computer aided design designing?

http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/ 

CAD, or CADD, is short for computer-aided design or computer-aided design and drafting

http://www.remingtoncollege.edu/articles/what-is-cadd/ 

CAD, or CADD, is short for computer-aided design or computer-aided design and drafting

heads

computer aided design designing?

Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist...

https://www.quora.com/How-does-CAD-and-CADD-differ

heads

Fusion360

Just because you don’t know something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist...

https://www.quora.com/How-does-CAD-and-CADD-differ

no focus

no focus

Guess there is something you didn't know.  Wonder of there are other things. . .

Haha.  Total BS though.  I meant CAD, but probably put CADD as a proposal I'm evaluating this week has that position as CADD, as opposed to CAD. 

Yeah. I think your right but the .243 round is cool and good fun and can also kill a deer.
It would be neat to see it in a short high pressure cartridge. 

That's called 6mmBR.   VERY accurate and fast round. 

I heard something about the strategy of incapacitating an enemy vs killing them, forcing enemy soldiers to attend to the wounded. Not sure if true, but if I was given a .22 cal weapon that was designed to injure people who were trying to kill me with .30 I would be pissed, so if that was the case the designers might not want to own up to it.

I heard something about the strategy of incapacitating an enemy vs killing them, forcing enemy soldiers to attend to the wounded. Not sure if true, but if I was given a .22 cal weapon that was designed to injure people who were trying to kill me with .30 I would be pissed, so if that was the case the designers might not want to own up to it.

That assumes the enemy is going to stop fighting to help a wounded comrade.  Can't count on that.

Also, a wounded soldier can be patched up to go fight again.  How many times do we have to wound him before he kills one or more of us?  Not a good plan.  It would make more sense to shoot low to wound someone if you want to force others to carry them rather than issue less lethal ammo.

I think many of these stories are used to justify the lower lethality of the smaller round compared to the 30 caliber family.  If most states won't let us hunt deer with them, obviously the lethality is subpar when targeting humans.

Then again, if you look at the kills and injuries inflicted with AR-15s in mass shootings, it's obvious that the weapon is not anemic regarding lethality.  I submit it's all about the operator and the environment (i.e. distance, protective gear being used by the enemy, etc.)

Just thinking out loud.  I have no actual combat experience, and hope I never do.

Just wondering

What was/is the normal amount carried by typical infantrymen for these calibers:
5.56 - 7 mags of 30rds?
7.62x51 - ?
30-06 - ?
8mm mauser - ?
7.62x39 - ?
5.45x39 - ?

Regarding lethality
I read the 5.45 was called the poison bullet (or something like that)..... because it killed people even though it was small?

In Vietnam, the tactic was for the vc to engage the gi’s in close and than run because the M16 had too much firepower?

In the Middle East, it seemed like the upper level isis liked carrying ars when they took photos.  Was it preferred over the ak?

In open areas with little or no cover, I read of engagements of Kurds? (with us advisors ) and isis and the us advisors handily picking off the bad guys

That's called 6mmBR.   VERY accurate and fast round. 

Shit. You might of just sent me down a rabbit hole my wife does Not want me follow.

https://www.6mmbr.com/6mmbr.html

That assumes the enemy is going to stop fighting to help a wounded comrade.  Can't count on that.
I think many of these stories are used to justify the lower lethality of the smaller round compared to the 30 caliber family.  If most states won't let us hunt deer with them, obviously the lethality is subpar when targeting humans.

Military tactics changed to rely on suppressive fires, so that rules out larger and more powerful calibers in battle rifles.  5.56 is very efficient for it's size.  You don't have to kill someone with one shot.  Usually a shot anywhere on the body will severely degrade a professional soldier's performance. 

I don't think the wounding the enemy to occupy other soldiers tactic works out because our enemies don't value the lives of their people.  Wounded soldiers don't matter cause you got a lot of people to replace them.  Especially in the age of suicide attacks.

Military tactics changed to rely on suppressive fires, so that rules out larger and more powerful calibers in battle rifles.  5.56 is very efficient for it's size.  You don't have to kill someone with one shot.  Usually a shot anywhere on the body will severely degrade a professional soldier's performance. 

