View Single Post
  #8  
Old 02-08-2013, 05:56 PM
pmulcahy11b's Avatar
pmulcahy11b pmulcahy11b is offline
The Stat Guy
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 4,354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tegyrius View Post
The Brits wanted to go with a 7mm or .280 round (139 grains at 2,550 fps) and developed the Enfield EM-2 around it. The U.S. had to be obstinate about it and refused to standardize on anything smaller than .30, thanks to Garand-induced caliber bigotry. Damn shame; the EM-2 was a couple of decades ahead of its time and I don't think wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with the .280's ballistics.

I'm wildly speculating here, but if that 7mm round had been adopted, we might never have seen 5.56 and 5.45 become military standards.

- C.
The reason the 7mm round (and anything else NATO came up with) wasn't adopted was pure bullying by a now-superpower US. "We're not asking you what opinions you guys have -- we're telling you what your opinions are, and if you want to join in the Marshall Plan party, you'll agree!"

The EM-2 was so far ahead of its time that most people couldn't get ahead of its looks. Most of NATO liked the 7mm round -- the FAL and CETME-58 were originally chambered for it -- but they just thought the EM-2 looked too "sci-fi" to be taken seriously. Makes you wonder what they would think of the L85 and FAMAS.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes

Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
Reply With Quote