US adopts Pederson cartridge AFTER WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Right now we have an in progress TL about the adoption of the Pederson 7mm cartridge for the US army pre-WW2, but could the US for some reason, say being on the receiving end of a slightly earlier StG44 in Normandy, decide to adopt the Pederson 7mm cartridge post-WW2? That was right as the British were working on their own .270/.280 rounds (about 7mm) which had nearly identical performance to the Pederson model (as the result of facing the StG44 in combat in the Netherlands apparently). Could that be a potential option for the M14 and if so, would it make the Battle Rifle viable? Whatever the US decided on probably would become NATO standard and it would work for the Brits and FN, as their rifles of the late 1940s-early 1950s (EM-2 and FAL) would accept it with some modification considering that the Pederson and British .280 rounds were both developed and chambered in those guns before the US forced the historical 7.62 NATO on everyone. Might it then prevent the rise of the M16/5.56 combo, which apparently got off the ground because of problems with M14 procurement?
 
I'm no small arms expert, but given the traditional pattern of the US demobilizing and cutting military expenditures to the bone after a conflict, changing the cartridge shortly after WWII simply is not going to happen. In 1945 the USA has tons of weapons using the current cartridges, and even more tons of ammo. Changing the rounds for the main US rifle means all of the left over ammo, all of the left over rifles (and BARs) need to be replaced which is not going to be inexpensive. Between 1945 and the Korean War starting the USA was doing everything it could to minimize military expenditures, and also was drinking the "we have the A-bomb, so conventional forces are becoming unnecessary" kool-aid. The same factor which kept the USA from changing calibers in the interwar period (we have lots of .30-06 ammo & weapons that it fits so why change) operates after 1945. Besides we "won" with the M-1, BAr etc and our current ammo.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm no small arms expert, but given the traditional pattern of the US demobilizing and cutting military expenditures to the bone after a conflict, changing the cartridge shortly after WWII simply is not going to happen. In 1945 the USA has tons of weapons using the current cartridges, and even more tons of ammo. Changing the rounds for the main US rifle means all of the left over ammo, all of the left over rifles (and BARs) need to be replaced which is not going to be inexpensive. Between 1945 and the Korean War starting the USA was doing everything it could to minimize military expenditures, and also was drinking the "we have the A-bomb, so conventional forces are becoming unnecessary" kool-aid. The same factor which kept the USA from changing calibers in the interwar period (we have lots of .30-06 ammo & weapons that it fits so why change) operates after 1945. Besides we "won" with the M-1, BAr etc and our current ammo.
They did historically; they dropped the WW2 cartridge for a shortened version after Korea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_NATO
 
5.56x45mm got off the ground for much different reasons than that, and it was overall a much better choice for a frontline cartridge than both 7.62x51mm and .276 Pedersen. People think it was just the British who concluded that a 300m range was optimal for a frontline weapon as this was the average range firefights actually happened in, which is patently false as the US did the same postwar study and also found out that most firefights happened in the 300m range and mostly by 2 units randomly running into each other, and also that that, not surprisingly, the team that fired most of their shots first and had the most firepower to bear generally won convincingly. The quest for a SCHV round that allowed low recoil, highly accurate fire that allowed sqauds to carry far more ammunition began here.

No, this wouldn't have done anything to stop 5.56x45mm, and it would've been a mistake if it did. There's a reason the Soviets wanted to copy the concept the second they heard about the M193 round (look it up, the design process of the 5.45x39mm began long before it actually went into service) and the Chinese followed suit in the 80s, both of whom dropped the supposedly "better" manstopper 7.62x39mm to do so. (which actually has mediocre terminal effectiveness unless you're using shit like 8m3 which is Hague prohibited.)
 

Deleted member 1487

5.56x45mm got off the ground for much different reasons than that, and it was overall a much better choice for a frontline cartridge than both 7.62x51mm and .276 Pedersen. People think it was just the British who concluded that a 300m range was optimal for a frontline weapon as this was the average range firefights actually happened in, which is patently false as the US did the same postwar study and also found out that most firefights happened in the 300m range and mostly by 2 units randomly running into each other, and also that that, not surprisingly, the team that fired most of their shots first and had the most firepower to bear generally won convincingly. The quest for a SCHV round that allowed low recoil, highly accurate fire that allowed sqauds to carry far more ammunition began here.
The Germans did that study in 1918. The US actually did theirs during Korea, so later than the Brits. The SCHV round actually came out of a side project with the M2 Carbine:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rifle-Retrospective-Modern-Military/dp/0889351155
The value of the AR-15 was only recognized later; originally it was adopted by the Air Force to guard bases and only adopted by the Army because of the M14 being too much gun for the mission. The M16 then was the only option, as it was the only other rifle available in numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Adoption

No, this wouldn't have done anything to stop 5.56x45mm, and it would've been a mistake if it did. There's a reason the Soviets wanted to copy the concept the second they heard about the M193 round (look it up, the design process of the 5.45x39mm began long before it actually went into service) and the Chinese followed suit in the 80s, both of whom dropped the supposedly "better" manstopper 7.62x39mm to do so. (which actually has mediocre terminal effectiveness unless you're using shit like 8m3 which is Hague prohibited.)
Given that the M16 was only given a chance by the army because the M14 was just so patently overpowered for the role and unsuitable for full auto fire, if the Pedersen is more manageable the army may well never give the M16 a chance.
In terms of the 7.62, the Russians never dropped it, they have supplemented heavily with 762 based weapons (including AK-47s especially for urban fighting), as the 5.45 round is fine for some roles, but is just not a big enough bullet for many other roles. As it is the Russians apparently are even trying to adopt the 6.5mm Grendel round now or even neck down the 7.62 to a 6.5mm bullet (the Grendel-ski as it has been nicknamed) as a replacement. Apparently the Serbs even adopted the Grendel for their Special Operations forces, while our own have used things like the 6.8mm SPC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC#Military.2Flaw_enforcement_adoption
 
Right now we have an in progress TL about the adoption of the Pederson 7mm cartridge for the US army pre-WW2, but could the US for some reason, say being on the receiving end of a slightly earlier StG44 in Normandy, decide to adopt the Pederson 7mm cartridge post-WW2? That was right as the British were working on their own .270/.280 rounds (about 7mm) which had nearly identical performance to the Pederson model (as the result of facing the StG44 in combat in the Netherlands apparently). Could that be a potential option for the M14 and if so, would it make the Battle Rifle viable? Whatever the US decided on probably would become NATO standard and it would work for the Brits and FN, as their rifles of the late 1940s-early 1950s (EM-2 and FAL) would accept it with some modification considering that the Pederson and British .280 rounds were both developed and chambered in those guns before the US forced the historical 7.62 NATO on everyone. Might it then prevent the rise of the M16/5.56 combo, which apparently got off the ground because of problems with M14 procurement?

Hahahaha, wow, this timeline is so messed up.

1. No way the US would adopt a new round mid-WWII. Not going to happen, doubly so with Studler as SA Ordnance Chief. And if you decide that Studler's not Chief, then you need a really good reason for that, and I'm not seeing it considering he's literally the only suitable candidate in the period.

2. Brits didn't start working on .270/.280s until 1947.

3. M14 wasn't a thing in the forties, wouldn't be a thing until the mid-fifties. During this time period we're talking T20 and T22, which are quite a bit different.

4. As usual, the whole point of all this silliness is just to stick it to 5.56mm. Snore. If you're going to have an ATL focused on something so mundane as small arms, you'll probably want to make it pay off instead of just culminating in "lol 5.56 is le sux".

