New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

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.

I don't need to remind you that I've been calling for appropriate testing for close to a decade.

But, the gel tests that AA had done, and which were posted on the old forum, showed that wound profile of the Norma 120gr FMJ is roughly the same as for 147gr M80, and the prototype 123gr SMK was much better, having early yaw and fairly impressive wound cavity. So, I'm not terribly concerned about performance in soft tissue with lead-core bullets.

However, the military is getting away from lead-core bullets for general-issue ball ammo. This means we really should be looking at performance of a lead-free ball projectile, which will necessarily be much lighter than 123gr. Can a 100-110gr, steel (or steel/copper) core bullet provide exterior ballistics and terminal effects that would make 65G an acceptable replacement for 7.62 NATO?

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.

I'm inclined to agree, although I'd prefer to make such a decision on the basis of valid test data, rather than belief.

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.

Well, that's why the Carl Gustav is a MAAWS: Multi-purpose, Anti-armor, Anti-personnel, Weapon System.

And BTW, if you're really concerned about tanks, the 84mm HEAT rounds are far more capable of defeating armor, than the 25mm and 40mm grenades can ever hope of being, so you may wish to re-evaluate.