Lack of larger intermediate cartridges

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

TANSTAAFL

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
4,501
Reaction score
9,127
Location
Oklahoma City
Maybe I am wrong, but isn't the goal to wound and incapacitate a soldier, takes two to drag a wounded soldier off the battlefield?

Tinfoil hat stuff, IMHO but there is lots of 5.62 NATO and 7.62 X 52. Long term goals of gun grabbers to use a new round generally not available to the public.

Personally I think NATO would be better served by the old standard rounds 5.62 and 7.62.
 

fiscally_irresponsible

Marksman
Supporting Member
Supporter
Joined
Aug 13, 2024
Messages
21
Reaction score
24
Location
Edmond area
Maybe I am wrong, but isn't the goal to wound and incapacitate a soldier, takes two to drag a wounded soldier off the battlefield?

Tinfoil hat stuff, IMHO but there is lots of 5.62 NATO and 7.62 X 52. Long term goals of gun grabbers to use a new round generally not available to the public.

Personally I think NATO would be better served by the old standard rounds 5.62 and 7.62.
definitely the move to stick with 5.56 and 7.62X51 (especially with the large amount of infrastructure around them as NATO cartridges). More just wondering why they went with the smaller caliber rounds during initial development.

I think 5.56 (and 5.45) being a "wounding round" is more of a political thing. I think the idea with 5.56 (and 5.45) is to tumble, fragment and to deviate from the course of the entry hole (whatever the word is for that).

You take two guys out for transport of the injured combatant (as you said) and the shootee is probably going to have a lower chance of surviving with a non through and through wound, at least without decent medical attention.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom