.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

[Bambibasher]

and so much to comment/correct. There has been one sporting rifle in the British 7MM round, it was a Ruger No1 owned by a senior chap at Shrivenham and when he retired he offered it for sale with dies and brass. Sadly before I was aware of its significance.
The use of boat tail bullets in an infantry calibre rifle goes back to the use of the .303 streamlined for long range match competitions. I have one box of kynoch 1960 dated manufacture .303 SL with the hald black adonised cases still. The ammo was developed in the interwar period and i may have the ICI notes on its development still.
The lack of a boat tail on the 7mm British is possibly solely down the batch produced for the trials and the spec issued for the trials, if the spec had called for boat tail bullets then they would have been used. Who knows? Without the committee notes to hand I cant say!

[Steyr94]

I would love to have seen the AR10 in this caliber.

I second that motion.

[Tony Williams]

The use of boat tail bullets in an infantry calibre rifle goes back to the use of the .303 streamlined for long range match competitions. I have one box of kynoch 1960 dated manufacture .303 SL with the hald black adonised cases still. The ammo was developed in the interwar period and i may have the ICI notes on its development still.

Actually the use of boat-tailed bullets in an infantry calibre goes back to the 8mm Lebel "Balle D", whch was machined from solid brass and was I think the first spitzer as well as boat-tailed bullet in military service. It was adopted by the French army in 1898.

In 1911 the Swiss army adopted the 7.5mm GP11 cartridge which had a more conventional lead-cored FMJ bullet which was also pointed and boat tailed. This is still in service today. It had quite an impact on British thinking throughout the interwar period.

The first official British experiments into boat-tailed .303 bullets commenced in 1922, the starting point for these being some work Vickers were doing with boat-tailed .5 inch bullets, so it was decided to try them in .303 calibre. In parallel with this, Kynoch was developing boat-tailed bullets for commercial sale as match ammunition, so 45,000 rounds of ammunition loaded with their 1927 pattern BT bullet were purchased in 1932 and added to the trials. Another 240,000 rounds were purchased in 1936-7. The ultimate outcome of the trials was the .303 Ball Mk VIII adopted for Vickers MGs in 1938. This was the first British service cartridge with a boat-tailed bullet.

[adamjp]

Odd that you don't mention some other relevant matters at the time.

The AR10 was not a true competitor in the competition that resulted in the M14 being selected as they were more concept demonstrators than pre-production rifles.
At the time NATO was seeking to standardise on ONE rifle and ONE cartridge. The US, UK and France had very different ideas about the nature of future war and the soldiers role in it. The 'other' rifle the M14 competed against was the Belgian FN-FAL which was subsequently adopted by pretty much everbody else (except the frogs and the swiss). The US Army competition was really won on the basis that the M14 did not require significant retooling of the factory and could therefore be made 'cheaper'. History tells us that those assertions were not true and the factory was significantly rebuilt to manufacture the M14 which arrived so many years late and over budget. Truth of the matter is that it was an obsolete design when the competition was run, the FAL was a better design for a battle rifle, just as the SR25 type rifle is the next generation after that (although the design needs a gas piston IMHO). The FN SCAR is the most recent design.

The FAL was actually designed around smaller rounds, the 280 Brit cartridge was a stretch, the 7.62x51 took the design to the limits.

I've used the AR10, the FAL an M1A and a G3 enough to be quite familiar with them all. I feel that the FAL was by far the best battle rifle, but the M1A was a better rifle for punching paper. Real experience from the 1960s to the 1990s suggests that the FAL was the best rifle for a soldier across the world, probably why it has been nicknamed the "right arm of freedom". Interestingly I noted several of them in the footage from Libya last year. Early AR10s didn't work that well at all, particularly after a few days in the field. The SR25 type rifles borrow alot of the developmental changes that went into the AR15 and are both similar and very different to the original AR10.

It is a pity the US went with the M14 as that choice certainly created an opportunity for the 5.56 cartridge and we have been cursed with it ever since.

[LRRPF52]

Odd that you don't mention some other relevant matters at the time.

The AR10 was not a true competitor in the competition that resulted in the M14 being selected as they were more concept demonstrators than pre-production rifles.

Agreed: The AR10 was in fact not mature during the trials, and they even experienced an aluminum-sleeved 9130 steel bore alloy barrel that burst during the tests. Stoner had warned them against such a barrel IIRC.


