Most of these "good idea fairy" projects go nowhere.
Agree. While cartridge choice and the type of rifle/sidearm are an consuming interest for the civilian community, it is very hard to get the Army to change. The last, best round, was the 276 Pedersen, which would have made a great service round, and yet, the Army leadership made the excuse that the stockpiles of 30-06 were so vast, they must stay with the caliber.
See the memo here in this thread:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/30-06-caliber-for-the-m1-garand.350271/#post-4325851
This, even though the WW1ammunition had been rapid deteriorating.
from: THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT: PLANNING MUNITIONS FOR WAR
Ammunition storage and maintenance caused the most trouble during these years. More money than for any other one purpose was earmarked for maintenance of the War Reserve; and of the total sum, annually about three fifths was for preservation of ammunition. To maintain a usable War Reserve, periodic surveillance of stocks was necessary, a careful testing of representative lots to detect incipient deterioration; lots that were no longer good must be renovated or replaced. In 1926 Public Law 318 authorized exchange of deteriorated ammunition for new, but adequate funds for renovation continued to be hard to get from congressmen who, despite the yearly attempts of Ordnance Department spokesmen to explain the chemistry of ammunition deterioration, found the argument unconvincing.
A special program of surveillance and renovation was started in 1928, when the Department not only exchanged some 4,000, 000 pounds of unserviceable powder for 360,000 pounds of new flashless, non hygroscopic powder, but also opened its first special renovation plants. …..While the 1929 Army survey and the 1930 inspections of Ordnance depots showed that storage depots contained seriously deteriorated stock "far in excess of quantities which [could] be properly maintained with available maintenance funds," 119 by 1933 the Department was able to draw upon public works funds for some of its renovation work.120 Surveillance inspectors, trained in the use of new as well as old techniques of testing, functioned at various depots ....
The Army had to spend a lot of time and effort on Capital Hill convincing Congress to appropriate money to replace deteriorating WW1 ammunition, and yet, when it came to replacing the 30-06, the leadership were telling the world, that it was too costly to replace the 30-06 stockpile. That stockpile was rapidly going bad, but just as today, people assume gunpowder lasts forever. It does not. Army leadership won their "no change" argument, even if it was economical with the truth. The real reason, is that that Army is extremely resistant to change. The like what they have, they want something better, but only a little different, and they totally reject revolutionary change. The 7.62 Nato is really a "30-06 light". It was obvious after WW2 that the 30-06 needed to be replaced, for one reason, it was too long. At the same time the Soviets are adopting the 7.62 X39, the US is replacing the 30-06 with the 7.62 Nato, which was ballistically identical to the 30-06! While I like the 308 Win, I am just as out of touch with the future as was the US Army. The Army was very committed to the 7.62 and would have kept it if the Secretary of Defense had not mandated a change to the 223.
It will take an act of Congress, or direction from SecDef, to force Big Army to change calibers and cartridges. Until then, all these "new and improved" cartridges will become historical curiosities, just as the 276 Pedersen: