Testing, testing...

[stanc]

I would use the same ammunition you propose to use for the cinder block/milk jug "Machine Gun" test. Remember that all we need to do is best the 147 gr 7.62 round. Hence we don't need 5.56 NATO for this test.

Okay, you're confusing me. Now you say that you don't want to test 5.56mm terminal effects. However, in your two previous posts you objected to my proposed test with the 5.56mm M4 carbine on the grounds that "Accuracy isn't the principal issue for [the M4], but bullet performance is." :confused:

We are, for the most part, all in agreement that the Grendel would do as well as either the 5.56 or the 7.62 NATO in dismounted infantry roles.

Again, that's the theory...but where is the test data that confirms it?

The hypothesis has to be far stronger and be supportable by analysis and testing.

I don't care how strong you make the hypothesis, testing needs to be done before there is anything to analyze.

Let's make sure the testing we do in the near future helps demonstrate Grendel superiority.

Whoa! And you accused me of bias???

I want "fair and balanced" tests. If the results show 6.5 Grendel is actually the superior choice, that's great. If they don't, dems da breaks. I wouldn't want "tests" designed to make 6.5 Grendel only appear to be superior.