Submitted by TurboTortois3 t3_zr3sct in history
Eokokok t1_j1327xm wrote
Reply to comment by aught4naught in Why didn't the US adopt the STG-44 after WW2? by TurboTortois3
And yet we are back at big bullets with next gen rifle going into production.
fiendishrabbit t1_j134ygh wrote
Because the US have been fighting all their battles in the middle east where a bigger bullet has certain advantages, mainly that it has a better effect against heavy bodyarmor and that it can penetrate double-brick walls (which is a really common feature in the middle-east and afghanistan.
Neither of those two were a factor back in the days when the US decided to go for 7.62 instead of a more suitable mid-weight cartridge. The only good argument for the 7.62 back then was that it was also a suitable cartridge for general purpose machineguns, so using the same caliber in all small arms simplified logistics.
greennitit t1_j13upru wrote
Also terrain in the Middle East tends to be flat and tree-less leading to longer engagement distances.
[deleted] t1_j14fr8e wrote
[removed]
ParaglidingAssFungus t1_j1bsmna wrote
But…we don’t use the 7.62 in small arms.
akodo1 t1_j20jln4 wrote
And there countyside is different. Sparce vegetation on flat terrain or scrub brush on mountains means a lot more long shot possiblity (as well as long range machinegunnery) that was experienced in Vietnam or the conflicts in Latin America
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments