Best weapons of WW2

[Mikey]

the problem was one of gross stupidity on the part of the US Army in adopting the 7.62x51mm round, despite having a far superior alternative available

Don't go too far. The .308 Win wasn't nearly that bad when it was adopted as the 7.62x51. In standard loads it shoots pretty flat, carries a pretty decent bullet - proven enough on the high end of CXP-2 game and therefore certainly effective on two-legged targets even with FMJ bullets - and tends to load reliably. There is another factor you're ignoring besides performance: the .308 Win was so amazingly easily available to U.S. forces it would have to perform pretty poorly indeed in order to not be adopted. IDK what cartridge of which you're speaking which was extant at the time in a military load which was so superior as a rifle round.

and everyone else having to adopt it for the sake of standardisation.

I don't think we held a gun to anyone else's head when we adopted the 7.62x51. If you guys decided to follow suit, that's not our fault.

They then went too far the other way and adopted a round that was too light to be effective at long range, and vulnerable to deflection in jungle warfare.

There were bigger problems with using the M-16 in the jungle than bullet deflection, but that certainly was one of the reasons some units decided to hang onto their M-14's. Please clarify something, though: you say the "round" was too light. Do you mean that the bullet was too light, or that the cartridge was too small to carry an adequate powder charge? "Round" usually refers to the cartridge, but then you mentioned bullet deflection. In any event, tumbling terminal ballistic performance vs. the tiny .223 ball has been, and continues to be, a point of heated debate over the 5.56mm.

They now seem to be moving towards the 6.8 Remmington

There's talk, as well as talk about the KA 6.5mm, but AFAIK there's been little in the way of practical testing (especially with the collapse of the OICW program.)

the British government's tendency to always choose the right course of action, having exhausted all possible alternatives.

Yeah, I don't think that's limited to any one government.

[Captain Seafort]

Don't go too far. The .308 Win wasn't nearly that bad when it was adopted as the 7.62x51. In standard loads it shoots pretty flat, carries a pretty decent bullet - proven enough on the high end of CXP-2 game and therefore certainly effective on two-legged targets even with FMJ bullets - and tends to load reliably.

Let me clarify - the problem was one of gross stupidity on the part of the US Army in adopting the 7.62x51mm round for an automatic IW, despite having a far superior alternative available. For machine guns or non-automatic IWs, it's excellent.

IDK what cartridge of which you're speaking which was extant at the time in a military load which was so superior as a rifle round.

.280 British - controllable on full-auto, and ballistic performance identical to the .303. Everyone else was happy with it, but the US refused on the grounds that it wasn't powerful enough. And barely a decade later adopted a far lighter, far less powerful round. And is now looking at an almost identical round.

I don't think we held a gun to anyone else's head when we adopted the 7.62x51. If you guys decided to follow suit, that's not our fault.

The problem was that the size of the US contribution to NATO meant that any NATO-standard round had to be adopted by the US for "standard" to mean anything.

There were bigger problems with using the M-16 in the jungle than bullet deflection

True, but since the main subject of the discussion is the round rather than the weapon, that's what I'm focussing on.

Please clarify something, though: you say the "round" was too light. Do you mean that the bullet was too light, or that the cartridge was too small to carry an adequate powder charge?

My apologies for the lack of clarity - the problem was that the bullet was prone to being deflected by leaves.

the British government's tendency to always choose the right course of action, having exhausted all possible alternatives.

Yeah, I don't think that's limited to any one government.

True, but the phrase was originally used specifically to describe British foreign policy - I think it's one of Churchill's, but he might have been quoting someone.

[Mikey]

.280 British - controllable on full-auto, and ballistic performance identical to the .303.

Controllable on full auto? Probably more so than the .308. Performance identical to the .303? Nope - the .280 achieved similar speed and muzzle energy as the .303 but with a much smaller ball. Obviously there are other issues at hand than just ballistic performance; but if the decision to procure a round was made on performance alone, then the .308 was clearly the right round, with velocity and energy and bullet weight superior to the .280 and a FAR flatter trajectory and gains in velocity over the .303 and the .280. If I had to pick one of those two British rounds with which to go to war, I'd figure out a way to chamber the damn rims and got with the .303.

The problem was that the size of the US contribution to NATO meant that any NATO-standard round had to be adopted by the US for "standard" to mean anything.

OK, so now we're bad guys for shouldering the brunt of the load? You want to pick the round, then contribute the majority. EOS.

