.280 British

[Nolo]

We're all pretty familiar with .280 British, I think. The huge lost opportunity in the '50s. I guess my question is, why hasn't it or something like it become a commercial round? It seems it'd be just as good in civilian hands as in military hands (after all, it is in the same energy class as the .30-30, an extremely popular deer caliber), and I know I'd love a nice semiauto (like an M1A) in that round or something similar.
So why wasn't it or something like it picked up by a manufacturer? The only round I can think of that is similar is the 7mm-08, and that's entirely more powerful than the .280.

 

[Ol` Joe]

Hmmm, what of the 7-30 Waters?

 

[R.W.Dale]

7mmBR or even the 6.5x50 Japanese

 

[Sunray]

The 6.8 SPC is very close, ballistically. Mind you, to have an M1A, now, in any cartridge other than .308, you're looking at a custom barrel and mag modifications. Possible, but not cheap.

 

[Newton]

The 6.8SPC is essentially the .280 British reborn.

Just my 2c, but we were arrogant idiots to force the 7.62NATO on them in the first place, and the 5.56mm in the second place.

The Brits had it right all along, 6.8SPC should be renamed 6.8WE'RE SORRY.

 

[Jim Watson]

In its day, people were not interested in a LESS powerful caliber. The demand would have been low for a commercial .280 British of any of the several variants.

 

[PercyShelley]

Wasn't the .280 British based on the .308/30-06 bolt face? I know that there are various cut-down .308 wildcats, like the .308x 1.5 Barnes, and even variants thereof that are a little bit longer, and probably some that are necked down. Between that and .30-30 and .300 savage wildcats, there are probably a number of cartridges that closely imitate the performance of the 7mm British.

Some of the milder 7x57 loads with 140 grain bullets would also be a very close approximation.

 

[GunTech]

The 280 British in it's final version used a 0.473 case head to be compatible with the FAL and other rifles - earlier version in the catridge family used a 0.458 case head. It specc'd out as throwing a 139g bullet at around 2500 fps. The 6.8 fires a 115gn bullet at around 2600 fps with a case head of approximately 0.422.

The 280 actually had a 7mm (0.284) bullet with a superior BC compared to the typical 0.277 bullet used in the 6.8.

 

[PercyShelley]

IIRC the EM-2 had a much longer barrel than is in style today, which probably made getting the most out of the cartridge easier.

 

[Tony Williams]

Yes, the EM-2 had a 25 inch barrel. It was still a very short gun, of course, because of the bullpup layout.

The preferred British calibre was actually .270 (6.8mm) with a lighter, high-velocity bullet, but they developed the heavy-bullet .280 in order to meet the US Army's effective range requirement (2,000 yards...).

Edit to add: the British .270's cartridge case was longer (46mm) but slimmer than the .280's.

 

[PercyShelley]

2000 yards? Even for GPMGs that's a little crazy.

That does explain the big, pointy bullet atop that little, stubby case though. The .280 British case looks like a 6.5 Grendel come to think of it.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Wasn't the .280 British based on the .308/30-06 bolt face?

That was late in the game, after the British had been jumping through US hoops for some time trying to make us happy.

I guess my question is, why hasn't it or something like it become a commercial round? It seems it'd be just as good in civilian hands as in military hands (after all, it is in the same energy class as the .30-30, an extremely popular deer caliber), and I know I'd love a nice semiauto (like an M1A) in that round or something similar.

Like Jim Watson said -- the 280 round would be quite adequate for deer, but back in the day there simply wasn't much interest in such things in the sporting community. Same basic scenario with 276 Pedersen, which would be another soft-handling but effective deer round.

 

[GunTech]

The 7mm Remington BR almost exactly duplicates the performance of the 280 British. It has the same 0.473 case head with a COAL of 2.200 inches - just under the COAL of 223's 2.260. With a 140gn bullet, velocity is around 2500 from a 20 inch bbl.

 

[GunTech]

Tony, are you sure about that 2,000 yard range requirement? Max effective range for the M60 7.62x51 machinegun is only 1100 meters with plunging fire (800m grazing fire)

 

[Nolo]

I believe it was 1000 yard range. But, knowing the US military, 2000 yards doesn't sound all that far fetched. They'd make requirements for automatic war-winning machines if they could.
"This is our new rifle, it weighs 5 and a half pounds, it shoots at 3000 rounds per minute, it produces 5000 foot-pounds of energy with each bullet, it holds 200 rounds in a magazine that weighs less than the 30-round STANAG and my 4-year-old niece can hit man-sized targets with it at 1000 yards."
"But when you pull the trigger, does it win the war?"
"Uhhhhh... no."
"Contract DENIED!!!"

 

[BullpupBen]

In my opinion NATO should have adopted the .280 British as the main combat round over both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO, and the Brits should have been deploying those awesome-looking EM2's.

But anyway, 6.8 SPC is fairly close as others have said.

 

[Tony Williams]

Tony, are you sure about that 2,000 yard range requirement? Max effective range for the M60 7.62x51 machinegun is only 1100 meters with plunging fire (800m grazing fire)

I'm trying to recall where I read this one - it was probably in Ezell's book "The Great Rifle Controversy: Search for the Ultimate Infantry Weapon from World War II through Vietnam and Beyond" which is the book on this subject. I borrowed from it for the book I wrote with Max Popenker - Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition. This is an extract:

"Towards the end of World War 2 the USA had also begun thinking about replacing the .30-06 cartridge and associated weaponry, and had developed the concept of a selective-fire 'Lightweight Rifle'. What they really wanted was the selective-fire .30 M2 Carbine but with the hitting power of the .30 Garand, at a weight of 3.2 kg (7 lbs). It was rather ambitiously hoped that this one weapon would replace the M1 Garand and the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (both in 7.62 x 63), the M1/2 Carbine in 7.62 x 33, and the M3 SMG in .45 calibre (11.5 x 23). The Lightweight Rifle was intended to chamber a shorter cartridge than the 7.62 x 63, but still with a reasonable long-range performance so it could entirely replace the older round; it was required to have "a stopping and wounding power which shall not be less than that of the standard calibre .30 ammunition [7.62 x 63] fired from the M1 at ranges of 400, 800, 1,200 and 2,000 yards [up to 1,830 m]". Many experiments followed but, contrary to all of the logic of ammunition design, the US Ordnance Department decided that they wanted to retain the .30 inch calibre. The Americans accordingly ended up with what was simply the .30-06 case shortened from 63 to 51 mm, but with a very similar performance at around 3,500 j (2,600 ft lbs) muzzle energy (made possible by improvements in propellant technology) and therefore very similar recoil. Inevitably, this meant that the planned new selective-fire rifle would prove uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire, and so it proved years before the M14 (based on the old .30-06 M1 Garand) finally entered service."​

 

[GunTech]

I'll look it up in my copy, thanks.