Military round comparisons

[Variable]

Electrically actuated triggers are a non-starter in the US civilian weapons market. Submiting one to BATFE results in an "insta-fail" from the firearms technology branch.

It's an idea with considerable merit for some applications, but it's ease of conversion to full auto gets it denied right off the bat with ATF.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Some recommended reading on a "battery-powered electronically-actuated one-pull-one-shot trigger-sear assembly":

eTrigger Adjustable Electronic Trigger System (http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/sho...t=317395);

Electronic Arms LLC facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Electronic...4479145685) --- Check out the Video, at the bottom of the page.

Back in February, I received the following response from Gary Edge, Electronic Arms LLC: "The eTrigger is available, $299. It is compatible with standard Ruger manufactured 10/22 receivers. The eTrigger is a one pull, one shot device, thereby meeting current laws. The eTrigger allows a shooter to adjust the throw and weight of the trigger via a series of adjustment screws. Let me know if you would like one."

[woohoo]

Agreed, plus the other problem is that the weight of high-BC 7mm bullets means that the weight saving over 7.62mm M80 may be too small to be worth bothering with.

The Grendel provides the superior long-range performance needed to replace the 7.62mm combined with a very worthwhile weight saving, but only from a long barrel and firing high-BC lead-cored bullets. Combine the use of short carbine barrels with the current insistence on lead-free bullets (which will protrude more deeply into the case, reducing powder capacity - especially with tracer bullets), plus the potential for a polymer/metal hybrid version of the case (the coming thing) which reduces the case capacity by maybe 10%, and you get a performance shortfall which can only be made up by a bigger case. Something like the 7x46 UIAC necked-down to 6.5mm should do nicely.

And by the way, the performance from 20" barrels does matter, because that's likely to be the length of the tube of a GPMG firing any new intermediate round. At long range, a GPMG is surely more important than a carbine in terms of effective squad firepower.

I haven't talked to Murray in a few months but the last I heard was he had submitted a mag design to handle 2.5" long PPC/.450 diameter cases for manufacture.
He had a few converted MGs that were being tested along with the AR10s but he was still working on his MG design receivers. His main goal is a LW MG so he is more interested in suppression fire and barrier defeating performance. With his testing he is convinced the 7mm bullet is the way to go for that purpose. I think it is possible to have one round to do everything, again if it was me it would be in 6.5 or .277 caliber where bullets in the 130gr range have good BCs. 1 round to do it all might gain military attention more than 1 more special purpose round. Later this year we'll have some AR12s in 6.8x45 (based on the Carcano case) and 6.5x45 if we can get 6.5 barrels made.

[Tony Williams]

Later this year we'll have some AR12s in 6.8x45 (based on the Carcano case) and 6.5x45 if we can get 6.5 barrels made.

Very good - that sounds interesting!

[Variable]

Some recommended reading on a "battery-powered electronically-actuated one-pull-one-shot trigger-sear assembly":

eTrigger Adjustable Electronic Trigger System (http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/sho...t=317395);

Electronic Arms LLC facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Electronic...4479145685) --- Check out the Video, at the bottom of the page.

Back in February, I received the following response from Gary Edge, Electronic Arms LLC: "The eTrigger is available, $299. It is compatible with standard Ruger manufactured 10/22 receivers. The eTrigger is a one pull, one shot device, thereby meeting current laws. The eTrigger allows a shooter to adjust the throw and weight of the trigger via a series of adjustment screws. Let me know if you would like one."

Okay, I'll eat a portion of crow, since there are a few out there. I'm a modest NFA collector, and I used to be pretty well read up on NFA issues. It was pretty frowned on in the past, but if there are some imported Olympic target pistols it might make it. The other thread you linked cites the maker as no longer being around, and on the last page one guy says his unit (serial number "8") may be the last one that was made... If you actually get one please let us know. I'd also ask him if he has an acceptance letter from ATF. Pointing at a very expensive and relatively rare Olympic target pistol wouldn't sway me personally. I've seen ATF approve a number of things they didn't actually notice. The issue usually comes down the road when they make a "determination" after the item becomes popular.

I would only precede with an "E" trigger if I had an honest to goodness approval letter from BATFE's Tech branch in hand, and even then I'd lose a lot of sleep. ATF has a history of changing their minds on these things.

Open bolt semis? Oops, changed our minds...

Drop in Auto Sears? Oops, changed our minds...

BRP MG34 uppers? Oops, changed our minds...

The NFA industry is replete with victims of "Oops, changed our minds!".


You'd think a cheesy fake plastic suppressor on an airgun would be okay, since it'd never actually hack it on a real gun-- right? Watch out, it depends on what mood they are in that day...

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national...uppressers

Just requesting a letter from them is sometimes dangerous as well. They have a habit of changing their minds and arbitrarily applying it to an entire industry when they don't like the direction a line of inquiry is headed.

That's how we got the "Gemtax". Dater and the AAC crew got in a pissing match and some crying to the ATF got everybody crapped on.

The first time somebody comes up with a decent "E" trigger for an AR and seeks a letter from ATF we'll see what happens I guess.

Don't get me wrong---- I think it's a great idea, and I wish anyone doing it all the luck in the world. It could definitely solve one of the bullpup envelopes conundrums. I just wouldn't want to be the one left holding the bag when/if they change their minds if it actually becomes popular.

I hope you are right. I'll gladly eat some electronic crow.


ETA: Just be sure you know which regulatory agency you are dealing with. Are you aware of the shoestring machinegun issue?

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01...chine-gun/


I'll dig on ATF letters about "E" triggers. I would have swore I saw one a good ways back.

[Variable]

Short-N-Sassy: I found your post over on the bullpup forum while I was searching for ATF letters. I took particular note of his reply to you-----

BulZi: "No ATF letter is provided. Electronic triggers are legally no different from any other trigger system. Semiautomatic guns with electronic triggers have been commercially available for over a decade, including the Pardini SP 1 E and the MatchGuns MG2E among others. These guns also do not come with an ATF letter because no such letter is necessary for a one-shot-per-pull semiautomatic gun. There is a lot of misinformation circulating about electronic triggers, but if the design is semiautomatic only, it is legal."

http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?topic=2268.0

This is just my opinion based on past experience, but he is treading on very thin ice and he knows it. He is fully aware of how contentious the issue is based on it dealing with a semi-auto and the BATFE. 10 Year Federal Felony kind of serious, and knowing that people constantly bring it up would prompt a responsible manufacturer/seller to seek an acceptance letter for his design. Yet there isn't one, thus he (and potentially his customers) are potentially just whistling past the graveyard hoping not to get snagged.

I don't want to rain on anybody's parade (I'm hoping it passes with flying colors if it ever does get reviewed). It's just that a lot of stupid people have written a lot of stupid laws (and Regs!!!), and many good folk have gotten snagged by them. As a very pro 2nd Amendment FLEO, I don't want to see anyone get snagged by stupid stuff. Particularly if it's done unwittingly.

Here's a letter regarding an electronic trigger puller that is tentatively okayed, but far too vague to be of much use. It references no actual design, and they can twist that one in a heartbeat. http://s1001.photobucket.com/user/stefan...d.jpg.html

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Variable,

I understand your apprehension on this issue. And, my effort to get a major U.S. arms manufacturer to offer a legal electronically-actuated trigger on an auto-loading (semi-automatic) rifle is intended to clear up the widespread ambiguity on the Internet surrounding electronic triggers.

See my earlier Reply, above, eTrigger Adjustable Electronic Trigger System (http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/sho...p?t=317395), Page 23, Reply #341, By BulZi, wherein, he clarifies a legal electronic trigger, while pointing out some other types that the ATF have deemed illegal.

Today's typical Bullpup trigger-to-sear arrangement leaves a lot to be desired, to say the least: typically, about a 10-pound pull. It's not surprising, therefore, that "bad triggers" ranks among the few downsides, when considering Bullpups. A proper electronic trigger is the answer, at least for civilian models.

[Variable]

I see his reply now. I didn't have time to read all 25 pages before, so I didn't catch it. I laud his logic, I'm just apprehensive about applying logic to the Tech Branch. An approval letter from BATFE would be far more comforting (yet still a position they can reverse...:confused::mad. Another part I hate is that the simple act of submitting the request for an approval letter is exactly what tips them off and sometimes causes them to "reinterpret" things to suit where they want things to eventually end up.

Either way, good catch! I hope he is successful, and I'd love to see "E" triggers proliferate in the small arms world.

A good 6.5 Grendel bullpup design with an "E" trigger could make a really nice shooting stick!

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

In reference to Tony Williams' opening Post to this Thread, below --- and Nukes' Reply #23, Page 3, providing a Link to the 2009 paper By United States Army Major, Thomas P. Ehrhart, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, I would add 6.5mm Grendel bullet in test, AR-15 - YouTube. Future Weapons Host, former Navy SEAL, Richard "Mack" Machowicz, in a Kinetic Energy demonstration, makes the case for the 6.5mm Grendel, "Just like that, One shot, one kill. It goes down. No longer a threat. That's because the Grendel's heavier bullet delivers more than twice as much energy, as the 5.56." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP3DUIT_EU)

I saw, not long ago, the results of an analysis done of various rifle calibres. I can't provide more details of the circumstances, other than to say it was in a military context. The study (a paper exercise using various ballistic and other performance software available to the military) compared the performance of the 6.5 Grendel (123 grain OTM), 6.8 Rem (115 grain OTM), 7.62mm M80, 5.56mm M855 and 5.56mm MK262. It wasn't intended to be a particularly exhaustive analysis, but I thought you might like the outcome:

In external ballistics, the rounds fell into three groups: the M855 and 6.8mm Rem were very similar; the M80 and MK262 were also very similar, and much better than the first pair; the Grendel was by itself, waaaay out in front on every metric (including calculated barrier penetration). The work included the effects of wind drift as shown on some typical "advancing man" targets at 300m. I didn't note the wind speed, but a shot aimed centre-mass would have hit very close to centre mass with the Grendel, and just clipped the edge of the target with M855.

None of this will come as any surprise to anyone on this forum, of course, but it was nice to see this coming from a military source.

I did point out that replicating these performances with copper+steel bullets as currently favoured by the US Army would be difficult (probably impossible with MK262), due to the considerable extra length required.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Major Ehrhart, in his 2009 Report, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, stated, "Current equipment . . . optimized for engagements under 300 meters. . . . the M855 cartridge is most effective to a distance of 200 meters, after which its effectiveness is limited unless hitting a vital area of the target."

Using the retained Kinetic Energy of the M855 round at 300 meters (328 yards), 530 ft.lbs., as a parameter, let's compare the M855 with the following cartridges, all from 16" barrels:

Cartridge . . .Bullet Wt./B.C. . M.V. (16" bbl.) . 530 ft.lbs. retained Kinetic Energy @:

M855 . . . . . . 62-gr./0.283 . . 2970 fps . . . . . . . 328 yards;
MK262 . . . . . 77-gr./0.362 . . 2650 fps . . . . . . . 400 yards;
M855A1 . . . . 62-gr./0.371 . . 3020 fps . . . . . . . 450 yards;
6.8 SPC . . . . 115-gr./0.317 . .2575 fps . . . . . . . 480 yards;
M80 . . . . . . .147-gr./0.383 . .2460 fps . . . . . . . 655 yards;
6.5 Grendel. .123-gr./0.547 . .2523 fps . . . . . . . 850 yards.

[Michael]

Consider these questions -
1) What is the maximum distance that current training has soldiers/Marines engaging targets at?
a; Army = 300m (I think), Marines = 500m
2) What is the maximum distance that the average soldier/Marine can engage a target with at least an 80% hit probability?
a; Army = I don't know - can one of our former soldiers hazard a guess? Marines = my guess is the average Marine shooters I have seen can engage the 500m target (E target, 20"x40") 7 out of 10 times with iron sights, and 9 out of 10 with the RCO, so let's say 450m
3) What will be the terrain of most of the future conflicts?
a; Most of your military planners will tell you that the battlefield of the future will primarily be urban sprawl within the littoral regions. Having fought in Fallujah and Ramadi, (as well as being an urban skills instructor in the past) I know I didn't, and I don't think your average warrior engaged at more than 300m.

