US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

[stanc]

You're not going to see reference to .276 Pedersen in diplomatic cables unless it was cooperation with Allies, so that's a straw man that is easily torn down.

There is no straw man, because I did not ask about diplomatic cables that discussed .276 Pedersen. I asked for examples of diplomatic cables during the 1930-32 period, which "would change much of the way I view the history of that era" in regard to MacArthur's rejection of .276 Pedersen.

The point is that there were plenty of conflicts and instability in the global tapestry of that era, with a particular focus on Japan, that could have factored heavily into MacArthur's decision to be apprehensive about a new service rifle and machine-gun cartridge.

I'd wager there have been similar conflicts and instability in the world during every decade of the 20th century, if not during the entirety of this nation's existence. I've never seen any authoritative claims that such insignificant incidents had any effect whatsoever on adoption of a new cartridge by the Army.

I don't claim to know his thoughts on the matter, but these realities of that era make me wonder. I also understand that he would have been advised by Army Ordnance Bureau.

Unless you can cite any historical record wherein MacArthur expressed concern in 1932 about war with Japan being imminent, it seems to me that we should accept his stated reason as to why .276 was rejected.

To me, there are parallels that could be history repeating itself again with this mistake of leaning on 7.62 NATO, at the same time we are starting to make a lot of headway with far superior chamberings that deliver more hit probability, more energy on target, with less recoil, and less ammo load weight.

Those other chamberings are not in service. Since the goal is to increase armor-defeat capability ASAP, 7.62 NATO is a perfectly logical choice as an interim caliber.