Lethal Ground: Increasing Infantry Range

3 thoughts on “Lethal Ground: Increasing Infantry Range”

  1. Automatic shotguns designs are already working on the problems of cycling various cartridges of differing size and recoil, so I think what’s necessary is a rifle that can fire two different cartridges of different length, power and performance from a single barrel. While it will be almost impossible to fire two highly efficient projectiles with different performance characteristics from one weapon, infantry would be able to carry a large quantities of a light short range ammunition that would be effective in the majority of engagements while having the option of carrying and switching two a magazine of slower firing (from recoil) ammunition that allows for engaging enemies outside of the range of the primary ammunition. It’s an outside of the box solution that would raise a lot of problems which would need solved before being a workable concept, but your article makes a good case for the need for an outside the box solution. The one perfect ammunition might simply never exist.


    1. I agree (somewhat) regarding outside-the-box solutions being useful, but for technical reasons that is almost entirely unfeasible. No practical device exists that could fire meaningfully different calibers of ammunition with only a magazine change, as the requirements of chambering, headspacing, and feeding are dependent on the caliber used, and thus determine the layout of the weapon. To do so would require at the very least a new bolt and barrel for each ammunition type, as well as a separate optic for each round. It would be a heavier, clunkier, and less effective weapon than existing types, unfortunately. Given that the limiting factor as it stands past 500m is the shooter and their optics, I think that would be insufficient even if feasible.

      I don’t want to merely rain on your idea – unusual solutions are indeed worth looking at. The idea of polymer cased telescoped ammunition is very unusual, and I have a high opinion of it. Further, having multiple calibers, one specialized for long range the other for close-medium, is a good one – I merely think they should be carried in separate weapons. 🙂


  2. .338 seems a bit small to replace both 7.62 and 50 bmg unless your talking serious velocity. If you’re going to replace them both I’d go with a 40 cal +or- to give some room for specialized ammunition ( SLAP, incendiary ,etc) to reduce weight and recoil for the troops on foot dismounted machineguns would utilize flechettes constructed from a material designed to spark on impact instead of tracers. For mounted applications use super high BC projectiles at 60-70% the weight of 50cal to hit with the same energy as the M2 at extended range


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s