New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[BluntForceTrauma]

if 65G ballistics do actually match 7.62, then your 65G LMG is replacing the 7.62 MMG throughout its performance envelope.

As we know, the jury is still out whether a 123gr 65G that meets or exceeds M80 and M118LR external ballistics can also match their terminal ballistics. Even if we assume that it doesn't match their terminal ballistics one-for-one, I'm willing to forego that because I believe the other advantages of a 65G system balance that out. (And if one-for-one match of 7.62N terminal ballistics were an ABSOLUTE requirement, then 5.56 would not exist in our inventory! Having thought about this and argued it for ten years, I've come to the conclusion that performance parameters are, basically, arbitrary and sometimes politically driven. Should we require helmet penetration at 500m or 600m? What about 550m? Should we require 10" or 12" of concrete penetration? What about 11"? Should a temporary cavity in ballistic gel be 6" or 8"? All somewhat arbitrary.)

Uh, not exactly. At least, not in Afghanistan, where the enemy has no tanks. The HE airburst, anti-personnel round is more needed than HEAT (anti-tank) ammo.

I'm fighting all wars, particularly with an eye toward China or North Korea, not just Afghanistan, wanting general-purpose capability against fully equipped modern armies, as well as guerrillas.

John