Per OP the MMG/HMG would use the .30-06. The T23E1 was not an LMG at 12kg. It was basically the 1930-40s FN MAG and shockingly similar in design.
Problem is the cost of the ammo and keeping it in production and then modernizing it. Why keep the existing LN ammo in production if it needed to be modernized?
Does it need modernising for the Coast Guard? Sure once you start looking at issuing it to actual military rather than paramilitary forces you're going to want a Spitzer bullet rather than a round nose but that's not a particularly difficult change.
For using the old rifles not really beyond upgrading the barrels and potentially the powder. But the case will probably need to be modified if it is to be used in a magazine.
While the Colt-Browning (or Ruger-Browning) machine gun was quite heavy, it was no heavier than the MG-34 and MG-42 that the Germans were using at the squad level. Back then, the US had a definitive split between LMGs (BARs) and MMGs (M1919s) because even their lightest belt-fed was too heavy to be carried by one man. The Colt-Browning was supposed to be in the GPMG category, so it could act as a SAW/LMG with the squad or as an MMG in the weapons platoon/company or on vehicle mounts. In tactical effect, it would have been an M60 two decades earlier. Unlike the German universal machine gun, anti-aircraft roles were not seriously envisioned so the rate of fire was manageable. The testing problems the Colt-Browning had were almost certainly caused by the test staff opening the gas ports on clean guns, not by any problems with the gun or the ammunition. At 12 kg unloaded, it's about 3 kg more than a WW2-era M1918A2 or a late-model Bren gun. Although Springfield Armory's history says that the FN MAG was actually based on the Colt-Browning, they only really share the upside-down BAR action, which is the natural way to convert a bottom-loading magazine-fed gun to a top-loading belt-fed gun, like how the PKM is an upside-down AK action.
No. The war was won on production and logistics, not a different cartridge. At the infantry level it was won by machine guns and artillery observers. Studies post war noted rifle fire was minimal. The ability of a soldier to carry spare ammo for the platoon's machine guns was more important than the rifle they were carrying.
In terms of production and logistics having a SCHV cartridge would give them a huge advantage in that category, one they were already ahead in. Especially if it resulted in lighter weight weapons and more ammo carried. Being able to carry twice the rounds/magazines would be a huge advantage.
yes
so?
And this matters to the bureaucrats in 1933 or whenever the choice was made, who don't know or care about how the cartridge is loaded and have never seen the new rifles why?
It was more the issue that few shots were even fired. The average rifleman did not engage.
This was entirely a matter of training, not of having semi-auto versus automatic rifles, and it's been basically resolved since Vietnam. Riflemen had been trained to engage targets on the range, so realistic training that was introduced post-Vietnam gave them a much better sense of what marksmanship on the battlefield entailed.
Right, though this was in large part, per US and even German OR, a function of lack of confidence in use of the weapon and where automatic or light recoiling fast semi-automatic fire gave shooters confidence to fire. A lot of those full power battle rifles induce shooter fatigue quickly and in the case of the bolt actions they really wear out the shooter quickly. Small caliber weapons with light recoil can be fired all day without wearing down shooters, which is why guys with short ranged SMGs were even noted to fire quite a bit more than riflemen.
I know that 1000m accuracy is not viable for an infantry rifle, I'm saying that since that is the standard the infantry board wanted it could be achieved with a 6mm cartridge while still maintaining many of the advantages of a small caliber cartridge. Practically speaking with hindsight the microcalibers were about what would have been most effective for the general infantryman in WW2, but there is no way the US infantry board would adopt that in the 1930s.
But it wasn't up to the bureaucrats, but Dugout Doug, fresh from burning out Bonus Marchers.
You're using hindsight for literally this entire post. To a bueracrat in the time frame that a new caliber would be adopted, all those millions of rounds were an excellent reason for why they shouldn't switch calibers.
Who's argument was "We've got warehouses full of 30-06 that will cost a fortune to replace", the same as any other bureaucrat. The only difference was he wore a uniform and not a suit.
Wonder how the .276 Pedersen even got that far. They were ready to adopt it until at the last minute Doug sprung that argument...what gives?
