There has been some rumbling in the military/LEO circles about a new chambering for the venerable M16/M4/AR series rifle. It promises superior terminal ballistics with a nominal gain in weight/recoil.......

by David Crane
david@defensereview.com (david@defensereview.com)


Anybody who's been keeping abreast of small arms and ammo develpments in the USSOCOM arena should already be aware fo the 6.8x43mm a.k.a. "6.8mm Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge)" cartridge concept. The 6.8x43mm cartridge was conceived and designed with the help of members of the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group as a much better answer for urban warfare and CQB (Close Quarters Battle) than the 62gr 5.56x45mm NATO round, and a much better short and intermediate distance sniping round than the 77 gr. 5.56mm round that's been utilized of late in the SPR (Special Purpose Rifle) by U.S. Spec-Ops personnel in the Middle East.

The 6.8x43mm was designed for the M16 rifle/M4 Carbine (or SOPMOD CQB Subcarbine) weapons platform. All an operator needs to do in order to convert his M4 Carbine or SOPMOD CQB subcarbine is...

switch out his 5.56mm upper receiver and replace it with the 6.8x43mm upper. It's interesting that Barrett Rifles (http://www.barrettrifles.com/) is currently manufacturing 6.8x43mm upper receivers for the military (specifically for SOCOM end users). As far as DefRev is aware, this is Barrett's first foray into the AR-15/M16 platform weapons arena.

According to one of DefRev's sources (as of about 8 months ago--that's right, we sat on the info), the 6.8x43mm enjoys roughly the same trajectory as 7.62x51mm out to 600 yards. The 6.8x43mm round weighs 115gr. and has a velocity of 2750 to 2850 fps. It accomplishes all this through the use of a special propellant powder. By the way, you get all this performance with only a 2-round loss of magazine capacity. Not bad.

The same source also said (at that time) that Remington was set to produce 10 million rounds. 7 million will feature Hornady bullets, and 3 million will have a bonded bullet (not sure which manufacturer).

The following excerpts come from an interesting webpage (http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html), which is operated and maintained by Phil West:

"On 17th June 2003 I received an email from a Cris Murry: "This is a reply to the guess work all the supposed smart people are doing on the 6.8x43mm. It would appear that our operational security is working real well. But here are a few bits for you guys to chew on. Its not made from a .25 Rem. case, or reforming .223 brass, how do I know, I designed it. It has nearly the same flight path as the 7.62x51mm M80 ball round out to 650 meters. Delivers approx 4 times the energy on target at 300 meters compared to a SS109 round. The gel block tests are awesome. It drops a 150-300 lbs feral hogs like an axe, also works great on whitetails. My first choice was 7mm projectiles, but the users wanted something with a flatter trajectory, closer to the 5.56. Tested all calibers 6mm, 6.5mm, .25, 6.8 (.270 for Americans, oh actually the Chinese came up with the 6.8x63mm in the 1930s), didn't do much testing in .30, because it would only be an American M43 cartridge. This was not a private endeavourer nor a fully sanctioned government project, just users and a gun builder making a better product for our guys on the ground, in harms way." "

"Many thanks to Stan Crist for forwarding the following Press Release from Remington.

"The 6.8mm Remington SPC is an intermediate length rifle cartridge based on the 30 Remington case. Designed to function in M4/M16 type rifles, the 6.8mm Remington SPC was specifically developed to provide increased reliability, incapacitation, and accuracy not only at close quarters combat distance, but ranges out to 500 meters.

The 6.8mm Remington SPC, (Special Purpose Cartridge) will be offered in three versions for 2004, including Remington's new Premier® Match, line of ammunition. The 115 grain MatchKing® BTHP bullet will deliver a muzzle velocity of 2800 fps and 2002 ft-lbs of energy while providing low felt recoil and 1 MOA accuracy at 100 yards. The 6.8mm Remington SPC will also be available in both BTHP and Metal-Case 115 grain versions." "

DocGKR, a.k.a. Gary Roberts, a moderator from TacticalForums.com, started an informative thread on TF about the 6.8x43mm cartridge and Barrett "6.8mm Rem SPC" upper receiver. It contains a high res pic of the Barrett brochure for the 6.8mm Remington SPC upper. Just click on this link (http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum78/HTML/000512.html) to read the thread. DefRev recommends it. Just as an aside, DefRev's source recently stated that the 6.8x43mm round is going to prove to be an extremely impressive medium-size game hunting cartridge. This source has already used the 6.8x43mm to drop some deer impressively quickly.

