absent any target analysis, you would want to start with disabling locomotion by going for the legs. Navigation would be next.

double aught to the leg joints could doit, depending on relative materials e.g titanium bot frame vs Antimony hardened shot.

there is a cosmetic trend for carbine length long guns and that will determine the outcome for NATO rounds.

the 5.56 is optimised for 18-20 inch barrels, the 7.62 for 20-22 inch barrels, thus providing supersonic velocities.

5.56 is really good for hydraulic cavitation of organic entities, but looses effectiveness when the transit is not clear, leaves or windage confounding.

7.62 is superior for leafy shots or nontrivial windage, as well as superior materials defeat with respect to 5.56

a taser like device cattle prod or EMP/microwave device should be in the lineup as well vs electronic hardening.

▲

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I only have one critique, and one addition.

Critique:

> you would want to start with disabling locomotion by going for the legs

Aim small, miss small. You want to go for center mass of any target that's trying to harm you. The consequences of missing are...severe.

Which brings me to the addition:

A shotgun with slugs is hard to beat against a robot at close range.

	▲	rolph an hour ago \| parent [-]
		i get the center of mass targeting, the 7.62 in my opinion is too small for that philosophy, if i had free choice of arms i would go large cartridge rather than intermediate such as .375 HK ; 45-70; or yes 12ga aluminum sabot with a thermite core if your into exotic loads when you hit center of mass you want to do it hard enough that every part of the mass gets damaging energy, the concern would be a distributed network of adaptive intelligent systems hosted in one mobile unit, requireing multiple hits, or overwhelming concusive force. [im thinking more like black mirror dogs than boston robotics]