1) Unless the laws of physics were revoked while I was off fishing, WTH difference is caliber going to make in accuracy
for Sam Snuffie?
Either you train your people to shoot straight (Marines/most SOF), or you don't (Big Green and everyone else).
A new caliber will give you precisely Jack and Squat in that endeavor.
The only thing that'll help is proper initial training, and regular refreshers.
2) Adopting .26 or .27 caliber versus .223 or .30 will change nothing except how many shots per pound, the size of the hole (if you hit your target in the first place), and the penetration achieved/achievable.
Nothing else notable.
No other result is possible
This windmill-tilting quest is the Military Industrial Complex version of vinyl/8-track/cassette/CD or Betamax/VHS/DVD/BD/4K, except without any of the helpful improvements in quality of the latter two examples. It's change to make a profit for everyone but the buyer.
A business deal is good when both
parties come off better off.
When one side gets the money, and the other side gets the shaft, the useful forensic terms for that are fraud
I'm assuming that was not the desired intent...?
3) Oh, except for one definite change:
making obsolete overnight every bit of stockpiled ammunition and parts, and requiring an entirely new procurement chain, delivered product, ammunition, spares, maintenance tools and equipment, training materials, affecting everyone from the issued item's end users to third-level maintenance, and shooting ground combat readiness in the pants for a few years during the changeover.
This is the Manager's Special, where you get $1/lb ground beef for $15 for 10#. The Manager loves that. The customer, not so much.
So, we're going to go with new Magic Beans, because the old beans were just...beans?
Except you're spending non-infinite dollars to get them.
So, how did that approach work for the F-35 Thunderjug, the Little Crappy Ships, and the Ford
Got plenty of money left over for shells, bombs, fuel, training, and maintenance, have you??
And when you buy the New Hotness, what changes, other than the bottom line of certain Military Industrial Complex corporations and salesmen?
The only thing driving this change is people looking for commendation medals and promotions over in the Braid Grades.
It does bupkus for the grunts.
This is why Pentagon Wars
is more documentary than black comedy.
You want to help the grunts?
Get them the best machineguns, mortars, and artillery, which each kill more than rifles, in any war since 1865.
Our issue rifles work fine, and have been top-notch since 1903. (If you want to buy new replacements exactly like the old ones every decade or two, when the old ones are shot out, well and good. But that doesn't require scrapping the entire alligator from tooth to tail, even if you can.)
Even the Krag wasn't that
bad, and twenty years of product improvement even turned the M-16 into what it was meant to be before the Army fornicated up the original concept. Nobody's come up with anything better in rifles since the FAL and the Armalite. Nor, likely, ever will.
Most changes since 1945 have been keeping up with the Joneses/STANAG problems, or raw envy. And the result of that has been mixed, at best.
Even our obsolescent stuff from 80 years ago is and would continue to be quite deadly and adequate, which proves the point that a new rifle is a genuinely stupid idea.
And nothing anyone dreams up will change anything in that regard until we adopt phased plasma rifles in the 40W range.
In this respect, the bean counters are trying to stop someone from making a stupid mistake with Other People's Money (and lives, when it gets down to it).
want to help the grunts out?
Can the Ordnance Branch. Wholesale.
It took them 25 years and more, plus two-three wars, to admit the FN-MAG was superior to the M-60 p.o.s. our troops were force-fed.
They didn't improve our WW2 mortars for forty years.
They adopted a too-heavy 155mm towed howitzer, only lately (finally!) replaced.
They still barely noticed that a quality 105mm light howitzer might improve on the WWII relic in use for 50 years afterwards.
Then, if you're really serious, double the training budget, and quadruple the ammunition budget allocation, every year, forever.
The only way to shoot better, is to shoot a lot.
And you can't get a qualified ATGM shooter if you only give him one round/yr.
In Salamander terms, I can buy you the sexiest new guns for every surface combatant, but if your fire control party has their heads up their fourth point of contact, and can't hit the side of a mountain, and never gets to practice doing it, nothing I buy will make any difference.
If no one has pointed this out to you with regard to proposed 6.5/6.8mm Magical Bean Launchers, allow me to be the first.
And if someone says "We'll include more training and ammunition in the budget for the New Hotness, then WTH not do that now with current products, and save wasting $1B or three on change for change's sake?!?
But that's not sexy, and minimally affects anyone's stock price or brings home more pork to anyone's congressional district.
what it means to give the troops the best.
Not buying some new rifle, and doing the same dumba$$ failure to budget/failure to train, and allocating paltry sums for annual refresher training.
Buying a new caliber weapon isn't just pointless, it's like buying an LHD, and then not allowing any time or budget for paint and dockside maintenance, and then sending it to a Baltic dog-and-pony show looking like a refugee from the Red Banner Fleet circa 1991.
So, just wondering, how's that approach
working out for ya?
Asking for 2,000,000 friends.