Why are our weapon calibers shrinking?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The damage a load of buckshot does in a single shot is equal to shooting a suspect 12 times with a .223. The US Army still teaches soldiers how to use a shotgun in urban warfare training. If you ask any law enforcement officer what is the best home defense weapon, 99% will say a shotgun.


That's ludicrous. A single 00 buck pellet does not cause nearly the same amount of tissue destruction that a single shot from a .223 rifle does, unless the rifle shot happens to be a glancing hit and the pellet is a solid hit on a vital piece of body.

FIVETWOSEVEN sorry to add to the off topic. But yeah, a lighter weight projectile traveling at a high velocity can be plenty effective on people while giving all of the wondrous advantages of low recoil and flat trajectory.

In the intermediate cartridge class, a smaller caliber's primary advantage is that it allows for higher velocity and better trajectory while also allowing the use of longer for caliber projectiles, which fly better and fragment better, which in many instances will make them more effective than a larger caliber cartridge using stubbier bullets (don't fly as well and need to be more carefully designed to guarantee fragmentation, and they often aren't) at lower velocities (less non-bullet mass wounding potential, less force acting on the bullet and target to create wounding mechanisms like fragmentation and hydrostatic shock, less distance flown before hydrostatic shock ceases to be a factor in wounding), and they can be lighter, allowing the soldier to carry more rounds for less weight.
 
...LA county Sheriffs Dept during the 1962 and 1965...

You realize that was around 45 and 50 years ago, right?

When almost every cop carried a .38 special revolver, and the Sergent s might have a shotgun in the trunk.
 
a single shot is equal to shooting a suspect 12 times with a .223.
Even assuming you are talking about a single round of 00 Buck, not a single buckshot.

There are 9 pellets in a military load, not 12.

And a single .223 round is going to do as much or more damage as nine 00 Buckshot going 1/3 as fast.

rc
 
Jackel , I do not agree that it is the same as shooting a person with 12 rounds of .223.
None of the buckshot rounds would have the energy or penetration of a .223 round at close range and at beyond a few yards the energy level drops off very quickly. It would be more like being shot with a .32 caliber revolver at close range 12 times. A very lethal dispersion of lead to be sure.
The military discover during the Mexican war of the 1840's that smaller and faster is better. Studies by every military around the world confirm this and the .223 round is considered optimum and results in general prove this and it has dictated the tactics of battle. Nobody wants to match us man for man rifle for rifle in open sustained battle.
I am not sure that the 9mm is an improvement over the .45 ACP. That's a different question to me. I guess gun capacity is a factor there.
A fact of war is that volume of sustained fire is important as well as range and accuracy.
 
As for the Youtube video....go back and play it. Watch the top of the drum as each round hits. The .223 makes the top of the drum dance. The 7.62 barely makes it move. The AK round is passing on thru, not dumping it's energy.

There's a reason that hunting ammo is SP or HP. Dump the energy. Bullet passing thru doesn't do the same damage.
 
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back then when firearms were first invented, they fired large balls. Now the norm is .22ish caliber rifles. Why is it that the bullets got smaller and smaller? Is this trend going to continued till it's no longer a caliber but a beam of energy in the 40 watt range?

From your sig;

Here's to hoping for a XD chambered in 5.7 x 28 in the near future!

:rolleyes:

Epic thread fail.
 
Many good reasons here. Try using a ramrod on a .22 cal muzzle loader with fouled barrel.

Also, the soldiers can engage the enemy at 300 yards without having to know as much about ballistics as they would if using a .45-70 (this is more the reason we went to .30 cal).
 
Back to firearms history. As noted, black powder burned very fast and did not generate enough energy to propel a bullet very fast. The desired lethality could only be achieved by a bullet having a large mass. The big change came with smokeless powder, which actually burned more slowly, but released much more energy. Now the necessary killing power could be achieved with a faster moving and less massive projectile, while getting a bonus in greater range.

But the higher velocity meant that the old lead bullets would strip in the rifling, so the jacketed bullet (the first smokeless powder bullets were solid bronze) was forced on the designers.

As for the the 5.56mm, it has many advantages, but its real reason for being is that the U.S. wanted a controllable full auto rifle (which the M14 was not). The obvious choice, adopting the AK-47, was ruled out by world politics. So the Army, in spite of misgivings, yielded to JFK's pressure and adopted a modified AR-15 as the M16. (If you wonder, the M13 was the name given to a series of .22 rifles, the M15 was a squad automatic version of the M14.)

Jim
 
Back to firearms history. As noted, black powder burned very fast and did not generate enough energy to propel a bullet very fast. The desired lethality could only be achieved by a bullet having a large mass. The big change came with smokeless powder, which actually burned more slowly, but released much more energy. Now the necessary killing power could be achieved with a faster moving and less massive projectile, while getting a bonus in greater range.

Admittedly, for as much as I love history I don't know much about it, but was the recipe for black powder the same between the 18th century and the invention of smokeless powder? Even then projectiles were getting smaller. The US Military went from .69 caliber muskets, to .57 caliber, to .50 to .45 caliber before the .30-40 was adopted.

So even in the black powder era projectiles got smaller as time went on, were there advances in powders back then or was it essentially the same?
 
There were advances in a lot of things that made it possible over time.