At the time NATO was seeking to standardise on ONE rifle and ONE cartridge. The US, UK and France had very different ideas about the nature of future war and the soldiers role in it. The 'other' rifle the M14 competed against was the Belgian FN-FAL which was subsequently adopted by pretty much everbody else (except the frogs and the swiss). The US Army competition was really won on the basis that the M14 did not require significant retooling of the factory and could therefore be made 'cheaper'. History tells us that those assertions were not true and the factory was significantly rebuilt to manufacture the M14 which arrived so many years late and over budget. Truth of the matter is that it was an obsolete design when the competition was run, the FAL was a better design for a battle rifle, just as the SR25 type rifle is the next generation after that (although the design needs a gas piston IMHO). If you mean an op-rod, then I couldn't disagree more. That's the last thing the AR10 needs, for the same reasons why it doesn't belong on an AR15. The FN SCAR is the most recent design.

The FAL was actually designed around smaller rounds, the 280 Brit cartridge was a stretch, the 7.62x51 took the design to the limits. Yes, this is a matter of history. I would also mention that the FAL that was part of the service rifle trials was named the T48, and some differences than the Belgian FAL.

I've used the AR10, the FAL an M1A and a G3 enough to be quite familiar with them all. I feel that the FAL was by far the best battle rifle, but the M1A was a better rifle for punching paper. Real experience from the 1960s to the 1990s suggests that the FAL was the best rifle for a soldier across the world, probably why it has been nicknamed the "right arm of freedom". Interestingly I noted several of them in the footage from Libya last year.

[COLOR="blue"]If we base the popularity of the FAL on production numbers, and how many countries adopted it, it can be said that it was the most successful battle rifle design out of the 4. I prefer the AR10 to it, and would rate the other 3 on their individual merits and handicaps depending on the intended use, but the AR10 really has the best of all of them, minus the FAL's adjustable gas block.

Lightweight/balance: AR10, FAL, M14, G3
Soldier's Load: AR10, G3/FAL if Aluminum mags are used, M14
Accuracy potential: AR10, G3, FAL, M14
Reliability: They're all pretty close, but you can tune the FAL to the conditions
Ergonomics: AR10, FAL, G3, M14
Logistics ease of support: AR10, G3, FAL, M14[/COLOR]

Early AR10s didn't work that well at all, particularly after a few days in the field. The SR25 type rifles borrow alot of the developmental changes that went into the AR15 and are both similar and very different to the original AR10.

It is a pity the US went with the M14 as that choice certainly created an opportunity for the 5.56 cartridge and we have been cursed with it ever since.

[COLOR="blue"]It's a pity the US tried to adopt a universal caliber system with the 7.62 NATO/M14/M60. It was inevitable that a proper assault rifle caliber would be necessary, since the battle rifle was proven obsolete by maneuver warfare during WWII.

The 5.56 is not a curse, but one of the best calibers ever adopted by the US military. It does what it was intended to do, and does it extremely well. There are other threads here where we have elaborated on that back and forth, since the Grendel offers a very attractive universal caliber system. I'm in the 5.56 camp, but am an advocate for a Grendel Multi-role LMG, which is where small arms development is needed the most, since the individual service weapon is quite ideal with the 5.56 M4 SOPMOD Block II.[/COLOR]

..

[Tony Williams]

At the time NATO was seeking to standardise on ONE rifle and ONE cartridge.

That is true, but the competition took place in two separate phases:

1. A NATO-wide competition for one standard rifle/MG cartridge. This was "won" by the 7.62x51 (even though the US Army's own testers at Fort Benning recommended that the .280/30 was a better basis for development).

2. After the calibre had been settled, there was a follow on competition for the rifle to fire it. This was effectively run by and for the US Army - the result was not binding on the rest of NATO. This was initially won by the FN FAL but the Army kept modifying the M14 and rerunning the tests until they decided that they could declare the M14 the victor. No-one else in NATO took any notice of this and nearly everyone chose the FAL, with the exception of Germany (and subsequently a few others) who chose the G3 instead. Actually, Germany would have chosen the FAL too but Belgium wouldn't permit them a manufacturing licence - a costly mistake!

The selection of the 7.62x51 was stupid and pointless. If they wanted a full-power cartridge they should have kept the .30-06 (which the UK had provisionally selected as its future cartridge before the cartridge competition issue was raised). That would have left them room to introduce a new, shorter-range round suitable for assault rifles. This is exactly what Germany had done in WW2, and the USSR immediately afterwards.

