Quote Originally Posted by Blah View Post
I assume you mean something like the 6.5 grendel or 6.8 SPC? While that would increase the terminal effect (6.8), or both terminal and external ballistics (6.5) of IWs, it would also decrease the "punch" so-to-speak, of GPMGs and LMGs (if the Mk 48 sticks). I feel as if the strength of the GPMG/LMG is more important than the strength of the IW as far as modern war is concerned.
-snip-
A better investment would be developing sabot ammunition for small-arms.
-snip-
Essentially what I am advocating is that you should increase powder weight when you want to save weight, not bullet weight.
I agree with you that the strength of the GPMG is more important that the strength (or weakness for that matter) of the IW. However, the problematic balancing act that we have been performing now for a few decades, where we want 7,62 punchability for 5.56 weight and size, just doesn’t seem to go away. In the sandbox, GPMGs seem to have a habit of working their way down to section/squad level. And now it seems the US army (UK and NZ are also looking into this) want to replace their 5.56 Minimi’s with 7.62 variants. We are going full circle so we can predict the outcome.

So to me it would seem more prudent to first try to knock weight and size for GPMGs down as far as possible without loosing too much punch, although some loss would be unavoidable. If and only if that could get us to something like a (stretched-case?) 6.5 Grendel GPMG that can competently replace both the 7.62 MAG and Minimi type guns and the 5.56 Minimi types, without loosing so much punch that we are still going to want the 7.62 back, then we could look into using that same calibre for rifles. So yes, GPMG-ability trumps, me thinks. Now it does of course pay to keep IW-ability in mind throughout the process, but if too much focus is there then I think we will again end up with something that won’t work for true GPMGs (light enough for the LMG role and heavy enough for the MMG role). And then the resulting balance will be the same (type and number of) 7.62 guns with heavier rifles; an overall increase in weight.

For me the attraction would be in making the GPMG more user-friendly at lower levels without giving away too much of its current attributes. That, rather than trying to (a) improve on the current GPMG capabilities (since I don’t think they are in question), or (b) improve on current 5.56 support weapons capabilities. The latter I think would be trying to push a losing envelope, while never coming up with anything that will ever be more than a stop-gap between rifles and GPMGs.

I am by no means an expert in ballistics so I’ll refrain from arguing the sabot suggestion, other than to say that the concept comes across to me as promising for niche roles like armour piercing and perhaps less so for much else. Increasing powder weight to save weight….hmmm, dunno. A M193 has more powder per unit of bullet weight than a Mk 262.