Seems very good that, although the IAR being the dog it is... Quick question you sir this being your area of expertise.
If as stated they were advocating a clean sheet design and move towards the CT or caseless ammo anyway, why stick with the 5.56 ammo? logistically the new ammo isnt going to jive with stockpiles anyway so why not go the whole hog and go for an intermediate caliber like a .280 or 6.8 and so on? Are there issues such as recoil, training or simple familiarity which would make such a transition expensive/unfeasible/unattractive? Or is it simply that the performance gain isnt worth it? But then what is the comparative development cost of a 5.56 CT vs say a 6.8 CT?
As I recall, from reading here and there (powerpoints and such), it was decided to use some off-the-shelf stock for the rifle prototypes and stay to cost.
Seems very good that, although the IAR being the dog it is... Quick question you sir this being your area of expertise.
ReplyDeleteIf as stated they were advocating a clean sheet design and move towards the CT or caseless ammo anyway, why stick with the 5.56 ammo? logistically the new ammo isnt going to jive with stockpiles anyway so why not go the whole hog and go for an intermediate caliber like a .280 or 6.8 and so on? Are there issues such as recoil, training or simple familiarity which would make such a transition expensive/unfeasible/unattractive? Or is it simply that the performance gain isnt worth it? But then what is the comparative development cost of a 5.56 CT vs say a 6.8 CT?
As I recall, from reading here and there (powerpoints and such), it was decided to use some off-the-shelf stock for the rifle prototypes and stay to cost.
ReplyDeleteTake care. Ferran.