Here's a better idea: Samples of the FG-42 leak a year or two early to US Army Ordnance, and they are tested at Aberdeen. This spurs the development of the T20 series earlier than it did in this TL, and the T20E2 (now M2 Automatic Rifle) is ready for combat by the Bulge. It's successful, but has several clear issues, including it being just kind of a handful to shoot. The M2 is mass produced through the end of 1945 and with a second major production run for Korea. Light automatic weapons like the BAR and perhaps M2 Carbine are phased out early as the M2 AR can fill those roles reasonably well and is cheaper (than the BAR) and more standard. During this period, US understanding of automatic weapons tactics is refined and when the time comes for the Brits to propose the .280 in the late 1940s the US Army (and Studler) are more receptive of the idea and decide to work with the British on refining the concept, instead of telling them to go stuff it. In the meantime, the .30-06 is adopted with very little fuss as the 7.62x63mm NATO in 1950, which allows everyone to re-arm comfortably with M1s, M2s, and other new designs*. The accelerated timeline might also successfully rope the French into adopting .30-06 before they split with NATO. The US-UK joint caliber program continues on through the late '50s and is shaken up by the SCHV studies of the early 1950s until what pops out the other end is neither much like 7.62x51 nor .280 British, but something different altogether. The whole program lags due to a simple lack of urgency until cancelled by Robert McNamara as a waste of time and money. Then the M2 AR (maybe we're talking about an improved composite stocked M2A1/A2 version by this point) soldiers on through Vietnam, and this is the setup for a crash rifle program in the 1970s. It amuses me to think that maybe this results in a joint US-UK-French project that culminates in something like the FAMAS (in whatever oddball caliber their bureaucracies came up with) for all three countries.

*This is a place for the speculative gun geeks to get a leg in. What do these other .30-06 weapons look like? Is the FAL ever marketed by this point, or is it strung along with the joint US-UK caliber program? Maybe the FAL remains a prototype, an oddity, while the FN-49 (suitably modified to catch up to the M2 AR with a muzzle brake, detachable M2 magazine, etc) takes off as the alternative rifle of choice. Lots of room for fun of that sort here.
 
Given that the M16 was only given a chance by the army because the M14 was just so patently overpowered for the role and unsuitable for full auto fire, if the Pedersen is more manageable the army may well never give the M16 a chance.
In terms of the 7.62, the Russians never dropped it, they have supplemented heavily with 762 based weapons (including AK-47s especially for urban fighting), as the 5.45 round is fine for some roles, but is just not a big enough bullet for many other roles. As it is the Russians apparently are even trying to adopt the 6.5mm Grendel round now or even neck down the 7.62 to a 6.5mm bullet (the Grendel-ski as it has been nicknamed) as a replacement. Apparently the Serbs even adopted the Grendel for their Special Operations forces, while our own have used things like the 6.8mm SPC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC#Military.2Flaw_enforcement_adoption

The M16 was given a chance because the M14 program was a complete catastrophe. Once it was cancelled, the alternatives were to adopt the M1 (again) or the M16, as those were the only two qualified rifles in production at the time. That choice was pretty dang obvious.

The Russians have dropped the 7.62x39mm. It is still in use with SF, but not in the regular army except for reserves.

There is no evidence the Russians are trying to adopt the 6.5 Grendel. They have tested 6.5mm rounds similar to the Grendel, but that's been true since the 1960s, with no progress.

No US SOF have ever used the 6.8 SPC as far as I know. That was a myth perpetrated by the 6.8mm gang due to 12 rifles being sent to CAG for testing. AFAIK all those rifles ever did was shoot at zebras and break.
 

Redbeard

Banned
For lack of anything else to comment on - wasn't it called the "Pedersen" and not "Pederson". For us over in this part of the world - that is of major importance :)
 
The Germans did that study in 1918. The US actually did theirs during Korea, so later than the Brits. The SCHV round actually came out of a side project with the M2 Carbine:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Rifle-Retrospective-Modern-Military/dp/0889351155
The value of the AR-15 was only recognized later; originally it was adopted by the Air Force to guard bases and only adopted by the Army because of the M14 being too much gun for the mission. The M16 then was the only option, as it was the only other rifle available in numbers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Adoption

1. Actually, the first US study of a 22 caliber SCHV dates back to 1895 in the .22 Krag, there was also another study (possibly more than 1, I don't have access to the second) seriously comparing the .220 Swift to the .30-06 which showed several things like the fact the Swift had superior penetration against steel than the .30-06 among other things. (the .220 Swift at the time absolutely destroyed barrels of the era however, it even does today unless you don't cheap out on a good barrel.)

Also, the fact they did it before and during Korea sort of goes with the "post war" thing, as that would infact be directly after WW2, the point was just because the British did their own study, people think the US didn't and somehow the British had all this wisdom from the war the US didn't which doesn't fit the narrative.

