Part II of "Requirements for replacements of currently issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-8

[stanc]

Guys -- we aren't ready to test.

Joe, I respectfully disagree. I say that testing is long overdue.

What cartridge is the "optimized loading" in?

6.5 Grendel (according to my reading of John's post).

How is the cartridge selected or defined?

6.5 Grendel (as denoted by John).

The suggested weights appear to give an unfair advantage to 6.5 mm because that bullet has the highest sectional density in the list.

5.56x45 and 7.62x51 are the current NATO standard cartridges, against which proposed replacements will necessarily have to be compared. If the 6.5mm bullets have higher sectional densities, that's not an "unfair" advantage, it's just a characteristic.

What would be unfair is placing an arbitrary limitation on sectional density.

The targets/test media are not defined.

That's easy enough to do. It just wasn't necessary to cover specific tests in John's post.

Some communication, most likely informal, needs to happen with develop, procurement, or political entity to assure the test means something to a decisionmaker.

I consider that premature.

First, there needs to be adequate testing done (w/currently available bullets) to determine if 6.5 Grendel actually is a viable replacement for 5.56 and/or 7.62 NATO.

If those initial tests show that 6.5 Grendel is not superior (or not sufficiently so to be worthwhile), then development of better bullets should be pursued before contacting any government or military entities.

Regarding the unfair advantage mentioned above. The 'optimized loadings' might mean consistent muzzle velocity, consistent impact velocity, or the best one could do with his favorite cartridge.

For the sake of brevity, I omitted John's judgment on what constitutes an optimized loading: "...not necessarily peak velocity, but loadings pressure-approved in all temperature extremes..." http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthrea...1#post4146

The least desirable choice is somebody's favorite cartridge in a caliber.

Now, that ain't necessarily so. It could prove to be the most desirable.

What I do know is that a poorly designed test will do more harm than good...

So use the same tests that the military employs.

Last point -- we are looking at a cartridge that, round for round, is about the same or a tad better in some areas in the 7.62X51 but can function in the AR-15 class of rifles. I maintain that we already know that's doable.

Yes, we know that 6.5 Grendel works in the AR-15, and in theory, equals or exceeds some aspects of 7.62 NATO performance.

What we lack is a reality check, hard data to confirm (or refute) the theory.