7.62 being replaced by 5.56?

There were some Ordnance Corps studies made in the early and late 1800's on lead round balls and their wounds. It was discovered that large, slow round balls, though allegedly ballistically inferior as a projectile, still created massive wounds. Not merely from the size of the projectile, but the striking surface and the bludgeoning effect of the round ball (versus the sharp effect of a spitzer that created a clean wound channel by cutting.) This was also demonstrated, according to the studies, by spent cannonballs that rolled lazily along the battlefield, tempting some soldiers to attempt to stop the cannonball with their foot, at which point the cannonball tore the foot, and often more portions of the leg, off completely.

Like the bumblebee, which scientifically should not be able to fly but does anyway because the bumblebee does't know that he shouldn't be able to, large caliber projectiles are more effective than smaller ones, even if the ballistic evidence says it should not be so. Reading on pre-1866 battlefield wounds via rifle and musket fire will reveal much enlightening information.

------------------
"Go tell the Spartans, passerby, that here, obediant to their laws, we lie"------Simonides, upon the memorial at Thermopylae

RikWriter----I'd like to call your attention to tests done by the Ordnance Corps when designing the M1 Garand. Pigs were shot using both .30 caliber and .276 caliber bullets. It was found that the .276 would tumble after impact (sound familiar) and create a greater wound.


However, the panel felt that a soldier is not built like a pig. A soldier is muscular and tough. Like a goat. So they tried the same test on goats. At ranges under 200 yards, the smaller bullet still did the greater damage. But at long range, a .30 caliber bullet was better. Because of its greater kinetic energy it was still traveling fast at the same distance while the smaller bullet was quickly slowing down.


So, up to 200 yards, you are right. After that, well.... One point to bear in mind was that the military expressed reluctance to use rifled arms for all soldiers prior to 1855. They felt that a smoothbore musket was easier to maintain and was fine up to 70 yards, which was the common distance for the muzzle-to-muzzle warfare of the 1700's up to the Civil War. But, experience showed that precision, aimed rifle fire could make it unneccessary to close with the enemy in the first place in order to direct fire upon him. In the battlefield we see evolving before us, we may be getting only a single shot at a distant enemy across an open plain. We might need to go to a higher caliber in the future.

------------------
"Go tell the Spartans, passerby, that here, obediant to their laws, we lie"------Simonides, upon the memorial at Thermopylae