05-18-2016, 07:23 AM
Not feelin' like the author is informed. Totally new upper receiver? No, unless he's seeing the receiver and barrel as a unit? Specialized buffers? No. Difficult to mass-produce 30° shoulder? Maybe in the 1940s, as he cited. Lapua engineer Janne Pohjoispää's principal concern was mass production and minimizing wastage. I really don't think Lapua making high-end brass nor the Russian War Machine making 6.5 Grendel steel-case is particularly stymied by the 30-degree shoulder.
New muzzle thread and flash hider that's incompatible with 5.56 system? Seriously? This guy do ANY research AT ALL? He has no clue why Bill A. did the infamous 9/16s?
New mags would "have to look significantly different"? Says who? He's just pulling stuff out of . . . thin air.
New development project for a 6.5mm M855A1 analog? Would cost millions? Uh, author didn't get the memo that Bill A. already did it?
I will concede that the government could FIND innumerable ways to sink millions into re-inventing the wheel to jack up costs and justify its procurement bureaucracy. Doesn't mean they NEED to. But, yeah, they probably would.
Author wants an ironclad case for "increased and meaningful effectiveness and a tangible advantage in firepower for the squad." How about we start at something simple? Give me the "tangible advantage" of 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO. Not anecdotal theories, but quantifiable advantage. That should be simple, right? Quantify for us how much better at killing the 7.62 is vs. 5.56. If he can quantify something that has a more than 50-year history, then we will apply the same metrics to the 65G.
I appreciate the author's effort to make a reasoned argument for his position, but overall this article seems sloppily researched and poorly reasoned.
New muzzle thread and flash hider that's incompatible with 5.56 system? Seriously? This guy do ANY research AT ALL? He has no clue why Bill A. did the infamous 9/16s?
New mags would "have to look significantly different"? Says who? He's just pulling stuff out of . . . thin air.
New development project for a 6.5mm M855A1 analog? Would cost millions? Uh, author didn't get the memo that Bill A. already did it?
I will concede that the government could FIND innumerable ways to sink millions into re-inventing the wheel to jack up costs and justify its procurement bureaucracy. Doesn't mean they NEED to. But, yeah, they probably would.
Author wants an ironclad case for "increased and meaningful effectiveness and a tangible advantage in firepower for the squad." How about we start at something simple? Give me the "tangible advantage" of 7.62 NATO over 5.56 NATO. Not anecdotal theories, but quantifiable advantage. That should be simple, right? Quantify for us how much better at killing the 7.62 is vs. 5.56. If he can quantify something that has a more than 50-year history, then we will apply the same metrics to the 65G.
I appreciate the author's effort to make a reasoned argument for his position, but overall this article seems sloppily researched and poorly reasoned.
:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::