While I'm glad they're finally thinking about getting away from the .223, I wish they'd just go back to the .308. Or even the 7.62x39 (the AK-47 round).

While I'm glad they're finally thinking about getting away from the .223, I wish they'd just go back to the .308. Or even the 7.62x39 (the AK-47 round).

As great as I think the heavier round is, I don't know if it is the best choice with the doctrine of maneuver warfare and the close contact of 'peace keeping operations' .... and the high tempo of combat. Issues of wt. and such....

A lighter round might be cool as long as it doesn't deflect easily because it is so fragile (light things at high velocity can skip off ballistic trail very easily).

Weight and ammo capacity....4 times the power at a 2 round loss in capacity and all you need is a simple upper change. Ive heard that current magazines can be used with a change in springs and followers. Cost effective over a retooling to .308 or 7.62X39.

Weight and ammo capacity....4 times the power at a 2 round loss in capacity and all you need is a simple upper change. Ive heard that current magazines can be used with a change in springs and followers. Cost effective over a retooling to .308 or 7.62X39.

How will this new round impact qualification fire/ranges for each stage.... if at all.

I don't think the Army's pop up target qual would be affected (or should I say impacted ;))

But the USMC Bull's Eye/Known Distance range might be tweeked (if it hasn't been already with the m-4 instead of the M16a2).

Well, from what I understand, the developers werent looking for any signifigant increase in range. The trajectory of the 6.8 is pretty much the same out to 650 meters. It just delivers a better punch. If the target systems currently in place can take it, I dont know. But I recall knocking down "crazy ivans" with the M-60 (7.62mm) so there are systems in use that can.

Another + with the round is that if current magazines can be used, there wont be a need to change/buy new mag pouches or tac. gear.

I doubt the USMC would change the KD course. If the projectile handles the same out to 600 yds as a 7.62 then the leathernecks will simply retrain the riflemen to adjust elevation for the heavier round. The furthest distance I remember on the KD course was 500 yds.

I was actually thinking that the range might decrease instead of increase. The high mobility, cqb nature of modern warfare doctrine makes 500 yd accuracy sort of archaic, plus the shorter, less stable M4 might actually reduce accuracy to 500 yds already.

I am a firm believer that more budget on combining the KD and the pop up ranges at the recruit level of training would benefit all branches -especially in a time when motor transport and other logistical units are being targeted as much as they are. I love my USMC shooting days. Loved the 500 yd line fire. Would had to see it go away. Too much good principles that translate to closer range fire for it to be a 'waste of time' except to bean counters who focus on money OVER training and readiness. INvest early and you get more later.

I think the military trend towards optics will have more impact on marksmanship training than range.

I think the military trend towards optics will have more impact on marksmanship training than range.

Yeah, last Leatherneck issue mentioned the ACOG sights. THere was a definite emphasis in the article that it would in no way replace sound marksmanship fundamentals, but only act as a battlefield asset/tool to increase effectiveness. Tough thing to balance.

As great as I think the heavier round is, I don't know if it is the best choice with the doctrine of maneuver warfare and the close contact of 'peace keeping operations' .... and the high tempo of combat. Issues of wt. and such..... I could see this logic with regard to the .308 (a.k.a. 7.62x51). I'll admit that while it's a superb long-range round, it's not the best for urban settings. However, I still think the 7.62x39 would be an excellent choice. In fact, for the people who favor the .223 over the 7.62x39 the issue is usually their claim that the .223 is accurate at longer ranges. However, since the type of fighting we are now seeing is in an urban setting, and the fact that the M-4 is becoming the weapon of choice, this argument doesn't carry much weight. My reasons for liking the 7.62x39 are as follows:
1. stopping power, the common load is a 130 gr. JHP or FMJ. this is a much better a$$ kicker than the 55 or 60 gr. 223.
2. availability: The stuff is used pretty much everywhere in the world so finding ammo wouldn't be hard if re-supply became a problem. In fact, I read an article back when we first sent troops into Afghanistan that the Army Special Forces were evaluating a rifle based on the old Stoner-63 design chambered for 7.62x39 and that would use AK mags. This way they'd be able to use captured ammo and magazines.

