03-14-2012, 05:55 PM
Back on .280 Enfield. As Europe heads closer and closer to fracturing and new alliances are formed, it will be interesting to see if any alliances move towards a higher performance intermediate cartridge like the .280 Enfield, or stick with yesteryear's assault rifle loadings. Both before the Great War of 1914-1918 and World War II, massive efforts were underway to develop and field new weapons systems and organizational structures, leading away from Cavalry to Armor, machinguns, repeating rifles, submachineguns, aircraft, etc. Both of these eras saw significant changes in small arms cartridge development, with left-overs from WWI used in WWII, as new cartridges came into being. (7.92 Mauser, .30 Cal Rifle, .30 Carbine, 7.62x25 Tokarev, 7.92x33 Kurz....)
I know the Czechs are seriously looking at 6.8 for their CZ805, which already has quick barrel change capability. It would make more sense for them to go with the Grendel I think, since it opens the doors for the LMG too. Either way, whether we look at shifting emerging European alliances, or the NATO/ISAF experience in Central Asia, there is a perceived need for a cartridge like the .280 Enfield, which is close to its legacy battle rifle cartridges in performance, but offers more mag capacity in its original form with the smaller case head diameter.
I know the Czechs are seriously looking at 6.8 for their CZ805, which already has quick barrel change capability. It would make more sense for them to go with the Grendel I think, since it opens the doors for the LMG too. Either way, whether we look at shifting emerging European alliances, or the NATO/ISAF experience in Central Asia, there is a perceived need for a cartridge like the .280 Enfield, which is close to its legacy battle rifle cartridges in performance, but offers more mag capacity in its original form with the smaller case head diameter.