New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[BluntForceTrauma]

Joker, in your examples above is this more a matter of tactics than a question of technical performance of small arms? Even if U.S. units equipped with 6.5 Grendel ARs and LMGs can overmatch 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 and match the range of 7.62x54R, no one would ask them to slug it out with mortars and 12.7x108 DShKs, would they?

Having said THAT, very early on in the 6.8 vs 65G vs 5.56 debate I remember a special operations vet giving the example of needing small arms with range to engage an enemy mortar team at 900 meters. Someone challenged him, "Why didn't you just call in air or artillery?" The vet answered, "Easier said than done. All I'm saying is the mortar team NEEDED to be engaged in that moment."

I still like that with the 65G the high BC gives you range in the mountains and the high SD gives you penetration in the city.

So let's walk through this scenario based on your example above: Your convoy is ambushed on a narrow mountain road by a savvy enemy who "crosses the T." Your heavy weapons mounted on your vehicles are somewhat neutralized by that tactic because they can't easily fire over the vehicles in front of them. However, your infantry dismount and fan out with their 65G ARs and LMGs and their man-portable air-burst grenade launchers.

With the range afforded them using their 65G ARs and LMGs (with 4x optics, firing 123gr slugs twice the weight of 5.56, or 84% the mass of 147gr 7.62N, with less drop and drift) they pin down anything in sight. The harassers now become the harassed. This capability, combined with shoulder-fired, laser-ranged, air-bursting 40mm grenades to reach the mortar and HMG crews in cover, counters the ambush until air and artillery arrive.

In this scenario, I've got a 65G Unified Cartridge to ease strategic supply issues, combined with air-burst grenades to round out the capability, making a 7.62N MMG unnecessary. Workable?

John