Thanks for killing the .280 British you fuckers. We could have

>>34146801
Good job on killing your own civilian arm sales industry and blaming other people for your failures in weapons.

File: ultimate counter to OP being a faggot.png (161KB, 540x527px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 540x527px

>>34146801

>>34146808
That is absolutely an entirely different matter and one I won't disagree with you on.

File: FB_IMG_1495304046611.jpg (132KB, 2048x1432px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 2048x1432px

>>34146844
This is probably the most respectable response I've ever seen come out of this shithole

>>34147061
I forgot to add, stfo faggot.

>>34146801
Glad we killed it, 7.62x51 is the gpmg round we needed.

>>34147093
No. the nato round had problems of its own, US went for it because HURR DURR BIGGER BOOLET

>>34147141
And yet we ended up with a great gpmg and dmr round versus everyone chambering everything for the pos that is .280 Brit

>>34147093
No fuck you, .30-06 was already perfect you swine

>>34147339
>7.62x63
>Could be nearly matched by a round 12mm shorter
Pathetic, good riddance to that shit round as well. Unless you're a hand loader 30-06 is basically a waste of money

They tried to bring back later as 6.8SPC. Turned out it wasn't the game changer they'd hoped it would be.

Great for windshields within 300m though.

>>34146801
>britain
let's invent a special snowflake round that would make all the nato forces have to order bullet dies directly from the queen and crown.
>america
fuck that dumb shit. 70% of the world to include russia use .30 cal dies, why shouldn't nato?
>limey loving /k/ommandos
oh em gee 'murica is dum fer killin' .280.

>>34147339
Fuck off, .30-40 Krag was what we all needed.

>>34147399
6.8 is a retarded caliber choice. They basically killed the round from the start by boxing it into one of the least common calibers sold on the market for the weight it is at. If they opted for 6.5 it would have taken off since reloaders have many options in that caliber when it comes to bullet selection.
That being said I think it's a way better choice than 7.62x39 if it weren't for cost

>>34147639
Fuck you, .45-70 was king.

>>34147647

5.56 is great for its niche.

7.62 is great for its niche.

There is no compelling need to introduce yet another new rifle cartridge.

>>34147669
Don't you mean .56-50?

>one caliber to do everything in the military

it won't happen because it's not a good idea

>>34147676
The idea was to replace 5.56. I don't think the designer/s had delusions that it would replace 7.62x51. As I said before. The round could have gained more traction had it not been for the caliber choice that killed it for handloaders

>>34147379
30-06 always had better potential. And it was already in place.

They should not have changed rounds, but I can understand that they didn't want all the weapons they made prior to be useable into the future.

Fucking aliens don't know about my scales of production over time. OR THEY DIDN'T. They sure do now with all the fucking throwaway crap we use now that is supported like a carrot on a stick situation.

>>34146801
The more someone praises .280 British, the less they actually know about it.

>>34147685
Please, the most versatile caliber was .56 minie balls. Cheap, no casing, and the soldier could adjust the range with each shot!

>>34147811
I'm not sure what you are trying to communicate after the first two rounds. So I'll address the first.
Yes, 30-06 always had great potential, but due to stubborn demands to keep the loadings weak as piss sealed its fate. Trust me, I would have loved to see hot loaded 30-06 as the nato standard. That shit would be devastating with near magnum level rounds zinging down range.

>>34147894
>sentences
>rounds
el oh el, anon

File: 20170528_234727.jpg (43KB, 276x280px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 276x280px

>adopting a icepicking too heavy for auto, too light for long range round.
>not adopting 5.56
There's a reason why every nation's service rifle caliber starts with a 5.