soldiers in another forum (tacticalforums.com) said. but you can glean it from wiki if you look up development of small arms after WWII, the AR series, the AK-47, all the way to the M-4. before the army started developing the m-4, they did a re-analysis (stats) of all small arms engagements from 1900 to perhaps desert storm. there were two findings (among others): 1) small arms accounted for only 5% of casualties and 2) 95% of small arms engagements happened within 200 meters range. of course those numbers mean nothing to a veteran who fought a long and bloody ground campaign but it's enough to convince people in the pentagon that it doesn't make much sense to equip an army with a $3,000 rifle weighing 8 pounds bare, capable of killing someone out to 600 meters. a carbine weighing 4-5 pound bare, costing less than $1,800, and capable of killing out to 200 meters or slightly farther, would suffice. also note that the development of assault rifles emphasized full auto capability at close range. the basic philosophy is that the one who squeezes off more rounds is bound to win (!) this was gleaned even while WW2 was going on. the stg-44 and its bastard son, the AK-47, were built around this concept. ok, back to artillery. i'm very sure mortars and artillery accounted for much more war casualties.