![]() @ 11:38 pm (GMT) |
Steel worksI've read the vast majority of combat small arms fire has been within 400 yards for the past 72 years. Nathan if the military weren't confined by the Hague Convention would the military be better served with heavy frangible 5.56 rounds as opposed to a vastly more superior round the 7.62. ? |
![]() @ 09:15 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: 7.62x51 to replace 5.56x45 US Army ?Hi Damien, if you read my Cartridges book second ed, you will see how the Hague convention is now somewhat moot and that what you suggest has already been done. I have included autopsy (necropsy) photos to go with this info. |
![]() @ 09:53 pm (GMT) |
steel worksRe: 7.62x51 to replace 5.56x45 US Army ?Thank you Nathan for your response, I have that edition of your book and refer it to my friends, they constantly ask me if they can borrow it!All things being equal and knowing the physical limitations the military endure, are you saying they are still better off with the 5.56 with heavy frangible ammo (more rounds per person) etc as opposed to 7.62 Nato using the same type of projectiles? Much appreciated for your time and I know this is beating a dead horse however rarely is the question answered by a well informed person like yourself. |
![]() @ 10:19 am (GMT) |
Nathan FosterRe: 7.62x51 to replace 5.56x45 US Army ?Hi Damien, this is not something I wish to discuss publicly in detail. There are several aspects to this that effect outcomes which I do not wish to relate here publicly. If I say anything here, it will be disrespectful to other parties.I will say this, the people making the decisions are doing the best they can with what they have. Our own forces are doing OK at the moment and have made the most of their supportive right wing government. If the communist labour party get in again, our guys have at least some good kit to tie them over for a few years until folk once again get sick of having a nanny state. |
![]() @ 10:25 pm (GMT) |
steel worksRe: 7.62x51 to replace 5.56x45 US Army ?Hi Nathan, I respect your position on this sensitive and controversial subject. |