Did the U.S. Military ever consider...

[Pigspitter]

The Standardization Agreement (STANAG) was the primary reason we didn't. If we adopted the round, every other NATO nation would have had to adopt the round, which would have been expensive and a logistical nightmare. However, it has been used by many US soldiers.

 

[HorseSoldier]

"I suppose x51 was a failure as a "general service cartridge" here in the US since we're not using it"

since when are we NOT using 7.62x51??

M1A's, the 240 series, MK48 ect ect

My original statement, which seems to be quoted incorrectly, is that 7.62x51 was a failure as a general service rifle cartridge. Saying we have machineguns that shoot it does nothing to disprove this point.

We also have a few M14s in service for use as a DMR that shoot it. This also doesn't disprove the point, since those are not general service rifles, they're specialist weapons with very limited distribution. (And they are M14s, absolutely not M1As, which is not the military designation for a rifle.)

The Standardization Agreement (STANAG) was the primary reason we didn't. If we adopted the round, every other NATO nation would have had to adopt the round, which would have been expensive and a logistical nightmare. However, it has been used by many US soldiers.

STANAG was the reason we didn't adopt 7.62x39? That seems improbable, given that we did adopt 5.56mm and then basically forced NATO to again follow our lead (I know they had cartridge trials, but after the US said we weren't rechambering a mountain of M16s, that pretty much meant 5.56mm was the winner). If the US military had really wanted 7.62x39 we'd have forced NATO to jump on that one too.