+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Testing, testing... (/showthread.php?tid=623)
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-18-2011
Bill Alexander Wrote:We are at present undertaking to build T3 technology into the Grendel, a 6.5mm M855A1 if you will. Balance this loading into a SAFE cartridge which will offer weapon durability and you now have the basis of a simple study. Our apples to apples of military constructions is met and we have but to throw these from similar barrel lengths to start the examination.That works for me. Thanks for chiming in, Bill.
Testing, testing... - Tony Williams - 06-18-2011
While I laud the motivation for carrying out such testing, I must draw attention to the recent ARDEC calibre study which may make it unnecessary.
The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm. MV and ME varied by calibre. Shooting tests included Angle of Attack (yaw) at 50m and 300m and barrier and post barrier penetration in 20% ordnance gel using many of the FBI test targets (Level IIIA vest, glass, concrete, steel plate) and the 2005 JWB-IPT protocol. An analysis was then done with the raw data of EKE (Kinetic Energy), Pi/Pi/h versus weight, cost, felt recoil, etc. High speed photos were captured of all shots as were images of the bullet fragments. Finite Element Simulations were then developed for expected performance out to 600m (the expected maximum range for future rifle fire).
The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board with the exception of Stowed Kills, which is always slanted towards the smaller, lighter calibres.
So it seems that the technical argument has been won. The problem will be to get the Army to act on its own findings. The message seems to have been acknowledged at least to some extent, since future LSAT development will be aimed at delivering improved long-range performance over any 5.56mm loading. Intermediate calibres are now to be examined by the LSAT team, but it would obviously be much quicker and cheaper to resolve the optimum calibre/ballistics/bullet type using conventional ammo and gun techology before redesigning LSAT (and preferably with Geneva-compliant bullets as a part of the development).
It is also important to bear in mind that there are three separate reasons for adopting an intermediate calibre:
1. To improve on the terminal effectiveness, barrier penetration and long-range ballistics of the 5.56mm.
2. To match the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with significantly less ammo weight and recoil.
3. To save on procurement, training and support costs by fielding only one calibre and weapon range in portable small arms rather than two.
Our focus tends to be on the first two of these, but I suspect that it's the third one which will prove to be the strongest argument (although of course, it only applies if the first two can be achieved).
Testing, testing... - LR1955 - 06-18-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:While I laud the motivation for carrying out such testing, I must draw attention to the recent ARDEC calibre study which may make it unnecessary.
The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm. MV and ME varied by calibre. Shooting tests included Angle of Attack (yaw) at 50m and 300m and barrier and post barrier penetration in 20% ordnance gel using many of the FBI test targets (Level IIIA vest, glass, concrete, steel plate) and the 2005 JWB-IPT protocol. An analysis was then done with the raw data of EKE (Kinetic Energy), Pi/Pi/h versus weight, cost, felt recoil, etc. High speed photos were captured of all shots as were images of the bullet fragments. Finite Element Simulations were then developed for expected performance out to 600m (the expected maximum range for future rifle fire).
The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board with the exception of Stowed Kills, which is always slanted towards the smaller, lighter calibres.
So it seems that the technical argument has been won. The problem will be to get the Army to act on its own findings. The message seems to have been acknowledged at least to some extent, since future LSAT development will be aimed at delivering improved long-range performance over any 5.56mm loading. Intermediate calibres are now to be examined by the LSAT team, but it would obviously be much quicker and cheaper to resolve the optimum calibre/ballistics/bullet type using conventional ammo and gun techology before redesigning LSAT (and preferably with Geneva-compliant bullets as a part of the development).
It is also important to bear in mind that there are three separate reasons for adopting an intermediate calibre:
1. To improve on the terminal effectiveness, barrier penetration and long-range ballistics of the 5.56mm.
2. To match the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with significantly less ammo weight and recoil.
3. To save on procurement, training and support costs by fielding only one calibre and weapon range in portable small arms rather than two.
Our focus tends to be on the first two of these, but I suspect that it's the third one which will prove to be the strongest argument (although of course, it only applies if the first two can be achieved).
Tony / Guys:
You said you found this out which means you have a copy of the ARDEC report or can send a link or means of obtaining the report.
Not that the findings you state are earth shattering. We stopped using the .308 competitively many years ago when the bullet industry started making a bigger variety of 6.5mm match grade bullets than .308. Lighter recoil, equal or significantly better ballistics to 1000 yards, and for .308 based 6.5mm cartridges -- equal barrel life. Lighter recoil probably played as much a role as a decent selection of match grade bullets. Although the improvement in accuracy was probably not significant, the reduction in recoil most certainly was and this meant higher scores.
The 7mm never caught on as it really wasn't that much different in recoil from a .308 and only had one or two types of match grade bullets available.
I can already predict the outcome for Stan though.
His CQM controlled pair test would show the 5.56 to hold a significant advantage.
The mythical DMR test (there is no issued 5.56 DMR for the conventional side), 550 meters is the effective range. Why 550 meters? Maybe the KD range the AMU owns probably doesn't have a 500 yard line? Or they figured that in order for their DMR idea to get traction it needed to show a improvement over the 500 yard (460 meter) max effective range of the issued carbine / M-16A2. Most likely because their KD range is made in yards and not meters and they had to show a improvement. Either way, given a rifle made with the same features as the non existent DMR, the results would not show significance.
Comparing a 20 inch barrel Grendel firing one of the match grade bullets to a 110 firing M-118 Long Range -- both would be statistically equal in terms of hit on a E-Sil at 800 meters (again the max effective range on a point target for a US SWS). I predict that 118 would out shoot the Grendel past 800 and at 1000 the difference would be enough to determine significance.
As for the cinder block test -- it will take less rounds of M-80 to destroy that cinder block than Grendel simply due to kinetic energy differences. Not sure if the advantage would be significant as I am not sure what the test was intended to prove or disprove.
LR1955
Testing, testing... - Tony Williams - 06-18-2011
LR1955 Wrote:Tony / Guys:
You said you found this out which means you have a copy of the ARDEC report or can send a link or means of obtaining the report.
No, I haven't and I can't. AFAIK the report has not been released to anyone. But ARDEC gave a presentation about it at the annual Ammunition Initiatives Meeting III (AIM III) of the Technical Support Working Group a couple of months ago. I wasn't there (it was by invitation only) but news of the presentation has been filtering out which is how I have learned about it.
I gather that it created quite an impact, especially in the light of the current carbine competition. There was some criticism of the carbine competition on the grounds that there was no point in going to such a huge amount of trouble to select a new 5.56mm carbine when the army's own research showed that this was not the way to go. Which may be why the Army hasn't released the report...
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-18-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:While I laud the motivation for carrying out such testing, I must draw attention to the recent ARDEC calibre study which may make it unnecessary.
The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm.
![[Image: 3519464264_5242fa4d79.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3519464264_5242fa4d79.jpg)
Thanks for sharing.
Quote:The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board with the exception of Stowed Kills, which is always slanted towards the smaller, lighter calibres.How is "Stowed Kills" defined? That statement makes it sound as if it is just the number of rounds in the magazine, without taking into account the per-round effectiveness?
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-18-2011
LR1955 Wrote:The mythical DMR test...Are you saying that the SDMR was never built or fielded?
Quote:As for the cinder block test -- it will take less rounds of M-80 to destroy that cinder block than Grendel simply due to kinetic energy differences. Not sure if the advantage would be significant as I am not sure what the test was intended to prove or disprove.It was not intended to "prove or disprove" anything. It was a quest for information, to see how 6.5 Grendel barrier penetration compares to that of 7.62 M80.
However, I just remembered there was a FutureWeapons episode in which a cinder block was shot with 6.5 Grendel (see 2:30-2:45 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haqXE8nq3io ), and result was virtually the same as I got with 7.62 M80 some years ago.
