.280 Enfield...Ahead of its time

[stanc]

It's too bad that the results of the ARDEC tests are not public. Then again, they might not be of great help, since 6.5mm bullets were reportedly not tested.

[Tony Williams]

Why should that be a limiting factor?

Paul's MRMG concept requires a cartridge solely for the infantry machine gun, not carbines or rifles.

And in the event the military should want a universal cartridge, they could develop new rifles with longer mag wells.

I was merely pointing out that the perceived need to fit in any AR-15 action was the limiting factor which determined the characteristics of both 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm SPC. I entirely agree with you that the common assumption that any new cartridge should be able to fit in a rebarrelled AR-15 needs to be challenged.

I wasn't talking about Paul's concept, but about a general-purpose round which could replace both 7.62mm and 5.56mm in portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry. After all, if you're going to develop a new long-range cartridge which is significantly lighter than 7.62x51 (and if it isn't, why bother?) it will also have significantly less recoil. So if you have such a cartridge, why bother with 5.56mm? You can reduce the number of different weapons and calibres in a squad (which helps with training, support and supplies) and enable ammo-sharing between members of the squad, as well as ensuring that all of the riflemen have weapons which are capable of engaging the enemy at any feasible small-arms range, especially when they get DInGO computer sights. As the US Army's PEO Soldier organisation put it last year:

A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800.
and:

Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment.

[Tony Williams]

It's too bad that the results of the ARDEC tests are not public. Then again, they might not be of great help, since 6.5mm bullets were reportedly not tested.

They tested 6.35mm and 6.8mm, and found that these two clearly performed better than 5.56mm, 6mm or 7.62mm, taking a wide range of metrics into consideration. So it's safe to assume that 6.5mm would perform very well too.

[stanc]

I wasn't talking about Paul's concept, but about a general-purpose round which could replace both 7.62mm and 5.56mm in portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry. After all, if you're going to develop a new long-range cartridge which is significantly lighter than 7.62x51 it will also have significantly less recoil. So if you have such a cartridge, why bother with 5.56mm?

Because currently, at least, 5.56mm makes more sense for riflemen, all factors considered.

Your GP cartridge concept could be tested and evaluated via the means suggested by a member of your forum: Use a rifle chambered for a surrogate 6.5mm round (loaded with an 8-gram ball-equivalent bullet @ 800 m/sec), and see if actual shooting -- as opposed to trajectory charts -- produces any increase in 800-meter hit probability compared to a 5.56mm bullpup rifle and/or M4 carbine.

(I had hoped your members would actually do such testing, instead of just talking about the concept. Disappointing.)

You can reduce the number of different weapons and calibres in a squad (which helps with training, support and supplies) and enable ammo-sharing between members of the squad, as well as ensuring that all of the riflemen have weapons which are capable of engaging the enemy at any feasible small-arms range, especially when they get DInGO computer sights. As the US Army's PEO Soldier organisation put it last year:

A Soldier must be able to engage the threat he’s faced with – whether it’s at eight meters or 800.
and:

Ultimately, Army service rifles must be general purpose in nature and embody a series of tradeoffs that balance optimum performance for a wide range of possible missions in a range of operating environments. With global missions taking Soldiers from islands to mountains and jungles to deserts, the Army can’t buy 1.1 million new service rifles every time it’s called upon to operate in a different environment.

I totally agree with the theory. The question is, does it translate to reality well enough to make it worth implementing?

Will DInGO really provide the improvements claimed for it, and also be sufficiently rugged for use on the battlefield?

Will the rifle and ammunition be capable of the precision needed to actually hit an opponent at 500-800 meters?

If the combination of soldier, rifle, sights and ammo is not truly 800-meter capable in practice, then you'd be penalizing him with unnecessary weight and recoil.

[stanc]

They tested 6.35mm and 6.8mm, and found that these two clearly performed better than 5.56mm, 6mm or 7.62mm, taking a wide range of metrics into consideration. So it's safe to assume that 6.5mm would perform very well too.

