03-12-2012, 07:02 AM
adamjp Wrote:At the time NATO was seeking to standardise on ONE rifle and ONE cartridge.
That is true, but the competition took place in two separate phases:
1. A NATO-wide competition for one standard rifle/MG cartridge. This was "won" by the 7.62x51 (even though the US Army's own testers at Fort Benning recommended that the .280/30 was a better basis for development).
2. After the calibre had been settled, there was a follow on competition for the rifle to fire it. This was effectively run by and for the US Army - the result was not binding on the rest of NATO. This was initially won by the FN FAL but the Army kept modifying the M14 and rerunning the tests until they decided that they could declare the M14 the victor. No-one else in NATO took any notice of this and nearly everyone chose the FAL, with the exception of Germany (and subsequently a few others) who chose the G3 instead. Actually, Germany would have chosen the FAL too but Belgium wouldn't permit them a manufacturing licence - a costly mistake!
The selection of the 7.62x51 was stupid and pointless. If they wanted a full-power cartridge they should have kept the .30-06 (which the UK had provisionally selected as its future cartridge before the cartridge competition issue was raised). That would have left them room to introduce a new, shorter-range round suitable for assault rifles. This is exactly what Germany had done in WW2, and the USSR immediately afterwards.
I have to laugh at the current fuss some people are making about the AAC 300 Blackout, touting it as a 5.56mm replacement. The joke is that the ballistics of the standard supersonic loading for this round are an exact match for the 7.62x39 introduced in the AK over 60 years ago! Back to the future...