I could see this logic with regard to the .308 (a.k.a. 7.62x51). I'll admit that while it's a superb long-range round, it's not the best for urban settings. However, I still think the 7.62x39 would be an excellent choice. In fact, for the people who favor the .223 over the 7.62x39 the issue is usually their claim that the .223 is accurate at longer ranges. However, since the type of fighting we are now seeing is in an urban setting, and the fact that the M-4 is becoming the weapon of choice, this argument doesn't carry much weight. My reasons for liking the 7.62x39 are as follows:
1. stopping power, the common load is a 130 gr. JHP or FMJ. this is a much better a$$ kicker than the 55 or 60 gr. 223.
2. availability: The stuff is used pretty much everywhere in the world so finding ammo wouldn't be hard if re-supply became a problem. In fact, I read an article back when we first sent troops into Afghanistan that the Army Special Forces were evaluating a rifle based on the old Stoner-63 design chambered for 7.62x39 and that would use AK mags. This way they'd be able to use captured ammo and magazines.

I like the .308 round now too. But, then I am not humping mags full of it all over hell and gone, up and down hills, through swamps, while I am trying to run as fast as I can from cover to cover....love the memories - don't miss the work...too much:)

I think the practicallity of wt. is going to be a major selling point. The weakness of using confiscated rounds or scavanged ammo is the moral image of it (notice I didn't say morallity) to the general public (Marine waves to the CNN camera "hi mom" while rifling through enemy corpse's ammo pouches...) and the tactic of sabotaging ammo caches. Load a 'found round' into your weapon and it blows up in your face.

Is there any issue with the stopping power of the current .223 round? I always remember the tumbling engineering being the real damage with that load.

I think the practicallity of wt. is going to be a major selling point. The weakness of using confiscated rounds or scavanged ammo is the moral image of it (notice I didn't say morallity) to the general public (Marine waves to the CNN camera "hi mom" while rifling through enemy corpse's ammo pouches...) and the tactic of sabotaging ammo caches. Load a 'found round' into your weapon and it blows up in your face. The question of sabotaged ammo is a valid point, although during Vietnam we were the ones doing that to them. I really don't see much of a problem here as the only time they would need to use captured ammo would be if they were cut off from supply, which considering the availabilty of aircraft probably doesn't happen often. Moving on, I saw a piece of footage from Iraq a couple of months ago which showed some Marines searching a house. Two, out of about 8 guys were carrying AK's.

Is there any issue with the stopping power of the current .223 round? I always remember the tumbling engineering being the real damage with that load. As far as the performance of the round there are people on both sides of the table (kind of like the 9mm vs. .45 debate). I personally don't have a whole lot of respect for the round whether it tumbles or not. If you shoot someone with something bigger, ie. one of the 7.62 family HE will do the tumbling :). One of the reasons the .223 was chosen (in addition to the amount of ammo vs. weight issue) was the misguided theory that since the .223 is less likely to kill than the .30 rounds, more of the enemy soldiers would be out of commission b/c they would have to care for their wounded men rather than just leaving dead ones behind. however, this doesn't "pan-out" in reality because nobody we get into fights with gives a rat's a$$ about their soldiers, they just leave them for us to patch up.

Anyway, just my thoughts. this is another one of those debates that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

If we could use hollow points this debate would be mute.....

It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens. At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.

Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:

Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights? :)

It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens. At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.

Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:

Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights? :)



:lol: :lol: :lol:

It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens. At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.

Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:

Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights? :)

Hehehe... I'm sure we'd all love to hear his single hand clap... or is that the sound of someone patting himself on the back...

I for one will be very happy if the military adopts a new round. The 55grain 5.56 round that the old M16A1 fired definetly lacked needed knockdown power. Most of us that carried it into combat felt grossly underarmed and carried extra frags, personal sidearms and sometimes AK47s.

Just as a side note to the 5.56 being too small to do the job, here in the state of Virginia it is illegal to hunt deer with any .22 cal round. The 5.56 falls into this catagorey as the .223 cal. Their reasoning on this is that the .223 doesn't have the knock down power needed to reasonably assure a clean kill even with a properly placed shot. If the .223 is considered too small for white tail then it should follow that the round is too small for human targets with at least a modicum of body armor. I always felt like I was back home plinckin' tin cans when firing the M-16A2. It just didn't feel large enough to make me comfortable that the weapon was effective.

Just as a side note to the 5.56 being too small to do the job, here in the state of Virginia it is illegal to hunt deer with any .22 cal round. The 5.56 falls into this catagorey as the .223 cal. Their reasoning on this is that the .223 doesn't have the knock down power needed to reasonably assure a clean kill even with a properly placed shot. If the .223 is considered too small for white tail then it should follow that the round is too small for human targets with at least a modicum of body armor. I always felt like I was back home plinckin' tin cans when firing the M-16A2. It just didn't feel large enough to make me comfortable that the weapon was effective.

I agree with Kempotex on this one: I don't think there have been anything but personal flavor level of debate over stopping power of the .223 round. Here in NYS, the rifle loads that include .223 are not allowed because of the velocity and range in built up areas - except for around the Adirondack mts. We are only allowed Shotgun for deer.

Body armor, on the average is designed for pistol rounds. rifle loads will regularly penetrate unless there is a trauma plate in use. As far as I know, the Iraqi were so poorly funded/equipt force in the past that they were issued plastic helmets. Terrorists/militia insurgent forces aren't regularly wearing body armor.

The damage done by the .223/5.56 is the 7:1 twist.

As far as backyard plinking, it was the buffer spring in the m16 design that reduced the recoil, not the lack of bang for your buck in the caliber. .223 is a much hotter round than the .22 cal.

I found this post while wandering the web...fairly long but has a lot of very good points for those who care about this stuff.

http://www.sheepfreezone.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_sheepfreezone_archive.html


MY PROBLEMS WITH THE M4: Phil Carter (http://www.philcarter.blogspot.com/) e-mailed me, with reference to my last post, inquiring why I don't like the M4 carbine. (He has a certain fondness for it, since he carried one for a while as an MP officer.) I wouldn't go so far as to say that I don't like it in general: in the roles for which it was intended, it's probably far superior to the weapons it's replacing. I just don't like it as a general purpose infantry weapon. I drafted a lengthy post on this topic, but I think it's probably too lengthy. Let me try to summarize.

First, it's highly debatable whether the 5.56x45 mm M885 round that our military employs in the M16A2 and M4 is adequate for military use. Anecdotal evidence from the debacle in Somalia indicates that it doesn't reliably put the enemy out of action unless he's hit several times. Mark Bowden recounted complaints on this point from survivors of the battle in Mogadishu in his book, Blackhawk Down. (This is not to say a torso shot from a single 5.56 round can't kill: it certainly can. The question is when will it kill--fifteen or thirty second from now, or an hour from now? The difference is significant.)

