File talk:AssaultRifleCartridgeComparisonChart.PNG
I don't deny that the Grendel is a fine cartridge. But, I'm worried that your enthusiasm has caused you to become just a little bit too much proselytic, and produce a chart that borders on misleading by exaggerating the features you find especially attractive.
In particular I am concerned that the choice of a 30% baseline -- just below the figure for several cartridges at 1000 yd -- greatly exaggerates the visual impression of the Grendel's superiority at long range. Together with scaling all results to the heavier Grendel, so it is always on 100%, the graph gives the impression that the Grendel is still screaming along at 1,000 yd when all the rest are practically spent.
In reality, of course, even the Grendel has slowed down a great deal by this point (about 25% retained energy for the 142 SMK, and 21% for the 123 SMK according to [1]), and the other cartridges are still doing just under half that.
It's also a little curious that 7.62 x 51 mm was not included. True, it is not considered an assault rifle calibre, but if you are shooting at 1,000 yd in military or LEO applications, it is the calibre that will be most likely used and hence is the most logical comparison. But 7.62 x 51 mm starts out with 30% more energy than Grendel 123 SMK (40% more than Grendel 142 SMK) and has more retained energy at every range shown in the chart, so including it might make the Grendel look a little less ne plus ultra ... -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
