I may be wrong, I don't have a background in ammunition. But I believe Jamoni to be correct.
A 100% efficient round would transfer all it's energy in to it's target, causing maximum trauma injuries from the shock wave and pressure field of the round.
At the end of WWII it was found that most engagements were at an average range of 300m. At this range, 7.62 would go through the target, wasting energy (and therfore watsing the weight and volume of ammunition the soldier had to carry).
The British began to develop a round that was smaller than 5.56, I think it was 4.26, but this was deemed in-humane as it tended to inflict minimal damage, while causing alot of pain. When it was decided that NATO would adopt the 5.56 cartridge, we had to hastily convert the SA80 the this calibre. This led to alot of problems with the reliability of the weapon.
From what I've heard, the 5.56 cartridge was not desinged to kill, it was designed to "incapacitate" an enemy soldier. As it fragmented and tumbeled on impact it was supposed to injur the soldier. This means that if you hit one enemy soldier, insted of killing one and stopping one from shooting at you; you stoped the one you hit, and the 2-3 it takes to look after an injured caomrade.
|