Why are calibers decreasing in size?

[-Jason-]

Early Muskets used .50 caliber balls, then as bullets were developed they turned to I think .30 caliber and used those through and past WWII and now we have even smaller ammunition with less range. Not sure what the modern rifle calibers are.(All I know is there size but I beleive the 5.56 isnt much past .22 caliber) And I dont know about pistols in the early days but in WWII we used the .45. Now its the 9mm. Obviously this could be completely wrong and not every branch uses the same stock ammo. But it seems most places are decreasing in round size. Is this because the rifle doesnt decied victories like it used to, or do large caliber rounds have range and power that are overkill?

[jakemuay]

The size of the bullet is one of many factors in the "effectivness" of a rifle round. Speed, tip shape, and metal makeup all play imortant factors in the damage done to a person by a round. What the bullet does upon impact also plays an importand role in its lethality. Take the new Russian millitary round, the 5.45x39. It is smaller in diameter and longer than the .223 that our AR rifles use, and when it strikes it's target it tumbles around like mad, leaving very nasty wound cavities.

Here is some further reading if you are interested.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military ... terns.html

http://www.defencejournal.com/april98/bulletwound.htm

Basicly the millitary figured out that 90% rifle combat takes place between 5-500 yards, and went with a bullet that was effective in that range while providing soldiers with as small a round possible so they could carry more bullets. Also, smaller bullets at high velocities shoot straighter, and require less correction for bullet drop, making them easier to shoot over longer distances than a heavier round. Politics also played a strong role in the adoption of the 5.56, as it did with the selection of the M-16 series of rifles by our government. Hope this helps some.

Jake

[kyle]

The smaller rounds that are less likely to immediately kill after impact are favorable for tactical reasons as well. If a soldier shots and only wounds an enemy then on top of the target being incapacitated there is also a chance that other soldiers will drop out of combat to assist their fallen ally.

This is obviously not a useful tactic with the walking dead.

[Coal-Cracker]

Why do I see this turning into another 9mm vs. .45/.308 vs. 5.56 debate?


Jason,
The most common Revolutionary War Muskets like the Charleville and the Brown Bess, primarily shot .69 cal and .75 cal balls, repectively. The most commom American Civil War Rifle (Springfield) shot .58 cal Minie balls. You have to understand that the velocities were MUCH slower than modern ammunition.
Useless trivia, but thought you may find it interesting considering your initial post.

[Cricket]

Yea, ever seen a skeleton of one of the guys that got hit with those slugs though?

You know how our bullets break bones? Their bullets POWDERED bone.

If it hit you in the middle of the arm, the bone was basically gone from down to right about the wrist, and up to nearly the shoulder, and your arm went FLYING.

Horrible stuff.

[minengr]

If you do some research into the “how and why” concerning ammo choices made by the U.S. military you’ll find is sometimes has less to do with effectiveness and more to do with political considerations.

The military wanted to replace their service pistol after the Philippine-American War that took place from 1899 – 1902. It seems they wanted something with more power after the .38’s that were issued had problems neutralizing the enemy. This brought about the .45 acp and the 1911.

When the military wanted to replace the 1903 Springfield’s used in WWI with the M1 Garand it was originally designed to shoot a .275 or .276 caliber bullet. However, due to large stock of 30-06 left over from WWI (from the 1903’s) it was redesigned to shoot 30-06. It has been suggested that this “mid-range” caliber is more effective. It is also interesting that is almost exactly the same diameter as the 6.8 SPC the military has been testing.

It’s been awhile since I’ve done some reading but I believe the decision to chamber the M16 and M14 in .223 and .308 had more to do with “standardizing” ammo for NATO purposes than any effectiveness. This also played a large part in the decision in switching from the 1911 to the Beretta M9.

[Coal-Cracker]

Yea, ever seen a skeleton of one of the guys that got hit with those slugs though?

You know how our bullets break bones? Their bullets POWDERED bone.

If it hit you in the middle of the arm, the bone was basically gone from down to right about the wrist, and up to nearly the shoulder, and your arm went FLYING.

Horrible stuff.

I visit Gettysburg once or twice a year. I usually stop in the National Museum where they have some of the human remains (battlefield/surgery section).
You're right. Horrible stuff.

[Bear_B]

Bullets are NOT decreasing in size. The most common pistol bullets (9mm, .45 ACP, .45LC, etc...) have been in use for over a hundred years.

Keep in mind when you are talking "musket balls" going out of fashion, keep in mind musket balls were that... a big lead ball.

Bullet design, and design of many modern powders allow hunters/solders etc... to get the same effectiveness from more modern, lighter and faster bullet designs.

But hey...if you still want a .50 cal projectile, get a SW 500 mag... or the DE in 50 cal...

[Cricket]

Yea, ever seen a skeleton of one of the guys that got hit with those slugs though?

You know how our bullets break bones? Their bullets POWDERED bone.

If it hit you in the middle of the arm, the bone was basically gone from down to right about the wrist, and up to nearly the shoulder, and your arm went FLYING.

Horrible stuff.

I visit Gettysburg once or twice a year. I usually stop in the National Museum where they have some of the human remains (battlefield/surgery section).
You're right. Horrible stuff.

Yea, spent a lot of my childhood time there (its the south, this is our Mecca.) i've got a little glass box full of slugs somewhere around here.

Comparing them to the 7.62's i've got laying around, its a wonder mine can kill at all.

[Nightside_Eclipse]

Yea, ever seen a skeleton of one of the guys that got hit with those slugs though?

You know how our bullets break bones? Their bullets POWDERED bone.

