Thread replies: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 800px-US_M2_Carbine.jpg (59KB, 800x531px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 800x531px
Isn't it actually fairly strange that the US of all countries was so god damn slow in adopting an intermediate cartridge?
In the 30's the tech and knowledge (i.e. average shooting distance in WW1) was there, the sales pitch would've be easy as fuck:
"We could build you a submachinegun that costs and weighs far less than a Thompson, with like three times the range. The only catch is a proprietary cartridge."
The idea of having a fairly handy select fire weapon with an effective range of roughly 300m in an age when militaries relied so heavily on blowback SMGs for close range would undoubtedly be very attractive.
Following the war it gets even more puzzling as we know how much pic related was liked AND we know what the chief complaint was for it.
The writing was on the god damn wall. Make something more powerful than .30 carbine but lighter and softer recoiling than .30-06.
It's fucking incredible that with so much experience in so many environments, and despite the use of an almost intermediate round, that the US fell behind the rest of the world and dragged all of NATO down with it.
>>
>>32374256
It was doctrinal lag more than anything. Armies were unwilling to give up the capability for very long range and volley fire that was necessary in the First World War.
>>
>>32374256
The old generals that ran the military had either never seen combat or hadn't seen it since the spanish American war. They placed entirely too much emphasis on individual long range marksmanship and conservation of ammo because their belief on war was 50 years out of date
>>
We were stuck on MUH 30 CAL
>>
>>32374256
The US has always been a special snowflake
>>
>>32374282
>>32374288
Basically a combination of these two.
>>
5.56 NATO is a passing fad. 7.62 real fuckin' NATO forever. You'll see... you'll all see.
>>
>>32374332
and the fact that we had millions upon millions of rounds of .30-06 stockpiled after WWI. thats the main reason the garand wasnt chambered in .270
>>
File: misfire.jpg (59KB, 335x499px) Image search:
[Google]
59KB, 335x499px
>>32374256
It's not puzzling at all. Being repeatedly failed by US Ordnance in regards to small arms due to
"tradition", is a tradition in itself.
>>
>>32374256
>Isn't it actually fairly strange that the US of all countries was so god damn slow in adopting an intermediate cartridge?
is this the same US that didn't have rifles for the Army, practically no planes, and was throwing money at machineguns that didn't work when they joined WWI?
>>
>>32374431
Well the US was in a very different position after WW1
>>
>>32374288
They were so damn close to adopting .276 Pedersen which in testing outperformed M2 ball, only the huge .30-06 stockpile stopped them from adopting it.
>>
>>32374256
The M1 Garand was originally designed for .276 Pedersen.
>2,400 fps (730 m/s) with 150 gr bullets.
Compare that to 6.5 Creedmoor:
>2,710 fps (830 m/s) with 140 gr bullets.
Or 6.5 Grendel:
>2,510 fps (770 m/s) with 130 gr bullets.
>>
>>32374256
Had to bail bitch ass Europeans from many wars.
Doing just fine.
>>
Also, there was this thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGyJPFzNfU
Thread posts: 15
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2