Testing, testing... - JASmith - 06-18-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:...they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm.Tony,
I did a quick check and, if one keeps the same shape, 61 grain 5.6 bullet will scale to a 165 grain 7.8 bullet. (It works out to about 160 gr if one scales from .224 to .308 in.)
I conclude from this that they likely attempted to make the test protocol "fair and even" by maintaining the same shape of bullet throughout the test. We know that the 61 grain bullet is less effective than the 77 grain bullet in 5.6. We also know that the 165 grain 7.8 bullet gives up a lot in muzzle velocity when used in the 7.62X51 NATO.
Small surprise that the results favor the middle ground.
These tests may be definitive for those pursuing an already identified caliber and cartridge, but other tests have a good chance of having a different caliber coming out on top. This is especially true if one includes cartridge diameter and length as part of the test protocol, e. g., a cartridge based on the PPC for the 5.6 gives a significant velocity boost for the longer, heavier lead-free bullets even in the short action, the same is true for BR-based cartridges for 6 and 6.5 mm. Going to the 7.62X51 overall length and using smaller diameter cartridges would also give more latitude for the 6.5 & 7 mm diameters to show well.
It would be interesting to see what weight of bullet was actually used for the 6.5 -- scaling as inferred above would yield 95-100 grains. This could be a very interesting weight class for the Grendel.
Testing, testing... - LR1955 - 06-18-2011
stanc Wrote:Are you saying that the SDMR was never built or fielded?
It was not intended to "prove or disprove" anything. It was a quest for information, to see how 6.5 Grendel barrier penetration compares to that of 7.62 M80.
However, I just remembered there was a FutureWeapons episode in which a cinder block was shot with 6.5 Grendel (see 2:30-2:45 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haqXE8nq3io ), and result was virtually the same as I got with 7.62 M80 some years ago.
Stan:
The AMU made a few of these rifles for 3rd ID and maybe the 82nd about seven or eight years ago when the SDM thing was of more interest than today. From my recollection based on communications with the Commander, USAMU at the time, the rifles had to be M-16A4's so if your unit didn't have A-4's it was a automatic No - Go.
The AMU had to stop the effort due to issues concerning the color of the money based on FORSCOM vs USAREC budgetary regulations and some regulations involving exactly what could be done to a TOE issued rifle and what couldn't -- and by whom. The AMU had the regulatory authority to do the transformation but apparently not to do it for anyone except the AMU and not with TOE property of any other unit.
No one got into serious trouble but it ended that part of the DMR. I believe some money was dedicated to it but have not seen a 5.56 DMR issued to any of the SBCT's I have worked with over the years. I have seen the M-14 DMR rifle issued, though.
As for a test. It either supports or does not support a hypothesis. As you said, you wanted to compare. In most cases it would either exceed or not exceed, but in some it may be of importance to determine if they equaled too. Hence getting beaten up over a research question. And, you must state a significance level before you run your tests or your credibility as a researcher will be absolutely trashed. Hence getting beaten up over not stating a level of significance.
LR1955
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-18-2011
LR1955 Wrote:Stan: As for a test. It either supports or does not support a hypothesis. And, you must state a significance level before you run your tests or your credibility as a researcher will be absolutely trashed.Gene, that's sheer nonsense. If you have several different brands of factory ammo that you want to chronograph, do you establish signicance levels just to measure and record the velocities? Well, maybe you do
, but everyone else just goes to the range and chrono's the ammo.As far as I'm concerned, you and Joe have been giving me a load of grief for the wrong reason. The two of you seem to be equating research to collect data and writing a requirements document. The latter needs to have significance levels; the former does not.
Well, no matter. I've tried my best to propose objective tests (both here and on 68forums), and give fair and balanced analysis in my magazine articles, but all I get are complaints that I'm unfair and biased...and need to implement significance levels.
I've finally reached the point where I'm tired of it and just don't care anymore. Do the proposed tests, or don't do them, as you wish.Stan
Testing, testing... - Tony Williams - 06-19-2011
stanc Wrote:I remember that show...and a goofy young Goldie Hawn...and Judy Carne! :p
Thanks for sharing.
Quote:How is "Stowed Kills" defined? That statement makes it sound as if it is just the number of rounds in the magazine, without taking into account the per-round effectiveness?
Some more details I have picked up:
The calibres were tested for penetration, terminal effects, accuracy, initial, retained and striking energy, wind drift, etc. and calculations were made for stowed kills, recoil impulse and various other metrics.
.224 calibre (5.56mm) had the greatest Probability of Incapacitation by “Stowed Kills” (due to the lighter single cartridge weight).
Larger calibre bullets inflict more target damage, and the increase in target damage is greater than the increase in system weight.
Larger calibres had superior post-barrier target effects, with .277 calibre (7.0mm) equalling .308 (7.62mm) against barriers by weight.
The calibre range between .257 (6.5mm) and .277 (7.0mm) is the optimum for overall target effects.
Testing, testing... - LR1955 - 06-19-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:Some more details I have picked up:
The calibres were tested for penetration, terminal effects, accuracy, initial, retained and striking energy, wind drift, etc. and calculations were made for stowed kills, recoil impulse and various other metrics.
.224 calibre (5.56mm) had the greatest Probability of Incapacitation by “Stowed Kills” (due to the lighter single cartridge weight).
Larger calibre bullets inflict more target damage, and the increase in target damage is greater than the increase in system weight.
Larger calibres had superior post-barrier target effects, with .277 calibre (7.0mm) equalling .308 (7.62mm) against barriers by weight.
The calibre range between .257 (6.5mm) and .277 (7.0mm) is the optimum for overall target effects.
Tony et. al:
Does any of this surprise anyone? Sure doesn't surprise me. Wish ARDEC had contracted with me for the study. I would probably be a couple million richer and would not have had to shoot a single round of ammunition. Everything Tony reports has been documented or can be interpolated from scientifically proven data.
There is nothing new about gilding metal covering a steel, composite, or lead core bullet. There has been no significant improvement in bullet design since around 1920. There has been no significant improvement in powder since the 1950's. And no significant change for the better in rifle design since the 1950's. The technology is mature and unless someone comes up with a powder that can significantly increase speed while maintaining the same or lower pressures, you have what you have.
Now, some guys hate the 5.56 and have hated it blindly since it was devised. And they hated it more when it got selected to replace the 7.62 for the service rifle. Just remember that part of the reason why the 7.62 was retained was because of the same prejudice against anything other than .30 caliber. This crowd probably thought replacing the 30-06 was as destructive to mankind as the guys who thought that replacing a single shot 45-70 with a smaller cartridge would mean our defeat. Or the same who insisted on having a magazine block in a Springfield in order to keep guys from blasting without aiming. Or the same who thought a semi-automatic service rifle would mean our logistical system would break down due to ammo consumption.
Bottom line again. The testing has already been done and there really is no change in terms of ballistics and hasn't been for seventy or eighty years.
A guy still must hit the target and if nothing can be done to improve the powder or bullet design, then one turns to rifle and sighting system design. This is where you may be able to quantify any improvement that the ammunition can offer. I am amazed at how poorly the current crop of issued service carbines is in terms of ergonomics. And I believe a much better optical sighting system can be designed and made for issued carbines.
LR1955
Testing, testing... - Tony Williams - 06-19-2011
LR1955 Wrote:Tony et. al:
Does any of this surprise anyone? Sure doesn't surprise me.
Nope. I've been arguing for a 6.5mm intermediate calibre for the last 40 years.
Quote:The testing has already been done and there really is no change in terms of ballistics and hasn't been for seventy or eighty years.
See the .276 Pedersen (late 1920s) and the .280/30 British (late 1940s).
