How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Michael]

It may or may not, depending upon:

a. Is it better to have a caliber that is excellent for, say, 90% of combat theatres, but inadequate for 10%, or a caliber that is excellent for 10%, and usable for the other 90%?

b. Is it better to have the simplified logistics of a single, universal caliber versus two or three specialized calibers?

c. Is the weight penalty of a universal caliber for Key Leaders, RTOs, FOs, etc, unacceptable or tolerable? (Use of the M14/M60, FAL/MAG, and G3/MG3 before adoption of 5.56x45 would seem to indicate that the weight of universal caliber weapons is tolerable.)

I don’t think I am smart enough to answer the first question, but I would recommend closer to a 50/50 split.

I am not a logistician, but common sense would say that it would be easier to eliminate one round and go to a universal caliber, but I don’t know if it is fiscally possible to change out the number of weapons systems we have. Face it – small arms aren’t as sexy as F-35 strike fighters.

Long ago, in a Military far, far away, the average infantryman hit the beaches at Normandy, Tarawa, and fought in wars carrying between 30-40Lbs. That is about half of what we are carrying now. The average Rifleman’s load is between 60 and 70Lbs now (Which gets heavier if you are lugging more than a basic load out – IE foot mobile, living out of your pack. You start talking weights in excess of 100lbs). That includes some of the best body armor we have ever fielded, advanced medical kits, communications devices down to the Team Leader, NVDs and weapons optics. While the M-14 was a hefty 10.7lbs loaded, the M4 weighs in at 6.9. Add optics, white light, grip pod, PEQ-15, and you rapidly approach the 10lb range.

We have a saying in the infantry – Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain.