Smaller Caliber=Improved Technology

[dispatch55126]

This is not another 7.62 vs. 5.56 thread, so hear me out.

I recently purchased a Steyr which is WWI vintage and the caliber got me thinking. The Brown Bess was a 78 caliber musket. The Springfield improved on it technologically and at the same time dropped to 58 caliber. Once self-contained cartridges came about, the caliber dropped to 45 caliber (as in 45-70) then to 30 caliber. In Europe, they went from 8mm to 30 caliber. Now, we have 5.56/5.45 as the "modern" caliber.

Through history, there has to be a reason behind this. One theory is accuracy. A smoothbore may hit anywhere so the larger the hole, the better. As accuracy improves, the caliber can get smaller and still be lethal. The same holds with velocity and the faster the bullet, the smaller the caliber for equal lethality. Smaller bullets and also lighter which increases carrying capacity.

Lastly, there is the "european battlefield" doctrine that 1 wounded=3 dead. What this means is a wounded soldier takes 3 soldiers out of the fight to care for and remove the wounded from the battlefield. Unfortunately, this doesn't work against an enemy that accepts death before going into battle, but whatever.

Taking this into account and using history as a reference, is it reasonable to assume that caliber will continue to decrease? Would we one day find .204 caliber on the battlefield?

 

[General Geoff]

Realistically, caliber decreases because of reductions in carrying weight and recoil as well as manufacturing costs, and increases in ammunition capacity. So I'd imagine that small arms will continue to hover around the .17-.223 caliber area for the foreseeable future, until handheld directed energy weapons are made practical.

 

[Limeyfellow]

It more an increase in powder technology that allowed better produced speeds and energy transfer that led to the decrease in size in bullets. When you can produce many times the amount of pressure from the propellants it has led to smaller bullets, but the same or increased damage. The secondary technology needed is better metallurgy to produce stronger barrels and receivers to handle the greater pressure from the propellants.

There also a secondary motive that it decreased the weight and allowed the increase in ammunition.

Of course it wasn't easy. There was a big stink amongst Generals of the world when the suggestion was to go to .30 calibre instead of .45 calibre rifle rounds. The same thing happened to block work in 7mm British, when NATO was forced to go with 7.62mm NATO, but over time bullet size has continued to shrink.

It is possible we might see a little .204 calibre round, but it really needs a new advancement in metallurgy and propellant technology to make it worth adopting and that won't burn out the barrels too quickly. That doesn't seem like it will happen anytime about now, or it is going to have to wait till a new generation of weapons technology is developed.

 

[rangerruck]

No, and again I say , no. Here's why; Our own military started experimenting with diff rounds to themax , after ww2, to get soldiers to carry way more rounds. they experimented from everything from 14 cal, up to 30 cal, with diff size and shape cases. What did they find best overall, for weight, accuracy , killing, etc.? 19 cal. why did we not go 19 cal then? you would have to retool , everything, and i mean everything. At all factories, everywhere. all rifles would have to completely change, including magazines. Automatic weapons, as well.
Then there is cleaning supplies. all of it would have to change, and another prob here is that , a take down 19 cal rod in the field, is going to break super easy, especially in cold weather. So becuase there is so much of everything in 22 cal out there, that is the way we decided to go. Even air rifle companies make a ton of 22 cal stuff out there, including cleaning supplies, and could be called into production, if we ever needed them for more world war action.

 

[ripper225]

interesting theory...

 

[cracked butt]

Consider what is on the battlefield as well...

Nearly all of the rifle cartridges used in WWII were designed before the turn of the century when horse cavalry were a big factor. When the 30-06 was developed in the early 1900s, it was spec'd to be powerful enough to stop horses at 500 yards. Most countries didn't have the financial resources to retool, test and produce a new cartridge before WWII and ended up using what they had large stocks of.

The 7.62 NATO might be a good if inefficient long range sniper round, but really isn't anything other than a reconceptualized 30-06. A 6.5, 270, or 7mm round would be much better.

 

[heron]

I'm just guesing on all of this, but if we discount rangerruck's excellent argument, I think that, theoretically, you'd meet a law of diminishing returns somewhere, so that you could get a smaller caliber, but it would become too expensive to produce in quantity. Also, the smaller the bullet, the faster it must go to achieve acceptable results, which would lead to other problems such as shortened barrel life, etc.

Could you go as small as, say, 2mm (as an extreme case)? Maybe, but how would you produce such a thing? I think you'd need a whole new production method for barrels for extremely small bores, especially at rifle-barrel lengths.

Also, the lighter the projectile, the more easily it's deflected, regardless of its speed, and I think it might be harder to stabilize in flight.