.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Printable Version

+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: .280 Enfield...Ahead of its time (/showthread.php?tid=1918)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 03-14-2012

Stan is on the money regarding the trend toward "green" bullets.

We probably should base the advocacy on a steel or copper core and keep lead, tungsten, etc. as growth options to use should body and other armor improvements force the greater terminal performance.

The Grendel may still be viable for the envisioned role even with these lower density bullets.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-14-2012

I haven't seen any trend to environmentalist whacko "green" bullets in European armies. With the economic conditions as they are, trying to get any self-respecting parliament or army to sign off on bullets that cost 3-4x more than what they have been using will likely be a feat in futility.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-14-2012

Back on .280 Enfield. As Europe heads closer and closer to fracturing and new alliances are formed, it will be interesting to see if any alliances move towards a higher performance intermediate cartridge like the .280 Enfield, or stick with yesteryear's assault rifle loadings. Both before the Great War of 1914-1918 and World War II, massive efforts were underway to develop and field new weapons systems and organizational structures, leading away from Cavalry to Armor, machinguns, repeating rifles, submachineguns, aircraft, etc. Both of these eras saw significant changes in small arms cartridge development, with left-overs from WWI used in WWII, as new cartridges came into being. (7.92 Mauser, .30 Cal Rifle, .30 Carbine, 7.62x25 Tokarev, 7.92x33 Kurz....)

I know the Czechs are seriously looking at 6.8 for their CZ805, which already has quick barrel change capability. It would make more sense for them to go with the Grendel I think, since it opens the doors for the LMG too. Either way, whether we look at shifting emerging European alliances, or the NATO/ISAF experience in Central Asia, there is a perceived need for a cartridge like the .280 Enfield, which is close to its legacy battle rifle cartridges in performance, but offers more mag capacity in its original form with the smaller case head diameter.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Tony Williams - 03-14-2012

LRRPF52 Wrote:Either way, whether we look at shifting emerging European alliances, or the NATO/ISAF experience in Central Asia, there is a perceived need for a cartridge like the .280 Enfield, which is close to its legacy battle rifle cartridges in performance, but offers more mag capacity in its original form with the smaller case head diameter.

The mag capacity with .280 was the same as with 7.62x51 because the case diameter was the same on all versions. Only the rim diameter was fractionally smaller on the early versions, but it would be hard to spot the difference.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-14-2012

stokesrj Wrote:The rim diameter was .4580".
Bob

I know that the US pressured the Brits into adopting the T65 case, which was a shortened .30 Cal Rifle case, eventually becoming the 7.62 NATO, but my understanding was the .280 Enfield started off with a case head closer to the 6.5 Carcano.

.473" is too big for an intermediate cartridge design.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 03-14-2012

LRRPF52 Wrote:I know that the US pressured the Brits into adopting the T65 case, which was a shortened .30 Cal Rifle case, eventually becoming the 7.62 NATO, but my understanding was the .280 Enfield started off with a case head closer to the 6.5 Carcano.

Perhaps you are thinking of the .270 Enfield (7x46). The .270 and .280 British rounds were completely different in all respects, with the .270 being similar in concept to 6.8 SPC (short bullet in long, small diameter case) and the .280 being like 6.5 Grendel (long bullet in short, fat case).

Quote:I haven't seen any trend to environmentalist whacko "green" bullets in European armies. With the economic conditions as they are, trying to get any self-respecting parliament or army to sign off on bullets that cost 3-4x more than what they have been using will likely be a feat in futility.

I'm sure that's true of Eastern Europe, but IMO it's unlikely the Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles would opt for lead-core bullets for the proposed 6.5 MRLMG. AFAIK, their 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 ammo is steel-core, so it seems reasonable to think that pattern would continue in a new, medium caliber.

That means we're looking at a bullet design like that of the Swedish 6.5x55 steel-core AP, which weighed only 112 grains.

[Image: 65x55_64.JPG]

FYI: Lead-free ammo in Scandinavia http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/mauritzson.pdf

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - bwaites - 03-14-2012

stanc Wrote:Perhaps you are thinking of the .270 Enfield (7x46). The .270 and .280 British rounds were completely different in all respects, with the .270 being similar in concept to 6.8 SPC (short bullet in long, small diameter case) and the .280 being like 6.5 Grendel (long bullet in short, fat case).

I'm sure that's true of Eastern Europe, but IMO it's unlikely the Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles would opt for lead-core bullets for the proposed 6.5 MRLMG. AFAIK, their 7.62x54R and 7.62x39 ammo is steel-core, so it seems reasonable to think that pattern would continue in a new, medium caliber.

That means we're looking at a bullet design like that of the Swedish 6.5x55 steel-core AP, which weighed only 112 grains.

FYI: Lead-free ammo in Scandinavia http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/mauritzson.pdf

Interesting! I have some of those, but mine weigh 145-146 grains. I was told they were the bullets from the 6.5x55, with steel AP cores. I've modified a few to take them down in the 115 grain range to see if I can get them up to 2600 FPS or so in the Grendel. I know they have a steel core, I've recovered a few after shooting them at steel, but now I think they must have lead in them also.....So did the Swedes make two versions?

Going to have to find a band saw!

It would sure be easier to find a supply of that particular bullet for the Grendel! Perfect weight for it!

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 03-14-2012

bwaites Wrote:Interesting! I have some of those, but mine weigh 145-146 grains. I was told they were the bullets from the 6.5x55, with steel AP cores. I know they have a steel core, I've recovered a few after shooting them at steel, but now I think they must have lead in them also.....So did the Swedes make two versions?

I dunno, Bill. I got the 112gr figure from:

http://www.amkat.se/index.php?Env=Ammo&Menu_A=30&Menu_B=60&Menu_C=50&Menu_Value_A=6,5x55&Menu_Value_B=Armour piercing&Menu_Name=AP

I'm at a loss to explain the discrepancy. Standard lead-core Ball bullets are 140gr. Steel-core projos should weigh much less, and 112gr seems about right.

If your specimens actually have tungsten cores, that would account for their heavy weight.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - bwaites - 03-14-2012

stanc Wrote:I dunno, Bill. I got the 112gr figure from:

http://www.amkat.se/index.php?Env=Ammo&Menu_A=30&Menu_B=60&Menu_C=50&Menu_Value_A=6,5x55&Menu_Value_B=Armour piercing&Menu_Name=AP

I'm at a loss to explain the discrepancy. Standard lead-core Ball bullets are 140gr. Steel-core projos should weigh much less, and 112gr seems about right.

If your specimens actually have tungsten cores, that would account for their heavy weight.

That's a thought. I've never actually checked them with a magnet. I took what I was told for authoritative.

Have to do some digging tonite!

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-14-2012

Here's the .270 Enfield with a .445"/11.3mm case head diameter:

[Image: 270_hulsen.jpg]

Looks like they took a 7.62x39, necked it down, and extended it to 46mm, more like a Czech, but with more case taper like a Russian.

6.8 SPC looks an awful lot like it for sure.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Tony Williams - 03-15-2012

Here's a nice pic of some rounds from my web article on the history of assault rifles and their ammunition: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

[Image: P1030277w.jpg]

From left to right: .276 Pedersen, .270 British, 7x43 British, 7.62x51 NATO, 7x46 UIAC, and 6.5x38 Grendel

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Tony Williams - 03-15-2012

I meant to add: the .270 was just that (i.e. a 6.8mm, not a 7mm) whereas the .280 was a 7mm.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-15-2012

[Image: P1030277w.jpg]

Interesting to see that the .276 Pedersen has about the same COAL as a 7.62 NATO, but with a smaller case head, and a lot of case taper, with a more secant ogive projectile.

When you realize that the Grendel has the capability of closely matching all the cartridges on the list with different loadings, its size/weight advantage really sells itself.

With a 130gr projectile, it will closely duplicate 7.62 NATO performance, and beat it for trajectory and drift at distance, even if it starts 200fps slower.

It can also be loaded with lighter bullets like the .270 British, and retain more energy as the distance increases. It also has excellent barrel life comparable to 7.62 NATO.

I see 2 or 3 great cartridges for an LMG there, but if the Grendel does what they all do, it makes sense to go with the smallest, lightest cartridge.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Buck2732 - 03-15-2012

I can understand all of the points on this post.

So this is my 2ps worth. I was witness to the change from the SLR (7.62) to the current L85A2 (5.56) first hand. I have seen the LMG and GPMG leave section (though not in every REGT) use to be replaced by the horrendous LSW (5.56), which has since had a role change. The wheel has gone 360 and the GPMG is back in favour as a section wpn. Below is what I believe could have saved allot of money even though the rifle was not adopted. Though in its original form it had none disintegrating link I am sure this could have been developed at far less cost than a whole lot of R&D and new GPMGs.

"The TADEN was a British experimental light machine gun firing the .280 in (7 mm) intermediate round. Alongside the bullpup EM-2 rifle design, it formed part of a proposal to reequip the British Army with new small arms which would use a round smaller than the .303 inch which was shown to be impractical for use in a modern assault rifle.

The Taden would replace the Bren gun as the light machine gun and the Vickers machine gun as the medium machine gun. The Taden used elements of the Bren. The EM-2 would replace the Lee-Enfield rifle and 9 mm submachine guns.

The TADEN and EM-2 projects were discontinued when the United States Army refused to consider the .280 cartridge for the new NATO standard on the basis that it was less powerful than their .30-06 Springfield round (and, as others have suggested,[1] the reluctance to adopt a round developed outside the USA).

It was decided that the TADEN and EM-2 could not realistically be reworked to take the new NATO round and alternatives were sought. The British Army reequipped with licence-built variants of the Belgian 7.62 mm FN MAG and FN FAL respectively. A belt fed derivative of the Bren gun had been considered for the GPMG role, but although not selected the Bren was kept on after adaptation to use the NATO round."

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-15-2012

When discussing the organization of machineguns in the Infantry Squad/Section, the biggest factors are always maneuverability, firepower, & reliability. The Army Ordnance Corps and powers that were really screwed the Infantry Squad out of the possibility of ever having a light machinegun that could meet these three requirements by adoption of the 7.62 NATO over the .280, but the .280 using a T65 case would still take up the same amount of space, albeit lighter with 130gr projectiles.

The MAG 58 GPMG is an awesome machinegun that is very reliable, accurate, and easy to use. Its biggest downfalls:

Lack of Maneuverability (weight and length) Its receiver was originally designed for a tripod or vehicle pintle mount, not a stock.
Lack of weapon-mounted feed device

The mag-fed LSW was maneuverable, but being mag-fed and based on the L85 receiver, it was abhorred by British soldiers.

The Minimi has the firepower in volume, but is way too heavy for its class, especially when you compare it to the weight of the PKM, and the Minimi's reliability blows.

With the Grendel, we finally have a cartridge that can be the basis for a true LIGHT Machinegun that offers the ballistics of the .280, in the COAL of a 5.56, and lighter ammunition than any .473"-based military cartridge.

I believe the solution lies in building an LMG around a belt-fed Grendel. Imagine having as good as or better than 7.62 NATO performance, out of an LMG that is lighter than a SAW/Minimi, and reliable as a MAG58. That is what the Infantry Sqaud/Section needs more than anything else right now, to balance the current maneuverability weakness that SAW's and M240's present, without sacrificing any performance.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - adamjp - 03-15-2012

LRRPF52 Wrote:I believe the solution lies in building an LMG around a belt-fed Grendel. Imagine having as good as or better than 7.62 NATO performance, out of an LMG that is lighter than a SAW/Minimi, and reliable as a MAG58. That is what the Infantry Sqaud/Section needs more than anything else right now, to balance the current maneuverability weakness that SAW's and M240's present, without sacrificing any performance.

The Grendel displays the characteristics that would make a solid cartridge for small arms, and a LMG on this line could be made a little lighter than the Minimi whilst still providing the volume needed.

I am not convinced that the Grendel is exactly the cartridge I would adopt. A little more taper in the case would be suitable, so possibly a case with a little more taper, but slightly longer (yes a little like the SPC). The opportunity exists to work out what you want to do, and then design the bullet to achieve that, and the cartidge to project it, and the rifles/LMGs to direct it. This is what the SPC folks tried to do, IMHO they chose to be constrained by currently available products and focussed narrowly on an SF requirement.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 03-15-2012

adamjp Wrote:The Grendel displays the characteristics that would make a solid cartridge for small arms, and a LMG on this line could be made a little lighter than the Minimi whilst still providing the volume needed.

I am not convinced that the Grendel is exactly the cartridge I would adopt. A little more taper in the case would be suitable, so possibly a case with a little more taper, but slightly longer (yes a little like the SPC). The opportunity exists to work out what you want to do, and then design the bullet to achieve that, and the cartidge to project it, and the rifles/LMGs to direct it. This is what the SPC folks tried to do, IMHO they chose to be constrained by currently available products and focussed narrowly on an SF requirement.

The Grendel would do fine loaded longer for a belt-fed, since it is a high pressure case. With a 130gr loaded long, more case capacity would be realized. The Grendel has quite a bit of case taper, it just isn't apparent since the case is so short. All that is needed is the right pressure to push a projectile as fast as is necessary. A 130gr needs to go only 2572fps to match a 147gr 7.62 for trajectory to 1000yds, however, it has significantly less drift, but has 400 ft-lbs less energy at the muzzle. By 900yds, it has exceeded the 7.62 for energy, and is really close from 500 on out.
[SIZE="4"]
7.62 NATO 147gr FMJBT 2750fps[/SIZE]

Code:
......Range    Velocity    Energy     Trajectory         TOF          Drift
      (yards)     (fps)     (ft-lb)       (MILS)         (sec)         (MILS)
         [COLOR="blue"] 0      2750        2468           0.00         0.0000         0.00
        100      2530        2089          -0.00         0.1137        -0.23
        200      2321        1758          -0.38         0.2375        -0.47
        300      2122        1469          -1.11         0.3727        -0.74
        400      1933        1219          -2.01         0.5209        -1.03
        500      1755        1005          -3.07         0.6838[/COLOR]       [color=darkorange] -1.35[/color]
        [COLOR="darkorange"]600      1590         825          -4.30         0.8634        -1.70
        700      1439         676          -5.72         1.0619        -2.08
        800      1306         557          -7.38         1.2809        -2.50[/COLOR]
      [COLOR="red"]  900      1194         465          -9.29         1.5214        -2.93
       1000      1105         399         -11.51         1.7830        -3.39[/COLOR]

[SIZE="4"]6.5 Grendel LMG 130gr FMJBT .500 G1 BC 2572 fps[/SIZE]

Code:
......Range    Velocity    Energy     Trajectory         TOF          Drift
      (yards)     (fps)     (ft-lb)       (MILS)         (sec)         (MILS)
          [COLOR="blue"]0      2572        1909           0.00         0.0000         0.00
        100      2396        1657          -0.00         0.1208        -0.21
        200      2227        1431          -0.47         0.2507        -0.43
        300      2065        1231          -1.27         0.3906        -0.66
        400      1910        1053          -2.24         0.5417        -0.92[/COLOR]
        [COLOR="darkorange"]500      1763         897          -3.36         0.7052        -1.19
        600      1624         761          -4.62         0.8825        -1.49
        700      1495         645          -6.04         1.0751        -1.81
        800      1378         548          -7.65         1.2842        -2.15[/COLOR]
       [COLOR="red"] 900      1273         468          -9.47         1.5109        -2.51
       1000      1184         405         -11.52         1.7555        -2.88[/COLOR]

[SIZE="4"]6.5 Grendel LMG Lapua 144gr FMJBT .580 G1 BC 2500 fps[/SIZE]

Code:
......Range    Velocity    Energy     Trajectory         TOF          Drift
      (yards)     (fps)     (ft-lb)       (MILS)         (sec)         (MILS)
          [COLOR="blue"]0      2500        1998           0.00         0.0000         0.00
        100      2350        1766           0.00         0.1237        -0.18
        200      2206        1556          -0.50         0.2555        -0.38
        300      2066        1365          -1.33         0.3960        -0.59
        400      1932        1194          -2.31         0.5461        -0.81
        500      1804        1041          -3.42         0.7068        -1.05[/COLOR]
       [COLOR="darkorange"] 600      1682         904          -4.65         0.8790        -1.30
        700      1566         784          -6.02         1.0639        -1.57
        800      1459         680          -7.54         1.2624        -1.85
        900      1360         591          -9.22         1.4755        -2.15
       1000      1271         517         -11.09         1.7039        -2.47[/COLOR]

Lapua lists their 144gr FMJBT at .636 G1 BC, but I think it's closer to .600, so I handicapped it to .580 just to illustrate the point.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 03-15-2012

adamjp Wrote:The Grendel displays the characteristics that would make a solid cartridge for small arms, and a LMG on this line could be made a little lighter than the Minimi whilst still providing the volume needed.

I am not convinced that the Grendel is exactly the cartridge I would adopt. A little more taper in the case would be suitable, so possibly a case with a little more taper, but slightly longer (yes a little like the SPC). The opportunity exists to work out what you want to do, and then design the bullet to achieve that, and the cartidge to project it, and the rifles/LMGs to direct it. This is what the SPC folks tried to do, IMHO they chose to be constrained by currently available products and focussed narrowly on an SF requirement.

I agree. What with this forum being devoted to 6.5 Grendel, it's understandable that some here advocate it as the best choice for an LMG cartridge. Personally, I'd prefer to fully evaluate all of the options. So far, it doesn't appear as if anyone has done that. Everyone is pushing the particular cartridge to which they are emotionally invested, with no objective comparison testing having been conducted.

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 03-16-2012

Stan's point is well-taken.

The challenge for getting a new design accepted, however, also includes the enormous investment needed to dispassionately search through all the existing options, combine or tweak the desirable features of the best performers, design and prove the case. All this before 'going public.' The public arena (including military Procurement, R&D, etc.) where the real battle and expense is incurred.

We may see a parallel to the 5.56 and 7.62 combination. They are 'good enough' in many eyes.

Should the move to a mid-power LMG round be taken, the Grendel may benefit from the same mindset. It is the best available established cartridge and is 'good enough.'

(I hesitate to LOL at the irony!!)

.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 03-16-2012

Stan's point is well-taken.

The challenge for getting a new design accepted, however, also includes the enormous investment needed to dispassionately search through all the existing options, combine or tweak the desirable features of the best performers, design and prove the case. All this before 'going public.'

We may see a parallel to the 5.56 and 7.62 combination. They are 'good enough' in many eyes.

Should the move to a mid-power LMG round be taken, the Grendel may benefit from the same mindset. It is the best available established cartridge and is 'good enough.'

(I hesitate to LOL at the irony!!)