Optimized Caliber

[JASmith]

A starting point is to ask: Are we OK with small arms that would be bigger and heavier than the current M4/M16 series? Longer cartridge overall lengths start a growth spiral.

John

P.S. One niggling point I had meant to make: I believe M855A1 is not ONLY copper and steel, but includes a bismuth alloy core under the steel penetrator. (I THINK it's bismuth!)

We could start a poll, but I am reasonably sure that weight and bulk are anathema to the grunt, so he will be happy with the lightest one that works.

I've been closely following the 5.56 replacement debate for several years now, and know it has been going on for more than fifty years. The one constant is that those who have used the 5.56 in its design performance envelope swear by it. As long as the combat fits within that envelope, experienced combat veterans seem to be well-served by the cartridge. So, we get another indicator that folks would not be OK with bigger and heavier small arms.

The Grendel "toe in the door" results from the fact that, even in the jungles of Vietnam, there were times that terminal performance at longer ranges was shown to be less than desired. The back-fill in capability has been done with things like 7.62, Grenade launchers, mortar, artillery, and air assets.

LRRPF52 is suggesting that the grunt who uses a SAW or M240 to give team support for engagements beyond a couple of hundred meters could see a significant weight reduction while keeping pretty much the same terminal effects on targets as with the M240 by using a Grendel cartridge in a properly designed LMG.

-----

As for your question about M855A1, can we expand the question to include resulting ballistic coefficient? As I understand, a couple of different forms were looked at and reported on during the development. I think the early reporting was needed to garner support, but there seems to be less than detailed discussion about the final product, its design, and how well it performs.