01-10-2012, 10:38 PM
LRRPF52 Wrote:The 7mm has better penetration at distance than even the .30-06/.30 Cal US through timber...Irrelevant comparison, since .30-06 was being phased out.
How does .280 Enfield do when put up against 7.62x51?
Quote:...and still penetrated the British Airborne steel helmet at 1000yds, while the .30 Cal had an advantage in that area, but both capabilities were really excessive in that regard...Against helmets, yes. But you're overlooking the (at the time) perceived need to punch through BMP hulls. For that, the penetration capability is not at all excessive.
Quote:The .30-06 was way over-kill for a rifleman, and the .276 Pedersen would have been a much more appropriate chambering for the Garand, especially looking at the magazine capacity of 10rounds versus 8. That alone would have had real world results in the form of more lives saved on our side. Riflemen are primarily concerned with soft targets, and within the distances that they engaged bunkers, a .276 Pedersen would have the same practical effects, with less recoil and more capacity.I agree with all of that. The trouble is, it would've resulted in three calibers being required -- .276 for rifles, .30 Carbine for carbines, and .30-06 for machine guns -- and the military has always been opposed to a three-caliber system.
Quote:7.62x51 is the cartridge that should not have been, in my book.They are certainly better alternatives, but we have the benefit of hindsight. They had to go with what they knew at the time.