03-25-2016, 12:19 PM
longshooter67 Wrote:I don't think we'll see a change in caliber in our lifetime. The Grendel is great, I also like my SPC. If you look at the current program to update the M-9 as an example you'll see just how broken the system for small arms procurement is. Even the top brass are disgusted with the whole process. I'm a 24yr vet and I've used a lot of different arms in that time frame and witnessed some great improvement in the weapon systems we have. My take is that unless all our allies come to some kind of concensus in a weird meeting of the minds that actually produces some kind of common sense approach, we'll never see a change. First off, the gov't won't adopt an existing cartridge because of the narcissistic attitudes among the procurement civilian contractors the control the process. The 06, 5.56x45, 7.62x51 were all created even though there were cartridges widely available that performed similarly. The 300 savage and the 222 rem mag come to mind. Not invented here mentality comes into play. Secondly, contracts are sent out and builders of arms and ammo produce test beds to submit. In today's shaky economics here and abroad not many are going to invest the tens of millions to retool? The govt would have to fork out billions of advance monies to the contract award winners. Unlikely. Thirdly, the govt sets a parameter for what they want and select the tool that meets the requirements for the best price. You never get the absolute best tool, you get something in the middle. The tool will do some things great, a lot of things pretty good and a few things marginally. Small arms are not on the highest priority list anymore. We don't do massive battles from foxholes, or regiments charging the trenches. We have satellite battles of hit and run engagement. A soldiers weapon has to be able to do CQB in the mornings, midrange battles at lunch with a few longer distance engagements for supper. None of which its ideally suited for but does all OK. The aimpoint most soldiers carry can't take advantage of the grendels extra reach anyway. Bigger glass doesnt help the CQB guy either. NAVSPECWarfare has used the grendel, a friend in the business is who got me interested in it in the first place. He swore by its effectiveness. So you may see it in the hands of specialists, but as a general issue weapon, no way. What we'll probably see is improved platforms and ammo advancements coming out of Aberdeen or crane.
Pretty much on the money. I never saw the 'narcissistic attitude' thing among the RDTE people or the civilians. If anything, many civilian companies want nothing to do with the governmental RTDE system because the government can terminate any contract at any time without having to provide a reason. And the government is not keen on seed money. In fact, the govt won't in most cases give companies money to develop the item. It has become too risky for any but the most capital wealthy of companies to get involved with the hardware side of govt contracting.
I wouldn't short change the M-68 sight. It is far more effective than any of the iron sight systems that have been issued. In fact, my opinion is that it is the only thing issued to guys in the last forty years that has actually improved lethality with the carbine or service rifle. More so than with any of the ACOG types of low power optics. For non mil guys, I mean accurate sustained fire at practical ranges (to 500 meters). Past that and you really need a magnified optic to see things.
I honestly don't see a difference between the Grendel any of the various 'specialty' CQB rounds such as the 6.8 for CQB to around 300.
Agree that most likely improved platforms and ammo.
LR55