Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
I read where it was only going to cost something like $18 million for the switch - we were spending over a billion a day in the last two wars which would equate to about what we spent every 30 minutes over there
|
Since when has a DoD cost estimate been accurate? Implementation was significantly delayed past the initial plan due to performance issues, and additional development time inevitably leads to additional costs. The M855A1 was scheduled for fielding in June 2010, but did not hit the field until Summer 2012. The lead free primer was supposed to be fielded in late 2012, but is still unavailable. Likewise the lead free 7.62x51mm bullet was supposed to be fielded in late 2012, but the schedule has slipped to 2014. By the time all small arms projectiles are transitioned to lead free the actual cost of development and transition will be in the hundreds of millions, without including the increased per unit cost which will increase ammo prices indefinitely.
Reduced performance will be harder to put a price on. What is the cost of enemies who do not get killed because lower muzzle velocities, less accuracy, and higher drag reduce effective range? What is the cost of lost soldiers and Marines when lead free primers fail to reliably ignite the powder charge because diazodinitrophenol is less resistant to prevailing storage and environmental conditions over time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
Thought the .308 (7.62) was what most sniper rifles were?
|
Only the Air Force has retained the 7.62x51mm for sniper/counter sniper use. The Army and Navy/Marines began large scale deployment of M24E1/XM2010 and U.S. Navy Mk. 13 rifles in .300 Win Mag in early 2011.
Extended engagement distances and the greater effective range of the .300 Win Mag shooting the 220 grain Sierra Match King bullet was the primary cause.
Most domestic law enforcement still favors the 7.62x51mm, because domestic
law enforcement use beyond 200 yards is rare.