05-17-2011, 03:59 AM
LRRPF52 Wrote:I'm in favor of a 3-caliber (really 5+) system for shoulder-fired weapons for dismounted infantry soldiers:
I don't doubt that your proposals would have advantages over what we have now, although the limited propellant capacity of the 6x35 seems likely to restrict it to a 200m (maybe 300m at the very most) effective range. So it may be necessary to carry more of a balanced mix of carbines and DMRs unless the fighting is all in towns. I agree with you over the .338, by the way, but regard that as being in a separate category.
As a result of my experience in debating these issues with MoD in the UK, I think that the problem which any replacements for just the 5.56mm, or just the 7.62mm, will face is this: yes, you can produce ammo which has advantages over the existing calibres - but the advantages are not so great that they justify the huge disruption and cost of the change.
In my opinion, this is where the single-calibre solution can deliver a more compelling argument in its favour - provided that a satisfactory performance can be achieved. By replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm with one general-purpose round, you achieve not just one improvement but "three for the cost of one": lighter weight and recoil than 7.62mm, better range and effectiveness than 5.56mm, plus the various cost and flexibility advantages of having only one round and weapons family rather than two to procure, support, train and fight with.
I would be surprised if the XM29 makes a come-back. It was concern over the effectiveness of the 20mm grenade which caused the increase to 25mm in the XM25, which meant that the 5.56mm element had to go - the weight of the XM29 was already too much, and would have increased still further in 25mm.
As a matter of interest, I spell out my thoughts on the subject of a near-future small arms system here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/future%2...20arms.htm