Serious Question here, Why did bongs get rid of 303?

NATO Standardization

>>34014477

wasn't 303 better ballistics than nato?

>>34014483
Are you pretending to be retarded or do you need the benefits of standardization explained? Minor differences in small arms don't win wars.

>>34014483
Not really, certainly not enough to matter. .303 was low pressure relative to its contemporaries.

>>34014469
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

>>34014469
>Why did the British get rid of a low pressure, highly tapered, rimmed cartridge?

>>34014547

>>34014502
>>34014501


Thats all you niggers have to say.

So that was reason why it's not ussed any more.

fuck

The serious question is: why didn't we do it circa 1900? There was such a drive towards marksmanship and just good rifle shooting but we kept a sub optimal round with a terrible propellant.

File: tmp_32440-tumblr_mwwifimSVG1rwjpnyo2_1280499038957.jpg (39KB, 800x576px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x576px

I, as a Brit with a sense of nostalgia, would like to see a return to .577/450.. seemed to work adequately against most uppity natives..

>>34014900
I have read that they were leaning toward adopting the .280 to replace the .303 but WW 1 breaking out quickly ended that idea.

>>34014918
As an added bonus there is no need for spotting scopes on range days because you can see the great big holes they make from awaaay off.

>>34015165
that was the .276 Enfield. the .280 came about after WW2.

>>34014483
By a margin.

It's also tapered and has a large rim, which if you can help it, you don't want for box magazines.
Britain was going for the FAL, and the .303 would have been bothersome at best in the FAL.

>>34014618
Well what the fuck do you want to hear?
There's nothing special about the .303, it was replaced with a cartridge that could do the same thing but without being a fucking chore in box magazines.

For their purposes, it was an old antiquated piece of shit, it's not like with the Russians where they mostly use it in GPMGs and it doesn't matter if it's got a big fat rim (in fact it makes extraction more reliable in this case).

>>34016205
you are correct, my bad

>>34014469
Two words: rimmed. Cartridges.
7.62 NATO is superior even if only because of being rimless.
Try making an L1A1 in .303 Brit and you'll understand.
>>34016205
This is correct.
At the time it would have been a nice cartridge.
The war flushed that shit down the toilet, and by the time they came around to wanting that shit again, better shit had already been invented.

>>34016404
.276 Enfield would have been a fucking god tier round if it had survived until today. Imagine all of that case capacity and long, heavy 175-200gr bullets chambered in a rifle with a throat long enough to seat them out and an action strong enough for high pressures. You could load that thing up in excess of max. It would quite be the equal of 7mm Rem Mag but it would beat out .30-06, 8mm Mauser, .270 any time until you wanted heavier than 200gr. Unfortunately it was fucking shit cordite, they would have liked it better if they'd just loaded it smokeless; at least from what I've read.

>>34016737
Didn't the cartridge exhibit excessive throat erosion?

>>34016753
Because cordite tried to mimic the fucking sun. It's not even an overbore round really, yeah it's going to wear throats faster than .308 or .303 or .30-06 but it's not like it's magnum levels of throat erosion. A good slow burning and cool power like N165, some heavy bullets and a fast twist and it would be a really nice long range hunting round or target round.

>>34016404
Russians still use a rimmed cartridge and don't appear to have any problems with it

>>34014469
because you wont stop touching yourself

>>34017665
says the bolshevik

>>34017665
Because they mostly use them in small box mags and belt feeds, the latter where it's advantageous.

The only beltfed .303 guns that the Brits used were old water cooled Vickers guns on stationary mounts, and they performed admirably there, but the way the Brits employed them, they were finally made obsolete in the 60's when they started using mortars instead, which did the same thing for them but better.

The 7.62x51mm Bren conversion does the same thing as the .303 Bren, with the advantage of having ammunition compatibility with the FAL rifles they were then using (and arguably the same mags, if you wanted to deal with that hassle).

Without the Vickers or the Bren, particularly the Enfield, what reason would they have to keep the .303 around?

>>34017773
The Brits used several belt fed 303 in multiple configurations.
Both the 1919 and Vickers had prtable configurations and were commonly mounted on vehicles.

NATO

>>34014469
rims