04-15-2012, 09:13 PM
It looks like more than one point of view is being argued...
We really do need to look at historical decisions from the points of view of the participants and with knowledge developed since the decisions. This helps us better understand the issues we face today.
At the same time, we will almost certainly make different technical decisions today precisely because of that change in knowledge base.
Human nature being what it is, we will like see a repeat of what many us purists would believe is not the best choice simply because far more than merely technical technical factors weigh in on these decisions.
I concur that the .280 Enfield was ahead of its time, and would have made a fine cartridge. Today's technology with metallurgy, plastics, and computational analysis would, however, have morphed that into something like the 6.5 Grendel but with a slightly longer case if not constrained by the AR15 magazine well. Unfortunately even our presumably politics-free debate continues to be constrained by our perceptions of political reality. One of those perceived realities is that the AR15/M4 system is what we must use as the template. Hence the Grendel is darned near the best that we can get.
My own view is that when LRRPF52 convinces the powers that be to adopt the Grendel for the LMG role, it will be in a mode where the pressures go to more like those allowed for the PPC and the overall cartridge length is relaxed to accommodate the longest bullets (e. g. 130 - 144 gr copper-steel) with the bullet so that there is no protrusion into the powder volume beyond that needed to get about a caliber of contact between the bullet shank and the case neck.
The higher pressures and more complete use of powder volumes will add about 150 ft/sec and result in performance much closer to the classic 6.5x55 but in a much smaller package.
We really do need to look at historical decisions from the points of view of the participants and with knowledge developed since the decisions. This helps us better understand the issues we face today.
At the same time, we will almost certainly make different technical decisions today precisely because of that change in knowledge base.
Human nature being what it is, we will like see a repeat of what many us purists would believe is not the best choice simply because far more than merely technical technical factors weigh in on these decisions.
I concur that the .280 Enfield was ahead of its time, and would have made a fine cartridge. Today's technology with metallurgy, plastics, and computational analysis would, however, have morphed that into something like the 6.5 Grendel but with a slightly longer case if not constrained by the AR15 magazine well. Unfortunately even our presumably politics-free debate continues to be constrained by our perceptions of political reality. One of those perceived realities is that the AR15/M4 system is what we must use as the template. Hence the Grendel is darned near the best that we can get.
My own view is that when LRRPF52 convinces the powers that be to adopt the Grendel for the LMG role, it will be in a mode where the pressures go to more like those allowed for the PPC and the overall cartridge length is relaxed to accommodate the longest bullets (e. g. 130 - 144 gr copper-steel) with the bullet so that there is no protrusion into the powder volume beyond that needed to get about a caliber of contact between the bullet shank and the case neck.
The higher pressures and more complete use of powder volumes will add about 150 ft/sec and result in performance much closer to the classic 6.5x55 but in a much smaller package.