Printable View
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.
This is not the 270, 280, 280/30 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
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.
It's simple if you look at it the right way.
The money is in developing and testing new ammunition and arms.
Nothing sexy about adding bells and whistles to 5.56 or 7.62!
If you are developing something "new" you can look for grants to research and develop it. You can have meetings with important people who all need taking to expensive meals. People can go on fact-finding visits. Just watch the money go around.
Knowing the American system, as soon as the Army accept a calibre the Navy will reject it and develop their own! :)
[QUOTE=Alan de Enfield;522481]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.[QUOTE]
I don't think colonel Rene Studler who was in charge of the trials had any intention of passing anything that wasn't .308W, the decision for making .308 the winner was probably made before the trials started!
As an aside I've always wondered how a No.5 chambered in .280 British would perform.
Not made here is an important part of military decisions.
Not since the .276 P-13 debacle.
Considering how willingly they dance to the tune in much larger matters I suggest it's almost a certainty. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
[QUOTE=Strangely Brown;522503][QUOTE=Alan de Enfield;522481]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.There's an interesting idea Mick....Quote:
I don't think colonel Rene Studler who was in charge of the trials had any intention of passing anything that wasn't .308W, the decision for making .308 the winner was probably made before the trials started!
As an aside I've always wondered how a No.5 chambered in .280 British would perform.
I believe Lithgow have trialed an F88 derivative in the new calibre, as far as I'm aware it's the first alternative rifle offered, or at least trialed.
Considering the new calibre is apparently optimised for shorter barrels, god knows what sort of blistering velocity that bullet leaves the muzzle with a 21" barrel.
One just has to look at the stopping power of current 5.56 ammo. Clearly to wound has more benefit in committing assisting troops, but 7.62 was always a one round man stopper, well certainly in my service.
Sad reflection on the times when certain ammo and weapons are brought in for no discernable reason and just don't make the mustard!!
Clearly to wound has more benefit in committing assisting troops
Based on the assumption that any potential enemy gives a stuff about their wounded, or even their troops in general. Korea, and conflicts since, have certainly shown that the enemy had little regard for their wounded.
One can enjoy the double entendre of the phrase and the scenario anyway; it's "pregant" with meaning after all! :D
So a possible load out for a squad would be 5.56/308/6.8 - training ammo that may not shoot to the same poi less recoil then one goes into the field where its at the pointy end with the fighting ammo with its 80000 psi ammo and harsher recoil how will they perform.
Then ol mate runs out of his hot ammo who is he gunna get some off, they going to be loaded up to the gunnels with ammo isn't it prudent to at least have compatible ammunition in your group incase of an extended fire fight.
Or just equip the whole squad with the new weaponry, bean counters!
I was having a coffee with a serving SASR member a few days ago and much was the discussion on how our troops were equipped or the lack of.
SASR are a bit more fortunate than the regs but they still had to pilfer when deployed, I cannot fathom the successive govt cutbacks that have placed our country ripe for the picking we would be an easier target than the Ukraine.
And to form a militia well Johnny Howard saw to that occurrence never happening.
Now that's just it isn't it. Keeping the contractors in business and competitive is a large part of the equation. This switch, like many, is driven largely because some defense contractor convinced some bureaucrats (military bureaucrats included) that there was an overwhelming need, and of course their new gadget is the only solution. The actual "need" rarely drives the bus in these decisions because the idea of "needs" early on gets perverted by whoever is trying to line their pockets. Easy examples abound...$1.7million single stall public bathroom https://abc7news.com/sf-expensive-ba...ooms/12347868/, $10,000 toilet seat for a C130 https://www.military.com/defensetech...cials-say.html, never mind all my examples are from the sh!tter.Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinA
I wouldn't worry too much for the old MIC; unless holding a lot of stocks in it. They've got to replace all that kit accidentally left in Viet'stan, and besides we have a lovely little war going on in Europe that is already producing some record profits.:dancingbanana:
Wasn't it Orwell who wrote something about continual warfare as a feature of the state? Certainly the Carnegie Foundation determined more than a century ago that war is the most effective and expeditious way of changing a society; for the better of course! ;)