I don't think the wounding the enemy to occupy other soldiers tactic works out because our enemies don't value the lives of their people.  Wounded soldiers don't matter cause you got a lot of people to replace them.  Especially in the age of suicide attacks.

There are no suicide attacks in military doctrine

Getting back on topic, sometimes I wonder about how much firearms designers in the JMB era and before learned by their mistakes, as opposed to their failures.  I assume much of it was trial and error.  Try this and see how it works.  Not good, try that and see how it works.  How many fingers have been lost experimenting, or more?   

Sort of like how people back in the day figured out something was good to eat, or which was poisonous.  Sucks to be the guinea pig tho learned about Fugu.        Or how the F someone found fermented soy beans, decided to eat it anyways, and found that it tasted good. 

Trial and error can be a funny thing.  I often find the stories I hear about or come across on painful ways people learned a lesson.  One that sticks out in my mind is reading the meter reader's notes when I worked summers at the Board of Water Supply.  "Mean dog at the end of the street.  Seems nice at first, but will attack once you turn your back."  Probably bad, but that made me 

Regarding lethality
I read the 5.45 was called the poison bullet (or something like that)..... because it killed people even though it was small?

In the late 80's while working at Ft Irwin, we had the local Russian weapons experts give us a lecture  and hands on shoot for the Ak-74.   They claimed the ballistics at the time were classified, but did go into the projectile design.  Seemes the early ones had an air space behind the nose of the bullet creating a pseudo-hollowpoint.

In Vietnam, the tactic was for the vc to engage the gi’s in close and than run because the M16 had too much firepower?

Rather to minimize our ability to use artillery and close air support.

Rob - thanks I forgot about those added reasons.

For all,
Some sort of interesting reading material
https://mtntactical.com/knowledge/everyone-wants-7-62-carry/

I read that the Arvn, vc and nva liked the m16.  Probably because it and the ammo was so light and they were physically smaller

The other thing that has been plaguing my mind is why dont they make a lpvo that goes from 1-15x25. Ok so the 25 i just made up, i dont really care bout that. Im just curious why couldnt they make a lpvo that goes from 1 (or as close as true 1x) to 5x to 10x to 15x? Skip all those inbetween numbers. Im sure if it was possible someone would have done it by now. But doesnt those 5-25x scopes skip inbetween numbers??? Or can you really stop at 11x or 17x?

Light gathering ability limits magnification at a set objective size.  A 15x magnification would have 1/2.5 the brightness of a 6x.  Field of view and exit pupil is tiny making it difficult to use.
.  Also distortion, defects, and other issues get bigger the higher up you go.  You also have issues with the FFP reticle which will be large at 1x and tiny at 15x.
I'm surprised the Razor 1-10x is as good and as small as it is.  Though they had to use top quality expensive components to get there along with a bump in tube size.
Then there is purpose.  1x is useful for close combat, 6x is good overall, but 15x is nice but not really needed for the ranges of 5.56 in military or defensive situations.
Future electronic optics could remove a lot of the issues and make optics cheaper someday.

Im just curious why couldnt they make a lpvo that goes from 1 (or as close as true 1x) to 5x to 10x to 15x? Skip all those inbetween numbers. Im sure if it was possible someone would have done it by now. But doesnt those 5-25x scopes skip inbetween numbers??? Or can you really stop at 11x or 17x?

Kind of like that elcan 1x-3x-9x. Or whatever magnification range.  But in a lpvo outer form.

Brilliant !
1-6-12 x whatever 40mm?
Audible clicks.

In the late 80's while working at Ft Irwin, we had the local Russian weapons experts give us a lecture  and hands on shoot for the Ak-74.   They claimed the ballistics at the time were classified, but did go into the projectile design.  Seemes the early ones had an air space behind the nose of the bullet creating a pseudo-hollowpoint.

Ballistics is not a new science by any means. It is possible that certain rounds were originally designed to do specific jobs, and then were modified as those objectives changed but barrel, case, and magazine sizes did not. At least not without great expense.

Ballistics is not a new science by any means.

It was pointed out to the guy lecturing that American Rifelman had already tested the round and published the data.  Did not matter, he would not discuss how it compared to our 5.56.