He's an idiot that believes in the one caliber myth. Even in the military, belted M855 snd unbelted M855 are considered completely different from a logistics standpoint.

Carrying more ammo on an individual basis would have been the natural progression regardless of people chasing a snowflake trajectory and ft/lbs energy table on their powerpoint presentations.

I don't know how good of a caliber 276 is, but if it's good then yeah, those would have been completely unnecessary as they were just segways to 5.56, which is an intermediate just like 276.

We could have had 276 for grunts and 30-06 for our dmr lads.

>>29435017
I think his point was that the US would've had .276 Garands in WW2 which undoubtedly would've performed better than the .30-06, backed up by heavier weapons in .30-06 and possibly .276.

Post-war, NATO would've settled for an intermediate cartridge immediately instead of US influence creating the 7.62 NATO. It's highly probable though that they would've still had a second, heavier round for GPMGs and whatnot. Because the heavy round would not have been designed for a "light rifle" they would've probably gone for something beefier than 7.62 NATO.

>>29435072
That's a more agreeable argument.

.276 would have been used in the same role as 7.62 NATO so that round would not have been made. It's only ~.10" larger than the 7.62 NATO in OAL so it isn't too piss poor in size/weight and would be fine in the GPMG role. I'm assuming of course that the smaller bore offers acceptable barrel life in a full automatic platform.

.223 still would have been the next logical step in small arms.

>>29435114
I thought the consensus today is that while .223 is generally considered good enough, most armies would go for something moderately beefier if changing to a new standard wasn't so expensive.

>>29435271
No.

He's a cool guy and I'm no fan of 5.56 but it's a fact that it excels at what the military needs: a small, light round that can be carried in the hundreds or thousands and used to suppress an enemy and maneuver to a position and range from which you can assault him.

It's not a 'riflemans' round, it's not what you want when you're looking for aimed individual fire to kill your enemies. But that stuff is fantasy in a modern battle, people like to get all romantic about it and me included. But the reality remains that you need to fling a shitload of lead in the air in the area of your enemies and their cover and you need to be able to carry all of that shit into the fight.

Are there better compromises? Probably. 6.8spc or British would likely have been a better balance, but the whole reason no one has dropped 5.56 is because the improvements are too small to be worth it.

>>29435322
The problem the round has really, is just range. Even if you loaded out your entire force with full powa carties, they aren't inherently more accurate in any way. Yes, you'd be able to shoot out to 1000 meters, no it would not be precise in any way, and no military is going to spend the money giving EVERYONE a sniper rifle.

5.56 does not have any trouble killing anyone, ironically part of the reason it was selected because it was so GOOD at it.

>>29435311
I dunno man, M855A1 is pretty complicated and apparently does nasty things to barrels rather quickly. Sounds to me like they're trying to cram the capabilities of a heavier round into 5.56.

I think it's safe to say that if telescoped/caseless becomes a thing, they'd ideally switch to a slightly bigger bullet.
>>29435355
5.56 is in practice more accurate than a full power cartridge in most conditions due to reduced weight and recoil. It's both easier to get the rifle on target and easier to do follow-up shots.

>>29435451
>5.56 is in practice more accurate than a full power cartridge in most conditions due to reduced weight and recoil. It's both easier to get the rifle on target and easier to do follow-up shots.

I'd actually say, in theory.

>Sounds to me like they're trying to cram the capabilities of a heavier round into 5.56
But M855(A1) isn't really that heavy, there are much heavier rounds available. M855 was agreed upon as a shitty compromise honestly.

The only thing that matters at the end of the day is will it kill at 300m and how many fit (size/weight) into a C-5. All the snowflake rounds manage to do the first thing well and all of them fail compared to the 5.56 at the second.

US doesn't need to switch calibers or rifle platforms. They just need to go to 77gr bullets and 20" barrels. They have been neutering 5.56mm since the last '70s by going to slower loadings and shortening the barrel to basically SBR length. What a shocker 5.56 has become less effective than it was in the Nam days when the enemy complained that it was too devastating.

>>29436609
>What a shocker 5.56 has become less effective than it was in the Nam days when the enemy complained that it was too devastating.
Really a longer barrel won't do much all things considered, the 14.5 to 20 inch jump only gives you an addition 50 or so meters of fragmentation velocities. The reason Vietnam was so devastating was because jungle warfare forced a lot of the engagements to take place within the fragmentation ranges. Also M855 was a shit compromise that really does nothing good besides penetrate steel helmets at longer ranges.

>>29436674
>Also M855 was a shit compromise that really does nothing good besides penetrate steel helmets at longer ranges.
that's kind of a necessity for a standard military cartridge.

>>29434997
Fuck I'm tired of hearing about the .276 Memersen

If it was so great you'd have people using it like you do for all snowflake rounds but no one does.

>>29435322
>Not a riflemans round
>Developed from a popular varminting cartridge

Nah senpai, it's got good internal ballistics

>>29437258
The problem is more modern construction FMJ can penetrate it just fine at longer ranges without the use of the steel penetrator. STILL, M855A1 seems to definitely be a step up from the shitty first try at it.