[Tholian_Avenger]

I think a similar analogy to what Captain Seafort is saying, Mikey, is that just because a lot of people predominantly eat fast food does not mean such is the best thing to eat. Just because a lot of NATO service rifles are chambered to a certain caliber by decree of the US DOD doesn't mean that caliber of bullet is the optimum one available.

[Captain Seafort]

Controllable on full auto? Probably more so than the .308.

Considerably more so.

Performance identical to the .303? Nope - the .280 achieved similar speed and muzzle energy as the .303 but with a much smaller ball.

Nonetheless, it was designed to have identical performance to the .303. As it happened, it wasn't identical - it was better. Better timber penetration at 2000 and 100 yards, and could penetrate a steel helmet at longer range.

if the decision to procure a round was made on performance alone, then the .308 was clearly the right round

I'm not complaining about the effectiveness of 7.62 NATO, I'm complaining about its suitability in an IW.

If I had to pick one of those two British rounds with which to go to war, I'd figure out a way to chamber the damn rims and got with the .303.

I'd rather have a useable automatic weapon. Getting rid of the rims would have been a good idea though.

OK, so now we're bad guys for shouldering the brunt of the load? You want to pick the round, then contribute the majority. EOS.

No, you're the bad guys for imposing an unsuitable round on the rest of NATO

[Mikey]

I think a similar analogy to what Captain Seafort is saying, Mikey, is that just because a lot of people predominantly eat fast food does not mean such is the best thing to eat. Just because a lot of NATO service rifles are chambered to a certain caliber by decree of the US DOD doesn't mean that caliber of bullet is the optimum one available.

Yes, I know. What's at the crux of what I'm saying at this point, though, is the fact that he seemed to decry the .308/7.62 NATO universally, rather than just the controllability issues which were at the genesis of that particular talking point. I'm refuting that idea, because the 7.62x51 happens to have a lot of positive qualities.

Nonetheless, it was designed to have identical performance to the .303. As it happened, it wasn't identical - it was better. Better timber penetration at 2000 and 100 yards, and could penetrate a steel helmet at longer range.

Only slightly better on both counts, and you don't need Massad Ayoob or Jeff Cooper to tell you how disparate such tests are from real-world performance against two-legged targets. The greater wound channel from the .303 as well as kinetic transfer from having a larger impact area mean a lot more in war-fighting than in civvie use because of the inability to use anything but FMJ bullets. Besides, I might be wrong but I believe that the standard load for the .303 had a greater sectional density.

I'm not complaining about the effectiveness of 7.62 NATO, I'm complaining about its suitability in an IW.

And that on it's own is valid... the FAL exemplified that more than the M-14 (the M-14 being heavier and more forward-balanced.) However, such things never exist in a vacuum, and the round was selected both on it's usage in a battle rifle and on it's ballistics. The former? Yep, fail if the older paradigm of longer-range and more common full-auto (as opposed to burst-fire) were to be continued. The latter? Win, compared to both the .280 and the .303 British (not to mention compared to the 5.56.)

No, you're the bad guys for imposing an unsuitable round on the rest of NATO

Again, you guys could have picked your own round. IIRC, the UKoGBaNI actually purchased a fair number of FAL's chambered in .280 British. What's more, you could have imposed your will on NATO - just contribute more to NATO efforts than the U.S. did, and you would have eclipsed our speaking position. If you couldn't, then... oh well. Wanna be a big dog? Learn to bite.

[Captain Seafort]

What's at the crux of what I'm saying at this point, though, is the fact that he seemed to decry the .308/7.62 NATO universally, rather than just the controllability issues which were at the genesis of that particular talking point.

Given that the entire argument was around IWs, with other weapons rarely if ever mentioned, I would have thought specifically mentioning in every single post that I was talking about the round's suitability in automatic IWs would be unnecessary.

Only slightly better on both counts, and you don't need Massad Ayoob or Jeff Cooper to tell you how disparate such tests are from real-world performance against two-legged targets.

True, but they do demonstrate the excellent ballistic performance of the .280

And that on it's own is valid... the FAL exemplified that more than the M-14 (the M-14 being heavier and more forward-balanced.) However, such things never exist in a vacuum, and the round was selected both on it's usage in a battle rifle and on it's ballistics. The former? Yep, fail if the older paradigm of longer-range and more common full-auto (as opposed to burst-fire) were to be continued. The latter? Win, compared to both the .280 and the .303 British (not to mention compared to the 5.56.)