The M16 was selected not because the M14 was "too much gun", but because it was actually horrid, there was the option of going back to the M1, maybe the FAL (if that door was even still open.). Also, the M16 wasn't even intended to originally stay in service, it was intended as a stop gap until one of the SPIW platforms was put into service which although also .22 caliber, fired all kinds of oddities from Duplex loadings to Saboted Dart loads.

The SPIW program was ultimately cancelled however, and it turned out the M16 was not only just fine as a front line combat weapon, but that it would revolutionize the future of front line weaponry everywhere.

This is why you don't quote Wikipedia in a debate.


Given that the M16 was only given a chance by the army because the M14 was just so patently overpowered for the role and unsuitable for full auto fire, if the Pedersen is more manageable the army may well never give the M16 a chance.
In terms of the 7.62, the Russians never dropped it, they have supplemented heavily with 762 based weapons (including AK-47s especially for urban fighting), as the 5.45 round is fine for some roles, but is just not a big enough bullet for many other roles. As it is the Russians apparently are even trying to adopt the 6.5mm Grendel round now or even neck down the 7.62 to a 6.5mm bullet (the Grendel-ski as it has been nicknamed) as a replacement. Apparently the Serbs even adopted the Grendel for their Special Operations forces, while our own have used things like the 6.8mm SPC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8mm_Remington_SPC#Military.2Flaw_enforcement_adoption

It was given "a chance" because the Army was investigated and found to be rigging tests in the M14's favor, and that whole thing about it because a garbage bin of a rifle that should've lost to the FAL. the Pedersen had nothing to do with this, even if you chambered the M14 in it, it would still be a painfully mediocre rifle and that wouldn't solve one issue that's being missed here, that Intermediate =/= SCHV.

SCHV focuses on high speed, small rounds for various reasons like good trajectory, low weight, very little recoil, etc etc etc. This is inherently different from previous "intermediate" rifles like the STG-44 (Unloaded Weight: 11lbs/5kg, Ammo Weight, 17 grams a round) the AK-47 (Unloaded Weight: 8lbs, ammo weight 17.2 grams a round.) the EM-2 (Weight: 8lbs: Ammo weight (.280): 20.5 grams, the .276 Pedersen would be closest to this in weight and likely recoil as it weighed 19.3 grams).

M16....7lbs, ammo weight, 11.50 grams M193 loading, 12 with almost all other loads with the exception of Mk 262 at 13 which is still significantly less, the SCHV concept also means that it has a much flatter trajectory than the above cartridges and much lower recoil for easier control and accurate follow up shots.

(The fact the AR-15 is is also a more mechanically accurate weapon than then M14, STG-44, AK-47 and EM-2 also tended to help alot.)

No, the Pedersen isn't going to somehow cancel the adoption of a .22 Caliber cartridge, because even if it's not 5.56x45mm (which is really unlikely as both the cartridge and the weapon aced the CONARC requirements), it could be 5.6x53mm of the SPIW or many other .22 caliber cartridges the US was looking at,

Secondly, The Russian Military did in fact drop 7.62x39mm, some police units still use it, some SF units still use it (allegedly because there's a load of Subsonic rounds and weapons left for it, but aside from the Russian SF, NO ONE knows for sure why the Russian SF uses it.) there's no supplementation with 7.62x39mm at all, and as any ballistician knows, I'm sorry to tell you butr bullet size is not every thing, not by a long shot. 5.45x39mm is just as, if not more lethal than 7.62x39mm while offering all the benefits of the SCHV concept.

Thrid, this isn't even the 1st time the USSR/Russia has experimented with a 6.5mm cartridge, the first time they did, they were less than impressed with it, the fact this has gone nowhere says history is repeating itself.

Lastly, no, that is completely fabricated By Chris Murray's and Gary Robert's (probably the 2 biggest faces of the 6.8 Mafia, one a complete psychopath and the other a pathological liar, great team) mass disinformation campaign, what Babby said is 100% true, the closest the US has ever come to actually using 6.8x43mm SPC is having a test team trial a few rifles chambered in it, they all broke, that was the entire and very brief history of the US Military's consideration for the 6.8x43mm SPC.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

1. No way the US would adopt a new round mid-WWII. Not going to happen, doubly so with Studler as SA Ordnance Chief. And if you decide that Studler's not Chief, then you need a really good reason for that, and I'm not seeing it considering he's literally the only suitable candidate in the period.
No one suggested they adopt a new caliber mid-WWII, though they did adopt the new round/weapon system of the M1 Carbine and it's round.

