» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:56 pm Or the argument about .22 caliber bullets (.223/5.56mm NATO) being for varmints and needing to use a real bullet fighting wars against humans...you'll get that same tired old "But they tumble end over end and do horrific damage" spiel every time.
I think this argument is somewhat specious though.
The goal in war is not to kill, it's to win. No those aren't the same thing
Some statistician way back in the 60s did the math and realized that non-fatal injuries actually cost the enemy more in terms of manpower, morale, ect.
Though in the context of modern war the argument about main battle rifles is somewhat moot, as most casualties aren't caused by infantry gunfire at all: they're caused by air support, artillery, snipers, grenades, ect.
That's why I think it's important to clarify, when I'm talking about killing potential in this thread I'm talking about it in the context of the fallout universe (to keep the thread on topic), which has very different requirements.
In a post-apocalypse you're fighting in and around ruins, so forget about needing a 100-yard poke. You're also on your own or with a few friends, so forget about combined arms doctrine and suppress-and-bomb tactics (unless you're enclave). Everyone is wearing some kind of armor, from hardened leather all the way to powered armor.
From that I think the choices become clearer. You want a bruisy round for your rifle, preferably a 7.62x39mm or a .30-06, .308 or other larger-bore round. For your pistol you want fast and hard-hitting, but something you can comfortably fire and reload in a protracted firefight (no good bringing a .454 if you can't last the whole showdown).
