New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Tony Williams]

The way I read it, CLAWS is aimed at getting a cartridge with better performance than 5.56mm, but not so large, heavy, and powerful as would be necessary to match 7.62mm capabilities.

Since LDAM would replace the 7.62mm MMG with a weapon firing a bigger, more powerful cartridge, it appears that infantry units would still have two calibers, thereby ruling out a single GPC.

Does anybody else see it that way? Does this open the possibility for US and NATO adoption of 6.5 Grendel (or a similar cartridge)?

It is difficult to be sure exactly what this project is trying to achieve. However, the way I see it is this:

CLAWS seems to be intended to replace not just 5.56mm but also 7.62mm in light portable weapons (mainly LMGs, presumably DMRs also). Therefore a CLAWS LMG should be able to replace both versions of the Minimi: the M249 and the MK48.

LDAM seems to be intended to replace the heavy support 7.62mm MG (M240 on a tripod) plus the .50 cal HMG in the long-range anti-personnel role (tripod-mounted for sure, possibly vehicle-mounted in due course?). And may well become the sniper round, in a higher-quality loading (although that's a minor detail).

If my reading of this is correct, then I don't see the US forces accepting a CLAWS calibre which has an inferior long-range performance (at least in terms of hit probability - trajectory, flight time and wind drift) to the 7.62mm M80. Which drops you into something vaguely resembling 6.5mm Grendel (i.e. GPC) performance territory. It would be the only calibre routinely carried at squad level.

The obvious candidates for LDAM will be something like the .338 LM or .338 NM.

Of couse, even if the US Army happens to be thinking along these lines at present, what they'll end up with may be very well be entirely different....