I have to laugh at the current fuss some people are making about the AAC 300 Blackout, touting it as a 5.56mm replacement. The joke is that the ballistics of the standard supersonic loading for this round are an exact match for the 7.62x39 introduced in the AK over 60 years ago! Back to the future...

[adamjp]

Germany did field the FN-FAL for many years before they adopted the G3. The used over 100,000 of them! Probably sold them off to someone when they bought the G3 into service.

The G3 seems like a cool rifle, it certainly is accurate, but I found that when it gets dirty it can become unreliable in extraction. Never had that problem with the FAL no matter how filthy it became.

LRRPF52, I going to continue to disagree with you over the 5.56.

I do agree that the 7.62x51 is too powerful for a standard infantry round and even at the time open minded participants would have realised that they had missed the objective. If the M14 had been a better rifle, and the cartridge had been something closer to the 280 Brit, then it is quite likely the combination would have lasted longer (probably the late 1970s - after Vietnam) and the 5.56 would never have been. Both the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 are purely American in their conception and to me they are examples of tunnel vision. They really could have done with a red team review - are the requirements correct, are we designing something that meets the need, are we about to build the solution - or another problem?

They are not the first, and probably won't be the last.

[LRRPF52]

Germany and the Gewehr 1, which was a FAL. The reliability potential of the G3's lack of a gas system is countered by the intricate nature of the rolling lockers. I've experienced good reliability with the HK33, however, shooting exclusively on AUTO, to include short-range work. I find it very easy to fire 2-round bursts with it, which is ideal out to 50m, and using the modern aggressive technique, I have no muzzle climb with it.

The only reasons I say that 5.56 is one of the best cartridges ever developed is because everyone I saw shot with it had injuries that didn't look like anything with a traditional entrance and exit, especially the fatalities. It is not a cartridge to be dismissed as anemic, non-capable, or under-powered.

I do believe that a 7mm could have postponed or maybe even prevented its adoption, but a long weapon like the T44/M14 still wasn't suitable for maneuver warfare. The West definitely tipped the scales away from the submachinegun influence on the assault rifle, failing to learn and internalize the lessons that the Sturmgewehr brought onto the scene, by adopting another battle rifle cartridge. While the .280 Enfield leaned towards rifle performance, it offered more controllability, & lighter weight for the soldier's load.

There seems to have been a definite disconnect between Fort Benning's Infantry Board and the Army Ordnance Corps. Once the bean-counters get a hold of something, you can usually expect a bad outcome. The 5.56/AR15 was a weapon system that escaped the jaws of doom by means of political intervention and huge demand from the SOF community in the early 1960's, and history has proven the decision to have been a sound one.

I think the combination of a 5.56 AR and 7mm LMG + DMR system would have been the most ideal at the time, and would offer a lot of maneuverability advantages today, with lighter belt-fed weapons that have better trajectories with longer endurance over the service life of the system. DMR's and snipers would have a great cartridge that shoots flatter, with less wind drift than the .30 bores, with more ammo capacity per weight.

If an AR10 in 7mm had been adopted in the late 1950's, it could have paved the way for the chambering of the SAW in the 1970's, and the GPMG would have been made obsolete with that introduction of a light machinegun that can duplicate or exceed the .30 bore ballistics for less weight. The AR10 as a SASS has finally been adopted by big green, when we could have had it in a better caliber over 50 years ago.

[montana]

The FAL was originally developed in the 7.92X33 kurz round when in development. I see there having more problems with the new M855A1 round as we speak. It seems they had to up the pressure of the new round to 63000 psi from 55000 psi getting dangerously close to a proof round, accuracy standard of the 855A1 was dropped from 2 MOA to 5.5 MOA, and barrel life in comparable rifles is now half of what it used to be. We have spent literately millions upon millions of dollars trying to fix the problems with the 5.56 round or I should say trying to make the small round do something it can't, be a universal combat round. I still stand by my belief that a Grendel type round is the best caliber in the AR type platform.

[adamjp]

The FAL was originally developed in the 7.92X33 kurz round when in development. I see there having more problems with the new M855A1 round as we speak. It seems they had to up the pressure of the new round to 63000 psi from 55000 psi getting dangerously close to a proof round, accuracy standard of the 855A1 was dropped from 2 MOA to 5.5 MOA, and barrel life in comparable rifles is now half of what it used to be. We have spent literately millions upon millions of dollars trying to fix the problems with the 5.56 round or I should say trying to make the small round do something it can't, be a universal combat round. I still stand by my belief that a Grendel type round is the best caliber in the AR type platform.

Agree with everything you have said about the 5.56. The armies of the world keep pouring $$ and time into trying to make it something it cannot be. All the research and smart bullet constructions can be applied to a slightly larger bore and deliver far better results.

In the end, this is what the British tried to do with the 280 Brit - apply some smarts to how it would work. They also applied lessons learnt 50 years before and loaded the cartridge to be suitable for use anywhere in the world, not just northern Europe where it is commonly cool to cold. I'm not suggesting the 280 was exceptional, and it did trend towards a traditional round more than what we would consider today, but it was a better approach than the 30/06 Kurz.

I should add that I still own a 30/06 and think it a great cartridge for hunting. The 223 is at best a fox round, marginal on larger game species - even with large for calibre bullets. It is popular with the Kangaroo harveting crews, but they must brain shoot so energy/wound performance is less important.

[Tony Williams]

To clarify - this is my understanding of the situation with regard to Germany and the FN FAL: the FAL was initially bought for the German Border Guard force (which has always been relatively large and well-equipped - very much a para-military force). Those guns were made by FN. The German Army decided to buy the FAL too, but because of the number of guns involved insisted on having a German production line. Either FN or the Belgian government (I'm not sure which) refused to allow this, and the rest is history. The G3 was adopted, which got HK established as a successful company and they and FN have been deadly rivals ever since.

[adamjp]

I suspect the Belgians were a little annoyed with being a German target for two world wars. Those kind of grudges run very deep.

[ss355]

To clarify - this is my understanding of the situation with regard to Germany and the FN FAL: the FAL was initially bought for the German Border Guard force (which has always been relatively large and well-equipped - very much a para-military force). Those guns were made by FN. The German Army decided to buy the FAL too, but because of the number of guns involved insisted on having a German production line. Either FN or the Belgian government (I'm not sure which) refused to allow this, and the rest is history. The G3 was adopted, which got HK established as a successful company and they and FN have been deadly rivals ever since.

Tony, that's my understanding, too. Belgium didn't want to grant Germany a license to produce their own copy of the G1, so the Germans tooled up and produced the G3 instead.

As to the whereabouts of those border guard (Bundesgrenzschutz) G1 FALs, Turkey bought a boatload of 'em. Several years ago my first FAL build was on one of the "well loved" G1 kits from Turkey. It was a little rough, but after some gas system tweaking to rectify a leaky gas tube, she ran swimmingly well.

[stokesrj]

6.5 is my favorite bore diameter. But I can't agree that the .223/5.56 was a mistake, the ammunition, possibly, especially the M855. But if the 5.56 is loaded with 77 grain SMK's it is very effective. I've grown fond of it shooting 4-8K rounds a year in the national match course of fire, it dominates over .308's regardless of platform, M1a or SR25. And a center punched 77 smk is more lethal than an off center .308.
Bob

[LRRPF52]

Belgium and FN made the right choice by not allowing Deutschland to manufacture the FAL under license, since Germany has the largest and most efficient manufacturing base in Europe. They are second to the US in global exports, so it makes every bit of sense that FN held onto their patent.

The .280 Enfield was an attempt at balancing firepower and maneuverability for the individual service rifle, and did a fine job of it from a rifle aficionado's perspective.

The 5.56 was a duty position specific cartridge meant to provide Submachinegun firepower like the MP44, with rifle performance via high velocity. It did and does exactly that within realistic engagement distances of individual riflemen. Is it ideal in longer range contacts in mountainous terrain? No, but there are duty positions within the Rifle Squad to deal with those, who aren't well-suited to clearing mud huts, where the M4/5.56 shines.

The .280 Enfield/EM-2 Bullpup system would still offer the compactness for Close Quarters work, but with a slight recoil and muzzle blast penalty that 5.56 doesn't have. Even the Grendel with 100gr bullets has a significantly louder muzzle blast and more muzzle climb than a 5.56, but I agree that it would still make an awesome assault rifle/DMR/LMG cartridge for someone who is looking to simplify their manufacturing logistics base.

