Shooting the EM-2 (New Video)

[stanc]

IMO, the best looking bullpup rifle ever made.

[video=youtube;m-grTPqgETk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-grTPqgETk[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-grTPqgETk

[LRRPF52]

That would have been a great cartridge with some joint engineering, research, test, development, and evaluation of it.

Would have been exceptional in a downsized AR10 and FAL, as well as HK's G3. The .280 British is about the maximum cartridge profile I would want to see for even a DMR duty position, as well as a Squad Light Machinegun/Auto Rifleman position. Once you step up to 7.62 NATO, you really handicap your soldier's load, endurance, and hit probability.

[stanc]

That would have been a great cartridge with some joint engineering, research, test, development, and evaluation of it.

Would have been exceptional in a downsized AR10 and FAL, as well as HK's G3. The .280 British is about the maximum cartridge profile I would want to see for even a DMR duty position, as well as a Squad Light Machinegun/Auto Rifleman position. Once you step up to 7.62 NATO, you really handicap your soldier's load, endurance, and hit probability.

I wish I could agree with all of that, but in my opinion the .280 British would've been nearly as bad of a choice as 7.62 NATO.

And I don't see it being exceptional in the AR10 or FAL. First, those rifles could not have been significantly downsized, because there is negligible difference in the OAL of the two rounds, and both have the same case diameter. That means magazine sizes and weights are nearly identical, and both were of 20-rd capacity. As a result, basic ammo load would've been the same as for 7.62 NATO (100 rds), with the same handicap on combat endurance.

Second, the FAL actually was made in .280 British, but was almost as long as the 7.62 version, and only a few ounces lighter.

.280 FAL


7.62 FAL




So, adopting .280 British would've been of little benefit to the infantry rifleman, and -- since it had mostly the same drawbacks as 7.62 NATO -- would surely have been succeeded by 5.56mm, too.

[LRRPF52]

The .280 British is about the maximum cartridge profile I would want to see for even a DMR duty position, as well as a Squad Light Machinegun/Auto Rifleman position.

This indicates that Riflemen should still have something smaller, and that the heavier cartridge of the mix should not exceed the .280 British profile for DMR and LMGs.

Ian indicates that the recoil impulse with .280 British in the EM-2 is more manageable than the 7.62 NATO, which can be calculated and compared looking at projectile weights, rifle weight, and chamber pressure.

[Essayons]

Lots of info on the .280 Brit compared to 7.65x51 and other intermediate rounds at http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/...d-edition/

[LRRPF52]

[stanc]

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-co...ergy-1.png

Is it reasonable for there to be such a great difference in BC of the Type C and S-12 (140gr) bullets?

[LRRPF52]

They would have smoked the 7.62 NATO with a boat tail design when looking at downrange performance.

Maybe the S-12 nosed over better after passing the maximum ordinate.

[Buck2732]

We have tried to find a modern alternative to the S-12. With no luck. We have settled on 130SMKs as the base for our tests and 120g Barnes for a stalking load. We have bettered the velocity of the 24inch with our 20inch barrels.

[stanc]

We have tried to find a modern alternative to the S-12. With no luck.

IIRC, 7mm Liviano was loaded with the S-12 bullet. Might it be possible to get a quantity of those rounds and pull the bullets?

[Buck2732]

The 280/30 took 3 deer this weekend if the owner is agreeable I will post his write up and the pics.

Okay update he has put his write up here with some video and pics.

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/thread...30.266735/

Its a military/exmilitary site so I can only apologise for some of the language... Enjoy