LR1955 Wrote:Tony / Joe et. al: This is why I say you must be able to offer something that can be proven to be a quantum improvement before someone will want to dump billions into re-tooling an entire industry.Gene, why do you think it has to be a "quantum" improvement? When the Army switched from .50-70 to .45-70 to .30-40 to .30-06 to 7.62x51, those were all incremental improvements. Going to 5.56x45 was actually a quantum reduction in performance (although it did offer a quantum increase in number of rounds that a soldier could carry).
Quote:I am not sure what can be done with a 6.5mm bullet that hasn't already been done or that would cost so much money to produce that it would bankrupt the nation.Why should it bankrupt the nation? Since 1865, the US military has changed rifle cartridges six times (seven, if the USMC/USN use of the 6mm Navy is counted), and managed to find the money to pay for it. Why should one more time be unaffordable?
Quote:The bullet has been around for over a hundred years and has been thoroughly developed in terms of military, hunting, and competitive shooting.In terms of hunting and competition, yes it has. But it hasn't seen much development in terms of military bullets. The Japanese had a flat-base spitzer Ball, the Swedes a boat-tail spitzer Ball and AP, and Italy had a flat-base spitzer AP, but that's the extent of 6.5 military development. There are zero state-of-the-art 6.5mm military Ball projectiles available, and only a few lead-core FMJs.
Quote:Unless you develop a powder that produces greater than 50% higher velocity with a 50% reduction in pressure, you won't get the speeds out of a 30 grain capacity 6.5mm cartridge that will allow it to compete with a 5.56 or 7.62 that doesn't need any more development.If you mean 6.5 Grendel, Tony is only advocating that for demonstration purposes. His concept cartridge would have somewhat greater powder capacity.