[JASmith]

Michael,

Good info -- problem is that the exceptions tend to drive the interest. We can be reasonably sure that all of our equipment and expendables are designed and maintained so that the 80th percentile is well-handled. The idea is that the costs of development and production skyrocket when every eventuality is covered. Further the burden on individual soldiers increases to where they can't carry enough ammunition to engage with the tactics they have been trained to use.

When it is discovered that something doesn't cover the 80th percentile, however, there is a scramble to find a fix.

The problem is, and this a a problem I have been annoyed with since the mid-70s when I first entered the weapons analysis and design world with more than 36 months in the Vietnam theater is "What about that remaining 20 per cent?" In the current context, the procurement community accepts that at least one time out of five, the engagement range is outside the design capability of the individual weapon.

If I understand correctly, this is the point where the combined arms argument is brought into play. We don't need long-range individual weapons because we have all those other assets that are perfectly capable of taking out a sniper or machine gun nest that is outside the reach to the squad complement.

There are penalties associated with the increased level of violence implied by using heavier and frequently airborne weaponry.

My point is that this debate has existed since Org told Morg that his rock was too small...

The final point is that I believe our soldiers and Marines are poorly served by not having the ability to obtain weapons tailored to the expectations of today's patrol, rather than expectations of averages over the coming thirty years of conflict.

[Michael]

JA - you are correct and I agree with everything you are saying. The combined arms team combined with maneuver warfare is what most of your military planners will point to as the method to overcome that remaining 20%. The penalties are stiff when you are talking solely airborne munitions...but you have the ability for a creative commander (I know LRRPF52 is going to jump all over this) to use those indirect fire weapons at the company level - 60mm mortars and M203s - as well as the medium machine guns, to fill in probably 17 of that remaining 20%. Reach up to the Bn level and include those snipers, .50M2, Mk19s and 81mm mortars, you cover it up to about that last 1%. Is it perfect? No, it's not, and to complicate things, the enemy always gets a vote.

This is where training comes into the game. The individual soldier must be trained to the full capabilities (as well as understanding the limitations) of his tools - weapons, optics, communications devices, etc. The leader must be trained to understand not only the capabilities and limitations of his gear, but also the potential gear of the enemy and the capabilities and limitations of those young men who he is leading. He also must be familiar with what other assets may be made available to him and how to integrate those assets into his training/planning/fighting. This is the area where we in the military fail most of the time. We don’t train those small unit leaders to their fullest potential. We train to the average guy, not the superstar. This means your superstars either go SpecOps or opt out of the military altogether. Not always, but more often than anyone would like to admit.

It is a shame that we don't always have the best weapons in the world, or the best vehicles, or the best of everything for those kids who volunteer to extend politics by other means. The problem you run into always is $$$$. As the fighting in Afghanistan winds down, I see us entering a period not unlike what you saw in the mid-70s...no $$$ = no training, no new gear, and no incentives to retain the best and brightest to be our future NCOs and commanders.

How will this turn out? I would like to say there will still be those young men and women who gut it out for whatever reason, and are eventually in a billet where they can make reasoned decisions concerning procurement to fight the next war, but you never know. Bottom line, it is the people who have won the battles of the past and will win the wars of the future. THAT is the asset we must hone in on.

[stanc]

Using the retained Kinetic Energy of the M855 round at 300 meters (328 yards), 530 ft.lbs., as a parameter, let's compare the M855 with the following cartridges, all from 16" barrels:

Cartridge . . .Bullet Wt./B.C. . M.V. (16" bbl.) . 530 ft.lbs. retained Kinetic Energy @:

M855 . . . . . . 62-gr./0.283 . . 2970 fps . . . . . . . 328 yards;
MK262 . . . . . 77-gr./0.362 . . 2650 fps . . . . . . . 400 yards;
M855A1 . . . . 62-gr./0.371 . . 3020 fps . . . . . . . 450 yards;
6.8 SPC . . . . 115-gr./0.317 . .2575 fps . . . . . . . 480 yards;
M80 . . . . . . .147-gr./0.383 . .2460 fps . . . . . . . 655 yards;
6.5 Grendel. .123-gr./0.547 . .2523 fps . . . . . . . 850 yards.

