Go for it, I'm interested on the subject. I know the P93 and 5-7 use the same ammo 5.7mm. I'm away from book for the rest.
You meant the P90...
Back in SR1 they had to introduce max-power ammo to heavy pistols stand out or something. In SR2 there was a notice that all heavy pistols had max-power ammo factored in.
Yes was introduced in Street Samurai (1st ed version) and then removed in 2nd ed. But that was more a matter of a different type of ammo (like APDS, HE etc) not a matter of calibre.
It seemed like SR was trying to feel out how they wanted to do ammo down the editions, but I think it's fine how it is now.
NATO attempt to replace 9x19mm standard in SMG started around 1990. It resulted in FN Herstal introducing the 5.7x28mm in 1990, and H&K the 4.6x30mm in 1999. Indeed, both companies patented their new caliber. And it never went anywhere past comparative tests as the Geman government vetoed on H&K losing the competition.
New calibers may emerge, but getting new standard calibers will be a different story. Especially given how megacorporations work in SR. Maybe redesigning existing calibers, like the US Army did with the M855A1 5.56x45mm round, is the way to go.
The 9mm NATO is the 9x19mm LUGER Parabellum, also known as the 9mm PA... Currently the only thing stopping most countries from ditching the inefficient 5.56/9mm and the older 7.62 is purely politics.
Because of political deals the military still has the equipment from the lowest bidder at the highest price. The AR's they're using now cost less than half on the civilian market (MSRP for name brand) of what the military pays for them and they're using off brand. The Army still uses the Kiowa, even though it was considered to be a PoS in Vietnam. None of the pilots back then wanted to fly in it, they only used them to shuttle dignitaries and visiting brass back then. Now they are even worse compared to modern civilian counterparts (most of the time they can't even take off in Afghanistan - when they can it only low level flying, which means they don't do much). Even now the military pays a premium to keep Vietnam era 'computers' that weigh over 300lbs in them. My cell phone could power every Kiowa on any given base... Don't even get me started on the IBA...
History LessonThe 5.56 was originally designed as a tumbler to make up for it's smaller damage profile, that way it could hit about as hard as the 7.62 it was replacing. Originally the US military had no intention of using the M-16 series. They had a 'new-age' weapon in the works with their R&D department because of the post Korean war results. The M-16 came into use because an Air Force General thought it looked cool and all sci-fi'ish so he requisitioned a few to mess around with. They ended up being considered as garrison defense only weapons, aka not good enough for field use. Vietnam broke out and the R&D weapon was in testing and they were having trouble getting all the kinks out, but there was this company that had a few of their Buck Rogers looking rifles already in use. So someone made a decision to field a larger quantity, and long story put very shortly the soldiers thought it looked cool, even though it performed poorly in realistic situations, and they could carry a lot more ammo with the little 5.56 rounds. So it stuck and the US bullied it's new round into the NATO standard with a lot of fuss from other nations.
40 years later the US has engineered the tumbling aspect out in order to make the round more consistently accurate, which is still questionable (both through US and British field reports and laboratory tests). Now the current issue 5.56 is armor piercing and meant for longer ranges, but those hit by the round don't know they've been hit unless they have a dozen rounds in them or a head shot is scored.
The argument with the 7.62 is that it's too heavy/bulky to the point that a soldier can carry 4x as many rounds of the 5.56. It's also argued that it's overkill for the job it's suppose to be doing under the intent of NATO rules, wounding not killing (I was in a Laws of War class taught by the JAG and we got into some crazy discussions on whats considered legal killing in a conflict).
The 9mm was adopted for the same reason the 5.56 was, it's lighter and meant to wound not kill. The 9mm is also on e of the only rounds I've seen that has trouble penetrating the skull... I saw the results of a head shot where it it penetrated the skin, hit the skull, deflected, then traveled around the skull - under the skin, and then exited through the back with the victim having some weird under the skin burns and a massive headache with no lasting damage.
As time has gone by the whole mentality of wounding a person takes three out of the battle (one wounded and two to haul them off) isn't being followed or desired in the case of countering gorilla warfare. There is a big interest, in the US military, in the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel. Recently the Special Forces sent back all of their SCAR mk 16 parts (5.56) and said they'll keep all the mk 17 (7.62) while they wait for the parts to chamber it in 6.8. The Infantry requested that the ACR was to come standard 5.56/6.8/7.62 when that weapon was high in the to get list, though they haven't gotten clearance for it yet - if they ever will, politics.
Just because NATO uses preset rounds doesn't mean NATO nations are using them as well, Russia immediately comes to mind.
