Let me try that website again:  http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

I'm seeing what the buzz is about. It really is very nearly an ideal round. If you've seen my posts on debates over the stopping power of the 5.56mm you know I'm not a naysayer of what we are currently using, but this round really looks like a superior product.

 

I've also been curious about a way to combine long range performance with low recoil in cqb. I figured you'd need to either use two different bullets or two different powder loads or both, but it looks like the designers of the grendel have managed to do both, with a better bullet design. What really impresses me is that the muzzle energy is about the same between the Grendel and the 5.56, so you don't get much more recoil, even though the round is up to twice as heavy and has much much better range.

 

It has been pointed out multiple times that you don't need the long range performance of the Grendel in an assault rifle. But you do need that performance in an GPMG or a sniper rifle. Currently, you need two rounds to do these jobs, but the upper range of grendel rounds is nearly the same weight and has similar long range performance to the 7.62, while having about the recoil of the 5.56. What isn't to like about that?

 

I'm not actually saying that it is time for a new round. I don't think that we are ready for that, new propellant and cartridge technologies are being developed that will make what we are using today rapidly obsolete. What I'm saying is that when we are ready for a new round using these new technologies it should be a high BC round similar to the Grendel.

 

Here is some information about the direction of current research into " weapons designed to use composite or caseless ammunition. The composite ammo would be telescoping, as would the caseless ammunition. It is a ways out, but it is comming. I wouldn't expect a new round to be adopted until this technology is ready. Not worth the effort and expense with something this revolutionary coming down the pipe. These technologies are intended to be used with an entirely new family of light weapons, basically replacing everything that now uses 5.56mm, this information looks like it could replace 7.62mm as well, which would be a major logistic advantage.

Great info and links from both of you - I learned a lot - many thanks!

 

Actually, now I do see a disadvantage of the CTA, though it is probably not too significant. The CTA round, although lighter and shorter, is significantly wider than normal rounds. This poses a problem with magazines, as it limits magazine capacity unless you make the magazines large (thus also adding weight) and therefore unergonometric. This could perhaps be solved by stacking two sets of rounds behind each other in every magazine or by having the magazine wider and placing the rounds into the magazine in a staggered manner. I am not sure either of these would work very well, though, and I imagine that the feeder mechanism would have to be much more complicated to allow for them (at least for the former - the latter might not require a much more complex feeder mechanism), so it might not be worth it to do so.