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

  1.  @stephenwoods4118  And his point was garbage. First off, it's not actually necessary that every weapon fire the same cartridge. Or even necessary a good thing for them to. Obviously there's a logistical advantage, but the ideal cartridge for a machine gun and the ideal cartridge for a rifle are not the same. There's no reason that the M1917 and M1919 wouldn't keep using the .30-06 even after a transition to .276 Pedersen in rifles. And yes, the BAR would've needed to either be replaced or converted to the new round. Which would've resulted in a much better version of the BAR in the process. Second, the fact that there's large stockpiles of the old ammo is not a reason to not change calibers. There were lots of .30-40 rounds when the switch to .30-06 (or initially .30-03) happened as well. And hell, it was 1932. Manufacturing hundreds of millions of the new cartridge could have provided thousands of new jobs during the Great Depression, while also giving American soldiers a better weapon.
    6
  2. I always wondered why a single colonel was able to make such far-reaching decisions, without anybody higher up the chain of command having anything to say about it.
    1
  3. Ah, the FAL as it should've been, if not for Pentagon idiocy insisting that the NATO standard round had to be a .30 caliber.
    1