03-04-2013, 03:51 PM
We been through this hoop before.
The previous debates along this line eventually died or were shut down because too many people insisted on arguing performance base on vague performance factors like those described here. The lack of specificity implied by "better than 7.62x51" leaves too much room for comments like "need 200 ft/sec" more.
We need to see some numbers that define the problem.
Further, requiring the same velocity or energy at distance completely ignores the mechanics of the business.
Hence the numbers need to define what the acquisition community is asking for even if some sanitization is done.
We need to use terms along the lines of "minimum acceptable" and "desired level" in stating this. Demanding equal or better to the 7.62x51 at range is absolutist and not consistent with good acquisition policy.
If this sounds repetitive, scroll back up through this thread and a pattern of repetitiveness will emerge.
The previous debates along this line eventually died or were shut down because too many people insisted on arguing performance base on vague performance factors like those described here. The lack of specificity implied by "better than 7.62x51" leaves too much room for comments like "need 200 ft/sec" more.
We need to see some numbers that define the problem.
Further, requiring the same velocity or energy at distance completely ignores the mechanics of the business.
Hence the numbers need to define what the acquisition community is asking for even if some sanitization is done.
We need to use terms along the lines of "minimum acceptable" and "desired level" in stating this. Demanding equal or better to the 7.62x51 at range is absolutist and not consistent with good acquisition policy.
If this sounds repetitive, scroll back up through this thread and a pattern of repetitiveness will emerge.