Probably so. But, without knowing what their metrics were, or for that matter, any specifics (bullet weights, muzzle velocities, etc) I'd prefer to not assume anything about the claimed conclusions. They might be valid, or they might be a case of GIGO.

[stanc]

Now, this is interesting:

...a new caliber study has been initiated by ARDEC?

This time the range of calibers will be comprehensive... Also the type of testing will look at lethality (gel tests) as well basic ballistic performance. As with the previous study, I believe two bullet types will be used: solid copper and steel/ copper composites.

Most important, the results will be publicised.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/m...msg=5074.8

[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.

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

Nah. The FAL in 7.62x51 was the best choice.

[video=youtube;yUj-uFf6YBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUj-uFf6YBs[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUj-uFf6YBs

[Variable]

Nah. The FAL in 7.62x51 was the best choice.

[video=youtube;yUj-uFf6YBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUj-uFf6YBs[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUj-uFf6YBs

Bwaahahahahahah! That was hilarious! You made me spit diet coke all over my ipad.

I think the people in McDonalds think I'm a little touched in the head now.


Ahhh Rhodesia.... We'll know how they felt soon enough....

[LRRPF52]

That is hilarious, especially about slings.

[Buck2732]

Ah yes the sling... The British military has always had a love hate relationship with the sling. With the SLR you were "encouraged" not to use while in the field at all, unless you where partaking in arms drill where it was a must. Just for the buggeration factor.

L85 it was a must for any occasion except for arms drill.

[Von Gruff]

I must have missed this vid the first time arround but watched it on U tube then some of the others linked to it. Great fun. Thanks for posting.

[Buck2732]

I know, holy thread resurrection bat man.

I have posted this elsewhere on the forum. So, at the risk of boring you all twice.

A friend and I are having a pair of Rem700s re-barrelled in 280/30. So soon we can have some side by side comparisons with the Grendel

[BluntForceTrauma]

Looking forward to your results. Will need good photos of the .280 cartridges!

[stanc]

What kind of comparisons are planned?

[Buck2732]

I was thinking of results on deer or boar if one happens to cross my path, results out to 1000y. Is there owt you would like? Stanc.

[kmon]

Another 6.5 that I am a fan of is the 6.5X54MS, the 1903 has one of the smoothest bolt actions I have ever owned. The 280 would have been a fantastic round if it had been adopted. When I was discussing building a Grendel bolt action on another forum several tried to talk me out of it saying I needed a 6.5 Creedmoor for more speed. My reply was I do not need more speed the Grendel has enough to get the job done I will ever ask of it. If I need more speed from a 6.5 diameter bullet that is what the 6.5-284 and 264 Win Mag are for.

If you look back into the history of the 6.5 rounds the Sweede has been around since 1892 and been getting the job done since then. The 6.5X54 MS was one of Bell's favorite elephant calibers and it is less powerful than the Sweede. Those early military 6.5s used long/heavy for caliber bullets and penetrated due to the high sectional density beyond what might seem logical to some. Those long bullets also required a fast twist rifling to be used to stabilize them which works great for us these days since those long for caliber pointed bullets also have a high BC for long range work. One big advantage of the long high BC bullets I rarely see discussed is retained energy at extended ranges. High BC bullets shed less velocity than lower BC bullets as range increases there fore have more energy delivered on target, do the math between the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8SPC and it becomes easy to see and explain.

[stanc]

I was thinking of results on deer or boar if one happens to cross my path, results out to 1000y. Is there owt you would like? Stanc.

No, thanks. Was just curious. Since you posted in the military section, I wondered if perhaps you were intending to do gel tests and barrier penetrations with FMJ bullets.

[Buck2732]

No, thanks. Was just curious. Since you posted in the military section, I wondered if perhaps you were intending to do gel tests and barrier penetrations with FMJ bullets.

Stanc, I would love to be able to do those sort of tests over here but the ranges are not set up for that sort of thing and I don't own enough land to do them either. However if the lottery numbers ever come in and I still have breath in my body watch this space.

I anyone has any suggestions please feel free to ask.