>>64090328
Was there even any testing of steel core 6.8 SPC?
>>64090505
>Lol pussy
Have fun running out of ammo first, or showing up to the fight already fatigued
>Still a parabola lol
More room for error in range estimation and lead
>5.56 doesn't have any recoil lmao
Which means increased hit rate. You have less ammo and miss more. Guess how the fight will end.
>Completely irrelevant, why don't we switch to 5.7
People really think they're smart when they mention 5.7 or .380 ACP vs 9mm.
Higher cost for no benefit. The lower recoil of 5.7 is meaningless in terms of increasing hit rate, it has worse trajectory and flat out worse performance on any given metric. Stuff like 5.56 and 5.45 exist in a goldilocks zone where any attempt to go lighter gives you a shit caliber that can't do real rifle performance, and trying to go any heavier gives you recoil and weight without the performance increase to justify the drawbacks.
If you wanted to make a switch then you'd want something like 5.56 FABRL which is a M193 analogue with lower weight, lower chamber pressure and lower recoil. It just would fail in many aspects past 300 yards, and fail stuff like the helmet penetration test. But at least you get rifle performance out of an anemic load via optimized efficiency. Instead of doing stupid shit like suggesting 5.7 or .22 WMR for an infantry caliber.
>6.8's "limited performance" is still superior to 556 performance
Yet SOCOM saw no advantage in fielding it. Funny how in Afghanistan the fat slower round was not seen as an advantage and the guys who could get contracts to make more 6.8 SPC just replaced it by the weaker 5.56.
At least full power 6.8 with correct chamber and rifling that minimized contact area could be tuned to get back velocity and maximize efficiency with low drag bullets. Using heavy for caliber lead core bullets negates the advantage of SCHV. Congrats, you reinvented 7.62x39 but shittier.