Contents of an interesting lecture I attended several months back.

[Buck2732]

Somethings have been covered before but it proves somethings just don't change.

http://www.slideshare.net/tcattermole/br...-1944-1953

I hope you find some of the proposed designs interesting.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Great stuff. Thanks for sharing!

John

[LRRPF52]

.280 FAL right there. Pretty neat.

FAL Bullpup. Looks like Kel-Tec took a lot from that.

[stanc]

.280 British



If not for the shoulder angle, one might mistake it for 6.5 Grendel...

[Tony Williams]

I suspect that Tony Edwards has written another book, and this is a teaser for it.

He knows more about British small arms and ammunition than anyone now living, so I'll be adding this book to my library the next time I see him.

[Tony Williams]

.280 British



If not for the shoulder angle, one might mistake it for 6.5 Grendel...

As a cartridge, I prefer the .270 - the shape is more balanced, and calibre is a better compromise IMO. However, as tested the bullet was too light for long-range performance at only 100 grains. Increase that to around 120 grains (scale down that excellent .276 Pedersen bullet a tad) and I believe it would still be better than anything available today as a military rifle/LMG cartridge (service or experimental).

[BluntForceTrauma]

Both the .280 and the .270 remind me of the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC, respectively.

John

[stanc]

Both the .280 and the .270 remind me of the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC, respectively.

A good comparison. And I agree with Tony. Both .270 British and 6.8 SPC would be much better (for military use) with long-ogive bullets.

[cory]

A good comparison. And I agree with Tony. Both .270 British and 6.8 SPC would be much better (for military use) with long-ogive bullets.

:???? In what universe is the 6.8 spc a suitable replacement for 7.62 DMRs? How exactly is the 6.8 spc a better candidate for an LMG than the Grendel, other than your unfounded assumption that they'll be a problem with developing links?

[LRRPF52]

My problems with the .270 and .284/7mm bores is that you have to go heavy to get BC, which means recoil and action weight. It's the point where you have gone slightly over the happy medium where everything comes together, and that point is at 6.5mm, and I was raised on .270 with a very high appreciation for it over .30 bore garbage. Imagine my disappointment during Sniper training when I first watched a 173gr M118 Special Ball cartridge fly downrange in a very high arc of trajectory, which literally appeared like a rock being thrown at the target.

For example, the 7mm's need about 10gr more in bullet weight to achieve the BC's that 6.5mm have. A 139gr 7mm classes in with your legacy 129gr 6.5mm's, and 154gr 7mm's are comparable to the 6.5mm 123gr Scenar. What's the difference in recoil between a 154gr 7mm at 61,000psi and a 147gr M80 at 58,000-62,000psi?

For these reasons, both 6.8mm and 7mm are over the edge, unless you're talking about a heavier weapon with a longer action. The 1950's British .270 and .280 cartridges fell somewhere between a battle rifle and an intermediate cartridge, leaning heavily to the battle rifle side. It would have been better than 7.62 NATO because of soldier's load and BC advancements for DM's and LMG's, but is a bit much for maneuver-oriented dismounts, especially considering the space that magazines take up on the soldier.

[stanc]

:???? In what universe is the 6.8 spc a suitable replacement for 7.62 DMRs?

Freed from the M16 mag length restriction, 6.8 SPC can be given a streamlined, long-ogive bullet that would provide external ballistics as good or better than 7.62mm.

How exactly is the 6.8 spc a better candidate for an LMG than the Grendel, other than your unfounded assumption that they'll be a problem with developing links?

As I said before, it is not an unfounded assumption. It's proven fact that:

1. The M27 link can be -- and has been -- adapted to 6.8 SPC, but not to 6.5 Grendel.
2. The M27 link is not compatible with 6.5 Grendel case head-to-shoulder dimension.
3. Belt-fed 6.8 SPC machine guns exist, but (AFAIK) belt-fed 6.5 Grendel machine guns do not.

In my book, a working machine gun that fires an inferior cartridge is far better than an imaginary machine gun that cannot fire a superior round.

[LRRPF52]

Let's keep it on track with the OP's link to British Small Arms from 1944-1953.

[stanc]

...both 6.8mm and 7mm are over the edge, unless you're talking about a heavier weapon with a longer action. The 1950's British .270 and .280 cartridges fell somewhere between a battle rifle and an intermediate cartridge, leaning heavily to the battle rifle side. It would have been better than 7.62 NATO because of soldier's load and BC advancements for DM's and LMG's, but is a bit much for maneuver-oriented dismounts, especially considering the space that magazines take up on the soldier.

I do not advocate .270 British for future use. I was merely noting that it would've made a better military round if it had been loaded with a longer, more streamlined bullet.

As for 6.8 SPC, with a long-ogive bullet, I don't see it being "over the edge." BC of the Barnes 120gr .277" solid is close to that of the 110gr .264" solid (0.438 vs 0.452). Shouldn't ballistics of the two be about the same?

[Buck2732]

I suspect that Tony Edwards has written another book, and this is a teaser for it.

He knows more about British small arms and ammunition than anyone now living, so I'll be adding this book to my library the next time I see him.

He did not mention it while he was giving the lecture aboard HMS Belfast

[Tony Williams]

He did not mention it while he was giving the lecture aboard HMS Belfast

OK, but I'd be surprised if he didn't...