Big B -> RE: What is your favorite infantry rifle? (2/3/2007 3:24:37 AM)
|
quote:
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
|
|
|
|