+- 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)
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 01-10-2012
I've been looking at this cartridge more and more, and have always felt that the US really screwed the pooch by not adopting it. The whole ordeal sounds like a case of "not invented here syndrome".
![[Image: 280britishcompare.jpg]](http://i1085.photobucket.com/albums/j422/LRRPF52/280britishcompare.jpg)
6mm SAW, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7mm BR, .280 Enfield, 7mm-08, name the other wildcats, 7.62x51 NATO on far right.
Does anyone know what the original rim diameter was for the .280 Enfield? The .280/30 seems to have been an appeasement to the US to use the .473 rim diameter.
I would love to have seen the AR10 in this caliber.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Drifter - 01-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:... have always felt that the US really screwed the pooch by not adopting it.
History seems to repeat itself. I think the M1 Garand was originally chambered for a similar cartridge, the .276 Pedersen, but eventually changed to .30 caliber.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stokesrj - 01-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:Does anyone know what the original rim diameter was for the .280 Enfield? The .280/30 seems to have been an appeasement to the US to use the .473 rim diameter.
The rim diameter was .4580".
I agree this was a great cartridge that was neglected for the wrong reasons. What I have learned by using various calibers on the game fields all over the world, is that an intermediate cartridge is really the best all around choice. Preferably one that has long for caliber bullets, so this leads us to something in the .25 to .28 diameter range at modest velocities. In Africa, the 6.5 X 54 and 7 X 57 are revered for their effectiveness on game above and beyond more powerful calibers. In my opinion .25 is too light and 7mm is getting into excessive recoil with long for caliber bullets so 6.5 is ideal in my humble opinion.
My first encounter with the 6.5x55 was one of doubt until I saw it perform on Dall Sheep, Caribou, Moose and Grizzly Bears. This was on the Brooks Range of Alaska and I was a young guide, expecting to have to use my big rifle, but never did. In fact, I could tell no difference in effectiveness on Grizzlies between the 6.5 X 55 and the .375 H&H. The bear would roll around bite at the wound and die. Of course shot placement is still a critical determining factor and every hunter I guided with the 6.5X55 placed his shots perfectly. These were mostly northern European hunters from Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany.
When you combine the similar performance of the 6.5 Grendel to the 6.5X54 or 55 and combine that with the wonderful ergonomics of the AR platform, it is truly a great system, and when used intelligently, is a very capable in the game fields, on the target range, or for social applications.
Bob
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 01-10-2012
Are we looking at the cartridge as a hunting round, military, competition target, or a combination?
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stokesrj - 01-10-2012
JASmith Wrote:Are we looking at the cartridge as a hunting round, military, competition target, or a combination?
Through my eyes, all cartridges look like hunting rounds, some of them just happen to be used for other purposes.
Bob
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 01-10-2012
Bob,
That's the best answer I've seen in awhile!
Cheers!
Joe
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - leopard6.5 - 01-10-2012
Bob, very true, it just depends on what you are hunting.
Lee
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 01-10-2012
stokesrj Wrote:The rim diameter was .4580".
I agree this was a great cartridge that was neglected for the wrong reasons. What I have learned by using various calibers on the game fields all over the world, is that an intermediate cartridge is really the best all around choice. Preferably one that has long for caliber bullets, so this leads us to something in the .25 to .28 diameter range at modest velocities. In Africa, the 6.5 X 54 and 7 X 57 are revered for their effectiveness on game above and beyond more powerful calibers. In my opinion .25 is too light and 7mm is getting into excessive recoil with long for caliber bullets so 6.5 is ideal in my humble opinion.
My first encounter with the 6.5x55 was one of doubt until I saw it perform on Dall Sheep, Caribou, Moose and Grizzly Bears. This was on the Brooks Range of Alaska and I was a young guide, expecting to have to use my big rifle, but never did. In fact, I could tell no difference in effectiveness on Grizzlies between the 6.5 X 55 and the .375 H&H. The bear would roll around bite at the wound and die. Of course shot placement is still a critical determining factor and every hunter I guided with the 6.5X55 placed his shots perfectly. These were mostly northern European hunters from Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany.
When you combine the similar performance of the 6.5 Grendel to the 6.5X54 or 55 and combine that with the wonderful ergonomics of the AR platform, it is truly a great system, and when used intelligently, is a very capable in the game fields, on the target range, or for social applications.
Bob
Thanks. That rim diameter is really close to a 6.5 Carcano rim diameter (.451"), with a shorter case of 42mm for the .280 originally then.
I agree that 6.5mm is the optimum intermediate cartridge caliber for the reasons you stated. 7mm is getting into more recoil for light weapons, and 6mm is a bit small for retained energy on-target at distance.
I was just out hunting with some friends here in Finland this weekend, and although we didn't see any deer, one got a very large rabbit with his 6.5x55 Swede, producing an impressive 3.5" exit wound with the 156gr Norma Oryx in an animal whose shoulders were no more than 6 or 7 inches wide. The 6.5x55 Swede is one of the best all-round rifles out there, with little recoil and moderate pressures.
The Grendel with a larger bolt can bite the heels of the Swede quite hard I think, since a buddy of mine is getting 2700fps with 139gr Scenars out of his CZ527 micro-action 6.5 Grendel. That is definitely Swede territory.
From the military side, it seems that the US and England even were leaning more towards a cartridge for riflemen that was closer to the capabilities of the previous battle rifles, rather than the sub-machinegun side of the scale with the 7.62x25 and 7.92x33 like the Ppsh and Sturmgewehr.
The .280 leaned more towards the rifle side definitely, but nowhere near as much as the 7.62x51, which isn't intermediate at all.
I wonder if the Danes, Belgians, Norwegians, and Germans would have followed suit of the British design, or come up with their own intermediate calibers. It would have been better to see England take the lead in that realm, since we could have LMG's chambered in the .280, along with the 5.56 carbines and rifles. That would make a great system. The Grendel seems to sit right on the fulcrum of the balance between all these cartridges.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stokesrj - 01-10-2012
Wow, a six or seven inch wide rabbit??? We have deer smaller than that.
Bob
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - bwaites - 01-10-2012
Does anyone make brass for the Enfield? If you could get a bolt made, it wouldn be an interesting round in an AR10!
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Whelenon - 01-10-2012
I'm glad I'm not the only one out there with a high opinion of the 6.5x55 Swede. I get frustrated when preaching the superior ballistics of the 6.5 Swede to my hunting buddy's. They just give me that dumb look and tell me that there Remington 742 30-06 will do just fine. Change come hard, but now I'm preaching the Grendel, you should've seen them at hunting camp this year. I love being on the leading edge.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 01-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:I've been looking at this cartridge more and more, and have always felt that the US really screwed the pooch by not adopting it.I really can't see it as a major screw up.
It would've allowed the machine gunner's ammo load to weigh slightly less, but a .280 M60 GPMG would've been only marginally lighter and insignificantly shorter than the 7.62 M60.
And a .280 M14 rifle would still have had the same production setbacks as befell the 7.62 M14, leading again to the forced adoption of the 5.56 M16.
Quote:The whole ordeal sounds like a case of "not invented here syndrome"."NIH" may have been involved to an extent, but I think it was more an honest disagreement as to what was the better approach. Remember, at the time a MAJOR war had just been fought against a peer foe equipped with large numbers of light armored vehicles, and after that conflict we were faced off against an even larger mechanized opponent.
The .30-06 had proven superior to .276 Pedersen in "hard target" penetration tests in the 1930s, and IIRC the .30 Light Rifle round was also better in this regard when tested against .280 Enfield.
Considered in that light, the 7.62x51 was a more prudent choice than the British 7x43.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 01-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:I wonder if the Danes, Belgians, Norwegians, and Germans would have followed suit of the British design, or come up with their own intermediate calibers.The Danes and Norwegians, probably not. At least, I don't recall reading they've been much into military cartridge development for a century or so.
The Belgians, possibly, but they don't seem to have done much new cartridge development since the 7x43/7x49/7x51 episode.
The Germans, however, actually did develop an intermediate 6.5mm round a few decades back. IIRC, case length was 43mm, but case diameter was quite small, circa 0.41" -- and the bullet was super-streamlined, with very long ogive.
Quote:It would have been better to see England take the lead in that realm, since we could have LMG's chambered in the .280...IMO, the .270 Enfield would've been a better choice for LMGs, if only because the smaller case diameter enables a shorter belt length, thereby reducing bulk of the stowed ammo.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 01-10-2012
The 7mm has better penetration at distance than even the .30-06/.30 Cal US through timber, and still penetrated the British Airborne steel helmet at 1000yds, while the .30 Cal had an advantage in that area, but both capabilities were really excessive in that regard, until you look at aircraft-mounted weapons. That is also where the Enfield would still be out-shining the 7.62 NATO, in addition to dismounts being able to carry more ammo-per space.
At some point in testing, you will always be able to show some marginally-specific target advantages to the super over-kill cartridge, but those points are rarely if ever realized by the soldier, while the weight, space, and recoil penalties are realized by him every time he carries the weapon.
For light-skinned vehicles, a 7mm with better sectional density and driven by modern powders would have the edge past 500m, while there would most likely be no real practical differences within 500m for penetration. A fat .30 cal FMJ loses gas quicker than a 7mm of similar construction. It would also be nice to have the M110/Mk11 and Mk48 chambered in 7x43mm, versus 7.62 NATO. Same goes for miniguns.
The .30-06 was way over-kill for a rifleman, and the .276 Pedersen would have been a much more appropriate chambering for the Garand, especially looking at the magazine capacity of 10rounds versus 8. That alone would have had real world results in the form of more lives saved on our side. Riflemen are primarily concerned with soft targets, and within the distances that they engaged bunkers, a .276 Pedersen would have the same practical effects, with less recoil and more capacity.
7.62x51 is the cartridge that should not have been, in my book.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 01-10-2012
bwaites Wrote:Does anyone make brass for the Enfield?I doubt it. But, for anyone set up to re-form cases, it should be easy to make .280/30 brass from .308 Win cases.
The smaller-diameter .280 cases might be made from .35 Rem brass, which has almost exactly the same base size. See: http://www.stevespages.com/page8d.htm
Quote:If you could get a bolt made, it wouldn be an interesting round in an AR10!You wouldn't need a new bolt for the .280/30 version.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - stanc - 01-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:The 7mm has better penetration at distance than even the .30-06/.30 Cal US through timber...Irrelevant comparison, since .30-06 was being phased out.
How does .280 Enfield do when put up against 7.62x51?
Quote:...and still penetrated the British Airborne steel helmet at 1000yds, while the .30 Cal had an advantage in that area, but both capabilities were really excessive in that regard...Against helmets, yes. But you're overlooking the (at the time) perceived need to punch through BMP hulls. For that, the penetration capability is not at all excessive.
Quote:The .30-06 was way over-kill for a rifleman, and the .276 Pedersen would have been a much more appropriate chambering for the Garand, especially looking at the magazine capacity of 10rounds versus 8. That alone would have had real world results in the form of more lives saved on our side. Riflemen are primarily concerned with soft targets, and within the distances that they engaged bunkers, a .276 Pedersen would have the same practical effects, with less recoil and more capacity.I agree with all of that. The trouble is, it would've resulted in three calibers being required -- .276 for rifles, .30 Carbine for carbines, and .30-06 for machine guns -- and the military has always been opposed to a three-caliber system.
Quote:7.62x51 is the cartridge that should not have been, in my book.They are certainly better alternatives, but we have the benefit of hindsight. They had to go with what they knew at the time.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - Drifter - 01-10-2012
stanc Wrote:The .30-06 had proven superior to .276 Pedersen in "hard target" penetration tests in the 1930s, and IIRC the .30 Light Rifle round was also better in this regard when tested against .280 Enfield.
Perhaps, but many seem to believe that the cartridge change for the Garand was due to, at least in part, the large amount of .30 ammo already on hand.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - LRRPF52 - 01-10-2012
Agreed. I make my points so that the perspective can be applied to current decision-making and thoughts moving forward into the future. We look at the AR10, for example, which is now basically the Army and Marine's Semi-Auto Sniper Rifle System in the form of the Knight's SR-25/M110/Mk11. We could have avoided the whole M14 experience if they had just awarded the service rifle contract to the superior design in 1955. While I have an aficionado's affection for the M14 as you do, I still recognize the AR10 for what it offers over other designs.
While the BMP is extremely vulnerable to RPGs and mines, I think it does a great job of insulating the crew from small arms fire. Maybe .50 BMG and 12.7mm AP do a good number on it, but a shoulder-fired service rifle is a bit of a pea-shooter in that application. Frontal shots on the BMP are futile with pretty much any heavy machinegun as well, unless you're good enough to target the periscope windows.
Small arms on trucks and jeeps is a freebie, but pretty much any small arms rifle cartridge will make Swiss cheese of unarmored vehicles.
Ammunition for different weapon systems like rifles and LMGs gets assembled, packaged, shipped, and loaded in totally separate usable forms, even when they are the same cartridge and loading like M855 for the SAW and M16 family. SAW ammo is linked, placed in 200rd plastic drums, placed in worthless cloth bandoliers, and packaged in ammo cans. M855 for rifles/carbines is placed on 10rd stripper clips, which are then boxed in 30rd boxes, placed in cloth bandoliers, then packaged in ammo cans. Only in the rarest of circumstances are the cartridges removed from links to feed mag-fed weapons, and that is usually during training with blanks.
We effectively already have a 3-caliber system when you look at how the SAW ammo is distributed and fed into the little pigs. I still prefer 2, and think it can be done with the new multi-role LMG that replaces both the SAW and 240, while leaving the M4 alone.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - JASmith - 01-11-2012
It is also easy to forget that proper bullet design would have erased any practical difference between the .280 and the 7.62X51 in the defeat of light armor.
Regarding light armored vehicles of the late forties and the early, the .50 caliber machine gun would have been necessary to assure reliable defeat from all directions. The BMP upped the ante.
.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time - sgt_murf - 01-11-2012
bwaites Wrote:Does anyone make brass for the Enfield? If you could get a bolt made,
Bill
Yes/NO the 6.5x47 Lapua can be used to get REAAAAALLLLLL close give this a look
http://lutz-moeller-jagd.de/English/silent-Stalker.htm
you will need to scroll down a bit to find what this Gentleman attempted to do in Germany for his stalker rifle
For the .280/30 aka .30 British a BR case or the 6.5x47 lapua can be modified to be a go to case in either the 7mm or 30 cal pill
A write up on the cartridge can be found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
and it answers LRRPF52 question
the .276 Pedersen and the .308x 1.75" are the wildcats