Quote Originally Posted by AlexTX ret View Post
There is a round that does that in spades, the 6.5 MPC. It will fit in existing magazines with out modification. The same can be said for the upper reciever. The only part that must be changed is the barrel. It even plays nice with shorter barrels (M4) and the problems with the impinged gas sytem of the M16 family. It is a better round for IARs, Saws and SDMs. Without a dangerous increase in chamber pressure, it is longer ranged and has a greater penetration at these ranges. The only problem with that it requires a change in tactics and politics of the military. There are various studies that are positive about the 6.5 MPC. The problem is that can the cartridge over come the prejudice of the procurement system of the military.
6.5 MPC is still only a compromise, designed to fit within the 5.56 envelope. It may have some nice advantages but little that would strike me as breathtaking (also not sure how well it defeats body armour). 6.5 Grendel would be a little more breath taking but even that is a compromise for the same reason (length-wise anyway). These are all rounds that are designed to suit, to some extent anyway, existing platforms. Going for a marginal compromise would probably not end the conversation.

I think the US have missed (another) beautiful opportunity in the late seventies/early eighties with the 6 mm SAW, which was said to have been dropped for fear of adding a third calibre. That could have been a good round to replace both other calibres. The M16A1 was in need of replacement anyway, so the A2 might as well have been a totally different weapon, me thinks. Back then most NATO members had not yet committed to 5.56 either….....hindsight.

It appears to me that the 5.56 is indeed marginal, but ‘kind-a’ does the job it was meant to do. The round sort of sits on the fence. Whether or not it is okay seems to depend more on which side of the fence the observer is on, agenda’s and all.

All that said, I would agree with Ken, and probably Alex, that a ‘true’ general purpose round makes sense. And the 6.5 Grendel does seem to be close to it. (I know Wilf…..weight….)


....At present, there is a move by many to go back to the old M193 cartridge because it does fragment.
Really? With 1 in 7 barrels? That would make for a short-range weapon.