WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

Deleted member 1487

Its parent case, the 300 Savage, debuted in 1920 for their Model 99 lever action to get as close as possible to 30-06 power, 2600fps with 150 gr. while staying with a 48mm case length
Seems nuts to have taken so long to get to the military version.
 
Seems nuts to have taken so long to get to the military version.

It's mostly just for a longer neck, supposedly for better support of longer, heavier bullets
360px-.300savagepic.JPG


The 300 was developed from the Savage 250-3000 from 1915.
back to 6.5mm, again
90 gr HPBT 2,997 fps 2,434 J

TheBigFour.jpg

303 Savage, 300 Savage, 250-3000, and one I forget.

250-3000 is the Intermediate Cartridge that should have been used from the start
 

Deleted member 1487

It's mostly just for a longer neck, supposedly for better support of longer, heavier bullets
360px-.300savagepic.JPG


The 300 was developed from the Savage 250-3000 from 1915.
back to 6.5mm, again
90 gr HPBT 2,997 fps 2,434 J

TheBigFour.jpg

303 Savage, 300 Savage, 250-3000, and one I forget.

250-3000 is the Intermediate Cartridge that should have been used from the start
If you're going that low weight for a 6.5mm round the Germans had the aluminum cored 7.92mm bullet at 85 grains at 925mps at a significantly better ballistic shape for longer range energy/velocity retention; the Americans could have done the same thing with the 7.62 bullet ang used the existing Savage cartridge case.
 
I've not come across any documentation that the .276 was ever considered for use in MGs, just rifles
i know, but us ordnance will want to use the same round for both, just like they tried to do with 7.62 and 5.56
also check out wiking's post for the better answer

Post-war the .276 MMG designs would come fresh; given the success adapting the BAR into all sorts of designs and calibers, once they had it working with the .276 BAR they could without much trouble design a heavier duty belt fed version as a MMG .
with the t2 round i can see this happening, and working, mostly because of how similar it is to something like 7mm-08
i can also see the ordinance dept. pitching a fit about it,
this still leaves a niche for a lighter carbine round that only really needs to reach out about 500m

Hatcher's Notebook mentions it was fired from the Pedersen rifle rather than the Garand; the Pedersen rifle was knocked out of competition earlier on in the process, so I'm going to guess the T2 came about for the Garand caliber decision, as your link notes it was only for the Garand version that the round was altered.
thanks for the clarification

303 Savage, 300 Savage, 250-3000, and one I forget.
.22 Savage High-Power, apparently still popular in Europe.
 
If you're going that low weight for a 6.5mm round the Germans had the aluminum cored 7.92mm bullet at 85 grains at 925mps at a significantly better ballistic shape for longer range energy/velocity retention; the Americans could have done the same thing with the 7.62 bullet ang used the existing Savage cartridge case.

getting 3150fps or 960m/s was no problem for the Savage, there was also the Ackley Improved with less taper on the case for more propellant, was good for another 100fps
250 AI is like a slightly shorter 6.5 Creedmoor
 
Remember. First define the task you want the bullet to achieve, then the bullet to do it, only then the case which will push the bullet out in the desired fashion with a powder which will minimise erosion etc. After that you can do a gun to load and fire the thingy you have chosen at minimum weight and size commensurate with reliability, robustness and cost.

The focus on the possible rounds misses the OTL issue of Europe and Canada wanting a completely different task to the USA. The thread POD presumably results from the USA changing it's intended task. If it away from the OTL battle rifle then it must be towards an intermediate round. The British .280 was already lined up and proven and was to be the Canadian, British and Belgian choice and inevitably have become the European/Canadian (bar France) probably in FAL form. If necessary I think Britain would swap to the FAL without NIH qualms. In it's later forms it was perfectly adequate for LMG and MMG roles. Everyone was asking FN about FAL licences (even the West Germans in time but the Belgians would not sell them one).

