Do We Want One-cartridge To Rule Them All?

by Steve Johnson

Published: February 9th, 2014

do we want one cartridge to rule them all

Nathaniel Fitch blogs about the wisdom (or lack thereof) for having a single general purpose cartridge that can satisfy the needs of riflemen, machine gunners and sharpshooters to replace both the 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO …

The first group of cartridges all greatly resemble (though none improve upon) the .276 Pedersen. These include the7x46mm UIAC, the .270 Sidewinder, the .280 British, and others. The second-most mature group, many have examples have actually been loaded and fired, and the .280 British was even officially adopted, briefly. Because their performance has been verified, it cannot be said that these cartridges are unfeasible, but is it worth the cost and effort to field one, in light of the widespread adoption of 7.62mm weapons? In a word, no. Even the literature for 7x46mm UIAC shows it’s not greatly more efficient than 7.62 NATO, and it doesn’t provide any additional capability, so why would military procurement spend millions re-arming with entirely new weapons and ammunition when they have almost-as-good-and-already-in-the-inventory 7.62 NATO machine guns and rifles? Since these cartridges are also almost as heavy as 7.62, they offer little practical benefit and will be largely passed over.

Many thanks to Sven ( Defence and Freedom) for emailing me the info.

#Military

Steve Johnson

I founded TFB in 2007 and over 10 years worked tirelessly, with the help of my team, to build it up into the largest gun blog online. I retired as Editor in Chief in 2017. During my decade at TFB I was fortunate to work with the most amazing talented writers and genuinely good people!

More by Steve Johnson

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 213 comments

Dave Jacobs on Feb 15, 2014

@ Jay T
Gene Stoner designed the action on the AR-15. He was only one of three who designed that rifle. When he left Armalite (you know - the company from which the term of AR came from) he acquired the rights to the AR-15 as it could not pass the military testing. He went to Colt then to redesign the rifle. The AR-18 was actually the one that had passed all the tests, and was field tested by the Navy Seals, who would not give them up when a political blunder caused the Colt M-16 to be adopted.

Like Reply
Ghost930 on Apr 30, 2014

Go look at the specs and performance of the 6.5 creedmoor. Far superior to both 7.62 and 5.56, and able to bridge the gap between the two at a savings in overall production cost, with very little hardware modification.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- 2hotel9 on Apr 30, 2014
  
  @Ghost930 6.5, in various iterations, has been put forward a few times in the past. Not sure why it has been passed over, other than some jacka$$ in DoD doesn't like it.
  
  Like
- Ghost930 on Apr 30, 2014
  
  @2hotel9 Same reason why we got the M60 GP Machinegun over the MAG 58 back in the sixties......Politics and money in someone's pocket. And here we are almost 40 years later, and guess what our newest GPM is....Yep, the MAG 58 (M240) because it is a better GPM although it basically hasn't changed since 1958. It's not what's best for the troops, it's what is best for Washington politics and money.
  
  Like
- 2hotel9 on May 01, 2014
  
  @Ghost930 Yea, the Pig was always a temperamental b*tch. Our military history is replete with examples of exactly this sort of stupidity. That said, I am a .30 man, myself. Like the reach and knock down power, and it is quite easy to find. I don't see USG making that major a change in the near future, regardless of how beneficial it would be to our combat effectiveness it could be.
  
  Like
- Ghost930 on May 01, 2014
  
  @2hotel9 Check out the 6.5 Creedmoor some more. True 1300-1400 yard accuracy, and more foot pounds of energy at the terminal end of that range then the 7.62, and barely more recoil than a 5.56. All of the good, and none of the bad. I have been shooting the 7.62 for over 25 years as a military sniper, police and contractor designated marksman. I have shot it in combat out to 1000+ yards. While we all shot it and loved it for years, technology has surpassed it's performance for many a year. I think we (military, police, etc.) keep using it out of familiarity and availability, not what is technically best. Time to come into the 21st century, even if it's draggin' and screaming.
  
  Like
- 2hotel9 on May 01, 2014
  
  @Ghost930 Sorry. Until it is adopted, enmass, by the military's of the world it is just a novelty round. Much as .30 was for a 50-70 year period. I think I see a pattern here.
  
  Like
- Ghost930 on May 01, 2014
  
  @2hotel9 It is being evaluated at Bragg and in the field as we write for SMU use. All the reports are good both at home and down range in all platforms being tested. Reports are saying excellant terminal ballistics at ranges over 1K.
  
  Like
- 2hotel9 on May 02, 2014
  
  @Ghost930 DoD has done this dance before with other caliber changes/weapons systems and dumped out after spending piles of money.
  As you may have guessed I have little confidence that DoD/USG will do anything right. I have watched this kabuki dance too many times to get excited. I remember the 30 years of heming and hawing just to change pistol caliber.
  
  Like