01-12-2012, 07:27 PM
Tony Williams Wrote: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.So, the info on wiki that .280 rim diameter was 0.458" is wrong, and it was actually 0.470"?
Quote: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.I agree with all of that. Long-range performance could've been even better if boat-tail projectiles had been used. Were the British unable to make boat-tail bullets in that time period, or did institutional inertia cause them to stick with flat-base designs?
Quote: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...Indeed. Nice dream, though.
[video=youtube;wtjVf724G7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtjVf724G7w[/video]