None of this is terribly surprising to many shooters and hunters. The commerical equivalent of 5.56, .223 Remington, is considered a good cartridge for smallish varmints but not, generally, for anything larger. It isn't even legal for hunting deer--which are generally smaller and arguably easier to kill than men--in some states, because it won't reliably give humane kills, except perhaps with very well-placed shots. (In this context, "humane" means "rapid death.") In the military context, rapid incapacitation matters. Every additional moment that an enemy soldier is combat effective is an additional moment during which he can kill or wound friendlies. And although some people may have trouble believing it, some mortally wounded soldiers will continue to fight until they no longer can. That's probably especially true of enemies such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or even Somali militiamen, who can't expect any real medical care even if they do stop fighting, and thus have little incentive to leave the fight when wounded. (Their situation is unlike that of our own troops, who can normally expect to receive quality first aid and, if necessary, to be medevac'd within a reasonable time after being wounded. For our troops the choices may be, 1) stay here and keep fighting, or 2) live. For Third World irregulars, the choices are likely to be 1) stay here, keep fighting, and die heroically as a martyr, or 2) stop fighting and die anyway.)

It'd be awfully hard to quantify how many additional casualties we might take because we use a marginal round versus one that incapacitates more rapidly, especially since no small arms round is 100% effective in this regard. But I have no doubt that we have taken (and will continue to take) some additional casualties because of it.

Now, it's always dangerous to give too much credence to anecdotal evidence. Even if the 5.56 works exactly as we'd like it to in 99% of cases, we're probably disproportionately likely to hear about the other 1%. But in this case, the anecdotal evidence only gives credence to a view that long predates events in Somalia, and for that reason I tend to give it a little more weight than otherwise might have.

So let's just stipulate that the 5.56 M885 is a marginal manstopper when fired from an M16A2. The problem can only get worse in the M4. The "book" muzzle velocity for the standard M885 round firing an SS109 bullet from an M4 is around 200 feet per second lower than that of the M16A2. That reduction is due to the decrease in barrel length from 20" to 14.5". (To be blunt, even the 2900 f.p.s. velocity attributed to the M4 (http://www.bushmaster.com/le/weapons/bushmaster_xm15_e2s_m4a2_carbine.htm) seems surprisingly high to me. The barrel is more than 25% shorter than a full-size M16's, but the bullet only loses about 6% of its velocity? That sounds a bit fishy. I'd like to verify it for myself with a chronograph.) If the M885 is marginal when fired from an M16A2, the M885 fired from an M4 is at least slightly less than marginal. It may sound like I'm making much ado about nothing, but I don't think so. You see, if the M885 is even reasonably effective against human beings, it's largely because at high velocities it begins to break apart shortly after impact, causing multiple wound channels, increased bleeding, a somewhat greater chance of hitting a major vein, artery or vital organ, etc. But the minimum velocity at which this will happen is somewhere between 2400 and 2700 feet per second, depending on who you believe. So even fired from an M16A2, the SS109 bullet stops breaking up--and thereby becomes considerably less effective against people--at around 200 meters. In an M4, the envelope is necessarily smaller because the bullet is leaving the barrel at only about 2900 f.p.s. and thus will fall below the minimum velocity that will cause fragmentation at even shorter ranges.

Reports from Afghanistan seem to support the contention the M4 has effectivness problems beyond about 100 meters. Again, anecdotal evidence should always be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, these reports seem to confirm exactly what I'd expect from the M4, so I'm not as quick to discount them as aberrations as I otherwise might be.

So one of my major complaints about the M4 has to do with the effectiveness of its round. But that's largely an issue of ammunition, and fixing the ammunition could fix the problem. (And I'd like to see the ammunition problem fixed, but I doubt it will be.) So what are my other complaints?

First, reduced velocity also makes it harder to hit targets at longish ranges, because it makes the trajectory of the round steeper and thus makes good range estimation even more critical. This probably isn't an enormous problem, because most combat shooting doesn't occur extreme range and the M4's muzzle velocity, while lower than the M16's, isn't a lot lower. But it's an issue, nonetheless: maximum effective range has to be shorter for the M4. (I note that the "book" maximum effective range for the M4 is 600 meters, according to a couple of resources I've found online. To that I say, "hah!" 500 meters is a bit of a stretch for an M16, so I'm not about to believe that a weapon with a muzzle velocity at least 6% lower than the M16, firing the same projectile, is "effective" at an additional 100 meters. Methinks someone either pencil-whipped the numbers or redefined "effective.") And it's not just a matter of accuracy: at 500+ meters, an SS109 bullet--even from an M16--would be quite stable, traveling too slowly to fragment and have lost quite a bit of its kinetic energy. So even if you could hit a target at that range, lethality wouldn't be as good as one would hope. It can only be worse from an M4.