It is the NIH/Springfield US chauvinisms POD which will guide the AH 7.62x51mm alternative choice not the assorted ballistic alternatives. For good or ill the .280 was the existing OTL choice already in hand. Others may have been better or worse but .280 was the chosen one. The FAL was set to be the matching standard.

What might be the USA POD change and the driver for them?
 
If necessary I think Britain would swap to the FAL without NIH qualms.

Britain would probably have ended up with the L1A1 as the standard rifle with the No.9 (EM2) used by Para's, Commandos and Special forces or where local conditions make a shorter rifle desirable, such as Malaya and Borneo. The GPMG would have ben the Taden Gun.

Once APC's become more prevalent I see Britain switching to a Bullpup FAL.
 
The Rife No 9 came in two barrel lengths, the short one intended for those normally armed with a 9mm Sub machine gun.

Top is EM2, short. barrel 19.5 inches. Middle is EM2, Standard, Barrel 24.7 inches and for comparison, bottom is the FAL, barrel length 19.5 inches.
upload_2018-10-11_19-17-37.png


So the EM2 short has the same barrel length as the FAL. So performance should be comparable and the Rifle no 9 with the longer barrel should get a little more performance out of the round.
 
It also costs more to make and Britain had a very limited amount of cash at the time, which is why I see the L1A1 as the standard rifle.
 
It also costs more to make and Britain had a very limited amount of cash at the time, which is why I see the L1A1 as the standard rifle.

I think the EM-2 would be preferred, and at the end of the day both options are being paid for in pounds, and being build in a UK Government Arsenal, so the difference in cost is not really going to matter so much.
 
Issue was EM2 cost more to make then a FAL did. And had issues. Now both could change with further development and mass production but at the start FAL was cheaper to make, and functioned perfectly.
Also I believe FN offered no royalty fees to Britain for production of FAL.
 
What might be the USA POD change and the driver for them?
The President putting his foot down and telling the Army that in order to promote good relations with the rest of NATO they have to accept the .280 round? Unlikely I know but not completely out of the question.
 

Deleted member 1487

The President putting his foot down and telling the Army that in order to promote good relations with the rest of NATO they have to accept the .280 round? Unlikely I know but not completely out of the question.
The US army that just won WW2 and who the UK is indebted to in myriad of ways? It's about as out of the question as you could get, especially given that the .276 Pedersen was still around to adopt instead of that damn Redcoat round.
 
The US army that just won WW2 and who the UK is indebted to in myriad of ways? It's about as out of the question as you could get, especially given that the .276 Pedersen was still around to adopt instead of that damn Redcoat round.
Did they do any real development of the .276 after ww2? I always assumed after Mac insisted on using .30-06 that the .276 was basically abandoned
 

Deleted member 1487

Did they do any real development of the .276 after ww2? I always assumed after Mac insisted on using .30-06 that the .276 was basically abandoned
No real need to do more, it was already developed and ready to go. In fact the .280 British round had worse ballistics than the .276 Pedersen despite using a heavier round due to it's shape. Though the Pedersen round was more powerful load, due to having a lighter bullet it's recoil could be mitigated better by a muzzle brake and if desired the round could have been loaded more lightly.
 
The US army that just won WW2 and who the UK is indebted to in myriad of ways? It's about as out of the question as you could get, especially given that the .276 Pedersen was still around to adopt instead of that damn Redcoat round.
As I said unlikely, but no one ever said international politics (or any other type) made sense.
 
No real need to do more, it was already developed and ready to go. In fact the .280 British round had worse ballistics than the .276 Pedersen despite using a heavier round due to it's shape. Though the Pedersen round was more powerful load, due to having a lighter bullet it's recoil could be mitigated better by a muzzle brake and if desired the round could have been loaded more lightly.
True. And I've always had a soft spot for both .276 Pederson and original .270 british. The .280 and 280/30 other hand not so much.
 
Top