Should NATO make the 6.5 the new standard?

File: LSAT_LMG_used_by_an_US_Army_soldier.jpg (74KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 640x480px

Only one that isn't a metal-cased cartridge.

File: MPC-ARTCU3.jpg (38KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x640px

>>33551731
Supposedly some dude made 6.5x45 (6.5 MPC), sorta surprised that it hasn't caught on that much since you only have to change out the barrel, but this guy doesn't really advertise it that much.

Once I finish college and move out state, might try to stamp out some these on my own.

>>33551731
6.5 bullet at 400 yards and a 5.56 bullet at 100 yards have the same energy. 6.5 has longer range, flatter trajectory, more energy, all while still being an intermediate cartridge. I read that US special forces are testing the round right now, I think it would be best to switch, but given the cost of doing so I don't know if it will ever happen.

File: 5Ye0t9W.png (2MB, 1438x1439px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1438x1439px

>>33551731
Hell no, the benefits over 5.56 are nowhere near enough to justify the massive cost

Do you know how much it would cost to change calibers for NATO?

14 fucking shitloads, dude

File: 1488210980490.png (13KB, 555x407px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 555x407px

>>33551731
Why weren't modified M856 rounds with inserts more popular?

Goes just as fast as Grendel 115 gr round and farther because BC and stuff.

>>33551979
Honestly a caliber conversion would be the easiest way to revitalize US Miltary small arms development. A new round with new capabilities that can be used in existing systems with Minimal modifications would be a boon to small arms developers if it were actually adopted.

>>33552051
Yeah and cost way to much fucking money fucktard.

>>33552051
>can be used in existing systems with Minimal modifications
>a boon to small arms developers

What do you think would change?

>>33551994

FBI plz go.

The best way to make a caliber change palatable would be use as much in common with the current equipment. Things like .300 Memeout, 6.5 MPC or .277 Wolverine that only require a barrel change and uses existing magazines and bolts are far more likely than something like 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC that require new magazines, bolts and barrels.

All of this doesn't really matter since for militaries to change rounds, they need to be shown the new round blows the other round out of the water to justify the change anyway.

>>33551979
And how much additional weight and recoil? We knew what we were giving up in range and penetration when we switched to 5.56 from 7.62x51.

>>33551731

1.If the performance is better than the Grendel and closer to the Creedmoor.

2. If it's not tied to the fucking AR. The boat anchor of new cartridge development needs to go away.

>>33551979

Please tell me what a flatter trajectory is.

>>33551731

bullets don't fucking matter to the military.