07-27-2011, 04:36 PM
JWH Wrote:I really think that for the something like 90% of engagements under 300 meters (averaging all the conflicts of the past 100 years) the 6.5 Grendel is perfectly reasonable, and how felicitous that its long-range trajectory, for the other 10%, is very comfortably within the parameters set by existing cartridges that have served us so well for many years.
I want a 6.5 Grendel with a 110gr T3 steel-tipped projectile (analogous to M855A1) for all man-portable infantry weapons. Much to LRRPF52's chagrin, this combines an LMG and an MMG into one weapon.
For the large majority of situations, I don't see what humping a 7.62 GPMG is gonna do that a 65G MG can't do. Neither is gonna be optimal for chewing through adobe walls. And without shot placement, neither, in my opinion, is gonna be deadlier than the other in soft tissue. In terms of pure capability, the 7.62N is probably "better," but in the bigger picture and in light of the slight overlap in capability the 65G provides, the weight and bulk of this capability is unnecessary for a man-portable weapon.
John
Having someone drop a case of 7.62 ammo to you out of a chopper when you are carrying a 5.56, and vice versa really sucks. So having 1 caliber for belt fed guns and rifles would really be great. Your troops could carry extra belts for the machine guns and break them down and load them in magazines in a pinch. The SAW's can even use magazines in a pinch, even though they have not been very reliable fired that way. But that is better than an M-249 club to beat them over the head with.
With a 6.5 platoon machine gun (Think SAW with a heavier, longer quick change barrel, and a pintle mount for the tripod) you could increase the muzzle velocity of the same round and get a flatter trajectory for grazing fire while still drastically reducing the machine gun system's total weight allowing more ammo to be carried. You could use the existing tripod and T&E mechanism, although a lighter one would be possible.
I know it really sucks for a grunt to have to carry machine gun ammo he can't use. Getting it passed, or carried to the machine gun in the middle of a fight is tough. If the gunners knew they could grab a belt off of nearly any grunt when they got low, it would be a lot more flexible.
As a leader you don't have to remember if Private Schmedlap is carrying a belt for the 249 or the 240. If he has a belt, that's all that matters.
Then if Private Schmedlap's chopper gets shot down and he's defending the crash site, he can break down the belts and load his magazines, and he knows what he is carrying will fire in whatever he can drag out of the wreckage that still works.
There's huge value in that.
RR