05-29-2011, 05:38 PM
stanc Wrote: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).
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?
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.
If you mean 6.5 Grendel, Tony is only advocating that for demonstration purposes. His concept cartridge would have somewhat greater powder capacity.
Stan et. al:
It is extremely evident that the military will not seriously consider a new round of ammunition unless it does increase hit and kill probabilities by a factor of two times what is available now. Tony just stated in reference to the M-4 that "90% certain that none of the competitors will be found to be so much better than the Product Improved M4 that the change will be worth it." Note the words 'so much better' than the PIP M4.
So, if you want to play the game today, you better prove beyond anyone's doubts that your cartridge will double hit and kill probabilities. And a round of ball ammo that costs $1.50 or $2.00 a cartridge will not be considered as an option. Not even for combat only. And look at the price of the more modern SRTA ammo. Not much less than standard ball.
If you want to get someone's attention -- double the hit and kill probability. Right now if you want to increase hit and kill probability you better double the velocity of the currently issued ball ammo. Or you better invent some sort of material for the bullet that gives it a BC of about 1.5. Or a combination of both powder and bullet which is more likely but still beyond our technology.
You see, very little has changed since the invention of smokeless powders. You aren't getting much more distance from a ball round of 7.62 NATO than you did from a ball round of 30-06 from WWI. So, you try to increase lethality via lower recoil, noise reduction, ergonomics, sighting systems, etc.
My point is that unless you can articulate a quantum increase somewhere -- the system will not even drop seed money into a project.
LR1955