Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "The Prototype .280 FAL from 1950s NATO Trials" video.

As far as the late 19th century (6.5X52, 6.5X53r, 6.5X54, 6.5 Arisaka...)
10
The Italians 129 Years ago, 6.5X52.
2
The ballistic of the 7.62X51 was a false target. The 7.62x51 was a very good design for the time for it's intended purpose. It's ballistic couldn't be replied by a round without making it uncontrollable in full auto (apart for the engineering marvel that was the 7.92X41 CETME). It was a question of deciding what they wanted. Or full auto controllability, or long range accuracy and power.
2
@2Potates You can exactly reply a 7.62mm ballistic with a 7mm bullet having 20% less recoil and overall weight of the cartridge. But the fans of the 7.62 will always say that the heavier bullet will have better penetration against hard materials and pierce bigger holes into soft tissues.
2
6.5-7mm cartirdges have about the same ballistic since the late 19th century. The wheel had been reinvented multiple times, with the volume of the case being reduced as long as new propellants became available, and the lenght-diameter ratio of the case changed due to dimensional constraints. They could have adopted a shortened 6.5X52 Carcano case (the 7.62X39 Russian and the .264 USA are both shortened Carcano cases), or a necked down rimless 30-30 for that matter, and call it a day.
1
As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers. It's too powerful to be fully controlled in full auto too. It's not an intermediate cartridge.
1
@ThePerfectRed The .280/30, the last iteration of the .280 Brit. was already scarcely controllable. The 6.5X55 is further more powerful, and it's still too big and heavy. It's bigger than the .308 Win.
1
@ThePerfectRed I wrote bigger, not more powerful. The 6.5X55 is dimensionally BIGGER than the .308 Win despite being LESS powerful. It's bigger, because it had been designed for older powders, that required more volume to develop the same energy. "As any pre-war cartridges, it's simply too big and heavy for what it delivers". Space and weight are important factors in logistic. That's why new cartridges had been developed post WWII, to replace those that had been designed when smokeless powders had just been invented.
1
@ThePerfectRed I'm a fan of 6.5mm rounds, but the 6.5X55 in particular, in postwar years had those problems. Too big (and that means it needs also too much material too to be built. Brass is a strategic material in war) and too powerful to be controllable in full auto. Not taking the recoil into account, a round with a similar ballistic than the 6.5X55 could be obtained (like it had been obtained, see the 6.5 Creedmore) by shortening the .308 Win, that's already smaller than the 6.5X55.
1
All the viable 6.5 rifle cartridges (6.5X52 Carcano, 6.5X53R, 6.5X54 Manlicher Shonauer, 6.5 Arisaka, 6.5 Grendel, .264 USA...) tend to have more or less the same ballistic once the different weight of the projectiles is taken into account. Is a "sweet spot" that's known since the late 19th century.
1
Like all the pre-war cartridges, it was too big for what it developed.
1
Useless? You kill the enemy soldier with the first round, and shoot down the helicopter hovering over him with the rest.
1
One of the reason for the intermediate cartridges was weight reduction. A rifle made to shoot the "reduced 7.62 NATO" must be able to shoot the full blown cartridge too, so no reduction in weight. The ammos will weight about the same (the weight of the powder is almost nothing) AND that would not have saved the logistical nightmare, since the rifles made for the reduced cartridge couldn't have shot the full blown one accurately (different sights required).
1
You have less internal volume for the same base diameter, so unnecessary big magazines of a shape that makes them less easy to storage and carry.
1
like all the pre-war cartridges, it was too big and heavy for what it could deliver. With new propellants you could have the same performances form a much smaller case.
1