03-04-2013, 12:49 AM
If you push both weapon and also ammunition envelope then you find that the approximation is so close to the existing 7.62 as to make the effort academic. Longer ammunition will demand the envelope for the bolt to travel now matches the 7.62 so any weight saving is negated for the weapon. So too does the now long ammunition require both case and projectile weight so the savings basically disappear. I am currently working on a 338 semi auto and the effort to remove a 1/2" of length from the receiver is a substantial weight saving.
In the instance were weight is secondary to performance as stated, and the soldiers solution is to spend more time training, then the consultants are now truly tilting at windmills. You already have the solution but quest not to find it but to invent reasons for your existence.
I have posed two questions in this thread. The first is for a definition of what the performance should be. Not in respect to "well like a 7.62" but actual hard numerical requirements in terms of range, lethality and target definitions. What do you want it to do? In the absence of the question are we to find the answer is indeed 42?
The second is that if 200 fps can be justified as the increase required, how can 400 fps be excluded. Why does a 7.0 g projectile make the cut but you can already disregard a 9.0 g projectile. This question in effect mimics the first, but then poses the question that perhaps the proposed long 6.8 will also fall short.
Given the number of cartridges that currently fit the package needs, starting at the 6.5 Grendel and progressing through the 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmore to the 260 Rem, 7-08 and finally the 7.62 with variations on either side both in case diameter (Italian) and also length (BR types) The pursuit of the one we do not have but that overlaps perfectly with another seems odd. Perhaps a 7mm BR or 7mm Creedmore would be a better initial platform buried in the confines of a 417. Lot less development and debate. Problem solved now man up and carry it.
In the instance were weight is secondary to performance as stated, and the soldiers solution is to spend more time training, then the consultants are now truly tilting at windmills. You already have the solution but quest not to find it but to invent reasons for your existence.
I have posed two questions in this thread. The first is for a definition of what the performance should be. Not in respect to "well like a 7.62" but actual hard numerical requirements in terms of range, lethality and target definitions. What do you want it to do? In the absence of the question are we to find the answer is indeed 42?
The second is that if 200 fps can be justified as the increase required, how can 400 fps be excluded. Why does a 7.0 g projectile make the cut but you can already disregard a 9.0 g projectile. This question in effect mimics the first, but then poses the question that perhaps the proposed long 6.8 will also fall short.
Given the number of cartridges that currently fit the package needs, starting at the 6.5 Grendel and progressing through the 6.5x47, 6.5 Creedmore to the 260 Rem, 7-08 and finally the 7.62 with variations on either side both in case diameter (Italian) and also length (BR types) The pursuit of the one we do not have but that overlaps perfectly with another seems odd. Perhaps a 7mm BR or 7mm Creedmore would be a better initial platform buried in the confines of a 417. Lot less development and debate. Problem solved now man up and carry it.