The Future of Small Arms
- Thread starter Todg
- Start date
Non-lethal? I know some guys who were recently in Iraq who would be very surprised to learn that.
`
In fact, at under 200 meters the 5.56x45 is much more lethal than the 7.62x39. At this range the 5.56mm is moving at 800 m,/s or faster, and after impact it yaws violently and breaks into 2-3 big pieces and serveral smaller pieces. The overlaping "stretch cavities" overstress the tissue and it turns a softball-sized chunk of meat or organs into hamberger The big pieces of bullet still have enough momentum to exit the body, so you have bgoth an entrance and an exit wound.
7.62x39 bullets are too well constructed to break up even at the 740 m/s muzzle velocity. It also is slow to yaw so in many cases it punches a narrow, pencil-like hole which is not incapacitating unless it hits a vital organ. Beyond 200 m the 5.56mm behaves just like the 7.62 round.
See Dr Martin Fackler's Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets
In short, we don't use 7.62 because it is heavy and doesn't work as well as 5.56. The U.S. Army adopted the 5.56x45mm during Vietnam for increased lethality in close combat. So your premises are flawed and your conclusions wrong.
`
In fact, at under 200 meters the 5.56x45 is much more lethal than the 7.62x39. At this range the 5.56mm is moving at 800 m,/s or faster, and after impact it yaws violently and breaks into 2-3 big pieces and serveral smaller pieces. The overlaping "stretch cavities" overstress the tissue and it turns a softball-sized chunk of meat or organs into hamberger The big pieces of bullet still have enough momentum to exit the body, so you have bgoth an entrance and an exit wound.
7.62x39 bullets are too well constructed to break up even at the 740 m/s muzzle velocity. It also is slow to yaw so in many cases it punches a narrow, pencil-like hole which is not incapacitating unless it hits a vital organ. Beyond 200 m the 5.56mm behaves just like the 7.62 round.
See Dr Martin Fackler's Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets
In short, we don't use 7.62 because it is heavy and doesn't work as well as 5.56. The U.S. Army adopted the 5.56x45mm during Vietnam for increased lethality in close combat. So your premises are flawed and your conclusions wrong.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[qb]Also, the docterine of current military weapons is that of non-lethal, but dehabilitating wounds. What takes more resources to care for, a wounded man, or a dead man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from
A common myth. Completely false, however. The doctrine of current military weapons is that 99+% of bullets don't hit anything, so you should design your gun to carry as many bullets as you can while still having enough lethality to be intimidating. Lethality of small arms is mostly irrelevant to the military, since almost no-one gets killed by small arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of these are also patently false-- again, I feel certain that the statisticians might disagree, but I assure there won't be a combat vet one that won't tell you thats utter tripe.
Lethality of small weapons is paramount to the military- not only due to a decrease in troop marksmanship standards (although thats being heavily rethought of late) but also due to the now common combat ranges.The supposed "doctrine" of wounding may be a common practice to the wounding weapons such as mines, but to presume that military doctrine is one of lesser lethality smacks of academia. Great theory, non existant practice.
I find such conclusions, put put it as politely as possible, to be the product of either uninformed opinion, or sheer wishful thinking.
Given my time under the gun, I sure wish that was the thinking!
Uncle Bob has it on the nose...at the close to intermediate ranges, the smaller round is king, especially at hypervelocity such as the new 5.56 mm NATO rnd. It is at the longer ranges, especially 5oo mtrs plus where the mass wietght of the projectile changes that equation dramatically, for reasons of ballistics abnd simple accuracy, due to a bullets natural tenedency to be affected by its environment.
[qb]Also, the docterine of current military weapons is that of non-lethal, but dehabilitating wounds. What takes more resources to care for, a wounded man, or a dead man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And from
A common myth. Completely false, however. The doctrine of current military weapons is that 99+% of bullets don't hit anything, so you should design your gun to carry as many bullets as you can while still having enough lethality to be intimidating. Lethality of small arms is mostly irrelevant to the military, since almost no-one gets killed by small arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both of these are also patently false-- again, I feel certain that the statisticians might disagree, but I assure there won't be a combat vet one that won't tell you thats utter tripe.
