Thanks for the reply.
My understanding was that his design would have had less impact on the SA facilities than any other competing design being evaluated.
Perhaps you are confusing memories of the adoption of the Garand with the adoption of the M14. Regardless, one must always take into account the Army's bias towards "inhouse" designs versus designs created from outside the Ordnance Bureau. Like every other agency, the Army will stack the deck to get what it wants. In the downselect of the M14 versus FAL, one of the points for the M14 was that it was supposed to be able to use most of the same tooling that was used for the Garand, therefore reducing production facilitization cost. I read somewhere, this turned out not to be true at all, and most certainly not true for TRW, Winchester, or HRA, all of which had to buy their own production machinery. I believe this was a spurious argument to get the Army a rifle that was very similar to the Garand. The FAL was just too different.
If you recall your history, the Secretary of Defense forced the AR15 down the Army's gullet. They had already rejected the AR10 and Ar15.
Being familiar with the predilections of the Army, the user wants something better but only a little different. The Army totally rejects revolutionary change. I believe pointy sticks had to be wrestled out of the hands of Troglodyte Infantry before they would grasp the new issue stone tipped spears, and until they died, retired Troglodyte NCO's would tell everyone that nothing was as ever good as their cherished pointy sticks. You look at the evolution of Army service rifles, from 1761 charleville musket to M14, you can see the little incremental changes. If you noticed, removing the external hammer from the 1861 musket was way too much change. With all the falling block, rolling block, lever action and bolt action designs from which to choose at the time, when the Army is forced to go to a cartridge rifle, it decides on the 1873 trapdoor which is about the closest they could be to an 1861 musket.
The rejection of the 276 Pedersen cartridge falls into the same category as too much change. Which was too bad because it was the right cartridge at the right time. At the time, the justification to keep the 30-06 was because of all the stockpiles of 30-06, which, if you know anything about insensitive munitions, ammunition has a shelf life, and therefore using that as the reason not to change, just shows how bogus the reasoning. Instead, when the Army is forced to go an intermediate round, it is forced to swallow the 223 with the AR15. The 223 is a great round to shoot poodles, but not the big French poodles as the round lacks the lethality to put them down with one shot.
