03-03-2013, 02:10 AM
My experience with previous discussion on this topic as well as in actual weapons concept definition suggests that we need to establish ground rules for comparisons. In this regard, I'm not clear on what the "new" cartridge is expected to do.
I know that this series of questions appears to move in the direction of complexity, but the restraints are needed. The alternative is akin to wrestling a bunch of pythons all at once. We can spend tens of posts on one item of performance with only to find that the OP had a different metric in mind than poster B, and Mr C has an entirely different one. This leads to confusion, frustration, untoward comments, and no convergence on a common solution.
If we are talking about wounding potential, we know that kinetic energy is one of the poorest metrics one can choose. This begs the question of what metric to use.
- Match the 7.62X51 at 1000 meters?
- Same barrel length, or a 16" 'new' and a 20" 7.62x51?
- What does 'match' mean?
I know that this series of questions appears to move in the direction of complexity, but the restraints are needed. The alternative is akin to wrestling a bunch of pythons all at once. We can spend tens of posts on one item of performance with only to find that the OP had a different metric in mind than poster B, and Mr C has an entirely different one. This leads to confusion, frustration, untoward comments, and no convergence on a common solution.
If we are talking about wounding potential, we know that kinetic energy is one of the poorest metrics one can choose. This begs the question of what metric to use.