Second, assuming one is using an iron-sighted M4 there's the issue of sight radius: the shorter the distance between the front and rear sights, all other things being equal, the less inherently accurate a weapon will be. Because of its shorter barrel the M4's sight radius is considerably shorter than the A2's. With iron sights this will inevitably translate to reduced accuracy. Admittedly, it doesn't mean it's impossible to hit accurately with an M4; it just means it's harder to hit accurately with an M4.

None of this is to say that there aren't advantages to the M4. It's a pound lighter and 10" shorter than the A2, so it's more pleasant to carry and more maneuverable in CQB/MOUT environments. It's also a big step forward for vehicle crewmen who can't realistically carry A2's in their vehicles, but deserve something better than the M9 if they have to dismount and fight. (Given the choice between M4 and M9 in a firefight, I'd obviously always choose the M4. And since I don't think much of the M9, I'm all in favor of replacing it with the M4 wherever possible!). If the M4 has the SOPMOD's dovetail rail system, it's got a lot of flexibility and some nifty accessories are available. (There's a pretty thorough discussion here (http://www.forcerecon.org/ForceHistoryInfo3.htm).) And at MOUT ranges the reduced velocity of the M4 is probably not a big deal in terms of lethality, as compared to the A2. (But it's still questionable whether the current 5.56 round is lethal enough, particularly at MOUT ranges where killing the enemy right now is doubly important.) Another advantage of the M4, compared to the H&K MP5 series submachine guns that it was at least partly intended to replace, is that the M4 will penetrate soft body armor. Some militaries around the world seem to be taking the idea of ballistic protection more seriously now than they used to, so this is a factor that weighs at least slightly in favor of the M4 compared to pistol caliber submachine guns.

Now, I know the Army and Marine Corps have focused a lot on MOUT in the past 10 years, on the assumption that "the war of the future" will be fought in cities. If one really buys into that assumption, the M4 may make sense as the primary infantry weapon. But personally, I'm not convinced that it's really necessary to fight in cities in most instances, nor am I convinced that all future fighting is really likely occur under those circumstances. So while I think improvements to the A2 may be warranted (the flattop, dovetailed receiver and rail system for the proposed M16A4 sound like a good start), I personally question the wisdom of giving up rifles for carbines. That is why I said I thought the choice of M16A4 over M4 was a good move on the Marine Corps's part.

UPDATE: A couple of points of clarification are in order. First, I don't mean to imply that I don't think 5.56 is capable of being an effective military round, against personnel. But I'm skeptical that a full metal jacket 5.56 can be. Some police SWAT/ERT/choose-your-acronym teams have been using the 5.56 at close quarters for a few years now, and the again-anecdotal evidence has been that it can be very effective. The difference is that most U.S. police departments issue soft point ammunition for 5.56 rifles. Even in the relatively small 5.56, soft points apparently cause a heck of a lot of tissue disruption and bleeding at high velocities, and I suspect they (or, potentially, hollow points or some type of frangible ammunition) would make the M16/M4 more lethal to a greater range. (emphasis my own)

Of course, many would object that using expanding ammunition is against the law of war. Well, in some sense that's true, under the Hague Declaration (IV, 3) of 1899 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm). But the U.S. never signed the Hague Declaration. Thus, the U.S. decision not to use expanding ammo is completely self-imposed, and probably arises mostly from our desire to see ourselves as good guys.(interesting point) But I have little patience with this sort of foolishness. I have trouble seeing how using expanding ammo is somehow less humane than using FMJ ammo that leaves the victim alive to bleed to death or die of a horrible infection, or burning him alive with napalm, or shooting him with a .50 caliber machine gun, or dropping 95 pounds of steel and high explosive on his head in the form of a 155mm artillery round. War is nasty business, and there's no prettying it up as far as I can see, at least with respect to how one actually kills the enemy. (Restraining actions directed at civilians is a genuinely humane thing to do, but that's an entirely different question in my book.) As for the concern that our enemies will retaliate by using the same sort of ammunition themselves, my response would be that most of our enemies probably couldn't care less about the law of war, and would already be using expanding or frangible ammo if 1) they thought it in their interests and 2) it were available to them. (Some rounds for weapons chambered in the Russian 5.45 mm round used in the AK-74 family are already reputed to tumble badly on impact, which causes much more tissue damage than if the bullet were stable. This may well be an intentional design feature. So in some sense it may not be going too far to say that our enemies are already using "enhanced lethality" ammunition, if you will.)

