Quote:
Originally Posted by Uman
Had anyone done their research we could have fielded a new cartridge in the 1970s. The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) did a study for the USMC in 1976 which predicted that the optimum single or two cartridge design would be between 6 and 7mm. The 5.56 was to light for wounding/incapacitation and the 7.62NATO to heavy in weight and recoil. In 2015 you should have seen the faces of the USMC Wpns Bn Commander at Quantico when I asked him and his Marines if they had seen the study. Could have heard a pin drop. It is a great study that takes into even carrying the weapon, ammo, recoil control.
The history of high velocity light weight rifleman rifle and ammunition post Korean War is very interesting and the end concept for the projectile would have raised the lethality rate for the rifle above its current rate of 30%. History shows that the rifle lethality rate hovers around 30% in all wars. Think 3 KIA per 30 round magazine due to the chaos of the battle field. Incapacitation rates around 60%.
|
I think they did...
The UK realized after WWII that 1) The .303 was a week round and 2)more importantly the bolt action was dead to the battlefield.
Hence their development of the FAL/L1A1.
The 70ts was a re-hash of the post-WWII UK work with the .280 British round developed for the FAL/L1A1. The US had a "not invented here" hissy fit and wanted nothing less than a 30 cal, and nixed the FAL/L1A1 for the M14
They forced the 7.62x51 on the world, 20 minutes later the US went to the 5.56x45 and AR family.
ref: 280 British
ref: picture of 30.06, 280 British, and 7.62x51