Glock Talk banner

Are military projectiles getting smaller?

5K views 81 replies 45 participants last post by  Joseph Senko 
#1 ·
Is it just my imagination or are military projectiles getting smaller and lighter?
Why do you think this is?

I have been thinking this morning about M1 Garand, Mauser, Mosin Nagant, etc...
Compared to the modern day 556/223 we have settled on a much smaller projectile.
Why do you think this is? Are other countries also following this same trend?

I consider myself I gun enthusiast but not a history or war buff.

Does modern day technology lend itself to being able to manufacture smaller guns and ammo or does modern research show us that smaller and more controllable rounds are more effective?

Would a military engineer been laughed out of the room if he had brought a modern 556 size projectile to a WWII planning meeting?

Your thoughts?
 
#2 ·
High velocity helps make up for a lack of mass. Of course most super high velocity bullets wear out barrels very quickly.

I used to work near microlon. Guy that invented it had some heavy chemistry background. As a personal project he made a gun with a very tiny projectile. Was 17 or 22, cant remember which, but it went out at around 10k fps. He burned up barrels very quickly. Microlon was what he came up with to solve that. Great stuff for an engine. The lockshop i used to work at had treated most of the vans.
 
#13 ·
High velocity helps make up for a lack of mass. Of course most super high velocity bullets wear out barrels very quickly.

I used to work near microlon. Guy that invented it had some heavy chemistry background. As a personal project he made a gun with a very tiny projectile. Was 17 or 22, cant remember which, but it went out at around 10k fps. He burned up barrels very quickly. Microlon was what he came up with to solve that. Great stuff for an engine. The lockshop i used to work at had treated most of the vans.
Yeah, that seems highly dubious. That's about the speed of a modern rail gun projectile. LOL
 
#3 · (Edited)
i think the trend allows for lighter rounds and lighter weapons. That means you can carry more rounds and still have the same weight. Most rounds fired in combat miss so having more of them is not a bad thing. Lighter faster rounds create some nasty wounds.

Did technology exist in ww2 in powders and bullets to make m193 for example?

A standard ammo belt for the garand was 10 8 round clips. So 88 rounds with a loaded rifle.

I think the current combat load is 210 rounds. 6 30 rounders on the belt / vest and one in a carbine.


I don't think any major military still issues for general use a full size battle rifle. If they do it is probably because they already have them like like a fn fal in some african country and can't afford the switch to an AK platform.
 
#10 ·
...

A standard ammo belt for the Garand was 10 8 round clips. So 88 rounds with a loaded rifle.

I think the current combat load is 210 rounds. 6 30 rounders on the belt / vest and one in a carbine.

...
WWII SOP was to shoot when you see your target.

Vietnam and later SOP is to spray anything in front of you until you run out of ammo then stand there with a stupid look on your face.

.
 
#4 ·
Cyclic rate and ammo and rifle weight.
 
#14 ·
I'm sure the book mentioned covers this, but I'll take a shot. Let's start at the beginning of WWII.

Most countries were using rifles with full power .30-ish caliber bolt action rifles (English Enfield in .303, German Mauser in 8mm, US '03 Springfield in .30-06.) Long range accuracy was considered of key importance. The US took a half step toward higher firepower by going to the semi-auto Garand. We also took a further step with the M1/M2 Carbine in the lower power .30 Carbine round.

But what was discovered during WWII was that the vast majority of soldiers never took a shot longer than 400 yards, and that the long range capability of the full power rounds was wasted. And as tactics evolved, the slow firing long range bolt guns proved less than ideal. On the flip side, the full auto firepower of submachine guns was very useful in close quarters fights, but subguns had very limited effective ranges. What was needed was a gun with select fire capability that fired an intermediate power round (more powerful than the pistol caliber rounds used in subguns, but less powerful than the full power rifle round.)

The first gun to explicitly pull this together was the German StG44 (Sturmgewehr or in English, Assault Rifle, as named by Adolf Hitler.) It was smaller and lighter than the Mauser 98, it had full auto capability, and it fired a shorter, intermediate power 7.92mm Kurz round, which allowed it to be controllable in full auto fire. This was a much more effective infantry weapon than the bolt guns or pistol subguns, but came to late to affect the outcome of the war.

While not designed explicitly for the reasons the StG44 was, the select fire M2 carbine fits into pretty much the same mold.

Immediately after the war, the Russians came out with something very similar, that is very well known today, the AK47. This gun very much follows the pattern set by the StG44.

It took a while for the US to explicitly get with the program. We took an intermediate step with the M14. This was basically an updated, select fire M1 Garand. It didn't really get tested until we got involved in the Viet Nam war. There it proved too heavy, to cumbersome, not controllable under full auto, and the ammo load out carriable by a single soldier proved insufficient. Around this time Eugene Stoner designed the AR10, in full power .308. Given the ammo issue, he downscaled it to .223 Remington.

While this was essentially considered a varmint round at the time. Someone figured out that, given it's high velocity, if it was understabilized, it would tumble on impact and fragment, causing much more damage than a round of it's caliber should on a human sized target. And, since it was a much smaller cartridge than .308, a solder could carry a much larger round count. So that's basically how we got to the M16/5.56x45mm combo. This combination was controversial (maybe even still) and was not without it's teething problems. But in the end, it likely proved the correct move. This was acknowledged by the Soviets, when they went to their own small caliber, high velocity round in the AK74.
 
#80 ·
The 5.56 in Vietnam were accurate out to about 500 yards. The bullet was not stable and tumbled on impact. It was very destructive. Against the AK-47, The M-16 was out matched. The 7.62x39 created terrible wounds. Made my job a lot harder. But the M-16 finally got a reputation as a nasty weapon. NATO complained that the M-16 was not humane (go figure that out). We stayed with the weapon. The Marines M-16 has a range out to 600 yds on a long shot. But little energy. The M-4 about 500 max and that was pushing it. The ammo used today is more civilized and well balanced. Does not always stop and attacker with one round unless it hits a vital. The Vietnam ammo I believe was much better at doing damage. But it is shorter range. Most fights take place at 100 yds. or less. Just saying. :goodpost:
 
#15 ·
After the war the US Army did some studies on the effectiveness of .30 cal. rifles (Garand, Smelly, Mauser). Basically they found that it took about 3 hits from a .30 cal. to guarantee putting an enemy out of action.

Because of this many soldiers loaded up with 3 or more bandoliers of .30-06 ammo (240 rds). The heavy weight really slowed them down and denied them the ability to carry other important items ... like spare mortar rounds for the weapons platoon guys.

So, people started looking at smaller, lighter rounds and lighter rifles with equal effectiveness.

Someplace on the net are military documents dealing with the smaller rounds.
 
#16 ·
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

Read up on what it took to keep the US Marines supplied on the islands of the South Pacific.

Food, water, medicine, ammo. Every ounce had to be weighed against an ounce of something else. And now we mostly supply by air. Not just ounces, but cubic inches matter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: michael_b
#25 ·
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.

Read up on what it took to keep the US Marines supplied on the islands of the South Pacific.

Food, water, medicine, ammo. Every ounce had to be weighed against an ounce of something else. And now we mostly supply by air. Not just ounces, but cubic inches matter.
Single biggest reason we won the war - Logistics.

(I work in the industry and to this day people have no concept of the insane logistics of that war)
 
#18 ·
Chicom GI is now a 5.8mm, isn't it?

I am of the OPINION that the varmint rifles have taken it a step too far, even at <300 metres. I had great hopes for the cased telescoped cartridge and guns... if they would use part of the weight savings to go up a bit in caliber to 6 or 6.5mm.
 
#19 ·
Anyone who has ever picked up an M1 Garand or the earlier 03 Springfield, knows how heavy they are. Add a bunch of ammo, k-rations, water, entrenching tool, extra clothing, and one of those neck killing helmets, and you'll wonder how they hoofed miles each day. I know they were just plain tough. As others have said, shooting changed, as did the type of war being waged, and the M 16 eventually became the one. That's how I understand it.
 
#24 ·
It's common knowledge they have gotten smaller.

Early flintlocks were usually about .75 caliber.

The famous Brown Bess was .69 caliber.

The Springfield rifle of the Civil War was .58 caliber.

As self contained cartridges advanced caliber got smaller and smaller until today.
Brown Bess was .75 caliber. Charlevilles were .69 though.
 
#28 ·
They were actually going to make the M1 in something like .270. The decision was made with war looming to stick with 30:06 because we already had large ammo stocks. Had we done that things probably would have been very different.

In the 50s the Brits wanted to go to a smaller caliber but NATO commitments and the unwillingness of the US to give up 7.62 killed that.

For all the talk about calibers being too small pretty much everyone is using small caliber weapons. The Soviets switched away from 7.62X39 over 40 years ago. I don't think everyone is wrong about that.
 
#35 ·
Brown Bess had a .75 bore, but the musket balls were usually around 0.69 so they could continue to be loaded as the bore accumulated heavy fouling. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StLJohn
#36 ·
Read the book The Gun, by Schivers or some such name, it will answer all your questions. The book is based on the development of the AK47 and covers the entire spectrum of military small arms concepts, quite well done
C.J. Chivers - reporter for NYT. Yes, great read.

Back to the projectile size question, this is a reflection of a change in military tactics, deemphasizing aimed single-shot rifle fire and emphasizing death by quantity. I don't think we will see the return of single-fire tactics until smart bullet technology advances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLIPPER 348
#41 ·
Although I think the "spray and pray" technique is not taught taught per se, the availability of higher capacity weapons with a higher round count per man pack, allowed more effective "Suppressive Fire" and in some sense, allowing the average infantry man to provide grazing fire, albeit not as well as a crew served weapon could. A guy with an M-16 could keep heads down while other members of his small unit could exercise fire and maneuver tactics. It is well known that a fairly large percentage of troops will not even return fire, and in LE work, some officers, and many citizens will fire their weapon until its empty without even being aware that they are trying to just hose down their enemy in panic. The SAS has a technique they call the "Fast reaction drill" . Not the fast reaction drill taught in the other forces of the world, but instead, a technique of retrograde maneuver ( Tactically retreating) where you leap frog backwards, with one person spraying the area of the pursuing enemy to force them into staying low and slow, while the others retreat. With enough ammo and a high rate of fire, and switching off shooters while maneuvering, you can really discourage pursuit.
 
#50 ·
Is it just my imagination or are military projectiles getting smaller and lighter? Why do you think this is?

I have been thinking this morning about M1 Garand, Mauser, Mosin Nagant, etc...
Compared to the modern day 556/223 we have settled on a much smaller projectile.
Why do you think this is? Are other countries also following this same trend?
Pretty much yes. Even the former Soviet Union switched to the 5.45x39 as a result of U.S. experience with the 5.56x45 in Viet Nam. Most other nations were associated with one of either NATO or the ComBloc and conformed to one of the standards. In the U.S. alone, we have devolved from the .45 caliber rifle projectile to the .30 into the .223.

Does modern day technology lend itself to being able to manufacture smaller guns and ammo or does modern research show us that smaller and more controllable rounds are more effective?
Both. Also a study in use of infantry weapons done by all militarizes of the world. The typical shot is about 120 yards. The need for a grunt to have a more powerful rifle/cartridge became moot. The individual infantry man having automatic fire available was to be the norm. The U.S. was a late in accepting that conclusion.

Would a military engineer been laughed out of the room if he had brought a modern 556 size projectile to a WWII planning meeting?
They in effect were. That is part of the reason the M1 Garand was manufactured in .30-06 and the the original .276 Pederson.

The U.S. Senate's Ichord hearing brought to light the Army Ordinance Corps butchered/impeded development of the M-16 detail systematic obstruction to the development of a small caliber rifle.

The book 'Missfire' by William H. Hallahan details the fight against the ever shrinking rifle projectile.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top