.280 British Stats?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That view has been around since no later than WWI. Poison gas aside, in WWI you had these rules about not using expansive bullets, on made-up grounds of them being too nasty, while soldiers were being killed and maimed by the hundreds of thousands by jagged shell fragments.

Yep, slight unfortunately ironic series of events really, Hague conventions then WW1!

Originally Posted by Rupert

As long as they're metallic they'll be locatable anyway. Now, the plastic needles the Soviets used in some of their 30mm grenades, those are really hard to find in flesh, and caused an outcry as a result.

IIRC the concern was more about initial assessment, treatment and subsequent treatment in field hospitals in possibly not as full a facilities as we* might like. I.e. maybe no x-rays available. TBH We still sometimes miss stuff even in full facilities, I think the premise was not to go towards a situation that might make that more likely

Either Way I'm not sure if it was ever a 'thing'. Didn't know about the plastic needled though!


*and not everyone has access to first world resources, and G8 budgets for this

Originally Posted by Ji ji

It was not UN but ICRC.

Yep that's what I found, needless to say the International Red Cross Committee has naturally enough a different set of criteria it applies in this regard. One that might well be respected by other bodies but not necessarily adhered too or has policy based on.

Originally Posted by Ji ji

If the convention is about avoiding unnecessary suffering and death, then it is even more meaningless in today’s culture and war scenarios.

it was more the former than the latter I think (certainly in terms, of getting hit in combat). But really as a wider point I think it's more that the conventions were always limited not just in practical scope of actual limitations, but conceptual scope it what it was trying achieve. And frankly they knew it at the time, and continue to do so today.

Originally Posted by Ji ji

Thank you for pointing me the issue. Re-answering to Rupert’s question, I guess that refraining from the use of deforming bullets - even as a volountary act - is just cosmetics when adopting M80A1, M855A1 and the likes.

Well as I said earlier, fine distinctions!

[Ji ji]

I have read another take on the 5.56 debate. The hypothesis was that the 10”-14.5” barrel of carbine-version assault rifles used in various wars could be an important culprit, whereas the standard 20” barrel brings satisfactory effects.

I reckon that barrel length is often overlooked in those discussions and should be carefully considered.

[acrosome]

Well, hell, I guess I'll post another link to alternatehistory.com, a thread that started out as a weapons discussion but quickly strayed into ammunition. There's also a little on a SJG forum here. And see the link in my sig.

Bottom line: There are people who hate 5.56x45mm for no justifiable reason. Anecdotes are just that- anecdotes. There is perfectly fine real-world combat data about it's performance. The M855 was indeed a poor decision, especially when we started feeding it through short barrels, but this has been rectified with M855A1, Mk262, and Mk318. So, yes, barrel length matters for any round that's of the SCHV model.

Frankly, I tire of the discussion. There is nothing wrong with 5.56x45mm. It just has different design goals than 7.62x51mm. Bear in mind that there is a lot of hyperbole, grandstanding, and rank idiocy on the internet gun forums. A LOT of people are talking out of their asses, and the quality of the answer you'll get on the issue in any forum is dependent upon whether someone who knows what they are talking about happens by, because the popular meme of "5.56mm sucks" is simply too pervasive, so the uninitiated take it for granted.

[adm]

Frankly, any non-explosive hand held weapon will not get good knock down if it doesn't hit the brain, heart, or a major bone. It doesn't really mater if it's a .22LR or a .454 Casul.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

I have read another take on the 5.56 debate. The hypothesis was that the 10”-14.5” barrel of carbine-version assault rifles used in various wars could be an important culprit, whereas the standard 20” barrel brings satisfactory effects.

I reckon that barrel length is often overlooked in those discussions and should be carefully considered.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that earlier WRT to the M4 carbine. It's certainly come up in the past on these boards.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that earlier WRT to the M4 carbine. It's certainly come up in the past on these boards.

And on p61 of Tactical Shooting.

Though it doesn't discuss improved rounds mitigating the short barrel and long(-ish) range problem.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

I have read another take on the 5.56 debate. The hypothesis was that the 10”-14.5” barrel of carbine-version assault rifles used in various wars could be an important culprit, whereas the standard 20” barrel brings satisfactory effects.

I reckon that barrel length is often overlooked in those discussions and should be carefully considered.

It can most certainly be a factor in some situations, but it is one mentioned already in this thread and in the posts you've quoted.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

And on p61 of Tactical Shooting.

Though it doesn't discuss improved rounds mitigating the short barrel and long(-ish) range problem.

It mentions match grade heavier rounds doubling the thresholds on pg61. I could have sworn the point was also made about later rounds as well (but I may well have internalised that from other GURPS sources in this forum).

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by acrosome

Bottom line: There are people who hate 5.56x45mm for no justifiable reason. Anecdotes are just that- anecdotes. There is perfectly fine real-world combat data about it's performance. The M855 was indeed a poor decision, especially when we started feeding it through short barrels, but this has been rectified with M855A1, Mk262, and Mk318. So, yes, barrel length matters for any round that's of the SCHV model.

There is for sure some amount of data collected by various stakeholders. There is the very common issue of design and operational flaws, and mistakes in the following analysis. There are all the problems of bias. There is the issue of selecting the best outcomes, that often means the preferred outcomes. Then there is the issue of clearance and publication of data.

You are assuming to have access to reliable, trustworthy, and complete data; the assumption is wrong.

[Ji ji]

Originally Posted by Rupert

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that earlier WRT to the M4 carbine. It's certainly come up in the past on these boards.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It can most certainly be a factor in some situations, but it is one mentioned already in this thread and in the posts you've quoted.

This thread and these boards are not those discussion.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

This thread and these boards are not those discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean, you posted as though you had found some new aspect that cast light on this debate, Rupert and I pointed out that not only was this not some newly discovered thing but it had already been mentioned in this thread (and if you re-read your own posts you will see that you have already responded to posts bringing it up).

To be honest I'm not quite sure what you are looking for here. You raised some points and they have been addressed. You seem to be basing your argument on assumptions and those assumptions have also been addressed.

Originally Posted by Ji ji

There is for sure some amount of data collected by various stakeholders. There is the very common issue of design and operational flaws, and mistakes in the following analysis. There are all the problems of bias. There is the issue of selecting the best outcomes, that often means the preferred outcomes. Then there is the issue of clearance and publication of data.

You are assuming to have access to reliable, trustworthy, and complete data; the assumption is wrong.

OK what have you brought?

Because yeah OK it could all be a 5.56 conspiracy and we've all been duped (including the army surgeon you are responding to above). Or it could just be this is actually an old debate and really the questions you are proposing in an attempt to bring organisational performance management* into this, aren't new and have been answered before and here.



*on which you seem to have conflated anecdotes for "field data" here.