WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

BigBlueBox

Banned
Let’s say that shortly after World War 2, for whatever reason the American military bureaucracy accepts an intermediate rifle round like .280 British. (Maybe the Germans deploy the STG-44 in large numbers on the Western Front, or Colonel Renée Studler, head of the US Small Arms Bureau, is replaced with someone more amenable.) The FN FAL is chambered in this intermediate round, and it becomes the standard issue rifle of nearly every NATO country. An existing round such as .30-06 or 7.92 Mauser becomes the NATO standard for sharpshooters and machine guns. Would this ultimately be a good thing for NATO? Could it change the outcome of the Korean War or Vietnam War? And considering that this would probably butterfly away the AR-15 and 5.56 NATO, would an FN FAL chambered in .280 British compare favorably to the M16?
 
Early adoption .... say 1950 ...... would have been better for Canadian soldiers fighting in Korea.
OTL They were equipped with bolt-action, WW2-vintage rifles, but really, really, really needed more automatic weapons to stop Chinese human-wave tactics.
 
in all likelihood your POD sees the British Army with the Rifle No9 in 1951/52. This weapon might well then have seen limited service in the last year of the Korean war. now that would historically be a game changer.
 
An FN-FAL in. 280 would compare favorably with anything! With hindsight, it clearly was the way to go and could be in service now. The GPMG concept would probably not catch on, with LMG being chambered for. 280 and HMG using something bigger. The Swedish 8mm MG round would be a good choice.
 

Deleted member 1487

An FN-FAL in. 280 would compare favorably with anything! With hindsight, it clearly was the way to go and could be in service now. The GPMG concept would probably not catch on, with LMG being chambered for. 280 and HMG using something bigger. The Swedish 8mm MG round would be a good choice.
Buddy please, we all know the .276 Pedersen T20E2 Garand would have trounced the FAL. :p
t20e2.jpg


Also Swedish 8mm? Why not just adopt the very well developed 7.92mm Mauser round? Or keep the existing .30-06 US round, except using the M1 boat tailed bullet?
 
OTL They were equipped with bolt-action, WW2-vintage rifles, but really, really, really needed more automatic weapons to stop Chinese human-wave tactics.

The chinese in korea extremly rarely used any kind of human-wave tactics.

anyway,not much changes. In the scope of an entire war,personal small arms are mostly irrelevant.
 
The chinese in korea extremly rarely used any kind of human-wave tactics.

anyway,not much changes. In the scope of an entire war,personal small arms are mostly irrelevant.
Not in a political sense. US adopting the Belgian FN in British .280 says something about the US integrating more into what European allies are up to
 

SsgtC

Banned
Wouldn't feel bad if a bunch of the people over at Springfield Armory Stroked out on hearing the news that not only did the XM-14 fail to get adopted, they wouldn't be building the rifles, either
No, they'd still be building the rifles. Even if the US adopted the FN-FAL, they would produce it in the US under license. And Springfield Armory would be their go to contractor
 
Buddy please, we all know the .276 Pedersen T20E2 Garand would have trounced the FAL. :p
t20e2.jpg


Also Swedish 8mm? Why not just adopt the very well developed 7.92mm Mauser round? Or keep the existing .30-06 US round, except using the M1 boat tailed bullet?

On a clean firing range maybe....mean while Gods own bang stick becomes the firearm of the free world - FACT! ;)
 
No, they'd still be building the rifles. Even if the US adopted the FN-FAL, they would produce it in the US under license. And Springfield Armory would be their go to contractor

And after they botch that, they close ahead of OTL 1968 date.
During the Korean War, QA problems with SA started to crop up with the M1 rebuild program, to 1958, where most of the new M14 production would be by other companies, who also did a terrible job.
Over 5M M14s were contracted to be produced, but under 2M were actually made, and many of those went back to SA for rebuilding of brand new rifles, and they also made a hash of that.

That's one reason the Armed Forces were so happy to see Colt and the M16 as a savior to the troubled M14 program.
 

Deleted member 1487

And after they botch that, they close ahead of OTL 1968 date.
During the Korean War, QA problems with SA started to crop up with the M1 rebuild program, to 1958, where most of the new M14 production would be by other companies, who also did a terrible job.
Over 5M M14s were contracted to be produced, but under 2M were actually made, and many of those went back to SA for rebuilding of brand new rifles, and they also made a hash of that.

That's one reason the Armed Forces were so happy to see Colt and the M16 as a savior to the troubled M14 program.
If all the M14s were not working out despite being made from several different companies...maybe it was the design?
 
If all the M14s were not working out despite being made from several different companies...maybe it was the design?

Beretta did good changing the M1 to the BM59, kept more of the original Garand, and had a far better magazine design, and the grenade launcher/comp allowed controlability on FA, unlike the M14

The M14,, lost alot in going from the M1 to M14
 
An FN-FAL in. 280 would compare favorably with anything! With hindsight, it clearly was the way to go and could be in service now. The GPMG concept would probably not catch on, with LMG being chambered for. 280 and HMG using something bigger. The Swedish 8mm MG round would be a good choice.

Why wouldn't the GMPG standard catch on?
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Why wouldn't the GMPG standard catch on?
I think @AdA is trying to say that a “light machine gun” chambered in .280 British could have filled the role that the M60 and M249 played. As I said in the OP though, it is still likely that a medium machine gun in .30-06 or 7.92 Mauser still remains in service, although it would probably see limited use - squads would be happy enough with the FN FAL and the LMG for their suppressive fire needs, and vehicles and stationary emplacements would want a more powerful machine gun like the M2 Browning.
 
Top