every single one of the articles that I have read stated that the purpose of the cartridge is to increase its effectiveness and penetrate at ranges further than what the 5.56 cartridge is capable of.
Of course they're going to say that. I would expect them to say that, its the "mission statement".
Now look at what they're not telling you. What, exactly, is "increased effectiveness"??? What (and whose) yardstick measures that???
Another thing they aren't telling us is, are they looking at individual cartridge performance, or system performance, where the cartridge ballistics are only one part of what is being judged???
Another thing not being spelled out is the "ands", There is always an "and" involved, usually several of them, some are little ands and some are big ones, but they are always there, and seldom mentioned unless doing so adds to the appeal of the chosen item(s).
The new round will do this thing, and do that thing, and, and, AND what else??
What other hoops have to be jumped through, or what box does it ALSO have to fit into? Those are the "ands" some of them pretty obvious, some rather subtle, and some of them are created just to inflate egos, build kingdoms and increase profits for the suppliers (AND at taxpayer expense
)
Consider, if all that matters is greater "effectiveness" and range than the 5.56mm, the Army had that, before we even adopted the 5.56mm.
It is all the other "ands" (extra requirements) that matter, and often matter more than the stated "better performance and range) that put ideas into, or remove them from consideration.
One of the big "ands", one never stated or admitted to, is the bureaucratic requirement of "we can't go back to what we used before".
That would amount to admitting they were wrong, and they really hate to do that, especially if they actually were wrong....
So, when what we are now using (that they chose) isn't working as well as hoped, or as well as advertised, we're not allowed to go back to what did work before, we must go forward, and find/create something new, and along the way create new expectations/requirements to justify the new item /system. It's not just weapons, or weapon systems, virtually everything we use gets that treatment from the system.
While it is certainly true that we do develop (and sometimes field) things that work "better" by not only doing their primary job but also meeting additional "and" requirements, there is no "dead ++"
Paper promises and statistical studies are useful things, provided you keep in mind that only real world performance accurately shows you real world performance and results.
The new round
might be the best thing since sliced bread, canned beer, and girls who smell nice, but until we see actual real world combat results, its all just hype.
