How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Variable]

I do not intend to be abrasive in this matter but when you have stood on my side of the fence for a little time it behests one to be short and obvious.

Yes I sat in the meeting that is referred to, I was the token Grendel guy. My job was to sit through the presentations so that it could be recorded that I had attended and that the movement forward by this private group on contract to the DoD was with my input. Not asked to prepare anything to present until the last moment and then asked if I would stand on my hind legs in front of a group that was clearly biased to present the case for the 6.8. BS and not even very clever BS.

Was I asked to attend the definition for the performance? No! I was excluded because I work from private industry or at least that was the excuse given. Have I seen the performance spec? No! Have I been asked to attend any of the subsequent meetings? No! Will anybody tell me what the spec is? No! and as noted I have asked.

Was I asked to provide a short barrel Grendel and 1000 rounds of Wolf 123 SP ammunition for trials? Yes! And what was the reason given for this from the contracting office working on behalf of T%^G. "We only need this so we can eliminate the Grendel from any further consideration and move forward with the proposal for the 6.8". These guys do not even lie well.

So if you expect me get excited about being asked to develop something else without a hard specification only to play aunt sally again, I will determinedly disappoint you. I hope you can appreciate this position.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions Bill. This whole thing has that same recognizable "vibe" to it. The stuff about not being able to disclose requirements is hogwash. Not saying that Guardsman wasn't told that, but there is nothing super secret about small arms ammo. If the mysterious group actually wanted the real (best) answer, then they'd be open about what the actual requirements were. I see things like this happen in my agency, and it pisses me off to no end.

If you want the best answer you come out and declare: I want the best system to do "X". Then you very clearly define what "X" is. Everybody needs to understand very clearly what the true requirements and goals are, or it's either a waste of time at best, or a sham intended to dishonestly pick something subpar for dishonest reasons at worst.

If you invented a 40 watt plasma rifle that weighed 3 pounds, was recoilless, net neutral on heat, and cost $29.99... Half the time the system would pick something else because they had a buddy that could make them kickbacks off of it.

P.S. 42 indeed. Adams rocked!!!