Textron Systems NGSW Rifle and LMG

[stanc]

No. You are misrepresenting A5's point. He did not have in front of him the photo that you showed.

He most certainly did have that photo in front of him. It was in my post, to which he responded.

That bullet is not being showed in any picture of the 6.8 NGSW cartridges being shown these days, so it's unfair to pretend A5 was talking about that bullet.

The bullet seen in loaded cartridges is a surrogate, used for test and demonstration.

The GP bullet shown in post #34 is what will be used for the standard combat load.

I did not "pretend" that A5 was talking about the GP bullet. I assumed that he was.

A5 meant that there's nothing magical about the 6.8 caliber...

:confused: I have no idea how you got that meaning from: "Our idea of a beautiful bullet is completely diffrent..."

...and, further, that the 6.8mm bullets that ARE being shown have worse BCs than a similar 6.5mm...

Interesting. Where have you seen the BC specifications for the surrogate and GP bullets?

....so why not go 6.5mm?

My understanding is that, in Army testing, 6.5mm did not defeat body armor as well as 6.8mm.

Don't misrepresent in order to quibble.

I did not misrepresent. I addressed what he said. If he meant something else, he should've said what he meant.

Let's argue something more substantive: Do you agree with me that the requirement for penetration of modern body armor should be reduced to 300–500 meters, instead of 800?

I have insufficient data to base an opinion on, so I can neither agree with you, nor argue against you.

My only infantry-type experience was one year in the scout platoon of a tank battalion, and that was long before ceramic body armor became a concern.

What information causes you to conclude that the range requirement should be reduced to 300-500 meters?