.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

[stanc]

I agree 6.5 Grendel is the best choice, if the selection is limited to "established" cartridges.

However, Paul's proposal is to load to greater than established (SAAMI) pressure and OAL. That effectively makes the proposed 6.5 Grendel MRLMG load a new cartridge which requires as much or more development and proofing as competing rounds like 6.8 SPC w/long-ogive bullets, or Cris Murray's 7 UIAC and 6.86 UIAC.

That the 6.5 MRLMG load requires a lead-core 130gr (or heavier) projectile, when the US and other armies are fielding unleaded bullets, and many other nations use steel-core bullets, causes me to question its viability.

If all that wasn't enough, there is also the complete lack of terminal effects testing with military-type ball projectiles.

[Variable]

Well someone needs to just win the lottery and have a new and updated Spanish "Ameli" built in Grendel with either continuous or disintegrating links... I don't care which, just send me one and I'll die the world's happiest man.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/spanish-ameli-lmg

[LRRPF52]

That's the size/weight I was thinking of, and the CETME LMG isn't forgotten in my mind. I've been thinking of 2 different designs-one a scaled down M60E4-type, and another a bullpup. The CETME is just under 12lbs too, which is the threshold of weight for an empty LMG for the Infantry Squad. I would like to see a gun in the 10-11lb range, properly balanced.

[Variable]

Did you .280 fans see this?

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-conte...manual.pdf

[Tony Williams]

I agree 6.5 Grendel is the best choice, if the selection is limited to "established" cartridges.

However, Paul's proposal is to load to greater than established (SAAMI) pressure and OAL. That effectively makes the proposed 6.5 Grendel MRLMG load a new cartridge which requires as much or more development and proofing as competing rounds like 6.8 SPC w/long-ogive bullets, or Cris Murray's 7 UIAC and 6.86 UIAC.

That the 6.5 MRLMG load requires a lead-core 130gr (or heavier) projectile, when the US and other armies are fielding unleaded bullets, and many other nations use steel-core bullets, causes me to question its viability.

If all that wasn't enough, there is also the complete lack of terminal effects testing with military-type ball projectiles.

Agreed - especially the lead-free bullet issue (whether we like it or not). The US Army are uninterested in ballistics achieved with lead-cored target bullets, they want EPR-style bullets.

Incidentally, this site has a feature which I really hate - if you're rather tired and not concentrating, the obvious button to press after you've finished typing a response is the big "Reply to Thread" button. Which has the effect of wiping out everything you've just typed and leaving you with a blank reply form. Yup, this is my second try at responding, and is a lot shorter than the first!

[Tony Williams]

Did you .280 fans see this?

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-conte...manual.pdf

Thanks for that. Amazing what's available on the web these days.

[JASmith]

Incidentally, this site has a feature which I really hate - if you're rather tired and not concentrating, the obvious button to press after you've finished typing a response is the big "Reply to Thread" button. Which has the effect of wiping out everything you've just typed and leaving you with a blank reply form. Yup, this is my second try at responding, and is a lot shorter than the first!

And here I thought I was the only fat-fingered fuzzy-brain!!

My problem is generally hitting "Preview Post" instead of "Submit Repy" after I've previewed the post and then going on to the next topic. Amazing how many of my posts have gone into "never-neverland"!!

[LRRPF52]

That EM-1 looks like a constant recoil system. There is a lot of room for the operating parts to travel without impacting the rear of the receiver. Looks like about an inch of clearance, which is a lot.

[Variable]

Yeah, it looks like it might be. I think the built in stripper clip guide in the back of the mag is rather novel as well. I've never seen anything like that before.

[Steyr94]

Don't know if anyone has said this, so i'm saying it. Imagine the possibilities if the .280 British were loaded with modern powders, maybe a stronger case, and given lead-free bullets. With all that it could probably still be a viable cartridge today.

[LRRPF52]

Don't know if anyone has said this, so i'm saying it. Imagine the possibilities if the .280 British were loaded with modern powders, maybe a stronger case, and given lead-free bullets. With all that it could probably still be a viable cartridge today.

In its historical loads, it is viable today. A 7mm-08 would have been better than a 7.62 NATO, considering trajectory, recoil, barrel life, and ammo weight, but not a huge improvement.

[stanc]

I've been looking at this cartridge more and more, and have always felt that the US really screwed the pooch by not adopting it.

Composing my .276 Pedersen thread got me to thinking about this one, again.

I must disagree with both your comment and the title premise. The .280 British was definitely not ahead of its time. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a battle rifle cartridge, developed after intermediate rounds like .30 Carbine and 7.92 Kurz had already shown a better way forward.

However, I do agree that a terrific opportunity was missed. IMO, what should have been done at that point in time was to mate the superbly shaped, 125gr bullet from the .276 Pedersen, with the .30 Remington case shortened to, say, ~1.6" length.

The resulting .276 Rem Kurz would have enabled creation of assault rifles with significantly lighter weight and much greater magazine capacity than battle rifles chambered in .280 British.

Photo: .270 British / .280 British / 7.62 NATO / .276 Rem Kurz

[stanc]

Standard lead-core [6.5mm] Ball bullets are 140gr. Steel-core projos should weigh much less, and 112gr seems about right.

If your specimens actually have tungsten cores, that would account for their heavy [145-146gr] weight.

That's a thought. I've never actually checked them with a magnet. I took what I was told for authoritative.

Have to do some digging tonite!

Bill, did you ever look into this matter?

[Tony Williams]

I must disagree with both your comment and the title premise. The .280 British was definitely not ahead of its time. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a battle rifle cartridge, developed after intermediate rounds like .30 Carbine and 7.92 Kurz had already shown a better way forward.

I have to disagree there, Stan. The .280 was not ideal, but it was a viable general-purpose cartridge, unlike the 7.62x51, .30 Carbine, 7.92 Kurz and 7.62x39. The recoil was only around 7 ft lbs compared with about 11 ft lbs with the .303 Lee Enfield, making it controllable in auto fire.

The criticisms I would make of it are that the selection of a 7mm heavy bullet (to meet the US 2,000 yard performance criterion) meant that the MV had to be kept down, giving it a rather curved trajectory. It also meant that the ammo weight was rather high (although significantly lighter than the .303 and .30'06 which it was aiming to replace).

I would rather have gone for the .270 British (6.8x46) which had a base diameter similar to the Grendel's, but not in the 100-grain loading: with a heavier and more aerodynamic bullet of around 125 grains I think it would have been the optimum compromise.

[stanc]

I have to disagree there, Stan. The .280 was not ideal, but it was a viable general-purpose cartridge, unlike the 7.62x51, .30 Carbine, 7.92 Kurz and 7.62x39.

With what part of my OP are you disagreeing, Tony?

Certainly the .280 was a viable cartridge for a one-caliber system. But, the one-caliber battle rifle/GPMG concept had already been outmoded by advent of the assault rifle and intermediate cartridge before the .280 round had even left the drawing board.

And I dont know how you can seriously claim the 7.62x51 was not a viable GP round, considering how many countries used it for that purpose.

I would rather have gone for the .270 British (6.8x46) which had a base diameter similar to the Grendel's, but not in the 100-grain loading: with a heavier and more aerodynamic bullet of around 125 grains I think it would have been the optimum compromise.

I agree. However, the .270 is still significantly bigger and heavier than necessary for the assault rifle cartridge in a two-caliber system.

[Tony Williams]

I disagree with all of your statement that I quoted.

My own view of the evolution of small arms ammo in the 20th century goes like this:

Phase 1. Full power 7.5-8mm cartridges (.30'06, 7.62x51 etc)

Phase 2. The full-power cartridges were supplemented by short-range assault rifle cartridges because auto fire from shoulder guns was found valuable in battle, and the full-power ones were unsuitable for this (7.92x33, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 etc).

Phase 3 (yet to be achieved in service). General-purpose rounds, with the long-range performance to replace the full-power cartridges but low enough recoil to replace the assault rifle cartridges too. The .280 fell into this group, so might the 6.5 Grendel.

So it wasn't the .280 which was outmoded but the 7.62x51. I'd reword your quote as follows:

"The (.280 British) 7.62x51 was definitely not ahead of its time. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a battle rifle cartridge, developed (after intermediate rounds like .30 Carbine and 7.92 Kurz) even though rounds like the .280 were already showing a better way forward."

[stanc]

I disagree with all of your statement that I quoted.

My own view of the evolution of small arms ammo in the 20th century goes like this:

Phase 1. Full power 7.5-8mm cartridges (.30'06, 7.62x51 etc)

Phase 2. The full-power cartridges were supplemented by short-range assault rifle cartridges because auto fire from shoulder guns was found valuable in battle, and the full-power ones were unsuitable for this.

Phase 3. General-purpose rounds, with the long-range performance to replace the full-power cartridges but low enough recoil to replace the assault rifle cartridges too. The .280 fell into this group, so might the 6.5 Grendel.

I see. Thanks for elaborating.

So it wasn't the .280 which was outmoded but the 7.62x51. I'd reword your quote as follows:

"The 7.62x51 was definitely not ahead of its time. Quite the opposite, actually. It is a battle rifle cartridge, developed even though rounds like the .280 were already showing a better way forward."

Well, I never claimed that 7.62x51 was ahead of its time. As for the .280 being a better way forward, I have to disagree. It had most of the same undesirable traits as 7.62x51: Rifles heavier and longer than necessary for either infantry or (especially) support troops; ammunition heavier and more powerful than necessary for either infantry or (especially) support troops; limited (20-rd) magazine capacity; excessive muzzle blast in short barrels.

If .280 had been adopted by the US, it would've been superseded by 5.56 in the mid-1960s, and for the same reasons 7.62x51 was.

I long argued for a "general-purpose" or "universal" cartridge,* but it is debateable if such a round is truly a better idea than the two-caliber system that has worked very well in combat for the last six decades. Certainly LRRPF52 has made a strong case that it's a bad idea, and only the Chinese have actually attempted it (with 5.8x42).

* http://www.g2mil.com/6mm_optimum_cartridge.htm shows my 1990s concept for a GP cartridge. Like the 6.5/8/800 discussed on your forum, my 6x48 Optimum is based on the .30 Remington case. Coincidentally, I initially planned for it to be 6.5mm, but switched to 6mm in order to get a high-BC, lightweight bullet.

[Tony Williams]

As for the .280 being a better way forward, I have to disagree. It had most of the same undesirable traits as 7.62x51: Rifles heavier and longer than necessary for either infantry or (especially) support troops; ammunition heavier and more powerful than necessary for either infantry or (especially) support troops; limited (20-rd) magazine capacity; excessive muzzle blast in short barrels.

Length of M61 rifle: 38.8 inches: Length of EM-2: 35 inches

Empty weight of M61 rifle: 6.4 lb (iron sights) [M61A2 8.3 lb]: Empty weight of EM-2: 7.5 lb (including optical sight).

The ammunition of the EM-2 was heavier than necessary because of the heavy bullet loading and the selection of the same case diameter as the 7.62mm, but it was not too powerful: muzzle energy was around 1,850 ft/lbs, about the same as the 6.5 Grendel. I am unaware of any problems with muzzle blast (even the short-barrelled Para version had something like a 19 inch barrel).

I will grant you the limited magazine capacity - another result of adopting the 7.62mm case diameter.

If .280 had been adopted by the US, it would've been superseded by 5.56 in the mid-1960s, and for the same reasons 7.62x51 was.

Not unless the US Army insisted on using it in an overweight and oversized rifle like the M14!

The US Army's stated aim for what became the M14 was to replace the M1 Garand, M2 Carbine, M3 SMG and BAR. What they came up with could only replace the Garand, so they scored only 1/4.

The EM-2 and .280 were a complete concept, conceived together. The compact size and light weight of the EM-2 allowed it to be a genuine replacement for the M2 Carbine and SMGs as well as the standard rifle, so it scored 3/4 (in fact, with the optional bipod it arguably would have made the BAR unnecessary too, giving it 4/4).

LRRPF52 has made a strong case that it's a bad idea, and only the Chinese have actually attempted it (with 5.8x42).

The Chinese missed a golden opportunity to introduce a genuine general-purpose cartridge, which was their stated aim. They went with paper ballistics and light ammo/recoil instead of recognising that a round able to replace the 7.62x54R as well as the 7.62x39 must have a far more effective long-range performance.

[stanc]

The ammunition of the EM-2 was heavier than necessary because of the heavy bullet loading and the selection of the same case diameter as the 7.62mm...

True, but the pertinent fact is that it was heavier and bulkier than necessary.

I am unaware of any problems with muzzle blast (even the short-barrelled Para version had something like a 19 inch barrel).

In line with the thread title, I was thinking of the 10.5-inch and 14.5-inch barrels currently in US service. I'm sure muzzle blast in 19-inch and longer barrels was tolerable.

If .280 had been adopted by the US, it would've been superseded by 5.56 in the mid-1960s, and for the same reasons 7.62x51 was.

Not unless the US Army insisted on using it in an overweight and oversized rifle like the M14!

And that's precisely what they would have done.

Like the British, the Americans wanted to have a rifle of their own design. To this day, the US Army has disliked bullpup rifles, which ruled out adoption of the EM-2, and they clearly weren't ready to accept the AR-10.

That leaves the T44/M14, and I think it very unlikely they'd have gone to the trouble and expense of redesigning the receiver to optimize it for a 0.25" shorter cartridge. They may have cut the barrel to 20-inch length (as in the T44E6, below) for a .280 M14, but that would've produced negligible weight reduction.

So, with a .280 M14 they still would've encountered the same manufacturing delays that led to the forced adoption of the M16 and 5.56x45 ammunition.

The US Army's stated aim for what became the M14 was to replace the M1 Garand, M2 Carbine, M3 SMG and BAR. What they came up with could only replace the Garand, so they scored only 1/4.

Agreed. However, that situation wouldn't have been any different with a .280 M14.

The EM-2 and .280 were a complete concept, conceived together. The compact size and light weight of the EM-2 allowed it to be a genuine replacement for the M2 Carbine and SMGs as well as the standard rifle, so it scored 3/4 (in fact, with the optional bipod it arguably would have made the BAR unnecessary too, giving it 4/4).

I think you may be a tad optimistic about that. But, even if you're right, it's irrelevant because the US Army would never have adopted the EM-2.

The Chinese missed a golden opportunity to introduce a genuine general-purpose cartridge, which was their stated aim. They went with paper ballistics and light ammo/recoil instead of recognising that a round able to replace the 7.62x54R as well as the 7.62x39 must have a far more effective long-range performance.

I completely agree.

[JASmith]

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.