My take on the performance requirements is this:
1. Both US and UK armies officially see the 5.56mm as having adequate performance up to 400m.
2. Both US and UK armies see the 7.62mm M80 as providing adequate performance for the 400-800m range bracket (in rifles) and 1,000+m in GPMGs.
Therefore, to justify its existence any new round merely has to provide comparable hit probability and target effects to 7.62mm M80 over the 400-1,000m range bracket (while saving as much weight as possible), with superior barrier penetration and terminal effects than 5.56mm over 0-400m being a nice bonus.
The key concern of both armies where dismounted infantry is concerned is weight - so it's the lighter replacement for 7.62mm which is the main selling point, with the various other advantages of a single-calibre solution adding to the argument.
1. Both US and UK armies officially see the 5.56mm as having adequate performance up to 400m.
2. Both US and UK armies see the 7.62mm M80 as providing adequate performance for the 400-800m range bracket (in rifles) and 1,000+m in GPMGs.
Therefore, to justify its existence any new round merely has to provide comparable hit probability and target effects to 7.62mm M80 over the 400-1,000m range bracket (while saving as much weight as possible), with superior barrier penetration and terminal effects than 5.56mm over 0-400m being a nice bonus.
The key concern of both armies where dismounted infantry is concerned is weight - so it's the lighter replacement for 7.62mm which is the main selling point, with the various other advantages of a single-calibre solution adding to the argument.
Comment