Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.