Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ironclad2nd t1_j12qyyf wrote

Everything except your last statement was true. ‘The US didn’t want a non-US design.’ The .280 was effective in both ballistics and cost effectiveness not to mention weight for the soldier carrying it. It was proven come the 5.56 over the 7.62. The main issue the US had was millions of rounds of 30.06 which had already been made and nowhere to use them.


imseeingthings t1_j13am8k wrote

If the left over 30.06 ammo was a factor, why do they switch to .308 and not switch to 5.56 or .280 or any other cartridge.


Ironclad2nd t1_j13bx3j wrote

7.62… not .308. Remember, ballistics are different. Ammo has a shelf life, once that shelf life is reached, the ammunition becomes unviable. Also, 1960’s America was the boon for military industrial complex. Much like the tobacco and oil industries, it campaigned for the newest and shiniest toys while debunking all criticism against it.


imseeingthings t1_j13c9gs wrote

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was saying.

I’m saying that the left over 30.06 was not the reason they didn’t adopt a smaller cartridge like the .280

They change from the 30.06 to another full power .30 caliber cartridge. that’s what they wanted to use.