Why did the 7.62x51 cartridge come out of the WW2 era?

[Vern Humphrey]

I just have to respond. Poor marksmanship was never the issue. Everyone in combat zones had to qualify with the weapons they were issued and many were great shots. I was not only expert but was also trained with the quick kill. Our weapons and soldiers were far more accurate than our enemies. Some of you armchair experts are opinion that war movies are realistic. That That John Wayne can shoot from the hip and mow down hundreds of enemy clearly visible. When I was there weren't many mass battles. Most of the time the enemy would shoot at you from the brush and take off or shoot rockets and mortars from concealed positions. You returned suppressive fire blind. The bullets weren't wasted but they made the enemy break contact and run. I can't speak for other wars or other experiences. Just my own. The high rate of fire for the M-16 was more effective than the slow fire of the more powerful M-14. I used both. Anyway. I liked the M-14 a lot. But I never got a chance to shoot at anything I could see at 600 yards. I did use an M-60 for suppressive fire and it was very good.

I carried an M1 my first tour -- after my issue M2 Carbine got wrapped around a tree. My second tour I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (this was before the M21 was standardized.)

The technique I used -- and which I taught my troops -- was to "work" a target. Shoot at and around suspected locations.

I would have my sergeants put out the cardboard wrappers from C-Ration cases in the brush, deployed like an enemy squad and not visible from the firing line. I would have the troops lie down (initially one man at a time) and stretch a piece of engineer tape between two bamboo poles and ask the man "can the enemy be above this tape?" We would lower the tape until he said "stop." Then we would start at the ground and slowly raise another tape.

When we finished, we'd have a very narrow box -- and everyone agreed the enemy could not be above or below that box (try it sometimes, and see just how narrow that box is.) Then the shooter would space a couple of magazines-full into that box and we'd check the targets. The results were usually pretty good.

With further training we worked on fire control and so on.

 

[d2wing]

In my opinion the M-14 was a substantial improvement over the Garand. It would be great in the mass battles of WW2. But the high firepower of the M-16, M-4 and lighter weight are more useful in modern conflict.

 

[alsaqr]

The reason was, the shooters could not hit anything, and the enemy would respond with artillery fire and kill some people!

i knew Soldiers and Marines who made the long retreat from North Korea. Some told me Chinese troops lined the hills, not shooting. Not shooting until some wisenheimer took a pot shot at a Chinese troop, then it would rain mortar rounds.

When Kuwait was invaded i was the senior firing range advisor to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. During the runup to Desert Storm, US troops used our ranges. Some riflemen of the 82nd Airborne were good marksmen, some were not. Crew served weapons teams were superb.

Most US support troops were rather pitiful marksmen. A Patriot battalion had deployed from Fort Bliss in a hurry. In such a big hurry they were not POR qualified, lacking wills, powers of attorney, shots and arms qualification. Troops were handed an M16A1 and ammo as they boarded the plane. A Patriot battery has two sections for 24 hour operations. While half the unit manned the battery the others got POR qualified in Saudi.

Soon after their arrival in Saudi we hosted about 40 troops from a Patriot battery on the 30 meter zero range (Yep, the Saudis used the 7.62 mm FAL and a 30 meter zero) Most troops had little trouble zeroing their rifles. There was one exception, one rifle lacked a front sight.

 

[Slamfire]

I just have to respond. Poor marksmanship was never the issue. Everyone in combat zones had to qualify with the weapons they were issued and many were great shots. I was not only expert but was also trained with the quick kill. Our weapons and soldiers were far more accurate than our enemies. Some of you armchair experts are opinion that war movies are realistic. That John Wayne can shoot from the hip and mow down hundreds of enemy clearly visible. When I was there weren't many mass battles. Most of the time the enemy would shoot at you from the brush and take off or shoot rockets and mortars from concealed positions. You returned suppressive fire blind. The bullets weren't wasted but they made the enemy break contact and run. I can't speak for other wars or other experiences. Just my own. The high rate of fire for the full auto M-16 was more effective than the slow semi-auto fire of the more powerful M-14. I used both. Anyway. I liked the M-14 a lot. But I never got a chance to shoot at anything I could see at 600 yards. I did use an M-60 for suppressive fire and it was very good.