2. Brits didn't start working on .270/.280s until 1947.
They were working on a 7mm round pre-WW1, but that war cancelled the development, while post-WW1 they lacked the funding/desire to pursue major changes like a caliber shift, but went right back to their developments post-WW2 when it was clear there wouldn't be a durable peace and NATO needed a common caliber for the future.

3. M14 wasn't a thing in the forties, wouldn't be a thing until the mid-fifties. During this time period we're talking T20 and T22, which are quite a bit different.
M14 development was started in 1945:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle#History
It was basically a Garand with box magazine and new round.

4. As usual, the whole point of all this silliness is just to stick it to 5.56mm. Snore. If you're going to have an ATL focused on something so mundane as small arms, you'll probably want to make it pay off instead of just culminating in "lol 5.56 is le sux".
The whole point is the say the Pedersen round was an interesting development and what would have happened had it been adopted.

The M16 was given a chance because the M14 program was a complete catastrophe. Once it was cancelled, the alternatives were to adopt the M1 (again) or the M16, as those were the only two qualified rifles in production at the time. That choice was pretty dang obvious.

The Russians have dropped the 7.62x39mm. It is still in use with SF, but not in the regular army except for reserves.

There is no evidence the Russians are trying to adopt the 6.5 Grendel. They have tested 6.5mm rounds similar to the Grendel, but that's been true since the 1960s, with no progress.

No US SOF have ever used the 6.8 SPC as far as I know. That was a myth perpetrated by the 6.8mm gang due to 12 rifles being sent to CAG for testing. AFAIK all those rifles ever did was shoot at zebras and break.
I'm not disagreeing that the M14 of OTL being a problem at that time, but we're not talking about that version ITTL. Also with the historical M14 issue, there was no other alternative other than the M16, so it won by default and being good enough despite it's host of major problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Reliability

Based on conversations I've had with Russians on other forums there is a lot of use of 7.62 sniper rifles and MGs even in regular army units, while the SF does use AK47s for certain missions.

Not saying they are any closer to adopting them, but rounds are being produced:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/13/6-5-grendel-cip-certified-russia/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/11/ak-12-produced-6-5-grendel/
http://gizmodo.com/russias-reinventing-its-most-iconic-weapon-for-the-21st-485955570

I wasn't aware the Soviet seriously tested anything other than their 6mm universal, which was too hot for their barrels.

As to the 6.8mm round, yes there were problems with the bolt, they tried to shoehorn it into existing 5.56 platforms so there was too much pressure on existing platforms to function right. I keep hearing that it was used from online sources, don't know what the reality of it's actual use was, don't know any SF guys personally to ask.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
No one suggested they adopt a new caliber mid-WWII, though they did adopt the new round/weapon system of the M1 Carbine and it's round.

The M1 Carbine was adopted on October 1, 1941. One notes this is two months before the US entered WWII, not "mid-war".

They were working on a 7mm round pre-WW1

A completely bloody different 7mm round. Here, I freaking have one, let me snap a photo:

fB96rvl.jpg


Top - .276 Enfield. Bottom - .280/30 British. Note: Completely flipping different.

So saying the Brits totally had the .280 in the works during WWII is like saying the Americans totally had the .30 Carbine in the works during the Banana Wars because they had adopted the .30-40 Krag in the 1890s. i.e., utter nonsense.

M14 development was started in 1945:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle#History
It was basically a Garand with box magazine and new round.

Yeah, you know what "M14 development" looked like in 1945? The T20E2. Which is quite a lot different than an M14, but I know you've never been the kind of person who ever let details like that trouble you.

The whole point is the say the Pedersen round was an interesting development and what would have happened had it been adopted.

The .276 Pedersen is interesting, but not game changing. I know, I know, it's the darling of the coke-bottle-goggle-wearing small arms althist community, but it's just a round. It's not particularly different than 6.5mm Japanese or 6.5mm Carcano. Does anybody ask "duuuude, what if the US fought World War II with M1s in 6.5 Carcano?" No, because asking that is like asking what it would have been like if USGIs had gone to war with black socks instead of green socks. Basically, nothing would be different.
 

