.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

[LRRPF52]

Unfair comparison. AFAIK, the US and UK have never used VLD bullets in infantry rifle calibers.

Try 7mm 168gr FMJ (w/tangent ogive) against M118SB.

(And your 2400fps MV seems a trifle optimistic, seeing as how the long, 168gr bullet would reduce powder volume.)

I was actually comparing sniper rifles to sniper rifles, and appropriate projectiles for each. Even the hunting 7mm bullets with exposed lead tips have higher average BC's than the BTHP match .30 cal pills in the 150-175 weight ranges. A flat-based 139gr 7mm still has a G1 BC of .392, and since boat tail projectiles were adopted for the 7.62 NATO across the board, one can deduce that a 7mm FMJ with a boat tail would have been used then as well. Once you boat tail the 7mm, bullets almost 30gr lighter have the same or higher BC as their .30 cal BTHP match counterparts.

2400 fps is about 200-400fps mild when looking at the 7mm/.30 and other 7mm cartridges based on the .473" rimmed US cases, so I purposely handicapped the 7mm to show that it still has an advantage. The original .280 Enfield produced velocities in the 2530fps range with a 139gr projectile. With further powder development specifically for the .280 in any form, the US would most likely have developed loads with faster velocities using mixed powders, although the 7mm still smokes the .30 cals no matter how you look at it.

The .30 cal was a mistake in my opinion. Barrel availability isn't a limiting factor since entirely new barrels were made for the M14, FAL, AR10, and G3. The 7mm from a .473" rimmed case also enjoys about the same barrel life for accuracy as a 7.62 NATO, so there isn't a trade-off there either. It just made too much sense for big green pickle machine, so it wasn't adopted. That's my take on it. You can't fix the mindset of big Army brass. Stupidity is an eternal disease, I've concluded. It can't be helped, assisted, or corrected...only steered, and corrupt + stubborn + stupid makes a problematic mule.