The WW2 generation is almost totally gone now, but I asked a couple about their firearms training, and it was pitiful. My Uncle, 101 Airborne, had eight rounds of familiarization with his M1919 machine gun before dropping into Normandy. The crew was so unfamiliar with the weapon that they did not realize the thing did not have a safety. He told me, while setting the M1919 in France, they loaded a belt, then started setting the thing up, one squad member lifted the gun by the barrel, bumped the trigger, and shot his finger off!

Sammy died recently. Sammy was a senior member of our Gun Club and ran Pot Shots. He had two ten round shooting sessions at 200 yards before he was shipped off to Iwo Jima. He was on second wave, his communications unit was reduced to him, and another guy who survived a Banzai charge. Sammy said that during familiarization he was handed a M1 carbine, and was able to get the Armorers to move the sights so it was zero'd. Then, after his tenth round, having zero'd the weapon, it was taken away before he left the range! One of the carbines was so off for elevation that Sammy had to aim at the bottom of the 200 yard target to hit the middle!

Sammy said he was issued a M1 carbine, and knives, etc, on the invasion ship. He zero'd his rifle in combat, aiming at rocks and asking his buds where he was hitting! Sammy fervently believed that if his Dad had not taught him how to shoot, he would not have come back from the war, and that is why he taught Pot Shots. He also called the young men of his generation "cannon fodder".

I am of the opinion that the experiences of these two men were the norm during WW2 and not the exception. In a major War, with 65,000 causalities per month, that is 20,000 dead and 45,000 in various stages of disassembly, there was just not the time to train anyone to any level of marksmanship. The book "Hell to Pay" provides the statistics to show, we were running out of young men. That was a huge determinate to use the bomb on the Japanese. I am currently reading a book on POW's. There were about 500,000 POW's in the US and they were put to work! Farmers particularly needed workers as all the young men had been drafted.

The Russian experience was worse than the American. Operation Bagration was the fifth worst campaign, 180,040 killed and missing, 590,848 wounded and sick, and who has heard of it, and numbers 1 through 4, or, 6 through 10?

Weapons familiarization was inadequate for the American support troops during the invasion of Iraqi. Private Jessica Lynch had her 15 minutes and has been forgotten. Poor girl, she and her unit of tankers were shot up, they had never expected to be in a war zone, and her unit reflected peacetime attitudes. I watched Private Jessica on 60 minutes. She had not cleaned her weapon since she arrived in theater, and when her rifle jammed, she said "it jammed!" She still did not know how to clear a jam, well after her televised rescue. Her rifle either went bang, or it was broke, and she had no idea how to make it go bang again. I am of the opinion that was the typical level of weapon familiarization for everyone except combat arms, at the start of Operation Eternal War.

Weapons training always gets short changed in peacetime as the money gets shifted to big, expensive, major weapon systems acquisitions. It is the way the military industry complex operates.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

In Viet Nam, the 101st Airborne Division ran the Screaming Eagle Replacement Training School, SERTS. Troops were issued a rifle when they reported to SERTS, got a chance to zero it, and turned it back in when they finished. In the unit, they were issued another rifle, but no chance to zero it -- because they had already zeroed at SERTS!

 

[entropy]

I just have to respond. Poor marksmanship was never the issue. Everyone in combat zones had to qualify with the weapons they were issued and many were great shots. I was not only expert but was also trained with the quick kill. Our weapons and soldiers were far more accurate than our enemies. Some of you armchair experts are opinion that war movies are realistic. That John Wayne can shoot from the hip and mow down hundreds of enemy clearly visible. When I was there weren't many mass battles. Most of the time the enemy would shoot at you from the brush and take off or shoot rockets and mortars from concealed positions. You returned suppressive fire blind. The bullets weren't wasted but they made the enemy break contact and run. I can't speak for other wars or other experiences. Just my own. The high rate of fire for the full auto M-16 was more effective than the slow semi-auto fire of the more powerful M-14. I used both. Anyway. I liked the M-14 a lot. But I never got a chance to shoot at anything I could see at 600 yards. I did use an M-60 for suppressive fire and it was very good.

I agree with you 100% I was responding to Llama Bob's posts, #46 and 47. I was never in combat, but I did quite a bit of training for it, and was the one that maintained the rifles for it. Llama Bob shows in his posts that he knows less about land battle doctrine (either in WWII or since) than he does about ballistics or tactics.

