It is amazing to consider how much greater this country would be if politicians would just keep their unqualified meddling nose pickers out of our lives. In their pursuit of a bronze statue likeness of themselves set in a place for all the world to see, they end up causing the working class to work ALOT of overtime to fix their squanderings or to pay for it with our lives.
My point is this, we had the .45acp "forever" and it worked. After the "wonder-nine" craze and it's shortcomings were realized, alot of tax-payers money was dumped into creating a new "wonder-pistol" cartridge. After the 10mm fiasco was realized, another allotment of our tax-payers money was directed into designing a LE only .40s&w load. The new "special" .40 load that only LE is authorized to purchase or "acquire" duplicates .45acp loads that can be bought off the shelf at Wally-Mart.
Another example, John Garand had intended to use the .276 Pedersen cartridge in his M1 Garand rifle, and it could hold 10 rounds, hence lighter ammo, more capacity, very effective. This time it was MacArthur that demanded Garand's rifle be chambered in the overstocked supply of .30-06 ammo.
After the Garand's success in WWII, it was "realized", by those not paying attention, that the power of the .30-06 was not "necessary". The Brits, who had done extensive research into what would be an effective combat caliber, designed their .280 British caliber which slightly edged out the American .276 Pedersen cartridge in performance and used a shorter but slightly wider based case. Not to mention having almost half the recoil of the .30-06.
With advances in cartridge powders, it was decided that we could still have all that unecessary power, use the very same bullet, use the new powder and just shorten the .30-06 case down by about half an inch. All the new machinery, the new dies, the new rifles, the new machine guns, only to duplicate the .30-06 ballistically. What was accomplished? Saving a half inch in case length? Hmmm, money well spent
Realizing that they still needed infantry rifles and machine guns that could fire controllably in full-auto, and denying the .276 Pedersen and .280 British for not having enough power, millions more of our tax dollars went into the purchase of the most controversial rifle/caliber selection the world has ever seen. After a couple of full-scale military operations and smaller military engagements, the "shortcomings" of our current rifle/caliber combination are becoming more and more apparent. This maybe becoming due more to the vast numbers of people becoming involved in our current conflict and those many masses still alive today with experiences with the rifle/caliber in past conflicts. But whatever the cause for this new "awareness" it has stirred many companies to develop alternatives to supplement/replace our current issue rifle/caliber.
The front runner seems to be the 6.8 SPC cartridge. And wouldn't you know it, ballistically it comes pretty close to what the .280 British and .276 Pedersen is, aside from slightly different case sizes. Amazing isn't it? Yet while we have the most efficient cartridges available since 1923, when the .276 Pedersen was designed or back in 1945 when the .280 Brit was designed we will yet dump millions more into more research and more development to design a new "wonder-bullet" that will essentially do the same dang thing.
Let's not diminish the reliability of the direct impingement gas system used on our current issue rifle that dumps burnt powder waste into the chamber and firing mechanism. An acceptable design to politicians, but let's not forget those that use this equipment and their first-hand experience with it's reliability. How about the 507th Maintenance Company's experience with it in Iraq in 2003? I just wonder how clean al-qaeda keeps their AK's and how many of them jammed?
Yet whilst more reliable and cleaner operating systems are readily available we jeopardize the safety of non-politicians while the politicians search for a more profitable alternative monetarily and politically enhancing for themselves.
Makes me want to get a second and third job right now :banghead:
My point is this, we had the .45acp "forever" and it worked. After the "wonder-nine" craze and it's shortcomings were realized, alot of tax-payers money was dumped into creating a new "wonder-pistol" cartridge. After the 10mm fiasco was realized, another allotment of our tax-payers money was directed into designing a LE only .40s&w load. The new "special" .40 load that only LE is authorized to purchase or "acquire" duplicates .45acp loads that can be bought off the shelf at Wally-Mart.
Another example, John Garand had intended to use the .276 Pedersen cartridge in his M1 Garand rifle, and it could hold 10 rounds, hence lighter ammo, more capacity, very effective. This time it was MacArthur that demanded Garand's rifle be chambered in the overstocked supply of .30-06 ammo.
After the Garand's success in WWII, it was "realized", by those not paying attention, that the power of the .30-06 was not "necessary". The Brits, who had done extensive research into what would be an effective combat caliber, designed their .280 British caliber which slightly edged out the American .276 Pedersen cartridge in performance and used a shorter but slightly wider based case. Not to mention having almost half the recoil of the .30-06.
With advances in cartridge powders, it was decided that we could still have all that unecessary power, use the very same bullet, use the new powder and just shorten the .30-06 case down by about half an inch. All the new machinery, the new dies, the new rifles, the new machine guns, only to duplicate the .30-06 ballistically. What was accomplished? Saving a half inch in case length? Hmmm, money well spent
Realizing that they still needed infantry rifles and machine guns that could fire controllably in full-auto, and denying the .276 Pedersen and .280 British for not having enough power, millions more of our tax dollars went into the purchase of the most controversial rifle/caliber selection the world has ever seen. After a couple of full-scale military operations and smaller military engagements, the "shortcomings" of our current rifle/caliber combination are becoming more and more apparent. This maybe becoming due more to the vast numbers of people becoming involved in our current conflict and those many masses still alive today with experiences with the rifle/caliber in past conflicts. But whatever the cause for this new "awareness" it has stirred many companies to develop alternatives to supplement/replace our current issue rifle/caliber.
The front runner seems to be the 6.8 SPC cartridge. And wouldn't you know it, ballistically it comes pretty close to what the .280 British and .276 Pedersen is, aside from slightly different case sizes. Amazing isn't it? Yet while we have the most efficient cartridges available since 1923, when the .276 Pedersen was designed or back in 1945 when the .280 Brit was designed we will yet dump millions more into more research and more development to design a new "wonder-bullet" that will essentially do the same dang thing.
Let's not diminish the reliability of the direct impingement gas system used on our current issue rifle that dumps burnt powder waste into the chamber and firing mechanism. An acceptable design to politicians, but let's not forget those that use this equipment and their first-hand experience with it's reliability. How about the 507th Maintenance Company's experience with it in Iraq in 2003? I just wonder how clean al-qaeda keeps their AK's and how many of them jammed?
Yet whilst more reliable and cleaner operating systems are readily available we jeopardize the safety of non-politicians while the politicians search for a more profitable alternative monetarily and politically enhancing for themselves.
Makes me want to get a second and third job right now :banghead:
