US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

[stanc]

My argument is simple to address. DOD analysts can say:

1) Sure, it costs more, but this is 'merica and we can afford it, so we don't care.

Uh, that is exactly what they did say.

Or, 2) copper is not a strategic resource that we need to conserve in a very large war.

The US doesn't do large wars anymore. We only attack small countries that we think can't hurt us.

Or, 3) using lead in the core is orders of magnitude less "effective" than the same in copper.

Heh, heh. No practical core material is going to be "orders of magnitude" less effective than any other.

Those are what I consider valid "technical" reasons...

Since reason #1 has been answered, does that mean you'll stop objecting to EPR bullets? You may as well accept it and plan for it, because neither you nor anyone else here has the power to change it.

I realize that you want the Army to go back to using lead-core bullets so that a 123gr bullet for 6.5 Grendel will be feasible, but that ain't likely to happen. Besides, didn't even Bill Alexander say that 100-110 grains is the optimum weight range for a 6.5 Grendel military bullet?