I watched Private Jessica on 60 minutes. She had not cleaned her weapon since she arrived in theater, and when her rifle jammed, she said "it jammed!" She still did not know how to clear a jam, well after her televised rescue. Her rifle either went bang, or it was broke, and she had no idea how to make it go bang again. I am of the opinion that was the typical level of weapon familiarization for everyone except combat arms, at the start of Operation Eternal War.

When that happened, I felt vindicated. I had developed a reputation as a 'hard a__' of an Armorer, because I actually made them clean rifles. We were a REMF unit, and most of their attitudes were "We'll be behind the lines where we'll be safe? Why do we have to clean our rifles/stay awake on guard on FTX's/learn to shoot our rifles/actually contemplate having to kill someone?" My response was either "There are NO front lines in modern war/ The FEBA is a myth." or "We send the Green Berets deep into enemy territory to sow discord and rancor. They have similar men. They are called the Spetznaz. The Green Berets respect them and their capabilities. You should too." I hope at least one of those kids appreciated my efforts, I know some of them ended up in the sandbox.

 

[Slamfire]

I agree with you 100% I was responding to Llama Bob's posts, #46 and 47. I was never in combat, but I did quite a bit of training for it, and was the one that maintained the rifles for it. Llama Bob shows in his posts that he knows less about land battle doctrine (either in WWII or since) than he does about ballistics or tactics.



When that happened, I felt vindicated. I had developed a reputation as a 'hard a__' of an Armorer, because I actually made them clean rifles. We were a REMF unit, and most of their attitudes were "We'll be behind the lines where we'll be safe? Why do we have to clean our rifles/stay awake on guard on FTX's/learn to shoot our rifles/actually contemplate having to kill someone?" My response was either "There are NO front lines in modern war/ The FEBA is a myth." or "We send the Green Berets deep into enemy territory to sow discord and rancor. They have similar men. They are called the Spetznaz. The Green Berets respect them and their capabilities. You should too." I hope at least one of those kids appreciated my efforts, I know some of them ended up in the sandbox.

By 2005 Support Troops were getting weapon familiarization and spending a lot of time, and shooting a lot of ammunition. I talked to the head of a Tanker Unit about this. And I was told, Support Troops were having extensive weapons training because they were being used as Infantry in Iraqi. In that time period, before the Great Recession, the US Army was running out of NCO's and Enlisted!. Contractors were doing the support jobs, freeing support troops to kick down doors, and be shot at by Insurgents!

Remember this if you join the military. Your nice logistics, tanker, electronics job will be given to support contractors and you will be carrying an M4, wearing body armor, in your new job assignment. The Support Contractors will be receiving a quarter of a million a year to do the job you were doing for $40K.

The Great Recession brought a lot of personnel back into the military, and I don't know how they are doing now. I expect they are getting back to complacency.

 

[skeeterfogger]

So the 06 has a bit more effective range.
What is the average effective range in battle?
At what range is it considered a sniper situation?
50 BMG weapon development pretty much takes care of above average fire fight ranges. Also introduction of specialty calibers as the .338. But the 308 can reach out there when needed.
The 308 handles good portion of 06 range. Also some better rapid fire control and cycle speed.
Some rounds per pounds increase with 308. Not much for civilians but when you get into tons it can build up.
NATO Too. But IMO the weapons development to handle the beyond average put the need for the 06 bit of extra effective range out of biz. The extra number of rounds to weight even though it might not be an extreme amount is more rounds down range capability.

 

[Texas10mm]

By 2005 Support Troops were getting weapon familiarization and spending a lot of time, and shooting a lot of ammunition. I talked to the head of a Tanker Unit about this. And I was told, Support Troops were having extensive weapons training because they were being used as Infantry in Iraqi. In that time period, before the Great Recession, the US Army was running out of NCO's and Enlisted!. Contractors were doing the support jobs, freeing support troops to kick down doors, and be shot at by Insurgents!

Remember this if you join the military. Your nice logistics, tanker, electronics job will be given to support contractors and you will be carrying an M4, wearing body armor, in your new job assignment. The Support Contractors will be receiving a quarter of a million a year to do the job you were doing for $40K.

The Great Recession brought a lot of personnel back into the military, and I don't know how they are doing now. I expect they are getting back to complacency.

