guns

1186 readers

2 users here now

Keep it civil.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

101st Airborne first Army unit to field Next Generation Squad Weapons (www.armytimes.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

It has been 44 years since 5.56mm was NATO standardized, and 60 years since the U.S. was using it as a service caliber. I think it’s a bit unfair to characterize it as a flip-flop for the U.S. Army (not even all of the U.S. military) to change after such a long time.

So far the new 6.8mm is an Army exclusive project, so it’s a bit of a live experiment and not being thrust on the rest of US branches, much less all of NATO.

I’m honestly not sure if this particular route is a good idea or not, but we’ve clearly hit the limit of what 5.56mm can do, and if hard armor is actually a concern there needs to be some change in cartridge.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Let me have this one please

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Lol, nothing against you.

If you want a narrative like your original, 7.62mm NATO is much better.

1945: British develop the .280 (7mm) intermediate round.

1951: US military Project SALVO confirms that intermediate cartridges were a superior service round at the time.

1951: British show off the EM-2 as a viable rifle for their .280 round.

1954: Despite all evidence for intermediate rounds the US adopts the M14 in 7.62mm NATO and pushes the full caliber standard.

1954: British adopt the L1A1 in 7.62mm NATO instead of the EM-2 because they want to standardize with the US.

1964: US adopts 5.56mm.