No. 5 Accuracy

[Frederick303]

Well......... as likely the person with the least amount of real military time in the room, having never fired a round in anger, with nothing more than basic BRM, and familiarization exercises on various weapons now obsolete, the opinion below has no real world merit, but I cannot resist putting it down in print.


My respect for the 7mm EM2 round comes from firing downloaded 7.62 NATO rounds in competition. Specifically 135 gr Sierra Matchkings @ 2500 fps...which pretty much matches the recoil of the 7mm EM2 loading. Quite effective out to 600 yards. While on paper the recoil is only about 78 percent of the 7.62 NATO, (compared to the M855 53 percent) it seems that the lower recoil really makes the cartridge much easier to shoot well, especially from a rifle with a straight stock. Of course that load is not all that effective past 600 M, due to the low BC, the actual EM2 round is a lot more impressive due to the better bullet BC.

True the 7mm EM2 load goes subsonic at around 780 M vs. the 875 for the L2A2, but the lower recoil just seems to offer a much better overall fit for the battlefield of the 1950s. Combined with the straight stock and short bursts AKA assault rifle style becomes practical.

The cartridge operated at a lower peak pressure, so the rifle construction and demands made upon the action much less.

Now had that load been adopted in 1951/52 and been the NATO round post Korean war, I very much doubt the 5.56 would have gotten its start, the need for such a cartridge being drastically less apparent. After all the 5.56 was really developed in the late 1950s, right after the 7.62 NATO was adopted.

I am also of the opinion had the .276 Peterson been adopted in 1932 US small arms would have gone a different path as well.