Testing, testing...

[stanc]

Tony, You've done very well at positing the next family of weapons and ammunition, but an immediate step to that family may be larger than can be swallowed just now. Try to think incrementally from where we are today and where we need to go.

I am, which is why I keep plugging the idea of firming up on the required calibre and ballistics using conventional technology first (preferably fielding some weapons in the new calibre for thorough testing), then transferring the lessons learned to the next phase of LSAT development.

If LSAT fails, then we can look at introducing the new calibre in conventional form but probably using lighter case materials (part-polymer, stainless steel and light-alloy are all being worked on at the present time).

I think this is a very good approach. However, I see a couple of problems to "firming up on the required calibre and ballistics."

1. There is no consensus as to whether:

• Only 5.56x45 should be replaced.
  
• Only 7.62x51 should be replaced.
  
• Both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 should be replaced.
  

Replacing only 5.56x45 with a bigger, heavier cartridge (like 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC) increases the rifleman's carry load and/or decreases the number of rounds he carries, but does not change the machine gunner's load.

Relacing only 7.62x51 with a smaller, lighter cartridge (like 6.5x45 and 7x46) decreases the machine gunner's carry load and/or increases the number of rounds he carries, but it slightly increases the rifleman's load (if he is tasked to carry extra ammo for the machine gun).

Replacing both 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 with a single, intermediate cartridge (like 6.5x45 and 7x46) decreases the machine gunner's carry load and/or increases the number of rounds he carries, but it also substantially increases the rifleman's load (especially if he is tasked to carry extra ammo for the machine gun) and/or decreases the number of rounds he carries.

Then there is the (so far undiscussed) idea of replacing 5.56x45 with a bigger, heavier cartridge (but one not as big or heavy as 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC), and replacing 7.62x51 with a smaller, lighter cartridge. This would impose less penalties on the rifleman than would a "unified" caliber.

2. There seems to be almost no publicly available test data on terminal effects of "eco-friendly" military ball projectiles. Without such data, how can we possibly make a logical, rational decision as to which caliber is optimum?