Optimized Caliber

[bwaites]

Hmmm....Stan, have you read John Moses Browning's biography?

[stanc]

If I have, it was too long ago to remember, Bill.

Wherefore doest thou ask?

[bwaites]

I've just finished re-reading it, and I'm struck by his ability to believe that whatever needed to be done COULD be done, and then his decision regarding MAKING what could be done a reality.

OF course, I also agree with this statement:

It's difficult to take an "anti-faith" position. There's no pejorative connotation of the word faithful. The only time "faith" seems negative is when it's prefaced by the word "blind." But blind faith is the only kind of faith there is. In order for someone's faith to be meaningful, it has to be blind. Anyone can believe a hard fact that everyone already accepts. That's easy. If you can see something, you don't need faith. Faith in the seeable is meaningless. But meaningful faith is dangerous. It simplifies things that aren't simple.

The words aren't mine, they are Chuck Klostermans, and they weren't written about weapons, but about a football player. BUT, they still are true. Nothing happens without an initial faith that it CAN happen. JMB was perhaps the ultimate believer in that with regards to weapons design. He had faith that he could make it happen. That faith is the difference in what he accomplished and what EVERY other gun maker accomplished. No other gun designer has ever come up with even 5 unique designs, Winchester patented 4 or more a YEAR for the time that Winchester was his sole market, and when he moved on, he kept Remington, FN, and Colt busy producing weapons that didn't compete with each other and were unique. Everyone said no automatic, dependable weapon could be manufactured, they would destroy themselves. So he invented a machine gun that worked, then he invented another, and another. His 1917 watercooled fired 20,000 rounds without failing at the demonstration, then he fired ANOTHER 20,000 without it failing just to see if it would!

MY point is this, IF there comes a time to need 6.5 Grendel links, they will be manufactured, and they will work. It's not nuclear physics, and todays metallurgical geniuses will find a way. Heck, I have eyeglasses that have a metal temple piece that I can bend in a circle and it goes back to its correct shape, every time. It's less than 1/16" in width, I have no doubt that making disintegrating links will be nowhere as difficult as that!

I have faith it can be done, if its needed. I'll need proof when I need the links.

[bwaites]

A toothpaste factory had a problem: they sometimes shipped empty boxes, without the tube inside. This was due to the way the production line was set up, and people with experience in designing production lines will tell you how difficult it is to have everything happen with timings so precise that every single unit coming out of it is perfect 100% of the time. Small variations in the environment (which can’t be controlled in a cost-effective fashion) mean you must have quality assurance checks smartly distributed across the line so that customers all the way down to the supermarket don’t get ticked off and buy another product instead.


Understanding how important that was, the CEO of the toothpaste factory got the top people in the company together and they decided to start a new project, in which they would hire an external engineering company to solve their empty boxes problem, as their engineering department was already too stretched to take on any extra effort.


The project followed the usual process: budget and project sponsor allocated, RFP, third-parties selected, and six months (and $8 million) later they had a fantastic solution on time, on budget, high quality and everyone in the project had a great time. They solved the problem by using high-tech precision scales that would sound a bell and flash lights whenever a toothpaste box would weigh less than it should. The line would stop, and someone had to walk over and yank the defective box out of it, pressing another button when done to re-start the line.


A while later, the CEO decides to have a look at the ROI of the project: amazing results! No empty boxes ever shipped out of the factory after the scales were put in place. Very few customer complaints, and they were gaining market share. That's some money well spent! he says, before looking closely at the other statistics in the report.


It turns out, the number of defects picked up by the scales was 0 after three weeks of production use. It should've been picking up at least a dozen a day, so maybe there was something wrong with the report. He filed a bug against it, and after some investigation, the engineers come back saying the report was actually correct. The scales really weren't picking up any defects, because all boxes that got to that point in the conveyor belt were good.


Puzzled, the CEO travels down to the factory, and walks up to the part of the line where the precision scales were installed.
A few feet before the scale, there was a $20 desk fan, blowing the empty boxes out of the belt and into a bin.


Oh, that, says one of the workers, one of the guys put it there 'cause he was tired of walking over every time the bell rang.

[Kikn]

A toothpaste factory had a problem: they sometimes shipped empty boxes, without the tube inside. This was due to the way the production line was set up, and people with experience in designing production lines will tell you how difficult it is to have everything happen with timings so precise that every single unit coming out of it is perfect 100% of the time. Small variations in the environment (which can’t be controlled in a cost-effective fashion) mean you must have quality assurance checks smartly distributed across the line so that customers all the way down to the supermarket don’t get ticked off and buy another product instead.


Understanding how important that was, the CEO of the toothpaste factory got the top people in the company together and they decided to start a new project, in which they would hire an external engineering company to solve their empty boxes problem, as their engineering department was already too stretched to take on any extra effort.


The project followed the usual process: budget and project sponsor allocated, RFP, third-parties selected, and six months (and $8 million) later they had a fantastic solution on time, on budget, high quality and everyone in the project had a great time. They solved the problem by using high-tech precision scales that would sound a bell and flash lights whenever a toothpaste box would weigh less than it should. The line would stop, and someone had to walk over and yank the defective box out of it, pressing another button when done to re-start the line.


A while later, the CEO decides to have a look at the ROI of the project: amazing results! No empty boxes ever shipped out of the factory after the scales were put in place. Very few customer complaints, and they were gaining market share. That's some money well spent! he says, before looking closely at the other statistics in the report.


It turns out, the number of defects picked up by the scales was 0 after three weeks of production use. It should've been picking up at least a dozen a day, so maybe there was something wrong with the report. He filed a bug against it, and after some investigation, the engineers come back saying the report was actually correct. The scales really weren't picking up any defects, because all boxes that got to that point in the conveyor belt were good.


Puzzled, the CEO travels down to the factory, and walks up to the part of the line where the precision scales were installed.
A few feet before the scale, there was a $20 desk fan, blowing the empty boxes out of the belt and into a bin.


Oh, that, says one of the workers, one of the guys put it there 'cause he was tired of walking over every time the bell rang.

Great story! Silly engineers and their $8,000,000 worth of engineering, when all that was needed was a $20 fan (at least after the scales), function < form

[BluntForceTrauma]

You guys are going on faith, a belief that it can be done.

Guilty as charged. I have faith that the engineering talent that can "float" a 200-ton 747 in the air can somehow figure out 6.5 Grendel disintegrating links.

John

P.S. Bill, great story. Classic!

[JASmith]

In this circumstance, the engineering pointers are obvious and people experienced in similar projects say it's doable. Further, they even give us an idea of how much it will cost.

So, with people more experienced in this field than I saying its doable, my faith on this topic is easy to feel!

One would hope that it won't be much more than installing a $20.00 fan at the right spot. Remember, however, the engineering and development effort that was used to make that fan a reliable and inexpensive product was a whole lot more than $20.00!!

This is part of why few of us are saying that the project won't involve a surprise or two for the developers, but the surprises are much of the fun of doing new things!!!

[stanc]

Nothing happens without an initial faith that it CAN happen.

That's just not true. In my personal experience, as well as observation of others, things typically happen more from actions based on knowledge and experience than on faith that it can happen.

JMB was perhaps the ultimate believer in that with regards to weapons design. He had faith that he could make it happen. Everyone said no automatic, dependable weapon could be manufactured, they would destroy themselves. So he invented a machine gun that worked, then he invented another, and another. His 1917 watercooled fired 20,000 rounds without failing at the demonstration, then he fired ANOTHER 20,000 without it failing just to see if it would!

Perhaps you should read about Hiram Maxim. He invented a reliable, watercooled machine gun 20 years before Browning created the M1917, and he did it with black powder ammo!

Also, Browning's first belt-fed -- the M1895 "potato digger" -- incorporated a ridiculously complex mechanism to circumvent the patent on gas operation invented by (Guess who?) none other than Hiram Maxim.

MY point is this, IF there comes a time to need 6.5 Grendel links, they will be manufactured, and they will work.

I have faith it can be done, if its needed. I'll need proof when I need the links.

Well, I know there are some things that simply aren't doable with the technology available at the time. And since I'm not a man of faith, I require evidence that something can be done before I'll advocate it.

I sincerely hope that y'all are right, and disintegrating links for 6.5 Grendel are just a matter of $$$. But, it's difficult for me to argue for something that's currently no more than theoretical possibility.

[stanc]

Nothing happens without an initial faith that it CAN happen.

That's just not true. In my personal experience, as well as observation of others, things typically happen more from actions based on knowledge and experience than on faith that it can happen.

JMB was perhaps the ultimate believer in that with regards to weapons design. He had faith that he could make it happen. Everyone said no automatic, dependable weapon could be manufactured, they would destroy themselves. So he invented a machine gun that worked, then he invented another, and another. His 1917 watercooled fired 20,000 rounds without failing at the demonstration, then he fired ANOTHER 20,000 without it failing just to see if it would!

Perhaps you should read about Hiram Maxim. He invented a reliable, watercooled machine gun 20 years before Browning created the M1917, and he did it with black powder ammo! Also, Browning's first belt-fed -- the M1895 "potato digger" -- incorporated a ridiculously complex mechanism to circumvent the patent on gas operation invented by (Guess who?) none other than Hiram Maxim.

MY point is this, IF there comes a time to need 6.5 Grendel links, they will be manufactured, and they will work.

I have faith it can be done, if its needed. I'll need proof when I need the links.

Well, I know there are some things that simply aren't doable with the technology available at the time. And since I'm not a man of faith, I require evidence that something can be done before I'll advocate it.

I sincerely hope that y'all are right, and disintegrating links for 6.5 Grendel are just a matter of $$$. But, it's difficult for me to argue for something that's currently no more than theoretical possibility.

[bwaites]

That's just not true. In my personal experience, as well as observation of others, things typically happen more from actions based on knowledge and experience than on faith that it can happen.

We could argue this point until the sun refuses to rise. But without the faith to try something new, there would be NO KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE. As my dad taught me many years ago, "knowledge and wisdom come from experience, and most of that experience is liable to be of the bad type."

Perhaps you should read about Hiram Maxim. He invented a reliable, watercooled machine gun 20 years before Browning created the M1917, and he did it with black powder ammo!

Yes, and Maxim produced exactly ONE weapon that became widely used.

Also, Browning's first belt-fed -- the M1895 "potato digger" -- incorporated a ridiculously complex mechanism to circumvent the patent on gas operation invented by (Guess who?) none other than Hiram Maxim.

Well, I know there are some things that simply aren't doable with the technology available at the time. And since I'm not a man of faith, I require evidence that something can be done before I'll advocate it.

I sincerely hope that y'all are right, and disintegrating links for 6.5 Grendel are just a matter of $$$. But, it's difficult for me to argue for something that's currently no more than theoretical possibility.

Ah, the M1895 Potato Digger. Yep, complex. So complex it was designed and built in a workshop in Ogden, Utah before the turn of the 20th century, using tools that were crude even by the time, some of which were his father Jonathan Ogden's!

And its difficult to me to argue against something which is so inherently easy and cheap to produce...if there were a demand.

Do you believe that Armstrong walked on the Moon? If so, please tell me how you arrived at that belief.

[stanc]

In this circumstance...people experienced in similar projects say it's doable.

IIRC, those people were commenting on manufacture of links. AFAIK, none of them have ever been involved in design and development of metallic links.

Get people who do have such experience, give them an M27 link, 5.56 NATO and 6.5 Grendel cartridges, plus the engineering drawing I posted earlier, and see if they think it's feasible to reduce the link loop dimensions enough to work with 6.5 Grendel.

[stanc]

We could argue this point until the sun refuses to rise. But without the faith to try something new, there would be NO KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE.

Again, that's just not true. I myself have tried many things new to me, and faith was never a factor.

Yes, and Maxim produced exactly ONE weapon that became widely used.

