09-29-2012, 04:45 PM
The PEO has a tendency to embellish and doctor their conclusions before reaching them. We discussed this in-depth on the old forum, and a cursory analysis of the accuracy results of the M855A1, for example, show some pretty skewed thinking on the way they manipulated the data.
If they are trying to say that M855A1 will replace 7.62 NATO, we know they're smoking crack again. They tried that idea back in the 1980's, saying the SAW can replace the M60. This is what happens when non-experienced desk jockeys are allowed to make decisions way outside of their compentency. If you have some dude in charge of PEO who doesn't know his rectal muzzle from a foxhole, you get some really hysterical, yet scary ideas floating around.
If the M855A1 proves superior to M855, then by all means, use it for 5.56. The real question is what are we going to do with LMG's?
If they are trying to say that M855A1 will replace 7.62 NATO, we know they're smoking crack again. They tried that idea back in the 1980's, saying the SAW can replace the M60. This is what happens when non-experienced desk jockeys are allowed to make decisions way outside of their compentency. If you have some dude in charge of PEO who doesn't know his rectal muzzle from a foxhole, you get some really hysterical, yet scary ideas floating around.
If the M855A1 proves superior to M855, then by all means, use it for 5.56. The real question is what are we going to do with LMG's?