If there's any valid argument against using expanding or frangible ammo in military weapons, it's probably lack of penetration. These things just don't perform very well against most forms of cover. That may be a legitimate argument, but I suspect that only having to hit the enemy once to to put him down might be worth not being able to shoot through certain materials. (And I'm not sure that a steel penetrator like that of the current M885 couldn't be combined with a soft point design, if we really insisted upon penetrating hard targets. For that matter, there was a time when armor piercing and FMJ ammunition were two different things. A return to that system is at least an option.)

Another point I'd make is that I'm not trying to sound like a cheerleader for .30 caliber weapons like the old M-14. Many old-timers see the M-14, per se, as the solution to all problems of lethality. I'm skeptical that that's the case. It's true that the 7.62x51 NATO round retains its velocity better than the 5.56x45, and fires a bigger, heavier bullet, both of which mean that the M-14 will have better range and energy retention (and thus, at least marginally better long-range lethality) than the M16. So if you plan to engage in firefights at extended ranges, yes, the M-14's probably better. But I'm not sure that it's really such a fantastic manstopper, relative to the M16, at least in the 0-300 meter envelope where most shooting will probably occur. It's got more kinetic energy, but a heavy, stable .308 caliber bullet with a sturdily built jacket is likely to bore straight through its target, doing relatively little tissue damage on the way. So it doesn't necessarily put all that kinetic energy to work disrupting tissue. A through-and-through, 0.3" wound channel isn't really all that bigger or more damaging than a through-and-through, 0.22" wound channel, after all. (In fact, because of the 5.56's tendency to fragment at most of these ranges, it may even be a better stopper than the 7.62x51.) I suspect a lot of the 7.62's energy just ends up being wasted. I did some research on this topic a couple of days ago, and discovered that lack of stopping power was apparently a common complaint among soldiers around the turn of the century, when modern, high-velocity, 6mm to 8mm military rifles firing relatively heavy (for caliber) jacketed bullets first became common. (Ironically, some of the chief complainers were British soldiers shooting at--that's right--Afghan tribesmen on India's North West Frontier.) That's consistent with my theory. I've come to believe, at least tentatively, that the reputations as manstoppers of the old M-14, M1 and M1903/M1917 rifles in 7.62x51 and .30-06 have become exaggerated over time. (All that said, though, ultimately, the bigger the bullet, the bigger the hole and thus the tissue disruption, even if the bullet design is pretty awful. A .50 caliber FMJ round is darned near guaranteed to ruin your day. So at some level it's probably true that bigger non-expanding bullets are better than smaller non-expanding bullets.) On the other hand, the German 7.62x51 NATO round supposedly has a much thinner jacket than the American version, and fragments badly upon impact. If that's true, as this paper (http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html) by Martin Fackler suggests, I'd expect the German round to incapacitate much more rapidly, and kill more reliably, than ours. But again, the question is one of penetration vs. tissue disruption: the harder, more solidly built American bullet will hold together and penetrate hard targets better than the German round. (Again, though, a steel penetrator in an otherwise fragile bullet might be an acceptable compromise, especially since a 7.62 mm bullet is large enough to accommodate both a penetrator of meaningful size and enough lead and copper to allow for significant fragmentation.)

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that I think a badly designed bullet in nearly any rifle caliber will probably peform poorly against human beings. I'm not wedded to any particular caliber; I just think we ought to make sure that what we use works well, whatever the caliber.