Right, after seeing some debate between the balance issues of 7.62mm against 5.56mm, wounding profiles effective range and the like, I would like to discuss the theory behind current cartridge choices in modern assault rifles.

Hydrostatic shock is the theory that with the higher muzzle velocity of 5.56mm rounds there is less need for massive wound profiles as the round theoretically should cause hydraulic shock using the bodies own fluids against it, the resultant pressure is ment to compund within the human brain, causing hemmorages and brain damage, thus incapacitating if not killing the recepient.

when using the energy equations of Energy=(Mass x Velocity*2)/2 and the pressure equation of Pressure=Force/Area.

When using a faster and smaller round the theoretical energies and forces should be higher than with slower and larger rounds, however this is not the case in most instances where 5.56 struggles to put the target down first time, where a 7.62 will generally incapacitate the target when it hits over longer ranges, which can be put down to the larger rounds inertia but when put along side instances where even in short ranges the 5.56 has failed to put down targets, where as a 7.62 will more likely put a large enough hole in said target to put them down much faster.

Now this theory is widely accepted as being truthful, hydrostatic shock is known to occure, and has been from world war 2 when it was first given thought by E. Harvey Newton, in 1947, however before its name was given as Hydrostatic shock, Frank Chamberlin, first discussed the effects of "explosive effects" of bullets in tissue after treating many wounded soldiers. after this being discussed varying counter claims were made, yet were all deemed to be inferior to the theory, further studies into hyrdrostatic shock, looked into the damages to the brain from varying wounds on different places in the body, tested on pigs and dogs it was proven that being shot in the leg, could indeed, cause brain death given a high enough initial energy causing the hydraulic pressure leading to the hydrostatic shock.

Military experts also dispurte the effectiveness of hydro static shock, citing that it will always be infereior to proper shot placement and to bloodloss which will always disable a target given time.

But back to the point, What do you guys make of this.

(apologies if its disjointed, writing this at 4am, will touch it up later)

_________________

As I said in that other topic, the major advantage of the 5.56 NATO is generally that it fragments (without being a fragmentation bullet) causing severe internal damage, but not killing outright most of the time (it will kill later on, as removing each shrapnel requires a lot of work, and if it's badly made there will be poisoning), unlike heavier bullets that can go right through, but cause immediate damage.

Hitting vital areas will however, as usual, kill outright, whatever the bullet. But in the battlefield, there is one "fun" fact. If you kill someone, his mates are going to say "Oh! He's dead! Resume shooting!" whereas if you wound someone, that person will go loud, one or more of his mates will go "Don't worry dude! We'll save you, you hear?". This means by hitting one guys, you actually reduce the fire power coming at you by 2 or 3 shooters. Hitting is more important than killing, and 5.56 are generally more accurate.

The 5.56s are however more prone to being affected by environmental hazards (Wind, leaves, ricochets, etc... ), reducing their efficiency in dense terrain. Firing through leaves reduces the bullet speed or alters the path, city fighting can cause friendly fire or collateral damage due to ricochet, as well as hitting trees.

Based on my FAMAS knowledge: a bullet can still go through a standard army helmet at approximately 200m range at the right angle, where the maximum engagement range is (for old versions) 300m, or (for more recent ones) 400m. For bigger ranges, you use dedicated weapons that have heavier bullets.

The small calibres biggest advantage is that you can carry twice as much ammunition when fielding 5.56 ammo than when fielding 7.62 (nato) ammunition for roughly the same weight. This means you can actually shoot more, for prolonged engagements.

The ideal would be to have a intermediate ammunition (the 6.5 GRENDEL could be good) for both hitting power and ammunition load. Combining weapon calibres in a squad for different roles/ranges woks, but puts a strain on logistics, and if the guys with one type of ammo run out, then well... You can't share.


My opinion is that for grunts, the main weapon has to be the 5.56, but switching for urban combat to a safer, heavier calibre. Developing a 7.62 bullpup assault rifle might be a smart move (especially with an ejection system like the F2000 or the [SMG] P90, to ignore the only field disadvantage of bullpups) for a dedicated urban weapon.

This is simply because the distance of engagements in general is long where the 5.56 has a slight edge, while urban combat has so many specifics that it would be smart to have weapons specifically for it.

_________________
"Rocks are OP. Paper is fine" signed: Scissors

My Youtube Channel

The 5.56 can enter the body from the shoulder and end up in the thigh, that is what makes it a lethal weapon on the battlefield. The round "bounces" around inside the human body, the 7.62 tends to punch through it's target in a straight line.

Introduce body armor into the equation, vital parts are covered. The 5.56 does not have to strike a vital or protected spot to penetrate, it can enter a non protected spot and bounce through the body.

_________________