Deleted member 1487

The M1 Carbine was adopted on October 1, 1941. One notes this is two months before the US entered WWII, not "mid-war".
Mid-WW2, as they were rapidly rearming for the conflict, but yeah, not US involvement mid-war.

A completely bloody different 7mm round. Here, I freaking have one, let me snap a photo:

Top - .276 Enfield. Bottom - .280/30 British. Note: Completely flipping different.
Ok and? I never said they were developing the same round pre-WW1 and post-WW2. I said they were working on a 7mm caliber round as a replacement for their existing rounds and in the intervening 30+ years powders and metallurgy changed, as well as doctrine. The point was that they had already decided a smaller caliber round was needed, its just that WW1 and WW2 taught them that a magnum version of the 7mm was ridiculously overpowered for modern European combat.

So saying the Brits totally had the .280 in the works during WWII is like saying the Americans totally had the .30 Carbine in the works during the Banana Wars because they had adopted the .30-40 Krag in the 1890s. i.e., utter nonsense.
I never said that, you're making stuff up now in a really obnoxious debate tactic.

Yeah, you know what "M14 development" looked like in 1945? The T20E2. Which is quite a lot different than an M14, but I know you've never been the kind of person who ever let details like that trouble you.
Do you not know what the work 'development' means? Clearly the first step is not the same thing as the M14, it was an evolutionary process while they worked out the 762 NATO round and modified the Garand on the path to the M14. But then clearly you have no interest in discussing in good faith, only just insulting, strawmanning, and behaving like a troll.

The .276 Pedersen is interesting, but not game changing. I know, I know, it's the darling of the coke-bottle-goggle-wearing small arms althist community, but it's just a round. It's not particularly different than 6.5mm Japanese or 6.5mm Carcano. Does anybody ask "duuuude, what if the US fought World War II with M1s in 6.5 Carcano?" No, because asking that is like asking what it would have been like if USGIs had gone to war with black socks instead of green socks. Basically, nothing would be different.
So why even comment here if don't have interest in these sorts of caliber discussions? Oh that's right you're a troll that gets off on derailing threads and acting like and ass. Run along, we have no need for your bullshit here.
 
I'm not disagreeing that the M14 of OTL being a problem at that time, but we're not talking about that version ITTL.

The problem with this statement is there is no "that version", unless you're talking about early vented wood stocked M14s versus later fiberglass stocked ones. "M14" refers to a specific weapon, and it didn't exist in the 1940s. The T20 and T22 did, but those are different weapons. They don't even share the same receiver dimensions or anything. Functionally, sure, they're similar - they're all in the Garand family - but they are distinct rifles from distinct eras.

Also with the historical M14 issue, there was no other alternative other than the M16, so it won by default and being good enough despite it's host of major problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#Reliability

Who won what? What are you even talking about? The M14 program got canned in 1963 by McNamara. In the meantime, the Army had to supply its troops with rifles. Some M14s existed, so they used those, but they had larger requirements than that so they procured M16s as well. The only alternative was the M1 Garand, and nobody was going to go back to that.

Boy you love your Wikipedia quotes. Gee, let's see, the US Army introduces a new rifle in a new chambering in the middle of a war, and they screw up the ammunition standard and the support for the new rifle, which causes it issues, and soldiers die as a result.

Actually, there you go, there's your alternate history scenario. The US Army has a brain fart in 1942 and introduces the .276 Pedersen, but they bung up the standard and the GIs are plagued by stuck cases as a consequence. Enjoy your Hugo, Turtledove.