Lethality of small weapons is paramount to the military- not only due to a decrease in troop marksmanship standards (although thats being heavily rethought of late) but also due to the now common combat ranges.The supposed "doctrine" of wounding may be a common practice to the wounding weapons such as mines, but to presume that military doctrine is one of lesser lethality smacks of academia. Great theory, non existant practice.
I find such conclusions, put put it as politely as possible, to be the product of either uninformed opinion, or sheer wishful thinking.
Given my time under the gun, I sure wish that was the thinking!
Uncle Bob has it on the nose...at the close to intermediate ranges, the smaller round is king, especially at hypervelocity such as the new 5.56 mm NATO rnd. It is at the longer ranges, especially 5oo mtrs plus where the mass wietght of the projectile changes that equation dramatically, for reasons of ballistics abnd simple accuracy, due to a bullets natural tenedency to be affected by its environment.
If you look at the history of the M16, it was introduced because the military figured out 'the more bullets you fire, the more likely you are to hit'.
Which explains why tank guns have gone through multiple improvements since the 1960s, and the M16 hasn't? Small arms are a low priority -- the big killer in modern land warfare has always been artillery.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
If you look at the history of the M16, it was introduced because the military figured out 'the more bullets you fire, the more likely you are to hit'.
and that constitutes an attempt at lesser lethality in what way? By definition , the more rounds downrange, the more likely a hit. You support my arguement, and not your own.And , incidentally, that was one of several factors, and not even the primary one.
Which explains why tank guns have gone through multiple improvements since the 1960s, and the M16 hasn't? Small arms are a low priority -- the big killer in modern land warfare has always been artillery.
Where ever you are obtaining youre information, again, it just ain't so.
In fact the single highest cause of causaulties statistically world wide is landmines.Artillary has never been the big killer in warfare , EVER...this is not to say its not important,and while it has always been a huge branch of combat arms in terms of delivering carnage , its just that that statement is patently untrue. Small arms has always been the primary source of causualties.
Assuming that the M16 hasnt undergone changes is also a fiction, it has been refined many times, as well as the ammo it utilizes.
You are making authoritative statements that are incorrect. Check your assumptions, please.
These are not intended as trolls or flames but to correct your comments- if you have such interests, PM me, and I will happily share a variety of excellent ( and reliable ) sources of information- but an excellent one, always, is Janes.Their open source website is a great if general place to start.
and that constitutes an attempt at lesser lethality in what way? By definition , the more rounds downrange, the more likely a hit. You support my arguement, and not your own.And , incidentally, that was one of several factors, and not even the primary one.
Which explains why tank guns have gone through multiple improvements since the 1960s, and the M16 hasn't? Small arms are a low priority -- the big killer in modern land warfare has always been artillery.
Where ever you are obtaining youre information, again, it just ain't so.
In fact the single highest cause of causaulties statistically world wide is landmines.Artillary has never been the big killer in warfare , EVER...this is not to say its not important,and while it has always been a huge branch of combat arms in terms of delivering carnage , its just that that statement is patently untrue. Small arms has always been the primary source of causualties.
Assuming that the M16 hasnt undergone changes is also a fiction, it has been refined many times, as well as the ammo it utilizes.
You are making authoritative statements that are incorrect. Check your assumptions, please.
These are not intended as trolls or flames but to correct your comments- if you have such interests, PM me, and I will happily share a variety of excellent ( and reliable ) sources of information- but an excellent one, always, is Janes.Their open source website is a great if general place to start.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
allow me to apologize for a mistake in my presentaion- I misplaced my quoites, the comments I responded to were originally made by Endersig, aa well as Anthony- however both are making commentary on the same and so I diercted them there.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.
Liam Devlin
SOC-14 5K
Endersig, Anthony...
Uncle Bob, BG..me nods to all
The 5.56mm is more lethal at close range than the 7.62mmR AK round..Something I may personally attest to you as a first-person, eye witness.
Add to this statistic in Iraq enemy marksmanship was generally poor--they fired MORE rounds than we did shot for shot, kill for kill.
IED's, VBIED's Mines, Mortar & rockets, & bombs kill more over there than bullets, but when we mixed it up, they came off the losers in Adhamiyah, Baghdad, my old stomping grounds.
Back on thread...The M16A1 has evolved from the Vietnam era weapon it was...
the M16-A2 has an improved muzzle break system that allows the climb of the barrel to move downwards, increasing accuracy and strike of the round. Its barrel is long enough to sustain a man with good vision and iron sights 300-400 meters.
What we carried M-4 carbines, the basic receiver weapon of the A2 with collapsible stock, and a rail system for all sorts of high-speed add ons, and a six inch shorter barrel. With iron sights that dropped us to 250-300 meters with good vision.
We spent nigh a month at FT Hood and Ft Polk again, and a week in Kuwait on ranges--trust me,
in the firepower vs accuracy argument, accuracy paid off. For our tour, we lost one man to mortar fire, & had 28 wounded.
We were engaged more by mortars and RPG rocket grenades than small arms as a general rule, which accounted for the majority [80%] of those who were hit on our side and had to be sent home from theatre.
Results [ball parked and declassified]
Enemy KIA just exceeded 4 times our unit strength, a line company of 130 men. in our neighborhood the length of our tour.. April 2004-Feb 2005.
And those were all small arms kills.
Uncle Bob, BG..me nods to all
The 5.56mm is more lethal at close range than the 7.62mmR AK round..Something I may personally attest to you as a first-person, eye witness.
Add to this statistic in Iraq enemy marksmanship was generally poor--they fired MORE rounds than we did shot for shot, kill for kill.
IED's, VBIED's Mines, Mortar & rockets, & bombs kill more over there than bullets, but when we mixed it up, they came off the losers in Adhamiyah, Baghdad, my old stomping grounds.
Back on thread...The M16A1 has evolved from the Vietnam era weapon it was...
the M16-A2 has an improved muzzle break system that allows the climb of the barrel to move downwards, increasing accuracy and strike of the round. Its barrel is long enough to sustain a man with good vision and iron sights 300-400 meters.
What we carried M-4 carbines, the basic receiver weapon of the A2 with collapsible stock, and a rail system for all sorts of high-speed add ons, and a six inch shorter barrel. With iron sights that dropped us to 250-300 meters with good vision.
We spent nigh a month at FT Hood and Ft Polk again, and a week in Kuwait on ranges--trust me,
in the firepower vs accuracy argument, accuracy paid off. For our tour, we lost one man to mortar fire, & had 28 wounded.
We were engaged more by mortars and RPG rocket grenades than small arms as a general rule, which accounted for the majority [80%] of those who were hit on our side and had to be sent home from theatre.
Results [ball parked and declassified]
Enemy KIA just exceeded 4 times our unit strength, a line company of 130 men. in our neighborhood the length of our tour.. April 2004-Feb 2005.
And those were all small arms kills.
Well said, Brian, Liam. That was a tough AO Liam, I am very happy you made it back in one piece.
I should say that there is no magic in 5.56 and 7.62 calibers. The Russian 5.45x39 mm is bsllistically similar to the 5.56x45 NATO but the bullet behaves like a 7.62x39. The best short-range terminsl effects from a M16/M4 probably comes from the 6.8 SPC. Nearly as good (but better at 300+ m) is the 6.5 Grendel.
There are reports that Mikhail Kalashnikov is also workring on a 6.5mm cartridge.
I should say that there is no magic in 5.56 and 7.62 calibers. The Russian 5.45x39 mm is bsllistically similar to the 5.56x45 NATO but the bullet behaves like a 7.62x39. The best short-range terminsl effects from a M16/M4 probably comes from the 6.8 SPC. Nearly as good (but better at 300+ m) is the 6.5 Grendel.
There are reports that Mikhail Kalashnikov is also workring on a 6.5mm cartridge.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
There are a lot of counter-intuitive things about damage done by firearms/guns. Things like hollow-points don't go through armor well, but (IIRC) you put a little soft tip on them, and they become significantly more effective and still work like HPs if they get through the armor. Little bullets can do more - or less - damage than big bullets. Some big bullets don't do well in dense foliage - some small bullets don't do well, either.
I sure am glad some of you folks are really into this, so I can get the knowledge I need. (After wading through the "flame wars" of course.
)
BTW, Liam, if you're ever over Virginia way, give me a PM. I would love to buy you a beer. Or two.
I sure am glad some of you folks are really into this, so I can get the knowledge I need. (After wading through the "flame wars" of course.
)BTW, Liam, if you're ever over Virginia way, give me a PM. I would love to buy you a beer. Or two.
Note: I am not disputing your or others' similar main points, namely a focus on lethality and that small arms have continued to develop.
It was my understanding that until the last century* that disease was often if not usually the primary source of casualties. I will assume though that you were referring to battle casualties.
I can't find any really reliable source on landmine casualties. While I don’t dispute that they are deadly and are a serious problem the only figure I could find with my limited resources was this one for the campaign to ban landmines (link) and it states “Mine deaths and injuries over the past decades now total in the hundreds of thousands.”. [emphasis in the original] If true (and if anyone has a reason to claim the most causalities from landmines it would IMO be a site such as this), while still a terrible figure that cannot be the highest number caused by a single class of weapon. Not with battle casualties (let alone civilian, which I assume factor in the above number of landmine casualties) in the last century into the tens of millions.
Artillery was the highest cause of battle casualties in World War I, not the HMG as most might think. I don’t have reliable figures on the Second World War or the Korean War handy. Vietnam was fairly close, depending on what “Multiple Fragmentary Wounds” actually means and if “Other Explosive Devices” are counted as non-small arms possibly higher than small arms. (source: [Southeast Asia] Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF) in the Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Record Group 330)(link)) All I’ve found so far for more recent wars is lists of overall numbers. Regardless at least one case has been shown and it’s not a minor war with few combatants.
Sources for WWI:
WAR CASUALTIES By Albert G. Love, Lt. Colonel, Medical Corps, U.S.A.(link)
"The fatality rate from artillery wounds was 7.03% and from small arms 4.82%.(16)
Artillery missiles caused 70% of the gunshot wounds among American troops during the World War as compared with 10% among the Union troops during the Civil War .(2)"
The sources cited in the quote are respectively the "Annual Report of The Surgeon General, U. S. Army for each year 1819-1928, inclusive" and " Surgery: The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, Vol. X1, Part I." which while I suppose are academic, are also authoritative. For that matter, not all of academia relies solely on (unproven) theories. The best also use primary sources (i.e. those who were actually there) as well as empirical data. In other words, theory is best tempered by reality.
Less reliable (in that it’s a secondary source, I can’t find where the author directly got some of this information, and some of his later conclusions are suspect) but still worth mentioning since it states more than just the US,
Mosier, John - The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I, p2
Historically I’ve not had much success with Jane’s site but it may have changed or I just can’t figure the place out. This page (link) is the only one I can find on Jane’s publicly accessible pages that mentions Open Source anything, in this case Intelligence. It doesn’t seem to link to any actual information though.
I couldn’t find anything more on their sitemap (link) either
. If you have a link or links I would be interested as I’m sadly behind on some current information and as you say, Jane’s is an excellent source.
Some others that look like they could be useful:
1
2
3
ObTrav: 11,000+ worlds, TLs ranging from stone age to interstellar spacefaring and beyond…there’s bound to be more than one type of war, especially on those WWI never ended lower TL worlds
; also more good sources for info are always welcome and IMO applicable to this thread and likely more
As always, HTH and YMMV.
* dependant on whether or not you include the Great Influenza Pandemic which began many months before World War I ended
(edit) minor edits, forgot some words
It was my understanding that until the last century* that disease was often if not usually the primary source of casualties. I will assume though that you were referring to battle casualties.
