Well, first of all during WWII Germans invent a lot of things - and not only Russians follows German concept. I can mention aviation and rockets developed in US but originally - Germans.
Than, I would mention that AK (of course with worst accuracy than M16) still using in Iraq on distance far longer than 50-100m. And it is proven distance for any combat situations - up to 250 -350 m.(based on experience in Vietnam, Afghanistan in arab part of Israel)
My point was not to say that the AK is not effective beyond 100m. But rather, that the design criteria for that weapon is short range innfantry combat. The typical military issue AK is a 5 MOA rifle, making it unsuitable for long range accurate fire - at 300 yards, 50 MOA is a CEP of 15 inches, presuming the shooter does everything perfectly. Some have used this as an argument that the AK is a less than ideal weapon, however it fits with Russian tactical doctrine, which is to dismount personnekl carriers at 100 meters or less before the assault. The Russians don't expect troops to be shooting at 300yards/meters with their AKs, so it's lack of accuracy at that range is seen as unimpotant.
Dude, 1000m for M16???? It is not sniper rifle. It is no doubt more accurate than AK47 or AKM. But I tried AR16 and Vepr in the same caliber at 100 y - with similar results.
Again, you missed the point. I states that there is a rifleman mentality that says we need a rifle that can engage targets at 1000 meters, not that the M16
is that rifle. However, the M16 has been continually hampered by 'improvements' that try to extend it's range. The M16 and the 5.56x45 were originally developed around the findings of Hitchman's "Operational requirements of an infantry hand weapon" which determined that 90% of all infantry small arms fire occurs at 300 yards or less, and that small arms fire is basically ineffective beyong 500 yards. As such, the M6 was originally meant to have a maximum effective range of 300-350 yards. This of course raised a hue and cry from the traditionalists, who insisted soldiers needed a longer ranged weapon (These people still exist, and argue that we need to return to the 7.62x52mm as a generall issue infantry rifle). Effective range of the M16 is not stated as 460 meter (Army).
To further illustrate this tendency for increased range due to 'need' we have the M855 round, derived from the SS109. One of the main reasons for adopting this change in ammunition was increased range - both in LMGs and rifles. We also have the Mk 262 77gn 5.56x45mm - a round with the express purpose of extending the range of the M16.
The
mentality is still there.
OK, check history of these rounds. Check how many people died from these rounds in the world, and how many from 223?
This has far more to do with the number of AKs available throughout the world, and where they are used than any intrinsic lethality. There are an estimated 45 million or so AKs distributed throughout the world, making it the single most common firearm on earth. It follows that proportionately, there will be more casualties from AKs. Further, since these weapons are often used in third world countries where medical services are primitive at best, it follows that there will be a higher mortality rate.
But the fact of the matter is that startistically, the 7.62x39mm M43 is less lethal than the 5.56x45mm. In fact, the 5.56 is 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51 according to after action studies conducted in Vietnam. This has a lot to do with how the bullets perform in tissue. Both 7.62 rounds are relatively stable and tend to flip over base first when hitting tissue, and then pass through the target.
The 5.56 by contrast, tends to break at the canneleur and create submissiles which disperse in the target (at least at shorter ranges where velocity is high). This is a very well documented phenomenon, e.g.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm
The AK's M43 round was not a specifically designed assault rifle round in the sense that they approached the cartridge the same way the Germans did. Rather than develop a new bullet, they adopted a light version of the 30 bullet already in use in the 7.62x54R (in the same way the Germans took an 7.92mm bullet and put it in the 33mm case for the StG44). The result was a relatively low velocity, stable bullet with a rainbow like trajectory.
By contrast, the 5.56x45mm was the result of work done by Donald Hall and the SCHV studies. That round resulted in a very flat trajectory obviating elevation adjustments at combat ranges, having a low recoil impulse and damage disproportionate to it's size.
However, neither round is idea for a general purpose rifle. Modern infantry combat has become more counter insurgency operations, and less large scale mechanized warfare. The current war fighter has a need for a round that can be employed for both close combat and range infantry fire - particularly as optical sights have made range small arms engagements much more effective.
Going back to the full power rifle catridge is not a suitable answer, as it totally negates the value of high volume fire in the assasult and for fixing the enemy in situ, and as noted, neither the 5.56 or the 7.72x39 are really suitable for longer range engagements.
The closest we have come to an all purpose rounds is probably the cartridges developed by the British immediately post WWII such as the 280. I would submit that a true intermediate round firing a 6-7mm bullet at 2600-2800 fps could fulfill both roles very nicely.
