News reports often cover the sadness, brutality, and
ugliness of war. It is right and desirable that this side of war
be presented in an honest straightforward way. But there’s
more to the picture.
This post won’t list all of the recent changes brought by
military necessity and science, but it will list a few that
may have escaped notice.
Without a doubt the greatest spin-off from the recent wars
on Islamists terrorists in Southwest Asia, is the bandage
approved by the FDA in 2002. Prior to the U.S.
Army’s search for a more effective way to stop hemorrhaging, it
used the century old method, direct pressure and gauze. Since
2002, a bandage using
shrimp shells and vinegar has been used to “clot
a bullet wound in under a minute.” Chitosan,
a polysaccharide in shrimp shells, has anti-bacterial properties
as well, making it ideal for its designed purpose. Obviously,
lives are saved on the battlefield with this bandage, and equally
obvious this bandage has applications beyond the
battlefield.
In the more common area of concern for militaries, guns and
ammo, the right bullet and rifle combination for snipers has
continued to be an area of testing and fielding since the war in
Afghanistan began. In an evolution bound to please many a
virgin-seeking Talibani, the round of choice setting records is
the .338 Lapua Magnum. How good is it? No round is better than
the rifle and the rifleman shooting it. On May 2, the
Times of London
reported on what is now believed to be the longest kill-shots
ever with a sniper rifle — at a distance of 1.5 miles. The
sniper used the .338 Lapua Magnum, and he duplicated the shot
immediately after the first to kill a second Taliban machine
gunner. Corporal Craig Harrison of the UK’s Household
Cavalry, using an
Accuracy International L115A3, clearly is an
exceptional shot. But equally clear is that the militaries
defending the West are doing their best to research, test, and
field the best equipment to enhance capabilities. The days of a
hidebound military are long gone. The .338 Lapau Magnum is
replacing the .308 Winchester (a.k.a. the 7.62mm) and the much
larger .50 caliber bullet because of its practical advantages
having more range than the .308 and being much lighter than the
.50 caliber.
Fox News
reports that the U.S. Army is taking a second look to
the M4 Rifle, the rifle that replaced the M16. The impetus for
this review is as old as the M16. That is its bullet versus the
one fired in the famous AK-47. Concerns about the terminal
ballistics of the lighter 5.56 mm bullet versus the heavier
7.62x39mm bullet no doubt means this debate will go on for a long
time, possibly with the Army adopting a new caliber for its main
rifle. I’d think the .260 Remington would be a good choice. The
round won’t shoot as flat as a 5.56mm bullet. Servicemen won’t be
able to carry as many rounds, but the round is not difficult to
shoot because its recoil isn’t abusive; it retains energy in
flight and has excellent terminal ballistics. The Army’s Test
Command will likely look at many different options if there truly
is consideration ongoing to replace the 5.56mm bullet.
As long as we have boots on the ground, mundane weapons
like small arms will matter.
