If the .280 British or .276 Pedersen were adopted, would we have the 5.56?

[nyggis]

We will get to that sooner or later. If US would have to fight a war to defend their homeland and soldiers would have to drop that bad guy before he gets to kill their family, nobody would argue the need for a better round then 5.56mm.
I consider the 5.56mm NATO now exactly in the position of the .50 cal as fighter aircraft armament at the end of WW2 and the short 75mm gun on Sherman before Overlord.

Well said!!!

Changing the caliber of an entire weapon system, fully integrated with foreign NATO forces, will not be comfortable or unexpensive. Excellent example of the factors needed.

But for now we have to play the cards we have. Until the next (hopefully) enlightened change of calibre we´ll have to improve bullet design and tactics so we can get the best out of it.

 

[interlock]

so is the US army about to change calibre? if so what to?

 

[Shooter88]

I don't see a reason why they would. The only people who question the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 NATO M855/Mk. 262 rounds and the modern M4/M16A4 are the ones who've never shot another human being with them anyway. When hunting is your only frame of reference towards shooting at living things, your opinion on what caliber the military should use to kill people is skewed significantly. "Blah blah .223 isn't legal for deer blah blah!" find me deer that plant IEDs, ambush you, attack in groups, with grenades, machineguns, and RPGs, and you're firing back on the move, trying to stay in contact with the rest of your squad, trying to figure out where the hell exactly that fire is coming from, and damned glad for every last round of that combat loadout you lamented having to haul around a few minutes earlier, then I'll wholeheartedly support your argument that the military should use a caliber you can hunt deer with.

 

[interlock]

So Is that a no?

 

[HorseSoldier]

If either of these had been adopted...e.g., a more controllable in full auto round but still decently powerful...do you think we would have moved to the 5.56?

We might have, but it would have been a lower percentage shot than the transition from 7.62x51 to 5.56x45. Had we already had had a more satisfactory assault rifle type cartridge that was (more) controllable on full auto, the arguments for replacing it might have gotten less traction with the powers that be.

Maybe you could restate this? One could think randomly firing your weapon- hell, at random intervals, why not- would be more effective than shooting at the enemy, and I doubt that's what you actually mean.

It's been argued and debated ever since, but that's only a slight exaggeration of what they said in the report, based on their actual performance from WW2.

On the other hand, firearms training since WW2 has been aimed at trying to overcome this issue, as has the last couple decade's fielding of improved optics compared to iron sights.

 

[tnhunter93]

Simple, honest answer: NO !!!!