Lets start over: how do you design a GPC?

[LRRPF52]

Just a dash of light-hearted humor, in this otherwise serious Discussion, if you will.

Reviewing the Replies to this Thread, as well as the two related Threads, Military Round Comparisons and Third Generation Battle Rifle, I'm reminded to a couple of cartoons I came across, recently (http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/i/..._gifts.asp): Image 1, "Innovate, or die," is relevant to most industries, today --- the Electronics Industry, an outstanding example, while Image 2, "Your proposal is bold and innovative, but we are a traditional corporation. I would prefer changes like the ones we've tried before," certainly is true, here, and in the gun industry, as a whole. And, I think the Objections, in the "Objections and Responses" Section, at the end of Tony Williams' comprehensive web article, The Case for a General-Purpose Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridge (GPC),, for the most part, represent yet another example of this "traditional" (read: brickwall) mindset.

The brickwall is coming from the military, or elements within the military, dating back to post-Great War with the .276 Pedersen experience. That was actually driven by the Army, where they had determined that the .276 Pedersen would be the new service rifle cartridge, until MacArthur squashed it.

Then we had a similar thing happen with the 7.62 NATO vs. .270 and .280 Enfield. US Army Ordnance Corps couldn't put the .30 cal booze bottle down, when offered some nice Gin from England in the 1950's.

Since the 1950's, we have stockpiled 7.62 NATO to the point that we have 11yrs of it at current demand, as well as 5.56 NATO. If a unit properly tailors its TO&E for the AOR it's in, 5.56 and 7.62 NATO complement each other quite well at the Squad and Platoon levels. Using one caliber exclusively has been proven to be a failure when it's tried like 7.62 NATO M14/M60 system, and 5.56 M16/SAW system in Afghanistan, although you do have 7.62 belt-fed weapons at the Platoon level.

The more you look at this with a clearer picture, the more you realize it's a TO&E and training issue, not a caliber issue. Sure there are more ideal calibers that would work really well in certain AOR's. I know I would rather carry a 16" Grendel than a 16" 7.62 NATO SASS, because I can kick-in doors with it, and reach out to the same effective range as a 7.62, with 50% of the recoil, and more ammo capacity for less weight on my gear. I would still need the logistics footprint to support it though.