The US 'ploughs its own furrow' with a new Infantry Rifle.

Maybe us Brits had it right 100 years ago with the P13 in .27 calibre.


Is a case of a solution looking for a problem, or, as someone says in the video comments :

"Just what I needed in Iraq / Afghanistan - a 40% heavier (14 lb) rifle and being able to carry less ammunition"

I wonder if NATO will follow ?


SIG M5 Spear Deep Dive: Is This a Good US Army Rifle? - YouTube

I think the Brits had it right with the EM2 to be honest, cartridge was the right balance of size and capability.

You took the words right out of my mouth there!

Let us not forget we Canucks who also prototyped the EM-2 but in the 7mm HV
It is the one rifle I regret in sending off to a permanent home in a museum.

another rifle adopted without real user input.

When I heard the concept, my first thought was "there is no free lunch".

So many upcoming problems it will be impossible to keep up.

If you issue training ammo vs service ammo it will inevitably get mixed up.

If the lifespan of your rifle is dramatically reduced by use with service ammo....

recoil and extra weight and reduced quantity of ammo....

Strange how when we launched the 280 round it was touted as 'too weak' by America and we all adopted the American Winchester 308 development that became the NATO 7.62.

The EM-2, also known as Rifle, No.9, Mk.1 or Janson rifle, was a British assault rifle. It was briefly adopted by British forces in 1951, but the decision was overturned very shortly thereafter by Winston Churchill's incoming government in an effort to secure NATO standardisation of small arms and ammunition. It was an innovative weapon with the compact bullpup layout, built-in carrying handle and an optical sight.

The gun was designed to fire one of the first purpose-designed entirely new intermediate cartridges, designed to a 1945 requirement as a result of combat experience and German advances in weapons design during World War II. The round, the .280 British, was designed to replace the .303 round, which dated to the late 19th century. The EM-2 was intended to replace the Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles and various submachineguns, while the TADEN would replace the Bren gun and Vickers machine gun.

As part of NATO standardization efforts, the United States claimed the .280 British round was too weak for use in rifles and machine guns, and instead favoured the much more powerful 7.62×51mm NATO round. A bullpup layout for a British service rifle was finally adopted some years later in form of the SA80 assault rifle, which remains in service today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Strange how when we launched the 280 round it was touted as 'too weak' by America and we all adopted the American Winchester 308 development that became the NATO 7.62.

The EM-2, also known as Rifle, No.9, Mk.1 or Janson rifle, was a British assault rifle. It was briefly adopted by British forces in 1951, but the decision was overturned very shortly thereafter by Winston Churchill's incoming government in an effort to secure NATO standardisation of small arms and ammunition. It was an innovative weapon with the compact bullpup layout, built-in carrying handle and an optical sight.

The gun was designed to fire one of the first purpose-designed entirely new intermediate cartridges, designed to a 1945 requirement as a result of combat experience and German advances in weapons design during World War II. The round, the .280 British, was designed to replace the .303 round, which dated to the late 19th century. The EM-2 was intended to replace the Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles and various submachineguns, while the TADEN would replace the Bren gun and Vickers machine gun.

As part of NATO standardization efforts, the United States claimed the .280 British round was too weak for use in rifles and machine guns, and instead favoured the much more powerful 7.62×51mm NATO round. A bullpup layout for a British service rifle was finally adopted some years later in form of the SA80 assault rifle, which remains in service today.

---

This is not the 270, 280, 280/30 series.

This is 7mm Rem Mag loaded into a (308 Win) short action case and necked down to .277.

Does anyone really believe 7 Remington Mag would be a good service rifle cartridge?

Sounds a lot like .243 Winchester, which is a very popular whitetail hunting caliber. It's usually purchased for young hunters who don't handle recoil. .223/556 isn't very popular for whitetail around here.

However deer don't usually shoot back, and you shouldn't need more than 4 rds in your magazine, so the number you carry matters not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

I think the Brits had it right with the EM2 to be honest, cartridge was the right balance of size and capability.

---

I think everyone knew that, especially after the tests at Aberdeen.....but politics as ever wins the day, rather than "best bit of kit for the purpose regardless"

I can't see any other NATO countries adopting this round at any time during the next 10-15 years.

Very similar in size and concept to the 7mm Second Optimum / 7mm Liviano of 1950s fame, except with a .277" / 6.8mm bullet stoked to the eyeballs

NO margins left.

Yet another weapon / system designed by people with ZERO experience on the two-way rifle range, or even on the more conventional training fields . The same "ballistic" outcomes could be closely approximated by adopting a "modern" bullet design for the venerable 7.62 NATO. Add a modern powder and your MGs and DMRs would be suitably "enhanced". AND the ammo would be compatible with the "war-stocks"? of dinosaur" / legacy small arms. There are some interesting developments in low-drag 140 - 150gn, .30 Cal bullets out there.

But, that is unlikely to occur, because there is not enough "spillage" to accrue to the usual suspects in these blighted times.

Also the "fiddling with 5.56 NATO is getting silly as well.

77gn bullets? How 1970s!

Last time I looked, the operating principle of the 5.56 was all about KINETIC energy and its "conversion" upon "impact". Gene Stoner and Jim Sullivan actually understood such things sixty years ago and they likewise understood the actual concept of "light-weight".

If soldiers are to continue to be equipped with serious body armour, lots of electronics, etc. as well as luxuries like water, food and first-aid gear, further burdening them with a heavier rifle that uses heavier ammo, seems a little counter-productive.