New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers

[BluntForceTrauma]

I don't envision a .338 as a dismounted weapon because of ammo weight, only a vehicle-mounted replacement for M2 with more ammo capacity. You'd still have two 65G belt-fed LMGs per squad. In my scheme, I'd rely on the laser-ranged air-burst grenade launchers (LRAB) as my squad weapons giving heavy machine-gun-like effects. (They'd also have small shaped-charge and thermobaric warheads). Keeping the caliber to 40mm means you can carry more than the threat can carry RPGs. Using a Carl Gustav-type system means you can increase the velocity and range.

The "stretched" 6.5mms being experimented with are mostly, in my opinion, simply exercises in N.I.H. syndrome. Ego and emotion, again. There's no fame, glory, careers, or development dollars in going with something off-the-shelf. So we need to tweak it just a bit and endlessly. . . . Not that I'd ultimately object to any high BC intermediate they finally decided upon.

Paul makes very strong arguments for keeping 5.56, but I look at it as a judgment call. We survived WWII and Korea with much more limited personal ammo capacity, and our resupply now is at least as good as it was then. We cannot prevent all ammo shortage situations, otherwise we'd have to carry the argument to the extreme and advocate .22LR weapons and never worry about running out of ammo. There is a balance to be struck between carry quantity of ammo and capability, and that balance is a judgment call open for interpretation.

You're right, "game-changer" is overused.