as far as i am concerned, the 7x57 is should of where they stopped.
heck, i'm stating this as a fact that the Army believes, weapon beats armor every time. it may take you a little bit of time, but weapon beats armor. would i have worn it? yes, i would have, but Kevlar plates weren't out yet. i did wear a Kelvar helmet, tho i miss shaving in my steel pot and cooking eggs and a whole bunch of other stuff.Cheap body armor is showing up all over the globe. You can get a plate carrier for $179 t hat will stop a .308 AP. You really don't want to be behind the curve on such things. The fact that you personally didn't wear it, or that you rarely encountered it is anecdotal data from ONE guy. The army leadership is concerned.
I see ZERO evidence for any of your thoughts. The army is concerned about the threat, they are the experts on what the army needs, not us. They feel its a problem, and they're one of the only military organizations that is addressing the issue.
Just don't understand why gun people are so conspiratorial.
mostly they use 5.45x39 in their ak's, but they have 7.62x39 somewhere.This is a absolute nightmare. There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 as a combat cartridge as you can see in the Ukraine. I carried the M4 as a contractor in Iraq and always carried 400 rounds of ammo and that is something I could not do with this abortion. If I was Grizzly hunting sure but for people massive over kill and too heavy.
thats a caliber that used accuracy as its middle name, 222 remington. i had a savage m325 in 222 rem and it was exceedingly accurate. i got it second or third or.... hand and the only thing i did was to exchange the scope, 6x Swift (when they had an over-the-counter warranty). i shot at woodchucks, red and grey foxes, crows, rocks, targets, soda bottles......at ranges out to 300 yards, i did however shoot a groundhog at 330-350 yards (didn't have a laser range finder thingy back then) the trigger pull was horrible, but after i shot it several times, i got used to it. 50gr Hornady sp with a max load of h322 would go under 1/4" at 100 yards(5 shots/bench). i must have shot 6000-7000 rounds thru her (3 - 4 years). i don't know the round count because i bought it 2nd or 3rd hand. anyway, i took it to my gunsmith (RIP) and he bore scoped it and he said, what i could have known, that barrel was fried and some spots the rifling was non-existent.I wish I could publish the MH Walker note books. The inventor of the 222 was MAD about the .223/5.56 and had nothing at all good to say about the 'Gov guys that never heard of Newton and seemed intent on doing the impossible by throwing more money at it.'
Mike Walker was NOT impressed by procurement guys at all and wrote cryptic notes that are entertaining to one that loves ballistics. "Where is a 10K altitude range? That'll work!"
They chronographed some loads in Leadville CO. Instant magic!! Instant trajectory repair. Write it down!
i'll give Vortex the nod because you don't need batteries to shoot it. the only problem that i have will be CQC (close quarters combat). i would mount on the side a reflex sight, i know, the batteries.....its much easier to use than a 1x scope on a rifle. but that is just my opinion.🤦
Anyone who followed the links and researched the actual sources, knows that the requirement for the 277 ammo was to weigh less than the 7.62 NATO. Meaning they know that the ammo doesn't weigh anything like 2.5 times what the 5.56 does... Similarly, they would have researched the XM157 contract. Meaning they also know the new optic weighs less than the currently issued mess.
Here are some more links, that some will also ignore.
XM157 discussion, from the source.
Study on hit probability of the Garand.
Study on hit probability of the M16 family with optics.
i'm still waiting on that price too.Can you provide some budgetary reference, for that cost claim?