That sure makes 6.5 Grendel look great. Unfortunately, using specs for the Lapua HPBT Match projectile paints an exaggerated picture of Grendel performance with any likely military Ball load. The closest commercially available analog to M80 Ball is the Norma 120gr FMJBT, with a 0.420 BC. Plug those numbers into a ballistics calculator and the result is not nearly as impressive.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, By Major Thomas P. Ehrhart --- ". . . For examples of M855 ineffectiveness, you can look at some of the live fire accidents that have occured. One notable incident occurred in 1991, when then Lieutenant Colonel David H. Petraeus was shot in the chest by an M855 round from an M249 squad automatic weapon. He walked out of the hospital several days after the accident. Had the round performed optimally, he likely would have been killed. The author witnessed a soldier shot in the shoulder from a distance of 75 meters during a night live fire exercise, and the soldier was walking around smoking a cigarette twenty minutes after the accident. A soldier in the author's battalion had a negligent discharge with an M249 squad automatic weapon, during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, in a closed space of a building. Poorly instructed, he disassembled the weapon before unloading it and the weapon fired at the cyclic rate, firing approximately 100 rounds. From a distance of three meters, four soldiers were hit in the extremities and none sustained life threatening wounds. In general, the requirements for the infantry squad are that they have weapons capable of reliable incapacitations, from close range to a distance of 500 meters. This capability does not exist in the current family of 5.56-mm ammunition, . . ."

U.S. Army Places Huge Order for New M855A1 Ammo, October 26, 2010 (http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2010...55a1-ammo/). Reader's Response, "While this may be an improvement over the older M855 ammo, I don't see it as solving the whole issue with the 5.56 round. I have several friends in different branches of the military that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and they say the same thing, the 5.56 just doesn't have the power to stop insurgents, especially those drugged up on suicide missions. I have also been told stories of 'bad guys' who show off all the 5.56 hits they have survived, like they are bragging of something, as it seems to be a new fad to brag about taking more bullets than the others have. We need a superior round that they don't just walk away, after being hit with. We need to go to a 6mm, 6.5mm or 7.62mm round that has more stopping ability. Many of those deployed are aware of this, why are we not doing more about it? . . ."

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

I saw, not long ago, the results of an analysis done of various rifle calibres. I can't provide more details of the circumstances, other than to say it was in a military context. The study (a paper exercise using various ballistic and other performance software available to the military) compared the performance of the 6.5 Grendel (123 grain OTM), 6.8 Rem (115 grain OTM), 7.62mm M80, 5.56mm M855 and 5.56mm MK262. It wasn't intended to be a particularly exhaustive analysis, but I thought you might like the outcome:

In external ballistics, the rounds fell into three groups: the M855 and 6.8mm Rem were very similar; the M80 and MK262 were also very similar, and much better than the first pair; the Grendel was by itself, waaaay out in front on every metric (including calculated barrier penetration). The work included the effects of wind drift as shown on some typical "advancing man" targets at 300m. I didn't note the wind speed, but a shot aimed centre-mass would have hit very close to centre mass with the Grendel, and just clipped the edge of the target with M855.

None of this will come as any surprise to anyone on this forum, of course, but it was nice to see this coming from a military source.

I did point out that replicating these performances with copper+steel bullets as currently favoured by the US Army would be difficult (probably impossible with MK262), due to the considerable extra length required.

I chose the 123-grain OTM projectile for the 6.5 Grendel and the 115-grain OTM projectile for the 6.8 SPC to simulate the results noted by Tony Williams, in his opening Post, above. Had I chosen the 6.5mm 144-grain Lapua FMJBT, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 0.636 and a Muzzle Velocity of 2275 fps, that projectile wouldn't have dropped to 530 ft.lbs., till a little beyond 925 yards!

Moreover, given the deadly serious context of the Thread --- the Military still clings to the same basic cartridge family that this eastern woodchuck hunter abandoned for the 6mm Remington, back in the 1960's --- I dare state that one would be remiss not to emphasize the special attributes of the 6.5 Grendel.

[stanc]

I chose the 123-grain OTM projectile for the 6.5 Grendel and the 115-grain OTM projectile for the 6.8 SPC to simulate the results noted by Tony Williams, in his opening Post, above. Had I chosen the 6.5mm 144-grain Lapua FMJBT, with a Ballistic Coefficient of 0.636 and a Muzzle Velocity of 2275 fps, that projectile wouldn't have dropped to 530 ft.lbs., till a little beyond 925 yards!

