I think IF NATO had adopted the 280 British, instead of the 308, we would not have the 223/308 "Arguments" we have today.

Good Comparison Pic.--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...80britishcompare.jpg

Arguably the 7.62x39 would come close to a 'one size fits all' for smallarms.
If you needed something to do everything until you needed a HMG, then I'd give the nod to the 7.62x51.
The 6.5x55 is a damn fine cartridge, one which did well in the little exposure to combat that it did have.

I suspect that the 'ultimate' cartridge is out there somewhere, and once the engineers and beancounters get done arguing about it, it will be just another camel.

For individual weapons, I would say a short action cartridge between 6mm and 7mm. Seems to me that the 260 Rem would be just about perfect. A middle load with a 100 - 120gr bullet would work for me.

Another vote for the 7x57. Over 100 years old and it lacks NOTHING.

The 6,5x55 of course. But not because I am a norwegian, its just the perfect combination of low recoil and deep penetrating hard hitting bullets. Also, it is suitable as a sniper cartrigde out to 1200m.

I used the 7,62x51 in the army. The only application where it is better than the 6,5x55 is for shooting horses if the enemy has mounted cavalry...

quote:

Originally posted by kiwiwildcat:
I second the 7x57. Flat trajectory, mild pressure and deep penetration with the 175's.

Prettiest and best is mostly in the eye of the beholder, but yes, my pick will also be the 7x57 mm.
Served many an army well since its inception.
Has nostalgic value for Afrikaners, as it was used in the Anglo/Boer War.

Everything seems to work so easy with the 7x57, no funny quirks.

Warrior

7.62x39

Gentlemen, it is most likely a fact, that any of the previous Battle Rifle rounds, are just too much for "modern war", for general purpose use anyway.

They are too big for the average "troop". They use up too much powder, lead, and brass. As well as space and weight when shipping...

The 7.62x39 is a very good cartridge.
The usual gun for it is not up to Western accuracy standards... But I am not so sure that the average Troop would have a problem with it. I have shot the "30 Russian Short" a fair amount out to 400 Meters, and for combat I see very few problems with it...

The 223 in Most NATO rifles is a lot more accurate, but in truth most of them are a little less reliable in battifield conditions...

With the sighting options on the AR, and the AUG, H&K etc. field combat accuracy is greatly enhanced over the typical ironsighted AK...

For the troops that can shoot, that is a big advantage.


Well one of these days we will be using Phase Plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range....

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
Oh boy, there is no such thing as a proper answer to this.

One cartridge? For bolts and semi autos and full-autos? 7.62 Nato (aka .308)

.

A-Men!

How about the only one in military history that had no less than six (6) rifles designed around it?? The powerful 7.5x55 Swiss.
The Schmidt Rubin 96/11


The 1911sr


The k11


The k31


The zfk55 Sniper


And the PE57 Selective.


Pretty hard to beat from that direction.
ZFK55

6.5 Jap. has all the good stuff that other 6.5s have in a compact package. I don't know why it's not more popular.

ZFK, if this is the criteria 8x57mm is the best cartridge ever made..

I'll go with the 6.5x50 Arisaka, one of the most efficient, low recoiling, accurate, and penetrating military cartridges ever made, and used.

Any soldier that fought in the Pacific learned to gain ahealthy respect for this rifle/cartridge. I wouldn't mind having a semi-auto rifle for this one, maybe a "Tanker" style Garand, or a Browning BAR.

Eric

250 Savage, loaded to modern pressure. 100 grain .257 dia bullet at 3000fps. Size and weight is half way between .308 and .223. Would be an excellent round for a mid size battle rifle with enough velocity to make a FMJ do the required damage.

With the parameters listed I would say 7.62 NATO.

Remember as cartridge size increases, the number of rounds that can be carried decreases. A 7x57 round weighs about twice as much as a 5.56 round. Not quite but almost.

FWIW the Czechs probably got it about right with the 7.62mm x 45.

These arguments go around and around and end up at a choice between the 276 Pedersen and the "another"!

That probably used to be the 280 but looking at it now the choice would probably be the 6.8mm SPC which seems to tick ALL the boxes even to having a potential tracer capability.

I just do not think the 6.8 or any cartridge that will fit in the AR 223 platform has enough "juice" to replace the 223.

I think a 7mm bullet, with a powder capacity, and OAL, between the 223 and the 308 would be the best choice.

What is needed for Modern Warfare is a cartridge/rifle you can use up close, that is also good for point targets out to 600 yards and dangerous to 800 yards on area targets.

quote:

What is needed for Modern Warfare is a cartridge/rifle you can use up close, that is also good for point targets out to 600 yards and dangerous to 800 yards on area targets.

The problem is I doubt there are few in any army that can shoot a rifle of that necessary power to that level of accuracy at that distance.

The reason the Japanese tried to switch from their 6.5 cartridge to their 7.7 was when they first encountered the Chinese they were faced with larger bodied foe and found the 6.5 round of theirs lacking in knock down power. They also weren't happy with the penetration of the 6.5 on soft bodied vehicles such as cars and trucks. I imagine too they saw the Germans using the larger 8x57 and the Allies using 30-06, 303 British, and 7.62x54R and felt kind of left behind.

The problem I see with the 7x57, 6.5x55 Swede, 8x57 Mauser, and 7.5 Swiss is that they are long cartridges that for one thing require a longer rifle action adding weight to the rifle.

Why did the Russians feel they had to get away from the 7.62x39 and go to the 5.45x39?

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

What is needed for Modern Warfare is a cartridge/rifle you can use up close, that is also good for point targets out to 600 yards and dangerous to 800 yards on area targets.

The problem is I doubt there are few in any army that can shoot a rifle of that necessary power to that level of accuracy at that distance.

Well then the training of our Soldiers neede to be changed.

We used the 30/06 in WWI, WWII and Korea, with few "sissy boy" complaints.

I also support the 7.5x55. I have an action from a Spanish Mauser in this caliber and it's great. Low recoil, accurate, flat trajectory, good range, etc. (all this seems to have been said before)

Gotta give two, just could not pick 1

7.62X39 FIRST and foremost!

7.62X51 When one wants to reach out and touch someone

Hard to believe that no one has brought up the 45-70. And when you ain't fightin' you can use it for elephant and buffs.

quote:

I just do not think the 6.8 or any cartridge that will fit in the AR 223 platform has enough "juice" to replace the 223.

I think a 7mm bullet, with a powder capacity, and OAL, between the 223 and the 308 would be the best choice.

What is needed for Modern Warfare is a cartridge/rifle you can use up close, that is also good for point targets out to 600 yards and dangerous to 800 yards on area targets.

450, That's kind of what I was thinking. If I had to design ONE cartridge for all military applications smaller then the .50BMG (sorry guys, we have to keep this classic) I would design a 6.8x47mm.
Take a 6.8 SPC and lengthen it out about 4mm.
In a bolt gun, I imagine you could get a 115gr bullet up around 2900-3000 fps. This would be sufficent for intermediate range sniping work. Of course you could also also choose the 135gr Sierra match King for higher BC. The carbine/rifle variants would be heavier then the current M4/M16A2's but not near as heavy and bulky as the FN-Fal. Recoil and weight should both be very managable. I imagine this could be moulded into a versitile system that could be formidable in a wide varity of circumstances.

As for you guys that like the 85gr TSX for the .277 rifles....well, if you could spit that out around 3300, or the 100gr Accubond around 3100, I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either of them.....

The 280 British reaches further than 7.62x51 with less recoil & ammunition weight, so I'd go for that.

6.8 SPC with a 95 solid copper bullet. Adequate velocity, great pentration, minimal recoil, easy to carry a lot of ammo!!!

Antelope Sniper

I too think the 50 BMG will be with us for as long as the "guns" we use burn gunpowder.

450, John Browning was a great designer.
Recently the U.S Military updated the Browning M2 machnine gun. The contract stated the designers were allowed to update the externals, improved sight rails, quick change barrels ect, but everything inside had to be left exactly as John Browning had designed it...

quote:

Originally posted by Oddbod:
The 280 British reaches further than 7.62x51 with less recoil & ammunition weight, so I'd go for that.

In practicality we will never know--
as the .280 was submarined by politics-

Who knows- it its military iteration it may have succumbed to bullet design/weight, cost/contractor issues etc.

It was grand conceptually, of that there is no argument

quote:

Originally posted by Tahoe Swede Shooter:
6.5x55, of course. Mild recoil, excellent penetration and long range accuracy. Also, as you specified cartridge, not rifle, the Swede in a modern action is a phenomenal performer.

Eric

Beyond the shadow of a doubt.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
Oh boy, there is no such thing as a proper answer to this.

One cartridge? For bolts and semi autos and full-autos? 7.62 Nato (aka .308)

Best semi-auto cartridge? 7.62x39 Makes for the best overall assault cartridge there is/was.

I must agree, these would be my choice as stated

6.5x55 Swede

Antelope Sniper

If you ever get the chance you should stop by the John Browning Museum in Ogden Utah.

Also there is no doubt [well maybe a little ] that John Browning was an Alien from another Planet.

By developing guns for Earth, no doubt, he violated the Prime Directive...

For those of you that have never taken apart some of the John Browning designed guns...

From the "Winchester" levers,the hump back shotgun, the 1911, the 1935 Hi Power, the 1910 32, 380ACP, the BAR, the 1919 30 cal Belt Fed, the 50 BMG...

I think he is the finest small arms designer that ever lived on Planet Earth.

Notice I said Lived, not Born, on Planet Earth, see the above post.