.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

[LRRPF52]

QUOTE=adamjp;29232]I think you are onto something there. I've been toying with the SPC cartridge, but in different calibres. The 6mm SPC (pretty much aka the 6mm WOA) looks quite nice as a little hunting round.

IMHO the 277 bore and the reasons put forward for it's choice make sense - for SF types. Since they represent a tiny proportion of the Army perhaps a wider viwe should be taken and that means a 6.5mm bore is more logical.

TO be honest it is all academic, the way to do this properly is to decide the effect you want to deliver, and then design the bullet to do that, and a cartridge to propel it. Things like the Grendel and the SPC are still tied to the available parent cases - a company with resonable resources could start with a greenfield design. I think this is what is suggested in the Optimised Calibre discussion (I've been away and have not had the chance to read it yet).

[/QUOTE]

There never was, nor is there widespread support for a carbine caliber other than 5.56 in the SF community. The 6.8 SPC was literally a project pushed by less than a handful of guys, with the blessing of a more senior officer to experiment. It was never an official SF program in any shape or form, despite what many have claimed or believe.

It is interesting to note that the officer who did bless off on that experiment is now the USASOC Commander, Lt. General John Mullholland Jr.

There was a ton of internal and external resistance to the proposed adoption of the 6.8 SPC from within SF, as well as the US Special Operations Community as a whole, with far fewer advocates than opponents. Especially within JSOC, and seasoned shooters within SF, 5.56 NATO has a high level of respect and it is the go-to cartridge for indivudual service carbines. There are a minority of proponents of this or that cartidge, but 5.56 is superb at what it does, especially with those who have been using it for so long to accomplish the mission without complaint.

.277 pills are definitely not optimum across the board, but do provide a lot of impact energy transfer with more blunt ogives. The trade-off is retained energy at distance.

My position is that trying to fix something that ain't broke is a waste of time, resources, and leaves the areas that truly need fixing unattended to, and that is the status of our GPMG's, and LMG's, being of limiting size, weight, and effectiveness when contrasted against the maneuverability of riflemen or dismounted personnel carrying M4 carbines.

The pigs need to be replaced, not the M4.