06-30-2011, 07:30 AM
I agree that even if we get a new long-range intermediate round, heavy 7.62mm MGs will remain in service in a support role for a while, and in vehicle mountings for much longer.
However, I don't agree that the task is to replace the 5.56mm rather than the 7.62mm. My perception of the UK view is that the weight of 7.62mm belted MG ammo is a bigger issue for dismounted troops than any lack of performance of the 5.56mm. So a round which can match the hit probability and target effectiveness of the 7.62mm at 1,000m while saving a lot of weight will look very attractive. By definition, this will be a smaller-calibre round with a lighter recoil, so could also do a good job in replacing 5.56mm, thereby bringing other benefits with it.
IMO, 6.5mm Grendel is currently the closest to the ideal performance of any current cartridge. When using 123 grain Lapua it is significantly better than 7.62mm M80 in both wind drift and trajectory at 1,000m - a service ball bullet wouldn't be as good, but should be in the same ballpark.
However, I don't agree that the task is to replace the 5.56mm rather than the 7.62mm. My perception of the UK view is that the weight of 7.62mm belted MG ammo is a bigger issue for dismounted troops than any lack of performance of the 5.56mm. So a round which can match the hit probability and target effectiveness of the 7.62mm at 1,000m while saving a lot of weight will look very attractive. By definition, this will be a smaller-calibre round with a lighter recoil, so could also do a good job in replacing 5.56mm, thereby bringing other benefits with it.
IMO, 6.5mm Grendel is currently the closest to the ideal performance of any current cartridge. When using 123 grain Lapua it is significantly better than 7.62mm M80 in both wind drift and trajectory at 1,000m - a service ball bullet wouldn't be as good, but should be in the same ballpark.