New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[BluntForceTrauma]

Still not "feelin' " the need for 7.62 NATO equivalency.

Yes, better performance is always, uh, "better." But to put it bluntly, I'm willing to give up some "performance" in order to keep RECOIL manageable. Low recoil INCREASES hits among newly trained soldiers. The 6.5 Grendel, or something very similar (.25 Grendel, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 Grendel), can ALREADY match 7.62 at 1000 yards for those rare occasions when necessary.

Keep the big picture in mind: Two 6.5 Grendel loadings (105gr for AR, 120gr for DMR/LMG) COMBINED with the new airburst grenade launchers are gonna do pretty much everything man-portable small arms need doing.

Unless the state-of-the-art makes BIG advances soon, trying for 7.62 NATO performance is simply going to make the cartridge and weapons more bulky than necessary.

I'll compromise on a bigger cartridge if you compromise on vastly improved recoil management, something along the lines of a perfected constant recoil system.

John

P.S. This lead-free program irks me to no end. If we get in a serious shooting war with, oh, China, I say F*CK the Sierra Club (or whoever the hell drives "green" policy in our damn military) and use equipment that WINS the war. Can we finally get some adults in charge of national defense? We'll worry about the environmentalists wetting themselves later. . . .