If it hit you in the middle of the arm, the bone was basically gone from down to right about the wrist, and up to nearly the shoulder, and your arm went FLYING.

Horrible stuff.

I visit Gettysburg once or twice a year. I usually stop in the National Museum where they have some of the human remains (battlefield/surgery section).
You're right. Horrible stuff.

Yea, spent a lot of my childhood time there (its the south, this is our Mecca.) i've got a little glass box full of slugs somewhere around here.

Comparing them to the 7.62's i've got laying around, its a wonder mine can kill at all.

You're little 7.62 chunk of lead travels a LOT faster than those old "golf balls" they used to shoot.

[-Jason-]

Back in the day when the larger caliber weapons were popular more so the musket ones it seems one shot was often a kill shot. Was this due to the size and effect or to infection and poor medical treatment.

[ProZombieHunter]

Crude field surgery was most often just quick and dirty amputations.

But those balls packed a punch.

Plus they moved incredibly slowly. Have you ever looked at pictures from the Revolutionary and Civil Wars?

Very often the soldiers look kind of grimy and their clothing seems in ill repair. Not only does this add to the chance of infection, but it had to do with the ammo.

When a soldier thought that he was hit, he would often tear his clothes off immediately, because the slow-moving musket ball had a good chance of bringing the cloth INTO the wound.

One shot was often a kill shot because musket accuracy at range was doubtable (unless you were a sniper). Most often you moved within 40-yards to fire, and, probably being a farmer who occasionally hunted, you'd killed your fair share of game, so your accuracy wasn't bad.


Point blank firing occurred pretty often in those battles, if I'm not mistaken.

[Andy@SHTF.info]

Early Muskets used .50 caliber balls, then as bullets were developed they turned to I think .30 caliber and used those through and past WWII and now we have even smaller ammunition with less range. Not sure what the modern rifle calibers are.(All I know is there size but I beleive the 5.56 isnt much past .22 caliber) And I dont know about pistols in the early days but in WWII we used the .45. Now its the 9mm. Obviously this could be completely wrong and not every branch uses the same stock ammo. But it seems most places are decreasing in round size. Is this because the rifle doesnt decied victories like it used to, or do large caliber rounds have range and power that are overkill?

Early on, black powder made anything over 950 feet-per-second (fps) impossible, no matter what size projectile they used. To get enough punch out of a slow ball, they used a BIG ball - 0.50" was little. 0.69" (about a 12 gauge) was the common bore for British "Brown Bess" muskets during the American Revolution. These projectiles weighed maybe 3/4 of an ounce.

Later, people learned to make better powder, and higher velocities were possible. Firing a 3/4 oz projectile at 2400 fps is bad medicine for the person shooting it. Also, the ammo is rediculously heavy (as is the gun.)So, people decided to go to .28 (7mm) or .32 (8mm) caliber in rifles. These rounds could be smaller because they went faster. These projectiles went 2300-2500 fps (As powders developed) and weighed maybe 1/3 of an ounce. There was a problem: lead was too soft, so we got jacketed projectiles.

Powders improved again, and the velocities hit 3000 fps.

When big .30 caliber rounds reached 3000 fps, everyone realized that a .22 caliber (5.5mm) projectile that weighed 1/8 of an ounce could stop a man. This was also the time that full-auto rifles were possible to make. The smaller ammo both improved controllability on full-auto and allowed the soldier to carry more ammo. It even lightened the demands on the supply lines.

People tried to push it to .12 or .17 caliber rifles firing 4,500-5,000fps steel projectiles, but it just has not worked yet.

Plenty of people still advocate big, slow bullets...they're just not in charge of shipping all that stuff to the front lines. Napoleon said that amatuers talk tactics, and professionals talk logistics.

Now, about pistols. Pistols and rifles wound in totally different ways. We tried a .45, and it worked. We tried a 9mm (.35 cal) and it sucked. We went back to a .45 and it worked. We went back to a 9mm (.35 cal) and it stucked again. (This is a brief history of the US military's handguns.) Now, the Coast Guard is trying out a .40.

Andy Out!

[Pug Puppy]

With no antiseptics, painkillers, tetanus antitoxin, Xrays, sulfa, or antibiotics; musket wounds were usually a delayed death sentence.
Up to 88% of Civil War soldiers died of infected wounds.
Only 2.8% of German soldiers died of infected wounds in WWI.
Great topic!

[pooch]

We fire multiple rounds in rapid succession in the 21st century. .50 cal lead balls of the civil war were fired about twice a minute. Fire a 30-30 or 30-06 or another BIG caliber rifle several times in succession, and the bruise on your shoulder will explain at least one reason why people prefer more controlable, smaller calibers.

[PistolPete]

Politics has a lot to due with it, I agree. The 223 is an excellent wounding round, it doesn't have the killing power of the 308 or 30-06. A wounded soldier ties up more resources than a dead one, and it's harder on morale when your buddy is screaming in pain next to you. In fact, when the 223 and 5.45x39 round were adopted, the Red Cross declared them "Inhumane" because of the grevious wounds they created.

Look at the civilian world, where hunters believe in matching the right round to the prey. 223's generally aren't used on anything larger than a 45 lb coyote.

Small, fast rounds shoot flatter. It's all about finding balance. According to FBI statistics, .357 magnum is still the top in the "one shot, one kill" category. 9mm doesn't fair so well in that list.

When I hunt deer (roughly zombie size, right?) my tool of choice is a 300 winchester magnum. It's probably overkill, but I haven't had one run after being hit yet, something I can't say for my hunting experience using lesser rounds. Of course, there's poachers that take deer with 22's and head shots, and that drop's 'em too.