What's the point of having good ballistics if it's unusable in the majority of weapons it was intended for?

Again, you guys could have picked your own round.

No, we couldn't - the point of having NATO standardisation was to, you know, standardise. That's why the MG42 and FAL were rechambered from their original designed rounds to 7.62 NATO

IIRC, the UKoGBaNI actually purchased a fair number of FAL's chambered in .280 British.

That's because the FAL was designed for .280 British. It was modified to accept 7.62 NATO after the US threw their tantrum.

[Deepcrush]

Wow, missed a bit on here... lol

[Deepcrush]

So is the problem up right now that the 7.62 isn't a good LMG round or that the 5.56 isn't a good assault round?

[Captain Seafort]

So is the problem up right now that the 7.62 isn't a good LMG round or that the 5.56 isn't a good assault round?

The 7.62 is fine as an MG round, although an LMG would be better off using the same round as the standard infantry IW. The problem is that the 7.62x51mm or 5.56x45mm are both far from ideal assault rifle rounds. The former is too powerful to be controllable on full auto in such a light weapon, and the latter isn't powerful enough to be effective at anything beyond CQB ranges.

[Deepcrush]

Considering most engagements are at ranges of less then 50m and the 5.56mm is effective at several times that. I don't see the problem with having a round that does exactly what is wanted of it. As to the 7.62, if people want to use a standard IW round, use a M249.

[Captain Seafort]

Considering most engagements are at ranges of less then 50m and the 5.56mm is effective at several times that. I don't see the problem with having a round that does exactly what is wanted of it.

"Most engagements" in what war? The reason this issue is cropping up is because ranges in Afghanistan can be up to half a mile - beyond the effective range of the 5.56mm round.

[Deepcrush]

Half a mile is beyond the effective range of the average infantry man because at that range anything not built for sniping is underset. But that's why we have snipers and bombs. The 5.56 fits the normal needs of forces world wide, which is why it's used.

[Mikey]

True, but they do demonstrate the excellent ballistic performance of the .280

Against wood or water jugs or ballistic gel - but even the latter doesn't truly respond like human tissue regarding cavitation and lapse time of temporary cavity closure. Someone as well versed as you in firearms should automatically have his grain of salt ready with such testing.

What's the point of having good ballistics if it's unusable in the majority of weapons it was intended for?

I can think of two major, globally-important weapon systems for which the round was intended at its inception; the FAL and the M-14. The FAL was nigh on uncontrollable with it, because it wasn't designed for it (although, that sure as hell didn't stop a whole shitload of limeys from ditching their SA FAL's for captured Argentinian full-auto versions.) The M-14 was effective enough with the 7.62x51 that 50+ years later, it's still in service.

No, we couldn't - the point of having NATO standardisation was to, you know, standardise. That's why the MG42 and FAL were rechambered from their original designed rounds to 7.62 NATO

Like I said, you could have forced NATO to standardize to the .280 British if you wanted. All you had to do was be the main player instead of us, and then you would have had the last word.

It was modified to accept 7.62 NATO after the US threw their tantrum.

"We're going to use this one" =/= "tantrum."

The 7.62 is fine as an MG round, although an LMG would be better off using the same round as the standard infantry IW.

Er... our LMG's do use the standard IW round, and can even take bog-standard STANAG mags in a pinch. The 7.62 isn't used in the M249, just in the M240.

the latter isn't powerful enough to be effective at anything beyond CQB ranges.

That's just not true. You earlier praised the 7.62x39mm as one of - if not the - best assault rifle rounds; and it's only accurate to 400 yards or so, so it doesn't outclass the effective range of the 5.56 at all.

ranges in Afghanistan can be up to half a mile - beyond the effective range of the 5.56mm round.

That sort of range isn't the province of any assault rifle at all; rather that's the sphere of influence of the battle rifle/DMR a/o AP sniper rounds.

[colmquinn]

Pistol: Nambu taisho Semi Auto Pistol Model 14 8mm
Rifle: MAS 1936 Repeating Rifle 7.5mm
MG:Chatellarault LMG 1924 7.7mm
Anti tank: Degtyarev AT Rifle PTRD 1941 14.5mm
Tank.Tank M 13/40


Oh you meant best, I've gone badly wrong here... so then can you compete with my list of worst?