Ignition method (flintlock, caplock, etc)
Smooth bore vs rifled bore
More accurate and reproducible machining capability, leading to truer bores
Minie ball ammo
And yes, powder refinement
 
Black powder and variations like brown powder were continually undergoing improvement. The earliest (c. 1300) was literally a powder with ground up ingredients mixed at the scene of action since they settled in transport. The first change was to wet mix the ingredients, then break up the resulting cake.

From then on, there was gradual improvement; while the powder of the Revolutionary War was basically the same as that used in, say, 1890, there still had been some improvement, like graphiting the powder to make it moisture resistant. But the invention of smokeless powder was a sea-change. That grew out of the invention of nitroglycerine, then of dynamite by Nobel in 1867. Many chemists tried to tame the beast and make a compound that would burn progressively, and not just explode. And it was not a one-stroke process either. Some experimenters blew up guns (some blew up themselves) playing with nitroglycerine, nitrocellulose, and the like. Finally, a French chemist, Paul Vieille, invented smokeless powder and the French were the first to adopt a rifle using it.

Of course, ballistics improvement was not the only benefit of smokeless powder. We sometimes forget the significant fact that it was smokeless. No longer would the smoke from thousands of muskets and artillery pieces completely blanket a battlefield. Now, officers could see their men; generals could see troop movements. I doubt that anything else, until the advent of aerial reconnaisance, had such a great effect on battle.

Jim
 
IIRC, the French 8mm Lebel was the first smokeless round, loaded with Poudre B.
A little trivia for you folks, assuming I'm right about that.

I also think the advent of cartridge ammuntion also had a huge impact on warfare. The advantages of self contained, relatively well sealed ammuntion are too numerous to be ignored.

An example that fits the original quesiton of this thread well is the Henry rifle compared to something like a Springfield or Enfield rifle musket. The .58 Minie ball over a healthy charge of black powder has better range and hits harder than a .44 Henry Rimfire round, but the rapid fire of the Henry more than made up for that.
 
Last edited:
Ragnar, I'd say the shotgun is an effective weapon, just not for soldiers. For police officers and Joe Homeowner, I think it's got a lot of value. Not knocking the .223, just not knocking the 12-ga either.

As you get smaller, lighter bullets with the same energy, I believe you get increased accuracy, and greater control on the part of the designer as to what happens when the bullet hits a target.
 
Ragnar, I'd say the shotgun is an effective weapon, just not for soldiers. For police officers and Joe Homeowner, I think it's got a lot of value. Not knocking the .223, just not knocking the 12-ga either.

As you get smaller, lighter bullets with the same energy, I believe you get increased accuracy, and greater control on the part of the designer as to what happens when the bullet hits a target.
The shotgun is an extremely effective weapon for a soldier, otherwise tools like the Masterkey wouldn't be issued to service personnel, even if its only use is to breach a door with the soldier transitioning back to the carbine to penetrate enemy armor.
 
Saakee, he was making the point that it's not a "weapon", it's a "tool". That tool being less lethal (thus, not really a deadly weapon) or door breaching (not using it on a person). He is saying that all it is good for is a masterkey system.

I was arguing that it is effective as a weapon on other fronts.
 
And a single .223 round is going to do as much or more damage as nine 00 Buckshot going 1/3 as fast.

There have been people hit with a .223 and they were still able to return fire... I'm not so sure that a full load of 00-buck from a 12-gauge would have had that same affect... Most arguments with a 12-gauge tend to get settled fairly quickly...
 
The shotgun is a GREAT weapon
the Germans in WWI negotiated to have the Allies quit using shotguns due to how effective they were in the LIMITED confines of trench warfare.

That said, they still are a hell of a lot better than a Brown Bess
and I think a shotgun vs AR comes down to lots of close power Vs. range and ammo
 
What gets my goat about this thread is everyone was quick to twist my words about the 22LR. Yet everyone is singing the praises of a glorified 22 magnum. There is something wrong with this picture.

@rcmodel I just checked a box of Winchester Super X 3" magnum buckshot. There are actually 15 pellets in a shotshell. I use a stock Maverick 88 pump with no magazine extension for home defense. It holds 8 shots of 3 inch magnum buckshot and doubles nicely as gun for deer drives. It's also a fair skeet shooting gun - the cylinder choke leaves something to be desired for sporting clays.
 
Last edited:
I was talking to an older LEO years ago and the subject of shotgun versus rifle came up.

In the old days, most cops grew up with more shooting experience than they do now. That included shooting shotguns.

When they went through police training, many of them were used to the recoil generated by a shotgun. A 12 gauge launching slugs or buckshots kicks, no question about it.

These days many recruits have had little of no shooting experience. Also, more women are entering the force now. These folks basically can't handle the recoil of a shotgun.

This is one theory why some police departments have moved away from shotguns and moved towards small caliber rifles and handgun caliber carbines.
 
What's funny is that people seem to think that the only wounding mechanism a bullet can use is its diameter, as if high-speed rifles don't cause horrific wounds independent of the width of the bullet they are firing, or as if an elongated projectile isn't capable of being designed to have much more capability in tissue than a stubby projectile, like a spherical piece of shot.

I spent four years in the National Guard, and never once saw a shotgun. Probably because I wasn't an MP. At Fort Knox we didn't even go over the M9 during US Weapons.

CollinLeon, Jim Cirillo's book Guns, Bullets, and Gunfighting has some very interesting anecdotes about shootings, including several with shotguns. Worth checking out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top