I think the best caliber to switch, if a switch must happen at all is the 6.5mm Grendel. It has better short range performence then the 5.56mm and better long range then the 7.62mm. It could be a universal caliber for the army. I'd imagine it would simplify logistics a lot to just supply 6.5mm then two calibers.

Intercepter body armor will stop both 7.62 russian and nato

Originally Posted by Koz

Intercepter body armor will stop both 7.62 russian and nato

With SAPI. But even with SAPI I'm not taking Point Blanks word and jumping in front of an SKS or a FAL just to prove it for them.

I like the F2000's modularity:

I think the F2000 is a very aestetically pleasing gun and I'd imagine very ergonomic. But I don't know anything about its actual capabilities.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

Do what? Whats the "Short Assault Rifle varient"? the 7.62X39? Hate to tell you this but most modern body armor outside of special purpose bunker shields and entry vests will not deflect a 7.62 Nato or a 7.62 X 39 round.

Used the wrong word, sorry. Anyway, last I checked, the SAPI plates will stop 7.62x39 rounds. I never said it would stop NATO 7.62, I said the 7.62x51 round was too powerful to be effectively fired on full-auto by an assault-rifle sized weapon, as evidenced by the M-14.

When looking at rifle ammunition you should be looking at distance, accuracy, knockdown power, and penetration.

Bulldogg said it before me. We have weapon systems already designed for full auto fire. A rifle round should be concerned with disabling an enemy quickly and at distance.

Originally Posted by c/Commander

Used the wrong word, sorry. Anyway, last I checked, the SAPI plates will stop 7.62x39 rounds. I never said it would stop NATO 7.62, I said the 7.62x51 round was too powerful to be effectively fired on full-auto by an assault-rifle sized weapon, as evidenced by the M-14.

Only M2 AP/L-IV (Armor Peircing Rifle) would stop a 7.62x51mm round.

Hey any more pics on the F2000?

(Sigh) Zander, could you please learn to do an internet search? We all have access to the same info and images that you do. Just type the info that you want into a search engine, and you will get all that you want to know.

Any rifle cartridge is a compromise. We could design a rifle that has the ballistics of the .50 BMG round, make it around 8 millimetres, make it light enough to carry, and so on, but then, the only rifle that would be able tro fire it would be a .338 lapua! Do you want to carry more ammo, or do you want to carry less ammo that is more effective? Only when you have made this decision can you decide what calibre you should adopt. Way back when, when I was a spritely young lad, I liked to go out and about on exercises with my FN and the six magazines of 7.62mm ammo that they gave me. In addition, being the careful type, I kept four others in my pack, just in case. That gave me a capacity of 200 rounds, although I was supposed to only have 120. Today, by comparison, Canadian Forces soldiers have 6 mags of thirty rounds per man, giving them 180. Now if they do what I did, putting 4 more in their packs, (I would)they would have three hundred, and those three hundred weigh about the same as the two hundred that I used to carry. Now, what about the other calibres? Would the adoption of the 6.5mm also mean that each man can carry less ammo for those quick firing automatic assault rifles? How much ammo do you want to carry, and seriously, how much ammo can you carry? Food for thought...

Dean.

Originally Posted by zander_0633

Hey any more pics on the F2000?

No problem; here's the F2000 LSW/Marksman version:



Here's the F2000 crewman version:


I should say that you're not going to find these pictures on Google, because I've Photoshopped them from the standard F2000 (you might notice the first pic of the F2000 with grenade launcher has a longer than standard barrel as well).