Why has the "Ideal Cartridge" never been implemented?

**Crow Hunter** · 08-08-12, 14:09

I have read here and elsewhere that the "Ideal Cartridge" is somewhere around 7mm with it's latest incarnation being the 7mm Murray.

So why has a similar cartridge never been successfully implemeted and fielded in the history of metallic cartridges? (Other than the very short lived 7.62 X 43 )

I understand why the Germans and the Russians chose to just keep the same cartridge diameter and shorten the cases for the 1st Generation of Intermediate cartridges.

I am not sure why the 5.56 was chosen by the US with data available about the performance of the 6mm Lee and the .280 British, .276 Pedersen and possibly other rounds that were tested after WWII. However, I can see why the 5.56 has stuck around for so long after it was adopted due to inertia.

However, after seeing the "shortcomings" of the 5.56X45 in Vietnam, why did the Russians choose to go with a 5.45x39 instead of the necking down the 7.62x43 to 7mm or necking down the 7.62X39 to 7mm/6.8?

Why after a war in Afghanistan, like what we are fighting today, didn't the Russians change to a new round. They have gone through several exercises of updating the AK even to the point of creating the AN-94 and the AEK-971 but kept the same round.

Later, the Chinese, with 1st hand experience with the 7.62X39 against the Vietnamese and Tibetans and various internal "police actions", and seeing the performance of the 5.45X39 in Afghanistan with the Russians, they chose to design a new caliber, the 5.8X42. Why didn't they choose the "Ideal" caliber?

All the data that we as M4Carbine.net members would definitely be available to both the Russians and the Chinese plus both of those regimes aren't as "restrictive" as the US/NATO is to live testing, on either animals or even political prisoners.

Why?

Thoughts?

**El Cid** · 08-08-12, 14:42

Originally Posted by Crow Hunter

However, after seeing the short comings of the 5.56X45 in Vietnam, why did the Russians choose to go with a 5.45x39 instead of the necking down the 7.62x43 to 7mm or necking down the 7.62X39 to 7mm/6.8?

Why after a war in Afghanistan, like what we are fighting today, didn't the Russians change to a new round. They have gone through several exercises of updating the AK even to the point of creating the AN-94 and the AEK-971 but kept the same round.

Thoughts?

What shortcomings did the 5.56 have in Vietnam? There were some issues with the early ammo purchases not being what was specified that cause problems. But once that was worked out it's my understanding it did VERY well. My dad's first tour was 66-67 and he told me the VC and NVA were afraid of getting hit by the 5.56.

Along the same lines, the 5.45 the Soviets adopted created some pretty horrific wounds among the mujahideen during that war.

A high velocity round that is smaller and lighter, allowing the individual to carry more ammo and a rifle that is lighter is a big win in my book.

**Joeywhat** · 08-08-12, 14:55

Why do a lot of police and government agencies use .40 S&W handguns? Why do some of them not allow long guns to be deployed except by special units like SWAT or ERT?

In short, bureaucracy. Someone, somewhere, who probably has more power then they should, decided that what we are currently using is the best. That could be because of ignorance, prejudice, loyalty to a brand or design, or cost.

**Crow Hunter** · 08-08-12, 15:22

Originally Posted by El Cid

What shortcomings did the 5.56 have in Vietnam? There were some issues with the early ammo purchases not being what was specified that cause problems. But once that was worked out it's my understanding it did VERY well. My dad's first tour was 66-67 and he told me the VC and NVA were afraid of getting hit by the 5.56.

Along the same lines, the 5.45 the Soviets adopted created some pretty horrific wounds among the mujahideen during that war.

A high velocity round that is smaller and lighter, allowing the individual to carry more ammo and a rifle that is lighter is a big win in my book.

I should have put "shortcomings".

Sorry about that.

Carry over from bubblegum forums/gunshop wisdom where everyone knows that all the soldiers "In country" were doing everything they could to get a M-14 and it's "real" rifle cartridge instead of the "varmit" cartridge.

I'll correct that.

**481** · 08-08-12, 16:26

The biggest problem is that "ideal" means different things to different organizations and people. They all have vastly differing sets of criteria for every facet of the performance and logistics surrounding what they will choose and any widespread concensus is unlikely given the wide range of needs out there.

Almost any cartridge will do the job- it's finding the one that fits an agency's or military's criteria that make a universal choice impossible.

**El Cid** · 08-08-12, 20:00

Originally Posted by Crow Hunter

I should have put "shortcomings".

Sorry about that.

Carry over from bubblegum forums/gunshop wisdom where everyone knows that all the soldiers "In country" were doing everything they could to get a M-14 and it's "real" rifle cartridge instead of the "varmit" cartridge.

I'll correct that.

Well then you answered your own question. If the "shortcomings" were more legend than fact, there would be no need to seek a replacement. That the soviets followed our after seeing it in action speaks volumes IMO.

**rkba01** · 08-08-12, 20:27

I would say that with the current availability of high quality constructed bullets (NP, the bonded cores, TSX), the 5.56x45 is nothing to sneeze at. It is a fast, flat shooting and relatively light weight round that does the job easily out to 300m. Pretty good all-around hammer.

**Clint** · 08-08-12, 21:07

As 481 put it:
ideal is relative to what you're trying to do with that tool.

For "general purpose shooting a wide variety of stuff" with a carbine, The 6.8 SPC ( 6.8x43 ) is as close to an ideal intermediate cartridge as I've seen.

**nineteenkilo** · 08-08-12, 22:36

Often, the impetus of a given stock item is driven by much more than performance. There are several "better" rounds out there, but it takes more than performance to justify refitting, retraining, and repurchasing such a vast amount of equipment. The big army will always balance price versus performance and will not dare budge in the face of overwhelming performance improvements unless it can be justified in the pocketbook.

I would think that the same logic would apply to basically all modern armies (Russin, etc) in which the supply chain works the same way.

The only area that I can this happening is with uniforms. When the beret (in all of its regal gayness) popped up on the heads of everyone instead of the more 'elite' units - it should have been a warning sign to all that something like the ACU was inevitable. As of this writing, I can't see any improvement forthcoming either. We waste money on improving that which works. Go figure.