On Dec 19, 2008, at 6:47 AM, ss wrote:
Of course the "theory" was that the smaller round would maim and
then the
enemy soldiers would be put out of action - i.e. the wounded man and
two
people to carry him.
However. this obviosuly does not work against jihadis.
The problem with this oft-heard theory is that terminal effects are a
continuum that range from instantly dead to having almost no
incapacitating effect. Different weapon setups will center the
distribution of real-world terminal results at different points on
that continuum. Since the "no incapacitating effect" end of that
continuum is considered very bad, designers attempt to push weapons as
far to the "instantly lethal" end of the range as they can without
compromising other required design criteria. Maiming is part of the
distribution, but not a design goal.
As an anecdotal data point, the 2002 Beltway sniper incident in the
US, in which over a dozen people were shot, used a ballistic setup
that is virtually identical to the INSAS. The mortality rate from
those single bullets across all the victims was >75% in an area with
fast access to medical trauma units, in line with statistical
mortality rates consistently above 50% for that particular weapon
system. By contrast, the mortality rate for US soldiers getting shot
with the traditional AK-47 in various wars and for civilians in large-
scale shootings is consistently less than 25%. The empirical evidence
of this collected during the wars of the 1960s and 1970s was one of
the motivations for the Soviets to replace the AK-47 cartridge with a
cartridge that was ballistically similar to the American 5.56x45,
using an even smaller bullet in fact.
I recall reading that when the INSAS was first inducted the Indian
Army was
unhappy with the muzzle velocity and maiming potential. But I am
told that
these issues have been addressed and I see the rifle appearing
everywhere and
people I speak to (soldiers) seem happy with it. I think the main
advantage
of the 5.56 is the weight penalty is lower.
Given the combination of cartridge and barrel length, the INSAS should
have a muzzle velocity that is among the highest of any infantry
weapon fielded in the world today, at 950-1000 meters per second
(assuming conventional NATO ammo).
The low weight and cost of the ammunition is a relevant factor, but
little is sacrificed as a result. Assuming the soldier actually hits
the target -- frequently not a safe assumption -- the ballistic
profile is nearly ideal as far as lethality goes, and should be
expected to exhibit a higher lethality than the standard weapons now
fielded by European and American militaries (opting for other design
characteristics like weapon weight and size).
But Indian police forces are almost always equipped with the Lee
Enfield .303.
I think it might be an improvement if US police were forced to carry
an Enfield.
What is worse is that most rifle wielding policemen go to a firing
range to
practice shooting less than once a year.
True of police forces the world over.
J. Andrew Rogers
