01-01-2016, 04:50 AM
JASmith Wrote:The military will need to use the product. Therefore it will be part of the military Research, Development, Test and Evaluation effort.It would only become part of military RDT&E after the military becomes sufficiently interested in it. Until then, it is not a military RDT&E endeavor.
Quote:This continued hammering at the link non-issue only serves to give the impression that a straightforward but expensive engineering development can't be done.Anyone who reaches that conclusion has either poor English comprehension or poor reasoning ability. I didn't say it can't be done. I said that until it is done, the capability cannot be demonstrated.
Quote:Self evident in both cases...Oh, really? And just where are the gel tests and barrier penetration tests that show terminal performance of 6.5 Grendel matches 7.62 NATO? How does the trajectory of 6.5 Grendel FMJ compare to that of 7.62 M80 Ball? How does visibility of 6.5 Grendel Tracer compare to that of 7.62 M62 Tracer? How does the armor penetration of 6.5 Grendel AP compare to that of 7.62 M993 AP?
Nope. There's far too much data missing to be able to declare the issue "self evident."