Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RonPossible t1_j1283lt wrote

First, the US exited WW2 with a few million M1 Garand rifles. In the post-war drawdown, there was no urgency to replace that proven platform. Development of the replacement began in 1944, but really didn't go anywhere until the Korean War.

The UK proposed the .280 British round, in part based on the StG-44's 7.92 performance. The US rejected anything under .30 and found the .280's ballistics substandard compared to the .30-06. The 7.62mm was selected because it's ballistics matched the .30-06 due to newly developed powder. Also because the US Bureau of Ordnance wasn't keen on a non-American design.


Ekenda t1_j134s75 wrote

God learning about the absolute shit-show that was BuOrd and the 7.62 NATO adoption at that time is infuriating.


SigilumSanctum t1_j158h4p wrote

If you think thats bad, you should look into the MK14 Torpedo fiasco.


ArkyBeagle t1_j15mxq9 wrote

One of the best YouTube videos of all time. I had a family member who told me about that decades ago ( they ran out the end of their career at Electric Boat ) but this covers it so well:


Ekenda t1_j176ui8 wrote

Oh I know about the MK14 Torpedo. That shit was just rage inducing. I cannot imagine being one of the sub commanders at that time.


Ironclad2nd t1_j13bjfc wrote

There is no definitive proof to suggest the .280 was a sub-standard round. It provided much higher muzzle velocity and penetration capability compared to the 7.62 round plus much lighter weight. (Moving to 5.56 on the 60’s is proof of this concept.) The only thing correct about this is ‘the US didn’t want a foreign design.’ Remember, military industrial complex was at its strongest right after WW2


greennitit t1_j13g95o wrote

When it comes to ballistic projectiles nothing is better or worse than any other. It’s just a matter of application. The .280 would have had a slight flatter curve and slower speed down range as opposed to a .30. At the end of the day it’s a matter of what the military seems as necessary energy at muzzle, 100 ft, 500ft etc with consideration to bullet drop trade off for larger rounds


akodo1 t1_j20i5kt wrote

Don't forget, each military from WW1 onwards faced the question: do I get the cartridge that is GREAT in the medium machingun but recoil heavily in the individual rifle or reverse that.


Ironclad2nd t1_j13xcvc wrote

Like I said: .280 had a higher penetration capability as well as muzzle velocity. I can’t remember the source but .308 was 4x slower than 5.56 and about 1.9x slower than the .280 thus less of the capabilities mentioned above. The only thing true was that the US did not want a foreign concept inducted into their military simply out of politics…. Nothing else.


Due_Signature_5497 t1_j13y421 wrote

Only comment I might argue is “at it’s strongest” . I don’t think we heeded the warning that Eisenhower gave us about the military industrial complex when he left the presidency. The fact that the Iranian drones that have been shot down are made with 82% American provided parts, and we are essentially arming both sides in the Ukraine shows the power that they still have.


Cryptic_Alt t1_j15l4h6 wrote

Arming both sides is probably the oldest human tradition.


series_hybrid t1_j14p0lw wrote

Whenever I hear about sub-standard ballistics from anything other than the 30-06, I have to laugh.

Studies by the Americans, British, and everyone else showed that the vast majority if "hits" in WWII were less than 100 yards.

I can understand snipers wanting more. The majority of confirmed hits by Chris Kyle was with a 300 WinMag. He said if he had a 338 Lapua available earlier, he would have preferred that.

The average soldier has a hard time hitting stationary targets that are black and white at 400m

Just before WW-One, the Navy developed a 6mm cartridge for the Lee straight-pull rifle, but the first batch sank in Cuba. Roughly .24 caliber


MonkeyBoy_1966 t1_j13f1fg wrote

Garands were designed to use the .276 Pedersen, not the .280 round.