Our military adopting the Grendel?

[stanc]

LR, the interesting question is "why" they favored the M4/Mk262. I'd then wonder if the 65G would also have a similar rationale.

Ya mean, like longer range and better terminal effect?

Regarding magazine capacity. When I'm King of the Army, I'll make 30-round 65G mags that are, what, one half-inch longer than standard?

Actually, it'd be a full inch (or maybe a tad more) longer, judging by the difference between Barrett 30-rd mags for 6.8 SPC and "standard" 25-rd mags.

No longer fits in standard 5.56 pouches? A trade-off that is not insurmountable.

Sure, Grendel-specific mag pouches could be fielded. But, a major drawback is the weight penalty.

• 5.56 -- 7x30 rds in mags = 7.5 lbs
  
• 6.5 --- 7x30 rds in mags = 10.7 lbs
  

That's a 43% heavier carry load.

I'd echo the Chinese 5.8x42 program and look first at the feasibility of a standard and "heavy" 65G loading.

It should certainly be feasible from a manufacturing standpoint. Since they currently load two different type bullets in Ball ammo and Tracer ammo, I see no reason to think they couldn't also produce two different weight Ball rounds.

Just because most armies don't currently do it that way, doesn't mean I'd automatically rule it out.

However, it's the armies' leadership opinion that counts, and they've shown no inclination to have two different weight ball loads, let alone a third caliber for LMG use.

Now, that's not to say either concept shouldn't be advocated and developed. I'm just saying that the odds of getting either idea implemented are close to zero, according to historical norms.

(That being said, history also tells us that such institutional bias can be changed. Reference the Stryker program: prior to 1999 the Army was steadfastly opposed to wheeled armored infantry vehicles. Then a new Chief of Staff was appointed, and he pushed through the 8-wheeled vehicle to adoption and fielding. So such things are possible, given the right circumstances.)