Quote:
Originally Posted by DWalt
I was involved in the early phases of the 6.8mm development, and in my opinion it is far superior to the 5.56mm and nearly the equal to the 7.62mm in performance. But it never got much traction with the military and never will. There is an enormous sum invested in 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons and ammunition now in inventory, and it will be a near-miracle if the U. S. Military (most notably the Army) would ever abandon them for any other caliber. About 99.99% probability that they will never be replaced in our lifetimes, at least for general combat service. SpecOps may be a different story.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arik
/....
/...And while we're at it when was the 308 a proper round. Seems like a poodle round when compared to the proper 45-70!
Imagine the soldiers back in the day having their proper 45-70 taken away and getting issued some wimpy 30 Cal 30-40 Krag.
|
There's some interesting history behind this as well.
Most people are familiar with the argument used that the 5.56's ability to tumble on impact gave it a great advantage over FMJ rounds that just poke a hole through the enemy soldier.
What many people do not realize is that this argument first got trotted out when the .45-70 was being replaced by the .30/40 Krag, and the British .577/450 was being replaced by the .303 British. Both of these .30's were originally designed as black powder cartridges but successfully transitioned to the smokeless era.
Neither the US nor the British were all that happy with there cartridges. The US developed the .30-03 and .30-06 cartridges after the Spanish American war, while the British started working on a new service cartridge.
The British took it one step further and experimented with the optimum bullet diameter for tumbling effects. They settled on .276, which was actually a 7mm bullet since they measured land diameter, rather than groove diameter. They developed the .276 Enfield wit a 165 gr bullet at 2,800 fps, and they planned to field it in the Pattern 13 Enfield rifle, replacing both the .303 and the SMLE. But then WWI happened, and the British did not want to complicate their logistics with a second service cartridge.
After WWI, the Brits had millions of rounds and tens of thousands of SMLEs in the inventory and replacing either of them was not economically feasible.
-----
In short, institutional inertia plays a large role in changing service rifles and service cartridges. You need:
- a perceived failure of a round or rifle;
- low inventory; and
- clear agreement from the folks in charge of what is needed.
I'd argue at the none of the above, and won't have them any time soon.