One thing to keep in mind, while the .408 may (and I say may, only because no one has tried to make an AP type .375 bullet that I am aware of), have an advantage with the original Jamison solids and privately produced projectiles, the idea that the idea that the US military is going to adopt the .408 with "payload" projectiles is a pipe dream at this point. The US Army spent 10 years, billions of dollars to develop the XM1022 .50 cal "Match" round, and then just dropped the program. We cannot even produce the Mk211 projectiles here, and have to purchase them from Nammo (Raufus), and assemble them here. Any new ammunition, especially payload ammo, has to go through an extremely rigorous and time consuming testing process, in addition to the billions of dollars they would spend to do this. I had this conversation with numerous members in the NSW community when all the excitement of the .408 was at it's peak, as there were some in the community who wanted to drop the .50, and replace it with the .408. I explained it was like comparing apples and oranges. The amount of payload a .50 can deliver is markedly higher than a .408 ever would be, is already available, has almost 100 years of service, and is a known performer. Ruag showed a "match" .50 round at SHOT, so I am hoping to get them to send me some to test, and demo at the NSW school. It is just not realistic to expect the US Military to invest in developing "payload" ammo for the .408 in the current economic environment if ever. Now, that said, the .408 and .375 are both far superior antipersonnel platforms at ranges beyond practical for the .338. I know that other countries do use AP, API variants of .338 ammo in some circumstances, but I will have to find out if any of the units in our services use any of it (Produced by both by Lapua and Ruag). One of the reasons the military units who have it are using the .408 is because it was around for quite a while before the .375 was developed, so those platforms were already in inventory. What ever advantage (real or not) the .408 has in AP performance has little if anything to do with why it is being used (as limited as it is). I have a .375, simply because it is superior to the .408 in ELR applications, and I enjoy trying to develop projectiles to improve it's performance.
In regards to reading down range conditions with a laser, the Israelis have been working on this for over 15 years. We also had a program doing the same at Aberdeen Small Arms Ballistics Lab back in the mid-1990's call "White Feather," but I am afraid the program was just dropped, probably for lack of funding. I think we will eventually see a system available to our "end users" eventually, but it is simply going to take more time to reduce the technology in size and cost to make it available. The process is called Laser Interferometry. It reads both distortions in the refractive properties of the atmosphere and dust in the line of fire. I just hope I am still around to see the day the technology is available! I think our advances in the ability to get projectiles down range with potentially excellent accuracy will advance much quicker than the technology to read the conditions accurately for us to actually place the shot on target at extreme ranges.
Many may disagree with me, but this is my take on things after being involved with ELR for almost over 15 years.
Scott
