Will Small Arms be reverted to maximize stopping power rather than Armor Penetration in the future?

Question

During the Cold War the two powers developed small armor piercing cartridges (5.56 x 45 NATO and 5.45 x 39 WP) These rounds are much less effective vs an unarmored target, and many servicemen worldwide engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Chechnya feel the need for more stopping power. The obvious solution would be to revert or develop a new large caliber firearm such as the .308, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 7.62 WP. China and other developing superpowers are taking the opposite direction and developing new armor piercing ammunition for the eventual conflict with the U.S. and N.A.T.O. over strategic resources in the Middle East. What is your view on Western Small Arms cartridges, should they be developed toward armor piercing, or stopping power against unarmored enemies?

Answer 1

Let me specifically address the 5.56. It was adapted from the .223 Remington in the eternal "small-and-fast vs.big-and-slow" debate that still goes on in ballistic academia. That aside, the popularity and widespread use of the 5.56 NATO came about after US forces adopted Eugene Stoners' design (later redesigned and designated the M-16/AR-15).
The 5.56's originate spec called for a slow twist rate of 1:12 or so.. just enough to barely stabilize the bullet. When the round hit flesh it instantly destabilized and tumbled causing a dramatic wound channel. Troops loved it.
In military testing though, in the Arctic, the cold air was dense enough to slow the round and destabilize in flight, so it failed accuracy testing. Without connecting the dots, "somebody" authorized a faster barrel twist to increase spin stabilization to improve accuracy. More accurate, less tumble in flesh.
A 5.56 will, in fact, defeat soft body armor. It does not go thru ballistic plates (aka "chicken plates") unless it is the SS 109 steel core or armor piercing round. The answer to your question lies as much, or more, in bullet design than in cartridge.
And, since the US did NOT sign the Geneva Conventions, let's just go to expanding rounds..

Answer 2

I'm a .45 A.C.P. kind of fellow myself. I believe in stopping power. There are other issues to deal with when it comes to combat arms.
I'm a former Army Combat vet, and I always liked the M-16. It is light, accurate, has very little recoil, an incredible rate of fire, and takes a lot of abuse. Going to a larger caliber will mean a soldier can carry less ammo.
Besides, if it is stopping power you want, load a flechete round in your M-203. Now that's a lot of stopping power, body armor or not.

Answer 3

Man I didn't read all of your question but that sound sexy could say that again... LOL