BluntForceTrauma Wrote: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.
John:
Knowing what I do about the DoD R&D system, most of what he says really does have a foundation of truth.
Memo's from Bill mean very little other than maybe to get the round of ammo into the system for evaluation. I never trusted what any company said about their munitions or technical concepts. This is because I have seen BRL test their stuff using the exact same conditions as the companies said they used, only to find that the companies had simply lied. Many times they lie to 'get in the door'. Doesn't work that way. You present something that fails, your product is now tainted with failure and probably won't get looked at again. Yes, the costs of evaluating a 6.5 anything would run into the hundreds of millions and no, they don't do it to 'find ways' to save their bureaucracies. The engineers I worked with who were full timer's had more than enough projects to last the rest of their lives.
Since I spent most of my time at the unit level, his comments about the magazines are 100% correct. You guys would be amazed at how many times 5.56 magazines were found to be 'bad' and we got word to turn them in. And how many times we never got word until months later. And sometimes not at all. What he is saying is true. Any 6.5 magazine would have to appear radically different just to ensure Joe didn't try to stuff a 5.56 mag with his Grendel ammo, only to end up with potentially dangerous failures to feed. I have not forgotten the days before we could get Grendel magazines easily when we were trying anything we could do to get more than 5 Grendel rounds in a 5.56 Mag so we could shoot. It is kind of humorous but is definitely true.
As for effectiveness, until someone comes up with a requirements document for a new round of ammo, no one knows. You will know when DoD really thinks they need something new. Their requirements will be pretty specific that is also possible to achieve. You know when they don't want to consider something. Their requirements are almost impossible to achieve with current technology.
Not sure about his monetary numbers but I can see it going into the billions just to get a Grendel carbine through all the development and testing and then to first unit equipped.
LR55