting through" obstacles. Body armors are designed to absord and dissipate the kinetic energy of hitting bullets, or the "punch", but on the other hand a standard SWAT life vest is easily penetrated by a crossbow arrow, since it "cuts" through the Kevlar fibers, although it has very low energy compared to a bullet.
If you mean to penetrate body armors through great kinetic energy, it is extremely easy to counter it with a slightly thicker Kevlar layer.
Now an interesting point:
I was discussing with an Iran-Iraq war vet about the low lethality of the standard AK 47 round, the russian 7.62*39mm, when he made a very interesting point that puzzled me. According to him, stopping power is important only at close range, when you fear the target will instinctively shoot back at you in an attempt to save himself, and in such a situation you can shoot him again and again, as every bullet impact will prevent him from shooting until he is definitely down. But at longer range, in an average gunfight, lethality is not really an advantage, for if you wound an enemy instead of "sending him directly to meet satan", he will start screaming and distract the others, and then at least one of his team mates will have to crawl to him and take him to safety, where the medic will take care of him, and that's at least two guns less in the enemy party's firepower. And since a gunfight rarely remains static for a long time, as each side will try to retreat, or attack, or move to a better firing position, the side with the more woundeds to carry will be the less mobile. Plus, if you don't systematically kill the enemy you are more likely to take POWs, which is a political and strategic advantage.
Intersting, isn't it?
The article is an excellent overview of the medium caliber rifle round matter, and it's conclusions fit pretty much with what I figured out of my own researchs.
Unfortunately the author kinda remainds me of those european pre-WW2 military specialists that were obsessed with achieving accuracy at long-range (above 300m), and then the war happened to be a trench war where bayonnets killed more people than rifle bullets. Concentrating on bullets performances in place of real battle requirements will lead to nothing,.. and the author doesn't say a word about the 'range' question!
And also I think he is seriously mistaken about the relation between kinetic energy and penetration. A hign energy bullet do have good penetration performance, but it is like using a mace on a steel plate armore instead of a crossbow arrow. In simple terms, high energy allows the bullet to "punch through" obstacles, while penetration is about "cutting through" obstacles. Body armors are designed to absord and dissipate the kinetic energy of hitting bullets, or the "punch", but on the other hand a standard SWAT life vest is easily penetrated by a crossbow arrow, since it "cuts" through the Kevlar fibers, although it has very low energy compared to a bullet.
If you mean to penetrate body armors through great kinetic energy, it is extremely easy to counter it with a slightly thicker Kevlar layer.
Now an interesting point:
I was discussing with an Iran-Iraq war vet about the low lethality of the standard AK 47 round, the russian 7.62*39mm, when he made a very interesting point that puzzled me. According to him, stopping power is important only at close range, when you fear the target will instinctively shoot back at you in an attempt to save himself, and in such a situation you can shoot him again and again, as every bullet impact will prevent him from shooting until he is definitely down. But at longer range, in an average gunfight, lethality is not really an advantage, for if you wound an enemy instead of "sending him directly to meet satan", he will start screaming and distract the others, and then at least one of his team mates will have to crawl to him and take him to safety, where the medic will take care of him, and that's at least two guns less in the enemy party's firepower. And since a gunfight rarely remains static for a long time, as each side will try to retreat, or attack, or move to a better firing position, the side with the more woundeds to carry will be the less mobile. Plus, if you don't systematically kill the enemy you are more likely to take POWs, which is a political and strategic advantage.
Intersting, isn't it?