Sten556 said:

I think that the creator of the 6.8 SPC, one of the most well thought out and promising cartridges in history (sadly shot down by the Grendel cabal and their drones)...

We seemed to be on the same page, until that post.

First, 6.8 SPC was not very well thought out or promising, as shown by how easily it was "shot down" by 6.5 Grendel.

While I think Cris Murray and Steve Holland made an excellent choice in opting to use the .30 Remington as a parent case, they badly screwed up in opting to load it with a short, stubby, mediocre-BC bullet.

Murray did not repeat that mistake when he later developed the 7mm UIAC, which he gave a longer, streamlined projectile.

As for the "7mm Mauser" paragraph you quoted, that was self-serving nonsense to extol the supposed historical superiority of 7mm as a military rifle caliber.  It is propaganda that disingenuously distorts the truth in order to trash calibers smaller than the 7mm he was trying to promote.  For instance:

"the Japanese quickly dropped the 6.5mm caliber after fighting the Russians in 1905"  FALSE.  The Japanese upgraded their 6.5mm ammo by switching from a round nose bullet to a spitzer, and continued to use that 6.5mm cartridge until 1945.

"any country that had a 6.5mm or smaller caliber service rifle quickly ditched it for something of larger caliber immediately after any fight they got into."  FALSE.  Pretty much every country that used 6.5mm in the First World War, still used 6.5mm more than two decades later in the Second World War.

"Knights Armament want us to adopt a 6x35mm and SSK is touting their 6x45UMC"  MISLEADING.  Knight was pitching the 6x35 TSWG as a PDW round, not a rifle/LMG cartridge. 

And I've never heard of SSK touting a 6x45 UMC, although SSK did develop a 6.5x42 MPC.  See pp. 29-30 of 12) pg 28-31 F-ammo.pmd (thedonovan.com)

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

Stupidity drove the 6.8 pick over 6.5

Nice try at again being dishonest as all get out emeric.

But here you go I'll play ball even though we both know you know this and you're just mad you're getting called out.

In order to get a 40x53 grenade to 1000 meters with a mk47 AGL how many degrees of superelevation will you need to apply emeric?

More or less than you'd need from an xm25?

Projectiles don't EVER travel in a dead straight line Emeric.

You brought up muzzle velocity in a TIME OF FLIGHT discussion because you have no intention of arguing honestly much less in good faith.

Muzzle velocity is not time of flight.

A 40x53 HEDP grenade from a mark 47 in fact must travel a much greater distance will having a substantially worse form factor.

Do I need to go on and explain for everyone else even further how much you're trying to baffle with bullshit instead of bring the facts?

At least your trolling is fun interesting and makes us look for how you're deliberately twisting things.

Well played Stan.

I like you

So the fun part of sten's additions to the conversation is they are a mental trap designed to lure certain individuals here into thinking yeah thinking a certain bullet diameter is somehow intrinsically better is stupid!

So is trying to slavishly recreate an old thing no matter how much it's just not actually going to work for your new application and or platform because it's just inherently unsuitable for modern use!

Hey.... Wait a second... 

roguetechie said:

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Stupidity drove the 6.8 pick over 6.5

???  None of that makes any sense as a reply to my comments about .264 USA and .277 USA.

roguetechie said:

At least your trolling is fun interesting and makes us look for how you're deliberately twisting things.

Only in your mind, have I "deliberately twisted" anything.

QuintusO said:

You could have compared 40x53mm to 25x59mmB, and noted the velocity increase of 80 percent for the 25mm AGL. I wonder why you chose not to?

Because the XM25 is firing the 25x40 mm round and not the "high velocity" version?

I mean, there is enough 40x46 mm in service (which are really "low velocity"), so if the point of Roguetechie was that the US wanted to replace / supplement the 40x46 mm with a XM25 derivative (instead of adopting the M32, with a substantial increase of the velocity and reduction of the ToF), he would have write it that way.

roguetechie said:

So the fun part of sten's additions to the conversation is they are a mental trap designed to lure certain individuals here into thinking yeah thinking a certain bullet diameter is somehow intrinsically better is stupid!

Not seeing how that matters.  Sten's post was mostly about the supposed superiority of 7mm caliber, which is bigger than the 6.8mm caliber of NGSW.

roguetechie said:

So is trying to slavishly recreate an old thing no matter how much it's just not actually going to work for your new application and or platform because it's just inherently unsuitable for modern use!

That's rather vague.  Who is trying to slavishly recreate what old thing?  Are you referring to Cris Murray's attempt to sell his 7mm UIAC?  Or something else?

7mm is 6.8mm is .277

It's simple