The US 'ploughs its own furrow' with a new Infantry Rifle.

It's simple if you look at it the right way.
The money is in developing and testing new ammunition and arms.
Nothing sexy about adding bells and whistles to 5.56 or 7.62!

If you are developing something "new" you can look for grants to research and develop it. You can have meetings with important people who all need taking to expensive meals. People can go on fact-finding visits. Just watch the money go around.

Knowing the American system, as soon as the Army accept a calibre the Navy will reject it and develop their own! :)

[QUOTE=Alan de Enfield;522481]Strange how when we launched the 280 round it was touted as 'too weak' by America and we all adopted the American Winchester 308 development that became the NATO 7.62.[QUOTE]

I don't think colonel Rene Studler who was in charge of the trials had any intention of passing anything that wasn't .308W, the decision for making .308 the winner was probably made before the trials started!

As an aside I've always wondered how a No.5 chambered in .280 British would perform.

Not made here is an important part of military decisions.

Not since the .276 P-13 debacle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeeRam

I think everyone knew that, especially after the tests at Aberdeen.....but politics as ever wins the day, rather than "best bit of kit for the purpose regardless"

I can't see any other NATO countries adopting this round at any time during the next 10-15 years.

---

Considering how willingly they dance to the tune in much larger matters I suggest it's almost a certainty. ;)

[QUOTE=Strangely Brown;522503][QUOTE=Alan de Enfield;522481]Strange how when we launched the 280 round it was touted as 'too weak' by America and we all adopted the American Winchester 308 development that became the NATO 7.62.

Quote:

---

I don't think colonel Rene Studler who was in charge of the trials had any intention of passing anything that wasn't .308W, the decision for making .308 the winner was probably made before the trials started!

As an aside I've always wondered how a No.5 chambered in .280 British would perform.

---

There's an interesting idea Mick....

I believe Lithgow have trialed an F88 derivative in the new calibre, as far as I'm aware it's the first alternative rifle offered, or at least trialed.

Considering the new calibre is apparently optimised for shorter barrels, god knows what sort of blistering velocity that bullet leaves the muzzle with a 21" barrel.

One just has to look at the stopping power of current 5.56 ammo. Clearly to wound has more benefit in committing assisting troops, but 7.62 was always a one round man stopper, well certainly in my service.
Sad reflection on the times when certain ammo and weapons are brought in for no discernable reason and just don't make the mustard!!

Clearly to wound has more benefit in committing assisting troops

Based on the assumption that any potential enemy gives a stuff about their wounded, or even their troops in general. Korea, and conflicts since, have certainly shown that the enemy had little regard for their wounded.

One can enjoy the double entendre of the phrase and the scenario anyway; it's "pregant" with meaning after all! :D