New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

First, I presume they're talking about a high BC 6.8. Everyone knows any 6.8 under about 120 grains is a non-starter. Second, Stan, do you happen to know what he means by this, or do I need to dig up the source?

John, I do know. He does not mean 6.8 SPC. Think something like Cris Murray's 7x46 UIAC, except with high-BC .277" bullet. The consensus on Tony's MG&A forum is that lead-free .264" bullets probably won't be heavy enough to provide acceptable terminal effects.


.276 Pedersen, .270 British, 7x43 British, 7.62x51 NATO, 7x46 UIAC, 6.5x38 Grendel

Again, arbitrary. Being an iconoclast, I ask "Why?" They answer, "Uh, because that's what the .308 does."

You're correct as to the why, but I disagree that it's arbitrary. In the absence of information to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to expect the military will want at least 7.62 performance in a replacement for that round, and that's been the prevailing view of GPC proponents.

I also thought that way, but the CLAWS and LDAM programs made me re-evaluate the issue. With LDAM seeking a replacement for 7.62 NATO as the MMG caliber, I now think that it may not be necessary to match 7.62 performance in a new cartridge for carbines, DMRs, and LMGs.

IMO, it all depends on what performance the military decides they want, and what weight penalties they're willing to accept.

Put your development money into long-range, air-burst grenades instead of the last war. Or, should I say, the wars of the previous century.

The military is putting money into airburst grenades. But, as LRRPF52 noted, ABGLs can't replace rifles and machine guns (at least, at this stage), so some development efforts will have to also go into conventional bullet-firing weapons.