stanc Wrote:Because cartridge size would preclude use in 5.56 rifles and carbines, a new GPC would necessarily require development of a new individual weapon. Possibly, existing 7.62 rifles and machine guns could be converted to fire the GPC.
It appears you do not understand the premise for the GPC concept. The idea is not to outperform 7.62 NATO. It is to provide equal performance, but with a substantial reduction in weight.
Altogether possible. My understanding is the desire as stated by Tony Williams is to "Replace both existing rounds (5.56 and 7.62) in the dismounted infantry section with one new general purpose cartridge (GPC) with good long-range performance."
My stance is that if you want DOD support and backing, it has to be a very significant improvement over the current ammunition/weapons that we have in the inventory. An example would be what may have been the argument for going from the 7.62 NATO and M14 to the 5.56 and M16, as this would;
-Maintain the max effective range of the individual weapon.
-Decrease weapon weight by about 20%.
-Decrease weapon length by 10%
-Decreased the individual soldiers ammo weight by 50% and provide inexpensive, disposable magazines.
-Decreased felt recoil by 40% (this is a guess from what I feel firing an AR15 and a M1A1).
-Decrease cost per system by making use of high impact plastics and forged/milled aluminum.
Above data are estimates of what I think the pitch was back in the late 50's/early 60's for the M16.
BLUF - the current ammunition/weapons are not perfect. The problem will be how to have such a dramatic leap forward in performance parameters or technology to lure the DOD to invest in the current economic climate.