5.56 is a deadly killer on 2-legged critters, and I have seen it first-hand more than once. The hype about Small Caliber High Velocity is not hype, it actually does what it was meant to do, and terribly well within 150yds. From 150yds on out, most assault rifle and battle rifle cartridges produce clean wounds anyway, so 5.56 makes more and more sense when you see how it actually performs. There is a ton of disinformation about it in gun ragazines, the internet, and gunshops.

[montana]

LRRPF52, From what I have seen is the 5.56 lethality can be traced to the thickness of the jacket. The 77 grain SMK has been doing a good job in this area but it doesn't seems to perform well with barrier penetration. And vice verse when 5.56 rounds penetrate well the lethality drops off. It seems everyone wants the best caliber for CQ and long range engagements. I personally can't complain about the recoil or blast of the 6.5 Grendel compared to the 5.56, unlike the 308, thus the reason the world chose it over a heaver cartridge The 5.56 does have an advantage over the Grendel in CQ , but I find it's not enough advantage to supersede it for a universal combat round when all the factors are weighed in. The M855A1 round seems to be another multimillion dollar boondoggle trying to fix yet another real or non real problem with the 5.56 round. It would seem to me the 6.5 Grendel round would be a more cost efficient way to obtain lethality, range, CQ work, and penetration than the 5.56. We have discussed this topic before on this forum but I would like to know your main reason for not using the 6.5 Grendel over the 5.56 as a main combat round.

[LRRPF52]

Yes, 5.56 M193 and M855 rely on thin jackets and high velocity to cause massive tissue destruction. It comes down to the fact that there is more of a likelihood to have different loads of the same caliber for different duty positions, and belt fed weapons should not have the same loadings as a carbine. In a belt-fed, we want longer-range terminal performance, to include barrier penetration and light skinned vehicle defeat capability.

In a carbine for every rifleman, key leader, RTO, assistant gunner, ammo bearer, and grenadier, we don't want extreme barrier penetration and long-range terminal performance when it means increased recoil, decreased mag capacity, increased soldier's load, and over-penetration in the distances that the unit relies on riflemen to reduce targets (within 50m usually).

Since 5.56 does such an amazing job out of such a small package, it will be hard to replace. I am in strong favor of a High Performance Intermediate Cartridge like the Grendel for a new Multi-Role belt-fed LMG, which could replace the 7.62 GPMG in the dismounted role. That will take at least a 130gr bullet at anywhere from 2600-2750fps, although 2600fps is plenty. A mass-produced 130gr FMJBT with lead core would have no trouble facilitating a .500" G1 BC.

With a two-caliber system of 5.56 and 6.5 Grendel, you would cut soldier's weight, increase maneuverability, and realize some increases in barrier penetration with higher sectional density bullets.

[stanc]

It comes down to the fact that there is more of a likelihood to have different loads of the same caliber for different duty positions...

Hmm. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I see little likelihood of that happening.

...and belt fed weapons should not have the same loadings as a carbine.

You're not alone in having that opinion. However, the Army SOP has historically been to have one load for belt-fed and mag-fed weapons. I doubt that's going to change.

I am in strong favor of a High Performance Intermediate Cartridge like the Grendel for a new Multi-Role belt-fed LMG, which could replace the 7.62 GPMG in the dismounted role. That will take at least a 130gr bullet at anywhere from 2600-2750fps, although 2600fps is plenty. A mass-produced 130gr FMJBT with lead core would have no trouble facilitating a .500" G1 BC.

Trouble is, it appears very unlikely that anybody will want to use a lead-core bullet.

The trend in Western countries is to "green" bullets, and Eastern Europe seems likely to use conventional steel-core projectiles. I'm skeptical that weights of such bullets could, in practical designs, exceed 110-120gr. So, if the MRLMG requires 130gr or heavier projectiles, 6.5 Grendel does not look like a viable choice.

[montana]

Thanks for the reply, I always enjoy your point of view based on experience, not arm chair buffoonery.

[LRRPF52]

Trouble is, it appears very unlikely that anybody will want to use a lead-core bullet.

The trend in Western countries is to "green" bullets, and Eastern Europe seems likely to use conventional steel-core projectiles. I'm skeptical that weights of such bullets could, in practical designs, exceed 110-120gr. So, if the MRLMG requires 130gr or heavier projectiles, 6.5 Grendel does not look like a viable choice.

Finland and Serbia both manufacture lead core bullets, and a healthy line of 6.5mm projectiles from both countries for the 6.5 Swede and Grendel. A Lapua and/or Prvi Partizan FMJBT is all that is needed.