Badger Arms
New member
I'd like others opinions on the optimum military rifle caliber and loading. Now, let's forget about the current climate and think back to, say, just after WW-II where we COULD have chosen a caliber and possibly even a rifle that would have lasted through the decades. Take into account the following factors:
1: combat effectiveness to include accuracy, trajectory, terminal ballistics.
2: practical usefullness to include weight of loaded cartridge, combat load, and recoil.
3: economy in terms of unit cost, development cost, and adaptability to many different weapons and situations.
My vote: 250 Savage sending an 87 grain boat-tail bullet out at 3,000 fps from an 18 inch barrel. Bullet design should be similar to the SS-109 and steel cased. Here's my logic:
The 250 Savage is a proven round effective on deer and with enough field time to prove the design. It has mild enough recoil for quick follow-up shots and controllable full-automatic fire. You can chamber it for carbines, rifles, LMG, and Heavy Machineguns without the need for two calibers as is now required with the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51. A reliable and bright tracer can be made in a .25 caliber round. Steel cases bring down costs.
For guns, I like the HK-36 design for the carbine, rifle, and LMG versions (with a heavy barrel). The current FN-MAG is a fine weapon and could probably be lightened up considerably for use with the 250 Savage.
Consider that had we adopted this caliber, we wouldn't have gone through the "Goldielocks" syndrome where the .223 was too small and the .308 was too big. Neither was ever wholly adequate. We HAD a good design in the T-48 rifle that far outperformed and outproduced the compromising M-14 and even McNamarra's folly.
---
Sidenote and History lesson: The FAL (known in Army Test Nomenclature as the T-48) was tested and found superior to the M-14 (T-44). Instead of taking the logical step of adopting or improving the better weapon, the politicians running the Army chose to continuously improve the inferior weapon for five years until the final incarnation performed up to the same standard as the FAL. Remember also that the M-14 was itself the result of a lengthy and expensive improvement program that began with John Garand's first test rifles in the Late 1920's(?). Had the FAL been improved in the same fashion during that period, a superior design WOULD have emerged. Alas, Politics won out and the M-14 turned out to be merely adequate.
-------
1: combat effectiveness to include accuracy, trajectory, terminal ballistics.
2: practical usefullness to include weight of loaded cartridge, combat load, and recoil.
3: economy in terms of unit cost, development cost, and adaptability to many different weapons and situations.
My vote: 250 Savage sending an 87 grain boat-tail bullet out at 3,000 fps from an 18 inch barrel. Bullet design should be similar to the SS-109 and steel cased. Here's my logic:
The 250 Savage is a proven round effective on deer and with enough field time to prove the design. It has mild enough recoil for quick follow-up shots and controllable full-automatic fire. You can chamber it for carbines, rifles, LMG, and Heavy Machineguns without the need for two calibers as is now required with the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51. A reliable and bright tracer can be made in a .25 caliber round. Steel cases bring down costs.
For guns, I like the HK-36 design for the carbine, rifle, and LMG versions (with a heavy barrel). The current FN-MAG is a fine weapon and could probably be lightened up considerably for use with the 250 Savage.
Consider that had we adopted this caliber, we wouldn't have gone through the "Goldielocks" syndrome where the .223 was too small and the .308 was too big. Neither was ever wholly adequate. We HAD a good design in the T-48 rifle that far outperformed and outproduced the compromising M-14 and even McNamarra's folly.
---
Sidenote and History lesson: The FAL (known in Army Test Nomenclature as the T-48) was tested and found superior to the M-14 (T-44). Instead of taking the logical step of adopting or improving the better weapon, the politicians running the Army chose to continuously improve the inferior weapon for five years until the final incarnation performed up to the same standard as the FAL. Remember also that the M-14 was itself the result of a lengthy and expensive improvement program that began with John Garand's first test rifles in the Late 1920's(?). Had the FAL been improved in the same fashion during that period, a superior design WOULD have emerged. Alas, Politics won out and the M-14 turned out to be merely adequate.
-------
, Art