The Marines are getting rid of the Tanks, bridging units and MP units.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The issue is not range, but penetration. When people are being shot at, they will get behind things (I've done it myself.) You need to be able to shoot through things like walls, logs, and so on.

 

[EIB0879]

I was looking at a USMC Basic Rifle Marksmanship manual from 1968 the other day and dug it out when I saw this thread because I remember it addressing the why.

The synopsis is that the 7.62 x 51 was 1/2" shorter and 12% lighter than the .30 cal (30-06). More ammo could be carried (according to this).

it also states the M-14 with a 20 round magazine weighed the same as the M-1 with eight rounds in the magazine.

 

[Slamfire]

The issue is not range, but penetration. When people are being shot at, they will get behind things (I've done it myself.) You need to be able to shoot through things like walls, logs, and so on.

Vern, when the original WW1 era cartridges were developed, the smokeless ones in the 1880's, I have not seen any evidence that penetration was a high priority. It was desired, but the highest priority was a flat trajectory. As shown in these pre WW2 charts from my Dad's Junior ROTC book:





The rifleman was expected to engage infantry armed with bayonets, who were going to over run their position and engage in hand to hand combat. See the tiny bayonet on the rifle?

Vietnam had its artillery, but it was at fire bases and called in, right? However, from the Revolutionary War up to WW1, field artillery was on the same field as the infantry and was expected to knock down anything where opposing infantry might be hiding.



Does anyone recognize the buildings? Is this Fort Sam Houston?



This picture is from the American Invasion of Mexico. The US was meddling in the internal affairs of Mexico and the US got out before it turned into an Iraq or Afghanistan. American's are mostly unaware of the because it was such a fiasco. Just like the invasions in the Middle East will be forgotten once we are out.

These fast shooting artillery pieces operated within visual range of the infantry, they did not have radios!, and would pound the heck out of concentrations of infantry.

Now, bullet penetration was desired, but from what I have found, against the shields of field artillery. If you search further, the reason Austria and other countries are issuing greased, steel jacketed bullets, is for penetration of the protective shields that the field artillery loaders and aimers are hiding behind.

A TREATISE COVERING THE MANUFACTURE Of RIFLE CARTRIDGE CASES, BULLETS- 1916

http://archive.org/stream/cartridgemanufac00hamirich/cartridgemanufac00hamirich_djvu.txt

Cupro-nickel jacketed bullets are generally employed for military rifles and are used by the Belgian, British, Canadian, Danish, Italian, Roumanian, Russian, Spanish, and American governments. The German, Greek, Dutch, and Turkish governments use steel envelopes coated with cupro- nickel ; Austria uses greased steel, and Japan, copper. Bullets coated with cupro-nickel are likely to set up metallic fouling in the bore of the gun, consisting of streaks of metal which adhere to the lands and grooves in the bore.


Bullets with greased steel envelopes do not appear to cause metallic fouling, but they wear away the rifling in the gun much quicker.

The bullet used in the Swiss rifle cartridge is of a peculiar construction. The body is made of a hard lead alloy, provided with a nickel-plated steel envelope covering the point only, the remainder of the bullet being covered with paper lubricated with vaseline. The lower portion of the bullet which enters the cartridge case is smaller in diameter than the jacketed portion. The wounding power of this bullet is great, but its velocity is not as great as those provided with the full envelope.

I find it amazing that the omniscient US Army Ordnance Department did not know the Austrians were greasing their bullets, which is just one example why the claims that greased bullets dangerously and unpredictably raise breech pressures, came from a coverup of defective 03's and defective Army ammunition.

It took a while for the military mind to figure out that the bayonet charges of the Napoleonic wars would dissolve in front of magazine fed rifles. I have read of of French cavalry charges, sabers waiving, in 1914, that dissolved against Mauser repeating rifles in 1914. But, even so, in the years between WW1 and WW2, the US Army was still thinking of engaging the enemy with long range, aimed rifle fire.

The current Ordnance Department has a real problem, the troops are armed with this pop gun of a M4 carbine, and the crazies out there have taken common commercial vehicles and up armored them. These are very ingenious. ISIS fills these with explosive materials, the driver takes the vehicle to the American location, and blows the vehicle, himself , and all the infidels up!

What is the market based solution to this? More consumerism?