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-19-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:The calibres were tested for penetration, terminal effects, accuracy, initial, retained and striking energy, wind drift, etc. and calculations were made for stowed kills...Anybody know how that calculation is made?
Quote:.224 calibre (5.56mm) had the greatest Probability of Incapacitation by “Stowed Kills” (due to the lighter single cartridge weight).That doesn't seem logical. If it takes three hits from .224 bullets (30-rd magazine) to kill or incapacitate, but only two hits from a larger caliber (25-rd mag), wouldn't that mean .224 has fewer stowed kills? Or maybe I have the wrong idea of what "Stowed Kills" is?
Quote:Larger calibres had superior post-barrier target effects, with .277 calibre (7.0mm) equalling .308 (7.62mm) against barriers by weight.What does "by weight" mean?
Testing, testing... - LR1955 - 06-19-2011
stanc Wrote:Anybody know how that calculation is made?
That doesn't seem logical. If it takes three hits from .224 bullets (30-rd magazine) to kill or incapacitate, but only two hits from a larger caliber (25-rd mag), wouldn't that mean .224 has fewer stowed kills? Or maybe I have the wrong idea of what "Stowed Kills" is?
What does "by weight" mean?
Stan:
Yes, you do have a good idea what a 'Stowed Kill' is.
Dr. Roberts discusses this among other things here. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=393730
See his comments about Page 26 under section 3.
This is why factors are weighed when making decisions or running a statistical analysis. Stowed Kills may not necessarily mean as much in a decision as other factors or they may mean as much or more.
LR
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-19-2011
LR1955 Wrote:Stan: Yes, you do have a good idea what a 'Stowed Kill' is.Thanks, Gene. I appreciate the info.
Dr. Roberts discusses this among other things here. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=393730
See his comments about Page 26 under section 3.
Testing, testing... - JASmith - 06-19-2011
Gene,
Thanks for the link to Dr. Roberts' critique.
At one time I worked in an Air Force laboratory where we worked a number of research projects in competition and jointly with the other services.
The comment that "...researcher and facility in the nation DISAGREES with XXX's methodology and conclusions" can describe almost any service laboratory most, if not all, of the time. The fault is not directly in the laps of the individuals, but rather the overriding need to avoid chaos by making premature changes. One of my longstanding frustrations was that this sense of caution was over-applied. The mantra was "no change" until the new method is proven and mature.
The discussion also helps validate the need to wisely design and execute testing that will ultimately be used for advocacy. The claim will be that everything worth testing has been tested -- several times.
Our opportunity for reclama will lie in having a protocol that will stand up to a peer review (in the academic literature) and to work with the right messengers.
The "right messengers" are possibly more critical than excellent tests. These are folks who, when convinced of the value of a new idea, can influence folks who control money in industry and government. They can take our test results and coarse analyses to the right folks and give the system a chance.
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-19-2011
Bill Alexander Wrote:Unless orchestrated correctly with well balanced loads the protocol of examining a caliber against another is a fools errand.Your post appears to be aimed at me and what I wrote in not only this thread, but in my 2005 Special Weapons article and on the old forum. I had originally intended to let it pass without comment, but since you seem to echo the posts of a couple other members that my proposed tests are unfair, biased and poorly designed, I feel compelled to respond.
Quote:Randomly picking a loading simply because it is an FMJ without any thought as to load development and bullet construction will at best misrepresent the capability of that caliber. The Wolf 110 will not be optimized for a military type range of targets but rather will be considered in the light of economical development and production. Equally the 120 Norma is in basis a hunting projectile for pelt and bird in Europe not a military construction.The 110gr Wolf and 120gr Norma were not picked at random. They were selected by default, being the only suitable FMJs now (or soon to be) available.
As far as I can tell, the 120gr Norma is contructed like some Swedish military 6.5x55 projectiles; it just weighs less, being a bit shorter.
