Which is further than 7mm than .277, so it's misnamed. This is a case where the so called "official" nomenclature is incorrect. Unless of-course 7.214mm is closer to 7mm than 7.04mm.

It is you who is incorrect.  You're displaying ignorance of the difference between caliber and bullet diameter.

     7.62mm / .30 caliber = 7.82mm / .308" bullet diameter

     7mm / .28 caliber = 7.21mm / .284 bullet diameter

     6.8mm / .27 caliber = 7.04mm / .277" bullet diameter

7.62mm NATO, 7mm Mauser, 7mm UIAC, and 6.8mm SPC are caliber designations, not their bullet diameters.

Caliber is measured between the lands of the rifling, not the bullet diameter.

First it's bullet diameter that matter, it's self evident enough. Second, even using the incorrect terminology and using bore diameter in both ways of measuring it (grooves or lands) .277 is still closer to a true 7mm. Trying to steal the limelight of the superior caliber by taking its name is the sort of underhanded tactic the Grendel cabal used to kill off the competition.

Unless you can prove a number further away from 7mm is actually closer to 7mm, then you're wrong and will remain wrong.

The M32 doesn't fire 40x53mm. It fires (in addition to 40x46mm) 40x51mm, which has a muzzle velocity of 100 m/s. It doesn't fire 40x53mm, because 40x53mm is too powerful to shoulder fire due to its heavy projectile, which is THE ENTIRE POINT of the 25x40mmB, to marry AGL-like muzzle velocities with a smart optic.

So you are literally comparing a shoulder fired gun to a tripod mounted crew served AGL and saying "oh yeah if muzzle velocity was so important with computer gunsights why did the US Army  dramatically reduce the projectile mass of the 25x40mm to achieve a V0 that isn't even quite as high as an AGL's? Checkmate, atheists!"

At this point, if I were you I'd just claim I was trolling all along, because that's dumb as hell, dude.

Sten556 said:

First it's bullet diameter that matter, it's self evident enough.

That you believe it is "self evident" is why you're wrong.  Since the 19th century, the standard practice for military small arms caliber designation has been to use the distance between the rifling lands, not the bullet diameter.

Sten556 said:

Second, even using the incorrect terminology and using bore diameter in both ways of measuring it (grooves or lands) .277 is still closer to a true 7mm.

Irrelevant.

Sten556 said:

Trying to steal the limelight of the superior caliber by taking its name is the sort of underhanded tactic the Grendel cabal used to kill off the competition.

ROFL. 

Sten556 said:

Unless you can prove a number further away from 7mm is actually closer to 7mm, then you're wrong and will remain wrong.

Then explain why Cris Murray named it 6.8mm SPC instead of 7mm SPC.

----------

P.S.  It always amused me when 6.8 SPC fans would point to the .276 Pedersen and say, "See, the US Army almost adopted a 6.8mm cartridge in the 1930s."  The .276 Pedersen is a 7mm cartridge, not a 6.8mm, but those fan boys were as ignorant of caliber designation as you are.  (.276 is the caliber, not the bullet diameter.)

Because of the stupid convention in place, self evident, it's not to those, well limited.

You're denying reality, bullet matters, bore is merely the convention, fact. Don't like it, you don't like reality. 6.8 or .277 or the true 7mm as it should be called is still closer to the ideal caliber of 7mm, regardless of the number, you cannot contradict this. You say irrelevant, but you miss the point of why that size... maybe reality is irrelevant for those that live in lala land. And lastly, the "convention" being "official" or whatever doesn't magically make it right... it's not... it's just that a convention.

Yeah deny all the mud that Bill and his acolytes have thrown over people doing good work. Denialism, again is a symptom of those disconnected from reality. But then reality doesn't care about you and the true 7mm caliber will be vindicated as the NGSW rolls out.

Sten556 said:

...bore is merely the convention, fact. Don't like it, you don't like reality.

Actually, I'm okay with bore size being the convention.  It's you who doesn't like it.

Sten556 said:

6.8 or .277 or the true 7mm as it should be called is still closer to the ideal caliber of 7mm, regardless of the number, you cannot contradict this. You say irrelevant, but you miss the point of why that size...

Okay.  Explain to me why 7mm (.284" bullet) is the "ideal" caliber.

Sten556 said:

...maybe reality is irrelevant for those that live in lala land.

I wholeheartedly agree.

QuintusO said:

So you are literally comparing a shoulder fired gun to a tripod mounted crew served AGL and saying "oh yeah if muzzle velocity was so important with computer gunsights why did the US Army  dramatically reduce the projectile mass of the 25x40mm to achieve a V0 that isn't even quite as high as an AGL's? Checkmate, atheists!"

Sorry, but I'm not the one who made the comparison (XM25 vs. Mk47), I was just a guy replying to him...

convention =/= right

He said "something like an XM25", he said nothing about using the same caliber. Just seems... A little obtuse to not get that?