01-12-2012, 04:59 PM
I think that the .280/30 would have been a better choice than the 7.62x51 simply because the significantly lighter recoil made auto rifle fire far more controllable. The M14 was originally meant to be a selective-fire rifle but the auto switch had to be disabled because the average soldier couldn't make use of it.
However, the .280/30 wasn't ideal IMO; its design was compromised by the desire to meet the US requirement for long-range effectiveness (the new round had to match the .30'06 for lethality at 2,000 yards). So the bullet was made big and heavy to achieve this, which meant that the initial velocity was quite low, giving it a steep trajectory. Incidentally, there was very little difference between the case diameters of the .280 and .280/30: the former was based on the 7.9x57 Mauser's, the latter on the .30'06 - pretty much the same but for a few thou.
I think that the .270 would have made a better basis for the new round, albeit with a different loading. The case diameter was more or less the same as the 6.5mm Grendel's, but it was 46mm long and 6.8mm calibre. Just about perfect for a general-purpose intermediate, I think. The problem was that the loading was optimised for short to medium ranges - 100 grains at 2,860 fps. It could have done with a bullet in the 120-130 grain range, which could then have had a good long-range performance.
My favourite "what if?" of the NATO ammo trials goes like this: the UK agrees to adopt the US 7.62x51 as the standard rifle/GPMG round, as long as the US agrees to the adoption of the .270 as a carbine round, to replace both the .30 Carbine and the SMGs. Chambered in a shorter-barrelled version of the EM-2 bullpup, this combination would have provided exceptionally compact and controllable firepower. Chances are that most British infantry would have ended up with the EM-2/.270 combo, with a .270 mag-fed SAW to follow-on, leaving the 7.62mm for belt-fed MGs and DMRs. One can only dream...
However, the .280/30 wasn't ideal IMO; its design was compromised by the desire to meet the US requirement for long-range effectiveness (the new round had to match the .30'06 for lethality at 2,000 yards). So the bullet was made big and heavy to achieve this, which meant that the initial velocity was quite low, giving it a steep trajectory. Incidentally, there was very little difference between the case diameters of the .280 and .280/30: the former was based on the 7.9x57 Mauser's, the latter on the .30'06 - pretty much the same but for a few thou.
I think that the .270 would have made a better basis for the new round, albeit with a different loading. The case diameter was more or less the same as the 6.5mm Grendel's, but it was 46mm long and 6.8mm calibre. Just about perfect for a general-purpose intermediate, I think. The problem was that the loading was optimised for short to medium ranges - 100 grains at 2,860 fps. It could have done with a bullet in the 120-130 grain range, which could then have had a good long-range performance.
My favourite "what if?" of the NATO ammo trials goes like this: the UK agrees to adopt the US 7.62x51 as the standard rifle/GPMG round, as long as the US agrees to the adoption of the .270 as a carbine round, to replace both the .30 Carbine and the SMGs. Chambered in a shorter-barrelled version of the EM-2 bullpup, this combination would have provided exceptionally compact and controllable firepower. Chances are that most British infantry would have ended up with the EM-2/.270 combo, with a .270 mag-fed SAW to follow-on, leaving the 7.62mm for belt-fed MGs and DMRs. One can only dream...