Quote Originally Posted by mrclark303 View Post
I wonder if we will see a calibre shift by then,
It's hard to say, everyone in and outside the industry wants to tout their pet caliber as the new "wonder drug" for service ammunition, however as retired player in the field so to speak, I have some observations.

1. Any standard infantry caliber must be easily fed by both box magazines and linked belts, the day the LMG regresses to 30 round box magazines is the day the gunner becomes ineffective.

2. Ballistic penetration, the proliferation of first rate trauma plate based armour has rendered most sub-.50 cal small-arms less, to completely ineffective regardless of contact distance. Has everyone seen the plated armour provided to the local armies in Iraq and Afghanistan? If that equipment is in their hands, it is readily available to the "bad guys" as well. It was sporadically seen in the field a decade ago, we will see more of it as conflict progresses. Ceramic based armour offers single and in my observation, sometimes multi-strike protection, and the stuff works even against the touted .30 caliber battle rifle rounds. Depending on placement, being shot can basically be an irritation, compared to the life ender it was in conflicts past.

This video is a good representation:



The world has seen a number of combat calibers since the end of WW2, and with the standardized use of of 5.56mm and 7.62 NATO for over 60 years, adoption of a new caliber would have to offer a vast performance improvement to bother to rework the entire system. Looking at the Warsaw countries, they did the same, 7.62x54R held for over 100 years, and 7.62x39mm replaced with 5.45x39mm after 30 years, military cartridge development has somewhat hit a plateau, and is largely good enough.

I liken the whole affair to suggesting that all military vehicles should not run on Diesel any longer (to simplify) but should all be switched run on corn based alcohols because it offers better cold starting characteristics. While the alcohol may offer better cold start, that alone is not enough benefit to launch a NATO wide shift in fuel use.