10-15-2020, 03:12 PM
grayfox Wrote:Won't be the first time the .mil had unrealistic expectations.
The only advantage I can think of that a 6.8mm bullet has over a 6.5, for example, is mass in a shorter frame. Overcome the BC disadvantage by just increasing MV... typical to over-muscle something instead of looking for the optimum fit.
But-- and I float this idea as an out of box type -- perhaps the whole "advantage" is not military but political. Think - if conceived by obamanites or other swamp-like critters, then finding a way to keep it out of the civilian market might be the objective no one is talking about but the real one nevertheless.
Let's do some brainstorming on why - other than good military performance - someone would spec out a rig like this. Because "good for the military" or "good for battle" might not be the objective after all.
Remember the nuclear-powered Air Force bomber? What an albatross.
Who knows, there has been a lot of expensive boondoggles that have helped pave the road to newer and better armaments. I remember when they stated the M-1 Abrams was a costly mistake, that used too much fuel and was vulnerable to dust, yet became the premiere tank of the world. The F-22 production was cut short by obama as being too costly, the B-1 bomber was cut by carter, etc. Politics and great sums of money unfortunately has been just as big of influencer as need. Trying to find the perfect balance of cost and need will always be controversial. This being 2020, anything is possible.