JASmith Wrote:I was using a looser meaning of the definition -- one more in line with Gene's 50% plus up. We could start with numbers of rounds per kilogram and/or numbers of rounds in a magazine the size of the current 20 round magazine. Don't know if 50% is the right threshold.There is no "right" threshold. Any figure you set will be arbitrary, neither right nor wrong.
Don't bother trying to set a threshold. Just design and develop the cartridge, then compare its weight to that of 7.62 M80.
It's a simple matter to compare the number of rounds in a mag the size of the current 20-round mag. A stack of 10 rounds of 7.62 will measure 4.73 inches. Divide by 0.441" and 0.422" case diameters, and you get the following:
- 7.62x51 -- 20 rds
- 7x46 ----- 21 rds
- 6.8x43 --- 22 rds
Not a very "significant" difference, is it?
I'd say it's better to compare weight of 100 rds of linked ammo.
Individual links don't weigh much, but 100 of them do add up. Also, links for the .422" case can be smaller and lighter than those for a .441" case. The latter will likely be about midway in size and weight between the 6mm SAW link (which is a near perfect fit to the 6.8x43 case) and the 7.62 M13 link.
Another possible basis for comparison is the volume occupied by 100 rounds. Last I saw, 200 rounds of linked 7.62x51 is packed in a .30-caliber ammo can, 100 rounds in each of two heavy paper cartons (one carton per bandolier). If you can somehow determine how many 100-rd belts of the alternative cartridges can be packed in cartons, in a .30 caliber can, that may show an advantage. Just intuitively, I doubt that a .441" cartridge will permit more than two, 100-rd belts per can, but it might be possible (emphasis on "possible") that three, 100-rd belts of a .422" round could fit.
Quote:Yes, it would need to be demonstrated to the standard you called our attention to.What standard is that? Did I miss it? :confused:
