*sigh*
In the modern world, actually. From what I've been able to gather from talking to firearms enthusiasts, soldiers, and through my own research, the 5.56x45 has greater issues with overpenetration as it has similar energy placed into a smaller projectile.
Gathering from your previous post, I do believe you but you don't understand what "overpenetration" means.
"Overpenetration" refers to the idea that if a bullet goes clean trough the body than it did not give all its energy into the target and that the ideal is that the bullet stays in the target.
It has no effect outside of living flesh and if anything, the 7.6 NATO will create just as much problems as the 5.56, if not more.
You also do understand why 7.6 assoult rifles are no longer issued to soldiers (well, the regular ones)? It's because the recoil is too large and makes the weapon uncontrollable (or at least inaccurate) in automatic fire.
The main problem with this, is that "overpenetration" is myth as it does not make sense ballistically. You don't want a bullet to sink all that energy into its target, you want that energy used to punch trough all the way to vital organs and bones. It's not how much energy does your bullet put into someone, its what kind of work does that energy do. Which will cause greater harm, a spear thrown at you or a bag full of gelatin, both with the same weight and speed?
What you are looking for is "undercevetation" (spelling?), where the wound channel is not big enough. The only way to solve that is by increasing the calibre. But that's all for not, because the wound channel doesn't matter as much, but rather WHERE the wound channel is.
A bullet's energy is about as large as the recoil, which is hardly bigger than a punch. As Wong elegantly put it, if I punch you, you are likely to falter, but you won't die (unless you happen to be sick or something). But if I punch your internal organs than you will die.
Bullet energy does not compensate for accuracy or bullet location.
The idea of "overpenetration" dates back to 19 century idea made by Colonel Townsend Whelen in his "Small Arms Design and Ballistics". It lives to this day, because weapon enthusiasts don't study ballistics and soldiers are taught to how to use their weapons, not their design theory (which would be a waste of time).
Soldiers complain of "overpenetration" when they shot someone and they don't stop. That isn't because the bullet went all the way trough, that's actually a good thing because the wound caused is larger. Yet the target keeps going and they think the bullet is inefficient. There is nothing wrong with the bullet, its just that the bullet won't magically kill someone (the effect over range of the 5.56 and the 7.6 is another matter).
Someone high on adrenalin or even on drugs can keep moving despite severe injury to bullets. They will die in time, possibly within minutes, but not instantly and that's what the myth "overpenetration" attempts to explain.
Obviously differing specific rounds and loads will make a difference too.
At close quarters? Different rifle rounds will only give marginal difference, unless you are using very different bullets to begin with.
Besides, if you are afraid of causing damage to equipment, than you have to rethink what you are doing in the first place because almost any bullet will go trough as much as they can and do damage into whatever they go trough.
There are ways to get around this, like using buckshot, hollowpoints (I don't think the Federation is bound by the Genova Convention anymore) or the
Glaser Safety Slug.
Are we no longer allowed to give modern day weaponry as examples of what would be better than the crap the Federation is using? Should I delve into purely theoretical wank to derive a weapons system, when there are functional ones extant today that are far superior to basically anything ever shown in ST canon?
Yes, you are allowed to name modern weapons for "comparison", but as it is you're just naming the name of your pet guns and ammo which doesn't give a "comperison", that's just naming your pet gun and ammo. I know what you are talking about, but that's because I read allot about firearms myself.
If you were to give a comparison, you would take a baseline weapon (like the M16 or AK/AKM, both well-known weapons) and tell what improvements could they have (whether theoretical or real). Otherwise, saying "I would use a FAL to chop 'em Borg down an' give PDWs to the rest of da crew" isn't saying much. Yes, you claim things like "low recoil", "high stopping power" (which is nonsense because bullets don't stop people), but those are good selling points their selection among modern guns, not any reason why the Federation should adopt it.
Just because something is theoretical, it doesn't have to be wank. Sure, my idea isn't solid gold, but its not completely unreasonable or unworkable (except perhaps combining both chemical and magnetic acceleration, I'm not sure about that).
Your analysis doesn't make that much sense in the first place. Why issue and train people for two separate weapons when one should be sufficient? Why use old technology when they have access to more modern and possibly superior weapons?
Also, the phaser pistols are
not useless. Its ergonomics are designed by idiots and its useless against the Borg (as are
all "energy-based weapons", but otherwise it is a powerful weapon.
For all we know they never advanced in any meaningful way beyond modern weaponry when it comes to firearms, as we only have the example of one sniper rifle!
A "sniper rifle" that
was developed by the Federation! Unless its an unique weapon (or one developed outside the Federation), it shows that the Federation invested heavy interest into developing it. The gun has a sight that can go trough walls and obstacle's for God's sake! It would take very little to scale the weapon into another.
I am somehow certain that a civilization that can make something as advanced as starships, replicators and phasers, they can make a practical, "modern" (by their standards) weapon that they can issue to Federation officers and men.
Also, as
Wong puts its on his site, the Federation had practical weapons back in the TOS-era. They didn't need projectile weapons because phasers were sufficient, even overpowered!
Overall, the only thing stopping the Federation into making a practical projectile weapon is themselves. Hell, any replicator-equipped starship could potentially arm its crew if they wanted to, even train them on the holodeck.
Problem isn't potential. Problem is the one already concluded by Wong and let me quote him:
This decline can probably be attributed to complacency, which is something that Q identified and in his own clumsy way, tried to educate Captain Picard about in "Q Who". The Federation military of Kirk's era (thanks in no small part to the legendary Captain Kirk himself) achieved such success against the Klingons and the Romulans that future generations seemed to feel that their supremacy was secure, and it was no longer necessary to maintain combat readiness. This inexcusably complacent attitude was most glaringly demonstrated in "Peak Performance", when both Picard and Riker vehemently insisted that tactical skills are such a minor part of a Starfleet's officer's job that they shouldn't even practice them any more, even with simulated wargames!
Starfleet is pacifist to the point that it actually hurts them. They are too pacifist to train their officers for any potential warfare, which shows in their selection of weapons.
The weapons themselves are the minor issue, its the attitude you have to change. Change the attitude and good weapons appear quickly, hell, a single competent engineer could potentially make a weapon that would make any firearm designer that lived (or lives) cry with envy. It won't be worth shit if the weapon is rejected on the grounds that they are "too warlike" and "too aggressive" or "they would only be abused" any other pacifist reasoning. Yes, that line of reasoning is stupid and its there wherein the problem lies.
Reverse the gravety (if that can be done) or turn it off. Then turn it on again only at x3 or as high as you can get it. Rinse and repeat. Has anyone thought about overpressurizing the internal atmosphere and then rapidly reducing it?
Using that for one of my current stories.
