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

[JASmith]

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

Frankly, I would welcome some neat pictures of holey metal and splashed gelatin, but I cannot in all honesty advocate those tests until we're pretty sure the rest of the story holds water. I guess that part of my reticence is that folks have been popping various targets for longer than we've had gunpowder.

At this point we have what is best described as an idea based on some excellent design and development work by Alexander Arms. Many of us have followed your lead in recognizing the Grendel as a very attractive cartridge with the potential to replace both the 7.62X51 and the 5.56 NATO in the weapons used by dismounted infantry.

Tests showing holes in things are about a dime a dozen, unless they are tied to a story. LR1955 has indicated more than his personal views in the questions and challenges he gave us when he started Part I of this thread. He correctly points out that probability of hit is a major factor. He also tells us that flatter trajectories inside of 500 meters are an important factor in improving probability of hit by the normal infantryman. These won't be resolved by the suggested tests.

We're working toward formalizing the discussion in a format similar to that normally employed in articulating requirements for a capability. One of the advantages is that working through the document helps us be sure we've captured the less obvious, but still critical, issues that go into making a particular concept useful in the acquisition sense. Even more important, we get to identify the things that are most critical so that those who have the resources and are willing to expend them will have better confidence that their tests and analyses have meaning.

The whole point of this thread is to develop that story by:
[INDENT]

1. describing the needs and goals,
   
2. articulating the needs and goals in a way that allows analytic testing of alternative solutions, and
   
3. defining physical tests to determine which, if any, of the alternative solutions meet the threshold needs.
   

[/INDENT]

Once we've got the major details nailed down, I will become part of the choir singing for tests...