And that would have made for another exaggerated comparison. Even Bill Alexander said that 144gr is too heavy for a general purpose ball load. The only suitable lead core FMJ in the desired weight range is the 120gr Norma. Try it for a realistic comparison.

[bwaites]

And that would have made for another exaggerated comparison. Even Bill Alexander said that 144gr is too heavy for a general purpose ball load. The only suitable lead core FMJ in the desired weight range is the 120gr Norma. Try it for a realistic comparison.

The 144 is only too heavy because no one thinks it would upset appropriately at the speeds its driven by the Grendel at close range. At distance, none of the ball rounds upset or fragment because their speeds have dropped, so the comparison at distance is reasonable. It would make a great machine gun round, too. But making a 123 grain FMJ with similar ballistics to the AMAX, 123 Sierra, and 123 Lapua would not be difficult. Lapua has actually come out with some newer designs that have even better BC's, and those could also be copied into FMJ's. The Norma is an OLD design in comparison.

That said, I'd prefer to see the 144 driven to 2600 FPS, where is would absolutely TOAST the .308 rounds. That won't happen in the Grendel yet, unfortunately. I am going to pick up a hundred and see what I get using CFE223 and Leverlution. I'm betting we can drive it over 2300 and maybe even 2400 from a 20" barrel. It would be a much improved DM round over .223 even at that velocity.

Now, having said all of THAT.....I don't think we will see a new brass cartridge rifle introduced into military use, period. We aren't going that route. The head shed wants a HUGE next step, not an incremental improvement, and that won't happen with mature technology. We will have to have a paradigm shift at least as great as the switch from M14 to M16 to make that happen.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

That sure makes 6.5 Grendel look great. Unfortunately, using specs for the Lapua HPBT Match projectile paints an exaggerated picture of Grendel performance with any likely military Ball load. The closest commercially available analog to M80 Ball is the Norma 120gr FMJBT, with a 0.420 BC. Plug those numbers into a ballistics calculator and the result is not nearly as impressive.

stanc,

With all due respect, the "6.5 Grendel look[s] great," because that's just what it is --- no matter how you slice it! And, lest we forget, the Grendel has entered this AR game, not without a significant handicap: while the 6.5 Grendel respects its "self-imposed" 50,000 psi to 52,000 psi limit, the M855A1 unabashedly takes it up to 63,000 psi! --- M855A1: Should if be the New Round for Soldiers and Marines? (http://www.gunsandammo.com/.../m855a1-sh...nd-for-sol...). . . I'd like to see the 6.5 Grendel in the soon-to-be-released ARX100!

[stanc]

The 144 is only too heavy because no one thinks it would upset appropriately at the speeds its driven by the Grendel at close range.

Whatever the reason, my point -- which you just confirmed, thanks -- is that the 144 IS too heavy, therefore is an irrelevant choice for comparison.

At distance, none of the ball rounds upset or fragment because their speeds have dropped, so the comparison at distance is reasonable.

That statement may be true, but it ignores my objection: Comparing 6.5mm 123gr HPBT Match to 7.62mm 147gr FMJ Ball gives an inaccurate and misleading representation of relative performance, because it's highly unlikely that a 6.5mm 123gr military FMJ bullet would have a BC anywhere close to that of the Scenar.

Such comparisons should be as much "apples vs apples" as possible. Don't want to compare M80 FMJ to the Norma FMJ? Okay, but just don't compare it to the Scenar, either. Compare 7.62mm M118LR 175gr SMK to 6.5mm 123gr SMK. Anybody care to wager that the 6.5 SMK load will outperform the M118LR in SASSY's comparison? :p

But making a 123 grain FMJ with similar ballistics to the AMAX, 123 Sierra, and 123 Lapua would not be difficult.

Ah, how many times I've heard that. Sadly, it's still only speculation. Until someone actually makes such a bullet, there's simply no way to know what the BC would be.

The Norma is an OLD design in comparison.

Yeah, but at least it exists. That's worth far more in my book than a dozen hypothetical, but non-existent, bullets.