10-18-2015, 04:47 AM
The most damning argument against a single caliber for most shoulder-fired small arms is one I have brought up many times before, yet remains unaddressed in that article.
Duty positions of actual operational combat arms units that go outside the wire, and the fact that at least half of them would be hindered with such a cartridge. Many combat arms soldiers do not fire their weapon, even while engaged in heavy fighting. If things get so bad to the point that they were being overrun, the 5.56 is what you want, not anything larger.
Many of these troops are normally responsible for more enemy casualties, even though they rarely if ever shoot.
Scout/Observer
Forward Observer
Assistant Machine Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Anti Armor Weapons Specialist
Then you have many direct support and key leader positions:
Platoon Leader
Platoon Sergeant
Combat Medic
Name me one of these soldiers who would be better served with larger, heavier ammunition. LSAT takes care of the range, while allowing much more ammo to be carried, so this GPC argument is really based on the premise that metallic cased ammunition will be the dominant technology into the future for cartridges.
LRF technology for newer aiming systems sounds like a great way to skip training solutions for distance engagements for Joe tentpeg, up until you run into this thing called haze and atmospheric interference, where LRF's are maybe good to 300m in a mild system, and often useless in fog, rain, or high dust.
Machineguns and mortars are what do the bulk of extended distance engagements. How about a machinegun that weighs less than the PKM with more reach, with less recoil, lighter ammo? LSAT is already on that, to include 6.5mm.
Duty positions of actual operational combat arms units that go outside the wire, and the fact that at least half of them would be hindered with such a cartridge. Many combat arms soldiers do not fire their weapon, even while engaged in heavy fighting. If things get so bad to the point that they were being overrun, the 5.56 is what you want, not anything larger.
Many of these troops are normally responsible for more enemy casualties, even though they rarely if ever shoot.
Scout/Observer
Forward Observer
Assistant Machine Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Anti Armor Weapons Specialist
Then you have many direct support and key leader positions:
Platoon Leader
Platoon Sergeant
Combat Medic
Name me one of these soldiers who would be better served with larger, heavier ammunition. LSAT takes care of the range, while allowing much more ammo to be carried, so this GPC argument is really based on the premise that metallic cased ammunition will be the dominant technology into the future for cartridges.
LRF technology for newer aiming systems sounds like a great way to skip training solutions for distance engagements for Joe tentpeg, up until you run into this thing called haze and atmospheric interference, where LRF's are maybe good to 300m in a mild system, and often useless in fog, rain, or high dust.
Machineguns and mortars are what do the bulk of extended distance engagements. How about a machinegun that weighs less than the PKM with more reach, with less recoil, lighter ammo? LSAT is already on that, to include 6.5mm.
NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com