The problems with the M16 in Vietnam really are a subject unto themselves. The cliff notes version is that there were three major problems: A sloppy ammunition spec that didn't properly control many of the critical properties of the ammunition that needed to be consistent to facilitate good functioning with automatic weapons, the decision to omit chrome lining from the chambers and bores, and the failure to field cleaning kits and supplies for the weapons. The oft-discussed propellant issue was a red herring, although it did occur, it really didn't have any significant consequences, and no error in propellant selection was made. The failure to issue cleaning kits and supplies falls upon the Army's shoulders, not the rifle's. In a humid jungle environment, any weapon needs to be kept clean and free of rust. I know this fact extremely well, as I live in Louisiana and guns rust at the drop of a hat. The ammunition spec issue was also the Army's fault, as they essentially xeroxed the commercial spec over, failing to control for things like brass hardness which are critical for good functioning. As for chrome-lining, well... The AR-15's barrel was originally chrome-lined (as was the M14). By 1967, the chambers of all M16 barrels were, too. Fun fact: According to the Appendix of the Ichord report, reported malfunctions with chrome lined barrels were a factor of three less than with non-chromed barrels from late 67 to early 68.


The author of those first two articles seems familiar. Oh, right. I wrote them.

Notably, there has been absolutely zippaddee doo dah about that 6.5mm round since 2014. Long time for a round to disappear from company catalogs...

I wasn't aware the Soviet seriously tested anything other than their 6mm universal, which was too hot for their barrels.

Rather, it was too late to miss the collapse of their state. Barrel life was low, but acceptable.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but I reckon there are a lot of things you aren't aware of:

8rCKlZw.jpg


"Considering that by recoil impulse, trajectory flatness and accuracy 6.5mm cartridge is inferior to 5.6mm one. And by effectiveness of fire it has no advantages over 7.62x39, the further development of 6.5mm cartridge is impracticsl". Dvoryaninov, Vol.3; page 466. Regarding tests of 6.5mm projectiles during the development of what would become 5.45x39mm.


As to the 6.8mm round, yes there were problems with the bolt, they tried to shoehorn it into existing 5.56 platforms so there was too much pressure on existing platforms to function right. I keep hearing that it was used from online sources, don't know what the reality of it's actual use was, don't know any SF guys personally to ask.

Yes, the 6.8mm mafia made sure to crow loudly wide and far that their round was "being used by Navy Seals/Delta/etc in the sandbox right now". It was never anything more than wind.
 
Those are pretty nice stuff, @BabbyOilFaint

Are you a collector or something?

Yes, although I haven't been collecting ammunition long. My collection is still pretty modest, only about 600-700 pieces. I have much better photos of them, but I wanted one with today's date on it to show Wiking.

Here's some more to wet your whistle:

B5gAIfl.jpg


Left to right: 5mm Sturtevant, 5.2x68mm Mondragon, .17/5.6mm SPIW, two samples of .17 Frankford Arsenal, 4.7x45mm DAG, 4.3x45mm DAG, 4.6x36mm CETME, 4.7x21mm early G11, 4.73x33 late G11, 4.6x30 HK, 4.85x49mm British
 
Ok and? I never said they were developing the same round pre-WW1 and post-WW2. I said they were working on a 7mm caliber round as a replacement for their existing rounds and in the intervening 30+ years powders and metallurgy changed, as well as doctrine. The point was that they had already decided a smaller caliber round was needed, its just that WW1 and WW2 taught them that a magnum version of the 7mm was ridiculously overpowered for modern European combat.

The key detail you are missing is that literally the only thing those two rounds have in common is the diameter of their bullet. The .276 Enfield is in the same class as .30-06, so what does it matter for .280 British development? All of the groundwork that led to the .280 British occurred post-war.

I never said that, you're making stuff up now in a really obnoxious debate tactic.

They were working on a 7mm round pre-WW1, but that war cancelled the development, while post-WW1 they lacked the funding/desire to pursue major changes like a caliber shift, but went right back to their developments post-WW2 when it was clear there wouldn't be a durable peace and NATO needed a common caliber for the future.

So where is this mythical wartime 7mm development you were talking about? Come come, I want primary sources. Get to it!

Do you not know what the work 'development' means? Clearly the first step is not the same thing as the M14, it was an evolutionary process while they worked out the 762 NATO round and modified the Garand on the path to the M14. But then clearly you have no interest in discussing in good faith, only just insulting, strawmanning, and behaving like a troll.

...Do you know what the word "strawman" means?

So why even comment here if don't have interest in these sorts of caliber discussions? Oh that's right you're a troll that gets off on derailing threads and acting like and ass. Run along, we have no need for your bullshit here.

...Do you know what the word "derailing" means?
 
Top