Tony Williams Wrote:I wasn't talking about Paul's concept, but about a general-purpose round which could replace both 7.62mm and 5.56mm in portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry. After all, if you're going to develop a new long-range cartridge which is significantly lighter than 7.62x51 it will also have significantly less recoil. So if you have such a cartridge, why bother with 5.56mm?Because currently, at least, 5.56mm makes more sense for riflemen, all factors considered.
Your GP cartridge concept could be tested and evaluated via the means suggested by a member of your forum: Use a rifle chambered for a surrogate 6.5mm round (loaded with an 8-gram ball-equivalent bullet @ 800 m/sec), and see if actual shooting -- as opposed to trajectory charts -- produces any increase in 800-meter hit probability compared to a 5.56mm bullpup rifle and/or M4 carbine.
(I had hoped your members would actually do such testing, instead of just talking about the concept. Disappointing.)
Quote:You can reduce the number of different weapons and calibres in a squad (which helps with training, support and supplies) and enable ammo-sharing between members of the squad, as well as ensuring that all of the riflemen have weapons which are capable of engaging the enemy at any feasible small-arms range, especially when they get DInGO computer sights. As the US Army's PEO Soldier organisation put it last year:I totally agree with the theory. The question is, does it translate to reality well enough to make it worth implementing?
A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800.
and:
Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment.
Will DInGO really provide the improvements claimed for it, and also be sufficiently rugged for use on the battlefield?
Will the rifle and ammunition be capable of the precision needed to actually hit an opponent at 500-800 meters?
If the combination of soldier, rifle, sights and ammo is not truly 800-meter capable in practice, then you'd be penalizing him with unnecessary weight and recoil.