In the AA gel test photo posted a few years ago, the Norma FMJ produced a wound profile very similar to that of non-fragmenting 7.62 M80 Ball. I see no reason to think it would "misrepresent" the ability of 6.5 to penetrate concrete block, relative to lead-core 7.62 FMJ.
As for the 110gr Wolf, it may or may not do well at punching through cinder block, but something like it would be required for nations like the UK, for compliance with Hague Declaration III. It may have been designed for low-cost plinking, but that does not automatically exclude it from delivering military performance.
Quote:Just as it was not possible to quickly and cheaply rig high capacity magazines with string and gum, it was expounded that the Grendel could never offer such capability...Who said that high-capacity magazines for 6.5 Grendel were impossible? Certainly I never did. What I wrote back in 2005 is that a 17-rd mag was the largest capacity then available.
Quote:...so we have argued that the same gum and gaffer tape approach must preclude its ability to operate from a belt. The case was made that it could not be pounded into an existing link on an existing feed tray. This morphs in the internet from a simple consideration into what looks like and exhaustive engineering study and when cursory reviewed by interested parties such information works heavily against us.Yeah, that was unfortunate, but I can't keep some morons from misusing the information I provide, any more than AA can prevent people from misusing the guns you sell.
Quote:In this same approach what would be the interest in running commercial bullets in handloads against well established military calibers.Because that is the only option currently available to get an apples-to-apples comparison of 6.5 lead-core FMJ vs 7.62 lead-core FMJ. I always prefer to use factory ammo in tests, but the Wolf FMJ load won't be here for some time yet.
The only alternative I can think of is that covered in my reply to noone: factory loads with TSX bullets, which is rather expensive.
Quote:We are at present undertaking to build T3 technology into the Grendel, a 6.5mm M855A1 if you will. Balance this loading into a SAFE cartridge which will offer weapon durability and you now have the basis of a simple study. Our apples to apples of military constructions is met and we have but to throw these from similar barrel lengths to start the examination.That's truly great, but I was seeking information now, and had absolutely no idea when 6.5 T3 ammo might become available.
Testing, testing... - stanc - 06-19-2011
JASmith Wrote:The "right messengers" are possibly more critical than excellent tests. These are folks who, when convinced of the value of a new idea, can influence folks who control money in industry and government. They can take our test results and coarse analyses to the right folks and give the system a chance.More than that, you need to convince Army leadership, especially the Chief of Staff. A determined CSA can push through a project, even if not needed. Stryker infantry vehicle is a prime example. GEN Shinseki really wanted it, and said it was needed because the Army did not then have an air-deployable, light-armored, infantry carrier. That was a blatant lie, because the M113 was (and still is) in the inventory, and holds the same number of infantrymen...and can be carried on C-5 and C17 transports in greater numbers than can Stryker. Despite that, Shinseki got Stryker rammed through the acquisition process, and fielded.
The moral to the story: If you want something adopted, get the CSA in love with it.
"Nothing is ever as good as what we've got if they decide not to spend the money. Of course if they really want something then what we're going after surpasses whatever we've got, regardless of test results."
Testing, testing... - noone - 06-20-2011
It is my belief that the metalstorm "firearm" system, is a considerable leap forward in firearms technology. An earlier posting contended that there hasn't been a significant change in rifle design since the 1950's. To be sure, the metalstorm technology isn't currently mounted in a shoulder fired weapon, only a handgun design has been put forward. But I see the possibilities of the metalstorm system as a considerable leap forward in firearms technology.
The metalstorm system has been mounted up as everything from what looks like a square block of barrels filled with powder and projectiles, to a system that shoots 40mm grenades. It makes quite an area denial system.
Testing, testing... - JASmith - 06-20-2011
The problem with Metalstorm is the same as with the extinct pepperpot rifles and pistols. Reloading appears to be cumbersome.
There are places where the technology is eminently sensible. Any remotely operated system, whether vehicle mounted or in a fixed position, would be well-served by the potentially inexpensive MetalStorm.