Talk:.280 British

message: "Seventy seven years after the British Ideal Cartridge Panel had selected .280 cartridge, the American Army verified that the selection had indeed been the correct choice, and the scientific process used was validated by the American Army selecting 6.8mm as the future cartridge for the US Army. 7.62mm had proved too powerful and heavy. 5.56mm had proved underpowered, particularly against individuals protected by body armour."
Does this have a source? Saying that the 2022 selection of 6.8 SIG means that 280 British was the right choice is way too far a leap in logic without something to back it up. 78.152.209.123 (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing NATO selection to 6.8 SIG. 

message: In the section 'After .280', the first sentence reads: 
"The .280 British concept would later prove to have been far ahead of its time, as the U.S. itself adopted an intermediate cartridge — 5.56×45mm NATO — by the end of the following decade."
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, but perhaps we might want to avoid injecting our bias into the article? May I suggest we rephrase this in a way that presents the argument from which we derive this opinion, but not the opinion itself? Perhaps something like: 
"By the end of the following decade, the U.S. would themselves adopt the 5.56x45mm NATO, which is itself an intermediate cartridge."
The rest of the section could also use some tidying up. 
 -- Sentimex (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this phrasing considered biased? (even though I agree with it) 

message: The following section has no active references and is written in a subjective, unprofessional manner:
=== Selection of 7.62 NATO ===
Britain, Canada and the United States, founding members of NATO, had all signed an agreement that member states would develop and deploy common small arms and cartridges, developed through competitive trials in co-operation together. Britain and Canada had been open about their developments, and the Americans claimed they were not developing a round of their own and were known to be trialing the British designs.
In fact, Colonel Rene Studler, head of the US Small Arms Bureau of Ordnance had been diametrically opposed to a bullpup design and the .280 cartridge, and had started two secret projects on a .30 calibre cartridge. These were the T25 rifle at Springfield Armory under the direction of Earle Harvey, firing the T65 cartridge being developed at Frankford Arsenal. Between 1947 and 1952 the British and Canadians made clear to the United States they were aware of their secret work, stating that it was against the open, collaborative nature of the agreement, making their disapproval clear.
Matters took a turn for the worse when Rene Studler went on record, stating that, any non-American design was "a waste of time" and refused point blank to accept any "foreign" design. It was learned that Studler had gone so far as to bury reports that suggested the .280 was superior in US testing. 2600:8805:8000:3D:69AC:D0DF:327B:53EC (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of creditable references to support a lot of conjecture 

message: Britain, Canada and the United States, founding members of NATO, had all signed an agreement that member states would develop and deploy common small arms and cartridges, developed through competitive trials in co-operation together. Britain and Canada had been open about their developments, and the Americans claimed they were not developing a round of their own and were known to be trialing the British designs.
In fact, Colonel Rene Studler, head of the US Small Arms Bureau of Ordnance had been diametrically opposed to a bullpup design and the .280 cartridge, and had started two secret projects on a .30 calibre cartridge. These were the T25 rifle at Springfield Armory under the direction of Earle Harvey, firing the T65 cartridge being developed at Frankford Arsenal. Between 1947 and 1952 the British and Canadians made clear to the United States they were aware of their secret work, stating that it was against the open, collaborative nature of the agreement, making their disapproval clear.
Matters took a turn for the worse when Rene Studler went on record, stating that, any non-American design was "a waste of time" and refused point blank to accept any "foreign" design. It was learned that Studler had gone so far as to bury reports that suggested the .280 was superior in US testing. 2600:8805:8000:3D:69AC:D0DF:327B:53EC (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection of 7.62 NATO