charlie echo
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 170
7.62x54mm: M-14, Smith Enterprise, Inc. enhanced Crazy Horse stock or the new, unproven, Lewis Machine Tool, LMT308.
the 6.8 spc that will get renamed the 6.8 NATO
Right! Cause adopting the 5.56 was a simple, inexpensive weekend project that netted huge returns and ended the need or any R&D, all done during a vacation in SE Asia and a poker game at the Iron Curtain cafe.That isn't happening. I know it'd be the SPC fans greatest dream but that's all it's ever going to be.
The logistics AND expense involved in adopting a new round alone would kill it.
No suitable 30rd mags, it's heavier etc etc etc.
Isn't the 6.8 about the same level of ineffectiveness as the 5.56 in downiing Talibans at 400 plus yards across Afghanistan mountain ranges?probably woulda been stuck hefting around 7.62 NATO until recently now wed be using the 6.8 spc that will get renamed the 6.8 NATO
Right! Cause adopting the 5.56 was a simple, inexpensive weekend project that netted huge returns and ended the need or any R&D, all done during a vacation in SE Asia and a poker game at the Iron Curtain cafe.
I know you 6.Xers can't grasp this but rifle and cartridge development is a perfected technology.
That statement is as ridiculously laughable as saying the internal combustion engine is perfected. For sure it is getting close to as good as it can get with current technology, but to say useful improvements in technology are not still being made on a regular basis is pretty arrogant. Just like increased consumer awareness drives auto makers to strive for more effecient, cleaner engines, firearms and ammunition manufactures are constantly trying to achieve those little advancements in propellant technology and projectile metallurgy that will give them that accuracy advantage or make their ammunition more reliable.
6.fanboy x whatever, a new caliber faces complete NATO adoption, something undereducated and non-military experienced shooters seem to miss entirely. You have to get more than a dozen separate and distinct governments to sign on. Good luck with that.
I think the .243 would of been the best option at the time.
Ok fair enough, then name ONE cartridge today that couldn't have been made 100 years ago.
Isn't the 6.8 about the same level of ineffectiveness as the 5.56 in downiing Talibans at 400 plus yards across Afghanistan mountain ranges?
7.62x51 was only feasible with late 40s/early 50s technology in terms of propellant. It could have been made in 1906, but performance would not have matched 30-06 ammo.
and neither does 7.62x51And did either of them match 30-06 military ball performance?
Like it or not technologies do eventually mature and become as good as they can possibly be, examples include sail driven ships, riveted steel construction, recropicating steam engines, prop driven aircraft, metallic cartridges or even manual transmissions. If technologies could be indefinitely improved apoun we'd have steam driven automobiles still available today as the technology had a century on the internal combustion engine.