I can't find any really reliable source on landmine casualties. While I don’t dispute that they are deadly and are a serious problem the only figure I could find with my limited resources was this one for the campaign to ban landmines (link) and it states “Mine deaths and injuries over the past decades now total in the hundreds of thousands.”. [emphasis in the original] If true (and if anyone has a reason to claim the most causalities from landmines it would IMO be a site such as this), while still a terrible figure that cannot be the highest number caused by a single class of weapon. Not with battle casualties (let alone civilian, which I assume factor in the above number of landmine casualties) in the last century into the tens of millions.
Artillery was the highest cause of battle casualties in World War I, not the HMG as most might think. I don’t have reliable figures on the Second World War or the Korean War handy. Vietnam was fairly close, depending on what “Multiple Fragmentary Wounds” actually means and if “Other Explosive Devices” are counted as non-small arms possibly higher than small arms. (source: [Southeast Asia] Combat Area Casualties Current File (CACCF) in the Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Record Group 330)(link)) All I’ve found so far for more recent wars is lists of overall numbers. Regardless at least one case has been shown and it’s not a minor war with few combatants.
Sources for WWI:
WAR CASUALTIES By Albert G. Love, Lt. Colonel, Medical Corps, U.S.A.(link)
"The fatality rate from artillery wounds was 7.03% and from small arms 4.82%.(16)
Artillery missiles caused 70% of the gunshot wounds among American troops during the World War as compared with 10% among the Union troops during the Civil War .(2)"
The sources cited in the quote are respectively the "Annual Report of The Surgeon General, U. S. Army for each year 1819-1928, inclusive" and " Surgery: The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, Vol. X1, Part I." which while I suppose are academic, are also authoritative. For that matter, not all of academia relies solely on (unproven) theories. The best also use primary sources (i.e. those who were actually there) as well as empirical data. In other words, theory is best tempered by reality.
Less reliable (in that it’s a secondary source, I can’t find where the author directly got some of this information, and some of his later conclusions are suspect) but still worth mentioning since it states more than just the US,
(4) Surgeon General’s Report of 1920: W1.1/20:1:495
Mosier, John - The Myth of the Great War: A New Military History of World War I, p2
Same here.
Historically I’ve not had much success with Jane’s site but it may have changed or I just can’t figure the place out. This page (link) is the only one I can find on Jane’s publicly accessible pages that mentions Open Source anything, in this case Intelligence. It doesn’t seem to link to any actual information though.
I couldn’t find anything more on their sitemap (link) either
. If you have a link or links I would be interested as I’m sadly behind on some current information and as you say, Jane’s is an excellent source.Some others that look like they could be useful:
1
2
3
ObTrav: 11,000+ worlds, TLs ranging from stone age to interstellar spacefaring and beyond…there’s bound to be more than one type of war, especially on those WWI never ended lower TL worlds
As always, HTH and YMMV.
* dependant on whether or not you include the Great Influenza Pandemic which began many months before World War I ended
(edit) minor edits, forgot some words
Agreed on both accounts, though I am in the ever-cloudy state of Ohio.Originally posted by Fritz88:
I sure am glad some of you folks are really into this, so I can get the knowledge I need. (After wading through the "flame wars" of course.
BTW, Liam, if you're ever over Virginia way, give me a PM. I would love to buy you a beer. Or two.
Since it's after 4:30pm on a Friday here, a virtual round of Guinness or your favorite alternate beverage of choice will have to suffice.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
If we look over the historical period, then disease has certainly been the single greatest cause of death- but as you stated correctly, the discussion was that of battelfield casaulties.
Artillery causualties have always been somewhat deceptive, and thus what the question that must be asked is one of scope...at the point of quotaion, I find the differences between 7 odd percent and 4 odd percent as being fairly minor to my view, though statisically significant.( to the grunt on the ground, 3.5 percent is a meaningless factor, he's ducking the potential one percent good shot!)
While it could be construed as splitting hairs on the statistics angles you are quite correct- artillery is nothing to laugh at. And it will have a place still, though refer my comments below.However, for the most part what we are disucssing are "directfire " casualties , (this being the realm of small arms) and admittedly we have muddied the water somewhat generalizing and digressing a bit.
Artillery made its most significant inmpact in WWI, which has been heralded as an artillery war- a rightly so. The static tactics prevelant of trench warfare prefaced by technological developments through the civil war and in Europe culminated with a highly sophistocated technology of mayhem for the day.Artillery was king, although, IMO while it remains a potent battlefield weapon ithas gradually diminished both in use and scope since then. Conversely, the rouands and weapons become more precise, and more effective, so its a fine dance, largely of interpretation of data, I expect. A comparison would prove interesting, I think.
Artillary has since gained a greater significance since then as a suppression weapon, especially as rocket muntions are more and more common. Directed against point targets and property, artillery is now being reduced in scope as the small arm has in recent years seen more brisk use( and I expect in the years to come ) and as low intensity warfare becomes more frequent and more common.
Also, lets consider the tactics employed, which affect the causaulties of any conflict: Virtually every causaulty of the Somalia incident made famous by Blackhawk down ( with few exceptions) were small arms inflicted. Same to be said for much of the Iraqi causualties, although in the Iran /Iraq war they seem about even, towards the end matters were muddied enough to really make research difficult in the time I could spend.
In the modern conflict we are seeing much less artillery, as the enemy is more fluid, mobile and ( I think most importantly) less apparent. Artillery is not known for its discretion.
For purposes of discussion, I will grant that mortars are indeed arty, but my meaning is the more tradition tube/self propelled or trailed/rocket variety. Also I discount tanks main guns- while undeniably an artillery piece they are almost never used in an artillery role and instead as a direct fire weapon. To that end, we can't really class them the same.
Casey--
Went back and checked the Janes site- I suspect the difficulty lies in that I maintain a subscription, and thus have access to closed links that I assumed were publicly accessable- mea culpa, not as ready a resource as I thought, sorry. I will look for some more tho, and post em here.
Artillery causualties have always been somewhat deceptive, and thus what the question that must be asked is one of scope...at the point of quotaion, I find the differences between 7 odd percent and 4 odd percent as being fairly minor to my view, though statisically significant.( to the grunt on the ground, 3.5 percent is a meaningless factor, he's ducking the potential one percent good shot!)
While it could be construed as splitting hairs on the statistics angles you are quite correct- artillery is nothing to laugh at. And it will have a place still, though refer my comments below.However, for the most part what we are disucssing are "directfire " casualties , (this being the realm of small arms) and admittedly we have muddied the water somewhat generalizing and digressing a bit.
Artillery made its most significant inmpact in WWI, which has been heralded as an artillery war- a rightly so. The static tactics prevelant of trench warfare prefaced by technological developments through the civil war and in Europe culminated with a highly sophistocated technology of mayhem for the day.Artillery was king, although, IMO while it remains a potent battlefield weapon ithas gradually diminished both in use and scope since then. Conversely, the rouands and weapons become more precise, and more effective, so its a fine dance, largely of interpretation of data, I expect. A comparison would prove interesting, I think.
Artillary has since gained a greater significance since then as a suppression weapon, especially as rocket muntions are more and more common. Directed against point targets and property, artillery is now being reduced in scope as the small arm has in recent years seen more brisk use( and I expect in the years to come ) and as low intensity warfare becomes more frequent and more common.
Also, lets consider the tactics employed, which affect the causaulties of any conflict: Virtually every causaulty of the Somalia incident made famous by Blackhawk down ( with few exceptions) were small arms inflicted. Same to be said for much of the Iraqi causualties, although in the Iran /Iraq war they seem about even, towards the end matters were muddied enough to really make research difficult in the time I could spend.
In the modern conflict we are seeing much less artillery, as the enemy is more fluid, mobile and ( I think most importantly) less apparent. Artillery is not known for its discretion.
For purposes of discussion, I will grant that mortars are indeed arty, but my meaning is the more tradition tube/self propelled or trailed/rocket variety. Also I discount tanks main guns- while undeniably an artillery piece they are almost never used in an artillery role and instead as a direct fire weapon. To that end, we can't really class them the same.
Casey--
Went back and checked the Janes site- I suspect the difficulty lies in that I maintain a subscription, and thus have access to closed links that I assumed were publicly accessable- mea culpa, not as ready a resource as I thought, sorry. I will look for some more tho, and post em here.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
Sources of interest:
This from the FiveCollege Program in
Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS), a peace studies group which nevertheless maintains excellent data and resources.
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/
Excerpt:The Global Significance of Small Arms Proliferation: The great importance ascribed to small arms proliferation by the international community is attested to in We the Peoples, the October 2000 Millennium Report of Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the UN General Assembly: "The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as 'weapons of mass destruction.' Small arms proliferation is not merely a security issue; it is also an issue of human rights and of development. The proliferation of small arms sustains and exacerbates armed conflicts. It endangers peacekeepers and humanitarian workers. It undermines respect for international humanitarian law. It threatens legitimate but weak governments and it benefits terrorists as well as the perpetrators of organized crime."
Also:
Definition: Generally speaking, Small arms are weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are designed for use by several persons serving as a crew. Examples of small arms include revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine-guns. Light weapons include heavy machine-guns, some types of grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, and portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems. Most small arms and light weapons would not be lethal without their ammunition. Ammunition and explosives thus form an integral part of small arms and light weapons used in conflicts. They include cartridges (rounds) for small arms, shells and missiles for light weapons, anti-personnel and anti-tank hand grenades, landmines, explosives, and mobile containers with missiles or shells for single-action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems. (Source: UN Dept. of Disarmament Affairs, Conventional Arms Branch.)
link:
http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/
Also:
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/arms_types.html
of further interest:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/smallarmship_db.htm
some excellent science resources are the following:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/Trends/section07-en.asp
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm
Hope this proves useful!
This from the FiveCollege Program in
Peace and World Security Studies (PAWSS), a peace studies group which nevertheless maintains excellent data and resources.
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/
Excerpt:The Global Significance of Small Arms Proliferation: The great importance ascribed to small arms proliferation by the international community is attested to in We the Peoples, the October 2000 Millennium Report of Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the UN General Assembly: "The death toll from small arms dwarfs that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceeds the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms, indeed, could well be described as 'weapons of mass destruction.' Small arms proliferation is not merely a security issue; it is also an issue of human rights and of development. The proliferation of small arms sustains and exacerbates armed conflicts. It endangers peacekeepers and humanitarian workers. It undermines respect for international humanitarian law. It threatens legitimate but weak governments and it benefits terrorists as well as the perpetrators of organized crime."
Also:
Definition: Generally speaking, Small arms are weapons designed for personal use, while light weapons are designed for use by several persons serving as a crew. Examples of small arms include revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles, sub-machine guns, assault rifles and light machine-guns. Light weapons include heavy machine-guns, some types of grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns, and portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems. Most small arms and light weapons would not be lethal without their ammunition. Ammunition and explosives thus form an integral part of small arms and light weapons used in conflicts. They include cartridges (rounds) for small arms, shells and missiles for light weapons, anti-personnel and anti-tank hand grenades, landmines, explosives, and mobile containers with missiles or shells for single-action anti-aircraft and anti-tank systems. (Source: UN Dept. of Disarmament Affairs, Conventional Arms Branch.)
link:
http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/
Also:
http://pawss.hampshire.edu/topics/smallarms/arms_types.html
of further interest:
http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/smallarmship_db.htm
some excellent science resources are the following:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp
http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/Trends/section07-en.asp
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ballistics.htm
Hope this proves useful!
I haven't checked your references, but IIRC the UN includes a lot of non-battle casualties. They include crime statistics ss well as mass attrocities. Sadam Hussein's unmarked graves were filled with small arms fire, and African atrocites like Ruanda use AKs as well as machetes.
Explosive ordnance has proved much deadlier to military forces.
Explosive ordnance has proved much deadlier to military forces.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
This is quite true, and while there are sources with a greater specific content, these are all easily accessible- more specific sites weren't readily available in the limited time I had to double check .( I had these available as references to overall weapons usage and implementation relating to another project I had been researching for) However, while the datum does require sifting, its all solid stuff.
While I would hesitate to claim that unequivocably, personally I feel that what we are getting into are the microexamination stage- implementation, deployment, and so on. ( this is, admittedly, my own opinion and based on my expereinces, tactically, rather than a larger perspective view that we are growing into here)
Where the original discussion was the future of small arms and their effectiveness we are diverging into what is producing more casualties, effectiveness, and so on ( they are all so intertwined as to not be individual factors).
This topic has merit, but isn't the one this thread addresses. However, there has been some great information exchanged...may I suggest a new topic thread on this subject?
Casey has presented some excellent information, as has Bob and Liam and others and the discussion is lively...lets continue it.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Here's a new one to toss into the mix:
The Auto Assault-12
Evidently, the Assault shotgun is back! It has no felt recoil, uses an 8-rd box or 20-rd drum magazine, is semi-automatic, and is sturdy. I think this is what all my characters will be carrying!
The Auto Assault-12
Evidently, the Assault shotgun is back! It has no felt recoil, uses an 8-rd box or 20-rd drum magazine, is semi-automatic, and is sturdy. I think this is what all my characters will be carrying!
Did the assault shotgun ever go away?
The Atchinsson Assault design is 25 years old. In some ways the Saiga12k is a better weapon, being basically an AK rechambered for shotgun rounds.
The USAS-12 is basically the same weapon, and has been in production for a while now.
On the other hand, personally I just like the look of the full size Valtro-PM5 even though it is only about as effective as a standard pump action.
The Atchinsson Assault design is 25 years old. In some ways the Saiga12k is a better weapon, being basically an AK rechambered for shotgun rounds.
The USAS-12 is basically the same weapon, and has been in production for a while now.
On the other hand, personally I just like the look of the full size Valtro-PM5 even though it is only about as effective as a standard pump action.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Then there are the XM-26, the Jackhammer, and the MAG-7 for really close in work.
Oh, and what if development of the CAWS hadn't been frozen?
Oh, and what if development of the CAWS hadn't been frozen?
P
Pickles
Guest
Shotguns definitely need to get a second look-in as shipboard weapons for the Traveller serious about home defence.
Although that Auto-Assault 12 intro sounds like a spoof. How do you get a statistical sampling of which gun terrorists are most afraid of?
Although that Auto-Assault 12 intro sounds like a spoof. How do you get a statistical sampling of which gun terrorists are most afraid of?
Sorry, it was difficult to take the article seriously.
No recoil? Gentle I could buy. And I was not aware that anyone designed the AR15 "for" Eugene Stoner
The Daiwoo USAS-12 was the Atchisson, under licence. The Atchisson used a lot of AR-15/M16 parts.
Most shotguns in military service are pump actions, like the Mossburg often seen in Iraq for door busting.
The Benelli M1014 (not the "Binneli Model 10-14") is a new design fior the US Military, in no way related to Benelli's excellent M92 series.
And the author never heard of the CAWS program from the 1980s.
I don't expect much from Soldier of Fantasy, but they used to do better than this drivel
I have had a soft spot for the Atchisson since I played The Morrow Project back in college. But I doubt it is tactically useful.
Shotguns are the obvious choice for shipboard use. It is the preferred weapon of US Navy boarding parties. But against opponents in cloth armor it is of limited value.
No recoil? Gentle I could buy. And I was not aware that anyone designed the AR15 "for" Eugene Stoner
The Daiwoo USAS-12 was the Atchisson, under licence. The Atchisson used a lot of AR-15/M16 parts.
Most shotguns in military service are pump actions, like the Mossburg often seen in Iraq for door busting.
The Benelli M1014 (not the "Binneli Model 10-14") is a new design fior the US Military, in no way related to Benelli's excellent M92 series.
And the author never heard of the CAWS program from the 1980s.
I don't expect much from Soldier of Fantasy, but they used to do better than this drivel
I have had a soft spot for the Atchisson since I played The Morrow Project back in college. But I doubt it is tactically useful.
Shotguns are the obvious choice for shipboard use. It is the preferred weapon of US Navy boarding parties. But against opponents in cloth armor it is of limited value.
