JASmith Wrote:Sorry about leaving out a word in the sentence you grabbed for the second quote. I highlighted in red bold italicized caps so it is crystal clear. You should have understood the meaning but instead pretend to not understand.So now you expect me to be telepathic???
Quote:The fact you claim to have no questions beyond the link shows that you either truly don't understand design and development or are trying, successfully I might add, to annoy those of us who do understand.It's possible that I don't understand design and development.
It's definite that I can't read your mind to know what questions you think merit discussion.
Quote:Your intransigence in this truly harms our ability to answer the basic question you and many of the rest of us want to see an answer to: "Is the 6.5 Grendel a reasonable candidate for a machine gun cartridge."Hoo, boy... You accusing me of intransigence would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sadly pitiful. I have never intentionally refused to answer a sincere question from anybody. You, on the other hand, have steadfastly and repeatedly ignored my requests for enlightenment on the issues you insist should be addressed.
As to the question, "Is the 6.5 Grendel a reasonable candidate for a machine gun cartridge." I can only repeat, that depends entirely on whether or not a viable link can be developed for it.
Without links, the most that a Grendel could be is an Infantry Automatic Rifle similar to what the USMC fielded.
[video=youtube;PF-PV5BQkk0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF-PV5BQkk0[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF-PV5BQkk0