Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[JASmith]

...Also, with the nature of a high-stress engagement where the Pashtun fighters have purposely initiated a far ambush outside the effective range of even optimistic effective ranges for the 7.62 NATO, no shoulder-fired weapon other than the M107 and maybe a .338 LM will begin to even touch them at the ranges they like to initiate at. These engagements are usually resolved with CAS, mortars, or artillery.

You've identified a missing element in taking this discussion to useful insight.

The reality is that, most of the time, the fire team has a lot of combined arms resources available. There are very few times when even SF teams are truly isolated and are obliged to rely only on what they could personally carry to the fight.

I cut my teeth in a world where unguided weapons delivered by air and arty could be put within 1 km of friendlies day in and day out. Strafing, napalm and some CBUs could, in ideal conditions, be put within 10-15yards of friendlies. I also know how fickle this support can be, so I do not suggest we assume that drones, Apaches, A-10s, Fi16s and B52s will always be close enough or be allowed to give the support soon enough to matter.

Further, we haven't yet discussed what team-organic assets are currently available -- grenade launchers and mortars for example, and their impact on how much range is really needed for the infantry rifle/carbine. As Tony suggests, we also need to project at least a little into the future to forecast what might have been added in this category by the time any new cartridge we discuss might be fielded.

I think that the 20-25 mm grenade launcher supplementing or supplanting the 40mm might make a big difference in perceptions of what long range ability the average infantry soldier needs in his or her personal weapon.

How does that square with your understanding of available equipment?