That isn't relevant. Your post was "everyone said that no automatic, dependable weapon could be manufactured, they would destroy themselves," so Browning invented a machine gun that worked. The truth is that Maxim had already "invented a machine gun that worked," and he did it years before JMB.

Ah, the M1895 Potato Digger. Yep, complex. So complex it was designed and built in a workshop in Ogden, Utah before the turn of the 20th century, using tools that were crude even by the time, some of which were his father Jonathan Ogden's!

Maxim's gas piston system was simple, straight-line operation. Browning's "potato digger" had hinges, levers, and other crap that was indeed quite complex compared to Maxim's simple, elegant design. And Maxim's basic design is still used today, whereas Browning's version hasn't been made for about 100 years...

And its difficult to me to argue against something which is so inherently easy and cheap to produce...if there were a demand.

I've never said that metallic links aren't cheap and easy to make. The question I have is if they can be designed and developed, considering the changes that would be needed to fit the 6.5 Grendel case.

Do you believe that Armstrong walked on the Moon? If so, please tell me how you arrived at that belief.

<sigh> As I've said many times before, I consider belief to be illogical behavior, therefore I refrain from engaging in it.

[bwaites]

"sigh" it's a simple question, yes or no?

[stanc]

It is a simple question, but its premise is erroneous. I cannot answer yes or no, because I neither believe nor disbelieve.

[bwaites]

It is a simple question, but its premise is erroneous. I cannot answer yes or no, because I neither believe nor disbelieve.

LOL!! There is no premise, the simple fact is that you are aware that man has walked on the moon, but are unwilling to acknowledge that acceptance because you well know that it requires faith, which you deny is a principal in your life.

I apologize for creating the trap.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[stanc]

LOL!! There is no premise...

Of course there was. It was that you demanded a yes or no answer to a question that could not be accurately answered yes or no.

...the simple fact is that you are aware that man has walked on the moon, but are unwilling to acknowledge that acceptance because you well know that it requires faith, which you deny is a principal in your life.

Oh, I accept the claim as true, because:

a. It seemed credible in light of what I knew (or thought I knew).
b. I had no information to cast effective doubt on the claim.

No belief or faith involved.

I apologize for creating the trap.

No sweat. It was easily recognizable as a trap, along the same line as asking a man who'd never abused his spouse, "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Sounds good to me. So, which approach do you prefer?

- John's idea of replacing 5.56 and 7.62 NATO with 6.5 Grendel.

- Paul's proposal to keep 5.56 for carbines, and replace 7.62 MMGs with LMGs firing a 6.5 Grendel +P+ heavy bullet load.

- Tony's concept of a "stretched" 6.5 Grendel (and a hypothetical "idealized" bullpup rifle) to replace 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

- Cris's 7x46 (or 6.86x46) UIAC to replace 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.

[stanc]

LMG Cartridges (Size comparison)

5.56 NATO / 6.5 Grendel / 6.8 SPC / 7 UIAC / 7.62 NATO

[bwaites]

Stan, to answer your question, I'm not sold on any of them, and I don't believe we will see acceptance of any of them, at least as general issue weapons.

I think the next military small arms system will NOT be brass (or steel) cased.

My belief is that it will be 6.5 to 7mm in caliber.

This, of course, is completely dependent on the worlds governments ability to actually still wage war. After todays announcement of an agreement in principle by the EEU (minus Great Britain), I suspect that large scale development of small arms systems for government use (at least WESTERN governments) may be a thing of the past, and that we may be headed down a rat hole very rapidly. Of course, some people think I'm optimistic!

[LRRPF52]

Here's a good video that shows the importance of ammunition capacity and maneuverability. Also notice how the ATPIAL is dangling from his M4. Fog of war in broad daylight against an enemy in his own backyard.

[video=youtube;50bRYx8qCTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50bRYx8qCTE&feature=fvst[/video]

[stanc]

Here's a good video that shows the importance of ammunition capacity...

How? As far as ammo capacity is concerned, I saw nothing in the video to indicate they would've been handicapped by being armed with 6.5-7mm carbines with magazines of 25-rd capacity.