Optimized Caliber

[LRRPF52]

Ammo weight is just one of the many considerations driving weapon and ammunition choices. By willingly carrying 7.62mm weapons instead of 5.56mm, the troops in Afghanistan have demonstrated that range and lethality can override weight in their priority order.

They are issued a small arms structure that is a mix of mostly 5.56 carbines, with very few 7.62 DMR's. Nobody that I know of is carrying 7.62 NATO universally across their small arms mix, although the Norwegians did earlier in the campaign with the AG-3 before they adopted the HK416.

By this, we know that US/UK and other professional armies are not only willing, but in fact are employing a 2-caliber small arms mix at the Squad-level, when it used to be 5.56 NATO universal for at least a US Infantry Squad with M16 family and the SAW.

I still think a universal caliber at the Squad-level is doable with the Grendel, but not necessary, and I would still want an assault rifle load, versus the LMG load, which takes us back to our cost-benefit analysis to 5.56 NATO/MRLMG Grendel structure.

You are absolutely right about factoring in the performance capability of the cartridge/weapon system in relation to weight, and do we favor in the direction of:

* lightweight, higher mobility, longer combat endurance....or
* more weight, less mobility, less combat endurance, but higher-power ammunition

The current 5.56 NATO service weapon/7.62 DMR mix satisfies both of those considerations, without significantly reducing the unit's ability to make contact, fight through the contact, and be prepared for 2 more contact sequences before needing a re-supply.

The Grendel would reduce the weight of the 7.62 DMR, while increasing mag capacity and combat endurance of the Squad, and still allow the DMR's to perform as rifleman-assaulters within close quarters.