Testing, testing...

[JASmith]

How? The M4 carbine is the current standard individual weapon in the US Army. If 6.5 Grendel were adopted to convert existing 5.56mm weapons, it is reasonable to think that the barrel length would be kept at 14.5 inches. Ergo, compare at that length.

The range is the hiccup. Remember that most folks carrying M-4's have a far greater chance of engaging targets well under 300 meters. One would think that relevant testing at these shorter ranges is in order.

Accuracy isn't the principal issue for these shorter range tests, but bullet performance is.

The truck door and windshield tests need to be done with ordnance gelatin in order to provide useful information.

The spirit of the test regime, especially with the cinder block and milk jug protocol, suggests that plywood and water jugs could readily be used behind something that resembles a windshield or door frame.

For example, the door frame test specifies an air gap between the gel block and the barrier. We could readily use a 3/8" wafer board backed by, say, two milk jugs, followed by perhaps a 10" air gap and then a second wafer board as a witness plate. The second air gap is to keep the witness plate from being disrupted by the splash from the milk jug. Twenty gauge steel sheet could be substituted for the wafer board if you want a more visible hole.

As LR1955 would say, define significant standards...this isn't intended to duplicate military acceptance testing.

While no amount of testing by us amateurs can hope to duplicate, let alone supersede, formal military acceptance testing, poorly defined and designed tests can do an awful lot of harm.

Remember, our goal is to encourage analysis and testing by the service acquisition community.

We need to posit a hypothesis like "The 6.5 Grendel can replace both the 5.56 and 7.62 mm NATO ammunition types." and then build the analytical case that shows that, given demonstrated ammunition performance, the hypothesis is proven. Then the tests we define and execute will have the impact they need.

I would also submit that the example hypothesis is far too weak to gain traction even with the most zealous congressman. Extending earlier posts by LR1955 about necessary performance improvements, we have to show essential equivalence in every category except those where the Grendel is clearly superior.

Anything less sets us up for a Pyrrhic victory.