• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

The 280 British in action

It really is a shame the round and the rifle didn't make it. The sand storm test was pretty convincing to me. I bet our boys in the desert would like a rifle like that, one that doesn't jam if it gets dust inside it or isn't cleaned 3 times a day in sandy conditions. It appears a lot of the technology in the video was far ahead of it's time. the rifle looked very controllable under full auto as well. I don't think a .308 rifle that size would be that easy to fire.
It would be great to have a .280 round like that in service today with our modern powders, rifles, and bullets. I can only imagine how far all that technology would have come by now had we been using that round since then instead of the .308 or 5.56. The rifle shown was impressive by today's standards, what would it be after all these years of improvements?
Truly a shame it wasn't brought into service.

Kenny

Great video, thanks for posting
 
Is it the .280 ross cartridge? This gun looks like it was made yesterday and handles better than an H&K 91. Why doesnt the military wake up.
 
Kenny & Jon - I couldn't agree more with you guys. The .30 caliber needs to go and be switched out for a 7MM.

Wayne
 
Seems to me that I remember reading the John Garand was working on a similar round for the first M1 but the army said - no way, make it a 30-06.
 
Wayne,

the rifle is the British EM-2 (Experimental Model #2) that was briefly adopted by the British forces as the “Rifle, Automatic, Calibre .280, No.9 Mk1” in April 1951, and unadopted the following year under US Army pressure placed on our government at the highest level (President Harry S Truman direct to the British Prime Minister).

The cartridge it used was the .280/30 British or 7X43mm in metric designation that arose out of a very detailed study of the external and terminal ballistics required by an infantry cartridge in the light of WW2 experience. The British, Belgians (closely involved thanks to FN's work) and the Canadians were much influenced by the German MP43/StG44 and its little 7.92X33mm cartridge, the original 'assault rifle' and 'intermediate' cartridge. The Soviets were also much impressed by the StG44 (they were the guys most often on the receiving end after all in 1944/45; the Brits and US only really saw them in the Battle of the Bulge in the hands of the 1st SS Panzer Corps infantry) and the 7.62X39mm and SKS / AK47 were heavily influenced by this combination.

The US Army was distinctly unimpressed by the 'SturmGewehr' concept, and the EM-2 + FN FAL in .280/30 calibre and basically decided to kill it. The new standard NATO infantry rifle was going to be the Springfield Armory T44 (that became the M14) and T65 cartridge that became the 7.62mm NATO, come what may. The villain in chief was one Colonel Renée Studler, Head of the US Small Arms Bureau of Ordnance, but behind him the US Army ranking generals were adamant the NATO cartridge had to be .30 calibre and have near .30-06 M2 ballistics (150gn FMJ at 2,800 fps). In the end, the USA got its way on the cartridge but not on the M14 being adopted as the only NATO infantry rifle, basically because the FN FAL got into production first and was a much better bit of kit too. To say the US Army was subsequently unpopular amongst its NATO partners when it went for 'limited adoption' of the M16 and 5.56X45mm cartridge in Vietnam then forced the improved 62gn bullet version onto everybody else at the end of the 70s when it had made everybody adopt overly heavy and hard recoiling 7.62s previously is the understatemnt of the year! (And it still didn't get things right as can be seen by the current complaints of US troops about M16 and even more M4 carbine failures as manstoppers in Iraq and Afghanistan, partial adoption of the 6.8mm Rem SPC for special forces etc.)

The EM-2 was designed and manufactured at RSAF Enfield Lock. It was a very advanced design for the late 1940s - ergonomic layout, inline layout to reduce recoil and muzzle flip, bullpup configuration to make it very short, light for the time at 7.75lbs, and the first standard infantry rifle to have an optical sight, albeit only one-power. It was very accurate by military rifle standards, had light recoil, was very easy to learn to shoot and with a low cyclic rate of 120 rounds per minute was very controllable on full-automatic fire. It was complicated though, and there are a lot of questions about how well it would have stood up to real life soldiering. If you 'Google' Enfield EM-2, there's a lot of material around on the subject. Wikipedia has a good description and history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle

The cartridge started as .270 calibre, grew to 7mm and eventually used a German designed experimental WW2 140gn FMJBT bullet that FN had worked on under German control and donated to the Brits. The cartridge is much smaller than the .280 Ross (which is around .280 Remington case size) and looks just like a 7mm BR with more case-body taper and shallower shoulder angle. It originally had a sightly smaller case-head and lower body diameter, but they were increased to the .30-06's 0.473" in 1949 or 50 to try and make the cartridge more acceptable to Col. Studler, and that's where the "/30" second half of the designation comes from. MV was around 2,415 fps - it would be a lot more now with today's propellants.

The EM-2 couldn't be adapted to the 7.62 NATO cartridge and died, but FN redesigned the FAL for the larger cartridge at the cost of extra weight and it becoming uncontrollable / overheating the barrel in full-auto fire (alongside the selective fire versions of the M14 and H&K HK91 etc), so the 7.62mm was only any good as a semi-auto cartridge in rifles - which is what the British technicians and designers tried to tell Col. Studler and the Sprigfield Armory guys, but the good colonel had decided he could change the laws of physics, or at any rate the M14 was going to be so special it would!

The .280/30 cartridge died at the same time, although there was an unsucessful attempt to revive it as a light deer cartridge in the 1980s which it would have done very well, but there was no chance with the .243 Win and 7mm-08 Rem around. It produces a very similar ME to the 6.8mm Remington SPC, but has a much better long-range ballistics performance and lethality. Because of the 0.473" dia. case-head it can't be adapted to the AR15 or similar 5.56mm rifle designs, so dead it will stay. A shame!

Here's a pic of the cartridge in between a 7.92X33mm and 7.62X51mm NATO.

Laurie,
York, England
 

Attachments

  • 7.92X33 + 7X43 +7.62X51.jpg
    7.92X33 + 7X43 +7.62X51.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 186
It really is a shame it wasn't adopted and that the Americans were stuck on .30 caliber being the be all end all.
Because of the 0.473" dia. case-head it can't be adapted to the AR15 or similar 5.56mm rifle designs, so dead it will stay. A shame!

I'm wondering what time will tell. We're seeing the 6BR being put into ARs now (.473" case head) and Remington's .30 AR has a .492" case head, though I've also seen numbers claiming it to be a 473" case head. Perhaps we'll see people start experimenting with necking the 30 Rem. AR down to 7 & 6.5 MM someday?
attachment.php


If the M14 would have been chambered in the 280 Brit. it certainly would have been more controllable but it still would have fell short of the EM-2. After all, the British were ahead of the Americans with that platform in terms of design of the recoil going straight back, something the Americans wouldn't have until the M16 series more than a decade later.

Wayne
 
Laurie already touched on the highlights here, but if you guys want to read the whole, ugly story, check out US Rifle M14, by R. Blake Stevens. That, in conjunction with his works on the FAL series (three books, dedicated to the entire FAL family and its variants) and his, The Black rifle; an M16 Retrospective, will tell the entire story here in all it's political, ballistic, engineering and historical detail. There's heroes, villians, and a cast of thousands, but it's a great history. All of Stevens' books are done through Collector Grade Publications, out of Canada.
 
...... if you guys want to read the whole, ugly story, check out US Rifle M14, by R. Blake Stevens. That, in conjunction with his works on the FAL series (three books, dedicated to the entire FAL family and its variants) and his, The Black rifle; an M16 Retrospective, will tell the entire story here in all it's political, ballistic, engineering and historical detail. There's heroes, villians, and a cast of thousands, but it's a great history. All of Stevens' books are done through Collector Grade Publications, out of Canada. [Kevin T]

Kevin,

I'd agree 100% - not cheap but great books, and the best insight into how we arrived at today's military smallarms and cartridges, which means a lot of civilian shooting stuff too.

The mention of an 'ugly story' makes me think of another book from the same stable - The Last Enfield by Steve Raw. This is a real horror story that makes the US T44/M14 rifle look a great success by comparison - that of the British SA80 rifle family that is still in service with the our forces and will be for some years to come. Enfield Lock couldn't get away from the 'bullpup' layout, so this is the 5.56mm son of EM-2, although they are completely different in their working parts.

We would have been very much better off buying M16s like the Canadians. (Not a single other country or army would buy the SA80, or even take any as a gift - not even the Falklands Islands Defence Force, a home guard militia in the islands that the UK rescued after being invaded by the Argentine and still has British troops and some RAF jets on site. They bought Austrian Steyr AUGs in preference - a wise decision.)
 
Thanks Laurie, I'll have to check that one out. I've gotten the impression that after a rather painful and prolonged teething period, the SA80 has matured into a fairly reliable system. Never had the chance to work with one first hand, however.

There's another one that covers this, albeit not in nearly teh same depth that Stevens did in his series. It also covers a lot more, well outside the scope of just this one little debacle, going all the way back to our revolutionary period. It's called Misfire, and is written by a fellow named Hallahan, as I recall. It covers all the mistakes, screwups and blunders committed by our Ordnance Corps throughout it's history. A depressing look at shortsightedness, bad judgement and refusal to learn from history. I don't agree with all his arguments, but there is a good case to be made, and he does it fairly well. I've also done enough hostorical research that I can understand some of the "mistakes" he condemns, such as the development of the trapdoor Springfields in their context. Others, such as the refusal to adopt the box magazine when it was invented by an employee of Springfield Armory, are just incredible. Some, such as our paying Germany a royalty for the M1903 rifle we were then using against them, as well as the clips and spitzer bullets, are laughable. There's a pretty complete history of the whole M1/M14/FAL period, and an absolutely brutal followup of the development and adoption of the M16 after that. A worthwhile read if you enjoy this sort of stuff (and don't we all?).
 
I've gotten the impression that after a rather painful and prolonged teething period, the SA80 has matured into a fairly reliable system. Never had the chance to work with one first hand, however.

There's another one that covers this, albeit not in nearly teh same depth that Stevens did in his series. It also covers a lot more, well outside the scope of just this one little debacle, going all the way back to our revolutionary period. It's called Misfire, and is written by a fellow named Hallahan, as I recall. [KevinThomas]

Kevin,

thanks for the tip on Misfire. I hadn't heard of that one, but have tracked down an ex-library copy somewhere in deepest USA at a price I can afford (c. $100 wanted for some copies via Amazon) so I should have it in 30-42 days time, actually probably less as surface mail USA to UK is fairly fast at the moment.

On the SA80, there were three levels of problems with the basic L85A1 rifle, as I underdstand it Kevin.

1. There were things that broke / fell off like plastic handguards, mags that dropped out, poor quality magazines (squaddies likley to see action bought Colt AR-15 mags out of their own modest pay), safety lever problems etc etc. Bearing in mind the enormous gestation period and the huge development costs, these relatively minor faults were scandalous, but were sorted fairly quickly after introduction.

2. There were basic functioning failings that led to jams, trigger assemblies not resetting, and everything apparently working but no round in the chamber and the dreaded 'dead man's click' instead of 'Bang!' when the trigger was pressed. Heckler & Koch sorted these out at very considerable cost in 2000 (£400, or around $600 US each), some 200,000 of the total of 350,000 rifles manufactured upgraded to A2 form.

3. Then there are the built in material and design failings. The biggest especially where the British Forces are currently engaged and the widespread use of those funny aircraft with rotors on top that create their own private sandstorms whenever they land or take off, is an even greater propensity to let dust and grit into the works than the M16 family. As a result, the SA80 user carries certain indispensable bits of support kit, again bought privately - rolls of decorator's masking tape to cover every one of the many openings on the beast and then rip them off if one needs to fire it .... plus a set of paintbrushes, especially a fine half-inch model, to brush dust and muck out of the receiver, carrier assembly etc. According to Steve Raw, retired head Armourer of the Royal Marines and familiar with the design from its prototype days, troops in the Middle East strip the weapons at every opportunity several times a day to use the paintbrush on their innards before repeating the King Tutankhamun mummy bit with the masking tape.

In hot, humid climates like the British South American Protectorate of Belize where UK troops undergo jungle warfare training, they also strip their L85s several times per day, but now because everything rusts if they're not constantly scrubbed and oiled.

Then there is a final real doozey for a combat weapon as opposed to a treasured and cosseted civilian match shooting pole. The 4X SUSAT sight is mounted on a flimsy stamping and the rifle is notorious for losing its zero if dropped or has a hard landing when the user takes to Mother Earth in a hurry to avoid unfriendly incoming fire.

The great redeeming feature of the L85A2 is that it makes a lovely range rifle. Every time the House of Commons Defence Select Committee members have been recipients of the numerous complaints and grumbles and investigate, the MoD takes them on a trip to Bisley and lets the MPs shoot them in nice easy settled conditions, and they (rightly) go away impressed. Sadly, shooting paper targets at Bisley with selected, prepared, pre-tested and carefully zeroed rifles is rather different from using it in a proper environment - shades of the dreaded Ross rifle of WW1 era that I can personally confirm makes a wonderful service-match rifle, but acquired a dire reputation amongst its Canadian users on the Western Front before its withdrawal and replacement by SMLEs in 1917.

As for the L86A1 LSW (Light Support Weapon) variant, let's not even go there - it only entered service because the proving trial results were 'fiddled' in various ways to massage really poor reliability levels including frequent serious failures that saw breech explosions destroy bolts. (This event was reclassified from a 'major failure' to an 'intermediate' level by inventing a fiction that all L86A1 users would carry a spare carrier and bolt in the weapon's toolkit, so it would be a strip / replacement job in the field to get it back into service!) In practice, two to three magazines worth of sustained full-auto fire would usually see the weapon jam badly and only work again after complete strip-down and major cleaning / defouling work on the carrier, bolt and gas assemblies. However, the zero would 'wander' so badly with a few magazines worth of full auto fire due to barrel heating and distortion, that the hapless user would be lucky to hit anything smaller than a barn door anyway.

To save face the MoD would never admit to its serious failings and withdraw the weapons, and even tried to withdraw the 7.62mm L7A1 GPMG instead on the basis the infantry now had the L86 for automatic fire support, but facts eventually had to be faced and full-auto fire was in effect banned except in emergencies, this 'machine-rifle' reclassified as a semi-automatic long-range squad rifle and the support role taken over by hurriedly purchased SAW FN Minimi LMGs for Gulf War 2 - and the 7.62mm L7A1 belt-fed gun is still in service too as well as .50-Cal M2s despite their being officially redundant many years back and due to go into store. Evewn the L86's 'long-range' sharpshooter role seems to have gone downriver too now with the purchase of 440 Lewis Tool & Machinery Co. 7.62mm semi-auto L129A1 'Sharpshooter' rifles, some years after your miloitary recognised the need for the M110 Knight's Armaments Co job. What the Mod did succeed in doing was to strip the Royal Marines of their beloved 7.62mm BREN guns, a proper box magazine-fed squad light machinegun, these rebuilt WW2 manufactured converted .303s being wonderfully accurate and reliable with the essential spare QD barrel. I'd bet some of the older Marines would happily wrap an L86's barrel around the neck of whichever MoD civil servant or senior officer instigated the BREN's replacement by the appalling SA80 based mostrosity!

Not a happy tale!

There is one other country that uses an SA-80 variant, the Jamaica Defense Force uses them as well.

Kenny - I stand corrected. Bearing in mind the Belize problems, I wonder how they do in the Carribean climate?

PS there is an inherent problem with the 'bullpup' layout that affects both EM-2 and SA80 (but not the similar layout Steyr AUG that can be reconfigured quicjkly and easily) - the rifle has to be fired from the right shoulder as the (fixed) ejection port and cocking lever are adjacent to the firer's left ear if mounted Southpaw fashion. So, the 10% or so of the population who are left-handed just have to unlearn 18 or 20 years' of living and use their right arm, hand and eye! Also, in a CQB street-battle environment, the user has to unmask his entire body when going around the corner of a building on his right side on a street junction to bring the rifle into use, unlike conventional layout rifles like the M16 and AK series which can be mounted on the left temporarily if clumsily by right-handed users. The British Army was still fighting Provisional IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland's streets when the L85 was introduced and it was soon noticed that patrol leaders somehow chose routes that saw them invariably take left turns at road junctions!
 

Attachments

  • L129A1 sharpshooter.jpg
    L129A1 sharpshooter.jpg
    43.3 KB · Views: 130
Incidentally, anybody interested in the EM-1 and EM-2 experimental Enfields and the .270 / 7mm British cartridges will find an extensive and well illustrated article in the Gun & Ammo 1972 Annual softback publication (a much higher quality production than early Gun Digest editions and printed on glossy paper).

This is a very detailed (11 pages) history and investigation by Major F W Hobart and is copiously illustrated with period photos, line drawings of action and trigger assembly etc parts. There are other interesting features in the annual too including an article on long-range match rifles of nostalgic interest to old one-time 'sling-shooters' like myself who shot Enfield, Parker-Hale TX and (not in my case) Winchester Model 70 Target and Palma rifles.

You can even still get the annual at under $20 on Amazon ......

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000EGH20Q/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&qid=1294230894&sr=8-1&condition=all

..... so (sadly! unbelievably!) my tatty old copy isn't worth the small fortune I was sure it must be worth now as a collectors' item. C'est la vie!
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,026
Messages
2,188,225
Members
78,647
Latest member
Kenney Elliott
Back
Top