At some level of armor, concrete, protection, small arms fire just annoys the occupants.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes -- but what was intended in 1903 and what was needed later are two different things. The reason MacArthur gave for rejecting the .276 Peterson was "Infantrymen have to shoot through things." That was based on experience, and it matches my own.

Around '70 or '71 the American Riflemen published a test of "brush busting." The number one cartridge was the .30 cal armor piercing round.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Vern, when the original WW1 era cartridges were developed, the smokeless ones in the 1880's, I have not seen any evidence that penetration was a high priority. It was desired, but the highest priority was a flat trajectory.

Penetration was desired, There are many old pre-WW1 reports on the number of wood boards this bullet will penetrate vs that bullet. It doesn't show up in manuals as it is not anything the soldier can do anything about, or really needs to know. It is what it is. Much like wound ballistics. How much do you see in manuals about wounding ability? And, prior to the adoption of the 5.56mm, how much open literature is there on wound ballistics? Not a lot, but they have been shooting and dissecting goats, writing reports on it and recommending bullet designs as far back as pre-WW1.

And, despite what you may have learned from "The Pentagon Wars", there was a specification for ballistic target goats. They were to be does, between 120 and 150 pounds and shorn.

Now, bullet penetration was desired, but from what I have found, against the shields of field artillery. If you search further, the reason Austria and other countries are issuing greased, steel jacketed bullets, is for penetration of the protective shields that the field artillery loaders and aimers are hiding behind.

Contrary to what they may have believed, lubrication of projectiles does not aid in armor penetration. Neither does steel jacketing, at least any steel soft enough to be engraved by the rifling.

 

[skeeterfogger]

A few people here mentioned that it was because shorter rounds can have a higher feed rate than longer rounds.

As someone who doesn’t know much in this area didn’t the mg42 feed quite quickly on a long ass round (8mm).

Yes it is fast but because of the power and rate of fire it was so round limited they had to carry numerous barrels and it took 8-10 seconds, probably more under fire, to change out and if there was no other support that was plenty of advancing time to get in grenade range. With the advances in metalurgy and with the better ammo plus cooling shrouds the barrel longevity has greatly increased. Even the garand had its issues. WWII noted the Japanese would hunker down and listen for the ping of clips. They over came it by having clips on strings they would fire a few rounds then tap the clip with metal like a bayonet. Japs would hear it and try to advance only to be met by heavy fire.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

. WWII noted the Japanese would hunker down and listen for the ping of clips.

Old wives' tale. Lie down outside of grenade range and let me shoot over your head. When you hear the ping of the ejected clip, get up and charge. You won't make it to your knees!

And remember, Infantrymen don't come in issues of one -- they come in squads and platoons. While one man is reloading, there are plenty of others still shooting.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Yes it is fast but because of the power and rate of fire it was so round limited they had to carry numerous barrels and it took 8-10 seconds, probably more under fire, to change out and if there was no other support that was plenty of advancing time to get in grenade range. With the advances in metalurgy and with the better ammo plus cooling shrouds the barrel longevity has greatly increased. Even the garand had its issues. WWII noted the Japanese would hunker down and listen for the ping of clips. They over came it by having clips on strings they would fire a few rounds then tap the clip with metal like a bayonet. Japs would hear it and try to advance only to be met by heavy fire.

One, you are confusing cyclic rate with sustained rate of fire.

Cyclic rate is how long the gun takes to eject and reload. An MG 42 has a cyclic rate of fire about 1,200 rpm, an M3 .50 caliber has abut the same rate with a round that is 1/3 longer. The length of the round does not dictate the cyclic rate.

The sustained rate of fire is how fast you can shoot over an indefinite length of time. Generally, dictated by how much heat the barrel can absorb (and how fast you can change the barrel if possible). This really has not changed as those properties of steel do not change with alloy. Chromium plating and Stellite liners do not change the sustained rate of fire either, they change how long the barrel is usable, ie, the life of the barrel. In fact, this has gone down considerably since the abandoning of water cooling.

 

[Llama Bob]

The WW2 generation is almost totally gone now, but I asked a couple about their firearms training, and it was pitiful.

Exactly correct. There is a mistaken perception that in modern wars soldiers do useful things with their personal firearms. The reality on average is far different. They were (and remain) effectively untrained. All sorts of people get their khaki undies in a bunch when the facts come out, and in this case there are only two facts worth talking about:

1) How many rounds get shipped to theater
2) How many enemies get shot with those rounds

When you compare those two numbers for various wars, you learn two things:

A) General rifle fire is ineffective (and given the total lack of marksmanship skill it's obvious why)
B) It's getting worse, going from 10,000 rounds/casualty in WWII to closer to a quarter million in the current wars

These facts of course don't sit well with those who fetishize the military rifle, but the facts remain the facts regardless.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Tell you what, you go dig a foxhole about 300 yards down range of the firing line, and let me have a platoon of unqualified recruits shoot a night-familiarization over your head. If at any time you feel it would be safe to stick your head over the lip of your foxhole, you do so, if you don't, then all that shooting has accomplished its mission. It's not wasted.

 

[Llama Bob]

You can talk all you want. The facts - it's easy to count rounds and bodies - speak so loudly I can't hear a thing you blather

 

[MistWolf]

I carried an M1 my first tour -- after my issue M2 Carbine got wrapped around a tree. My second tour I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (this was before the M21 was standardized.)

The technique I used -- and which I taught my troops -- was to "work" a target. Shoot at and around suspected locations.

I would have my sergeants put out the cardboard wrappers from C-Ration cases in the brush, deployed like an enemy squad and not visible from the firing line. I would have the troops lie down (initially one man at a time) and stretch a piece of engineer tape between two bamboo poles and ask the man "can the enemy be above this tape?" We would lower the tape until he said "stop." Then we would start at the ground and slowly raise another tape.

When we finished, we'd have a very narrow box -- and everyone agreed the enemy could not be above or below that box (try it sometimes, and see just how narrow that box is.) Then the shooter would space a couple of magazines-full into that box and we'd check the targets. The results were usually pretty good.

With further training we worked on fire control and so on.

That sounds much like a technique used by the Rhodesians against the terrs. I don't recall the details, but it involved firing low grazing bullets into brush, low spots and so on, to hit hidden enemies laying close to the ground. It's said to be quite effective.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That sounds much like a technique used by the Rhodesians against the terrs. I don't recall the details, but it involved firing low grazing bullets into brush, low spots and so on, to hit hidden enemies laying close to the ground. It's said to be quite effective.

I'm here to tell you it's very effective. If I were a company commander today, I'd be training my men to shoot that way.

 

[Slamfire]

Now, bullet penetration was desired, but from what I have found, against the shields of field artillery. If you search further, the reason Austria and other countries are issuing greased, steel jacketed bullets, is for penetration of the protective shields that the field artillery loaders and aimers are hiding behind.

Contrary to what they may have believed, lubrication of projectiles does not aid in armor penetration. Neither does steel jacketing, at least any steel soft enough to be engraved by the rifling.

The grease was on the bullets to prevent steel on steel contact within the barrel.

I put you on ignore because there is nothing you have to write that I want to read, and there is nothing that I put out there, that I care for you to read or comment on.

The fact you search for and comment on my posts just shows what a manipulative and controlling individual you are. Typical of Ordnance Department employees.

 

[MistWolf]

Penetration was desired, There are many old pre-WW1 reports on the number of wood boards this bullet will penetrate vs that bullet...

Awhile ago, I read a report detailing penetration tests performed with the 45/70 at Sandy Hook beach out to such ranges the bullets were plunging into the ground at a steep angle. It listed how many boards were penetrated as the US Army was particularly interested in killing horses to cripple enemy cavalry.

 

[Slamfire]

Awhile ago, I read a report detailing penetration tests performed with the 45/70 at Sandy Hook beach out to such ranges the bullets were plunging into the ground at a steep angle. It listed how many boards were penetrated as the US Army was particularly interested in killing horses to cripple enemy cavalry.

This is not the actual report but a comment on it. Missing are the images of the trajectories and the targets.

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/firearms/long-range/sandy-hook-1879

The trajectories at extreme distance were so vertical that tiny differences in aiming elevation would leave someone standing shaken, but not stirred!. And yes, the penetration in sand and wood was of interest, because it showed that the bullets could kill far out. But, what was of higher priority for future development, flatness of trajectory, or penetration in wood? I would say flattening the trajectory would result in more hits at distance, and it is hits that count.