Historians of /k/,
Can you separate truth from memery and tell this newfag what this round really was, why it really died, and what the world might have looked if it had turned out otherwise?
>>29352180
bump
>>29352180
Nato and 7.62x51 happened
>>29352371
Thank-you for your useful and loquacious answer
>>29352180
My understanding was that it was a lighter weight .308, back when the M14 didn't exist publicly. But even though the US agreed to adopt the FAL in .308, they later revealed that the M14 was being developed in secret, so by the time the Brits adopted the L1, the EM2 had been shelved completely. Then, the US switched over to the M16 in '64 after the colossal failure of the M14, so NATO was forced to switch to 5.56, which left Britain unprepared once again and the L86 was born, and we all know how the first model of that turned out.
Tl;dr it died cause of dumb international politics. It was a light battle rifle round, and there's not really much telling what the world would look like if the .280 had been kept. We'd certainly have very accurate rifles, though higher rates of fire were available from 5.56 through standard rifles, and more controllable fire at that, so maybe we still would have switched over to something smaller.
Interestingly enough, the Polish tried to build something similar called the Lantan, which was essentially like the Stoner 63, and fired a 7x41mm bullet. It was rejected by the Soviets cause it wasn't their design even though the round performed very well. The Soviets also wouldn't let the poles have the AK 74, so that's how the Tantal was born.
>muh hindsight is 20/20
People would be bitching about muh 5.56/.223 glory days and muh fragmentation if .280 caught on
>>29352690
I honestly think 5.56 is a very good choice. It's still a capable round, but I think it's a real shame we don't have any rounds similar to the .280 or 7x41, just available to us. 6.5 creedmoor would be the closest thing. Also I really hate the M14, so there's that.
>>29352701
>hating the M14
You have no soul
>>29352648
Appreciated m8
>>29352722
It's a fine gun honestly, it's just the people who think it's better than anything else. I'm a big 1911 guy and I'll still say that people who think M14s still have a place on the battlefield are all fudds.
>>29352690
>>29352701
I dunno, 5.56 is a pretty nice military round really for what it is.
As little as I know about the .280 it was similar/very close to .270 Winchester in terms of the ballistics, while I've not fired a .270Win in a while, I do have a .270 WSM back home on the farm and its always been one of my little favourite hunting rounds. Nice flat trajectory so at around the 400m mark its only dropping about 30cm or a foot in the old scale and still got plenty of beans in it to knock over decent sized pigs and goats.
>>29352701
>It's still a capable round, but I think it's a real shame we don't have any rounds similar to the .280 or 7x41, just available to us. 6.5 creedmoor would be the closest thing
Never had the opportunity to shoot any of the latter, but I agree. 5.56 NATO is an excellent round for a great many purposes, but sometimes leaves a bit to be desired in range, energy, and mass to put down a target.
>>29352180
It died because NATO adopted 7.62x51. There's not much more to it than that. There was no point in further developing .280 because they were going to have to chamber everything in NATO calibers going forward.
>>29352805
Us army AMU is developing the .264 American.
It's basically a 6.5mm .280 British
>>29352180
part of The Gun by CJ Chivers explains in in more detail than I will, but the basic thing is
>be britan
>want to design new small arm for glorious british empire
>end up testing an intermediate cartridge
>waffle niggers across the channel make FAL prototypes chambered in it too
>NATO formed in 49
>NATO wants standardized equipment and ammo
>USA has largest pull in NATO
>USAs outdated thinking and doctrine fails to comprehend usefulness of intermediate cartridges like the Nazis and soviets
>BIGGUR IS BETTUR
>MURICA FUCK YEAH
>tell waffle niggers to rechamber FAL with amuricas shitty cut down fuddy-ought-six
>recoil on full auto turns rifle into anti-aircraft gun
>tell NATO to adopt FAL in 7.62
>turn around and build their own shitty rifle, the M14
>M14 is just a shitter M1 with a box mag and full auto capability
>full auto is also best used on m14 to take down aircraft and dislocate shoulders
>most m14s have full retard capability removed
>.280 and the EM2 are kill due to development being shitcanned and britanistan adopts semi auto FAL
>20 years later amurica realizes it fucked up and proceeds to issue even shittier rifle with smaller ammo that is still used almost 50 years later
>>29352843
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/
You have my attention
>>29352648
Off-topic, but what exactly are the differences between the tantal and the 74? I always assumed it was just the stock.
>>29352804
>280 it was similar/very close to .270 Winchester
The .270 has about 4-500fps on the .280 Brit with 130-140 grain bullets.
>>29352805
>but sometimes leaves a bit to be desired in range, energy, and mass to put down a target.
Also known as "properties needed for many purposes".
A timeline where we had "high intermediate" rifle rounds as the gold standard and 25 round magazines would have been pretty baller. At least round counts would always add up into neat multiples.
>>29352701
I wouldn't say 6.5 creedmoor is the closest, desu the closest thing we have is 6.5 Grendel. If I remember correctly they have similar muzzle velocities and similar trajectories/energy, so they're pretty close.
Now, I think personally the .280 British should have been the selected one but I am not gonna pretend there aren't valid reasons it wasn't.
If right now I was to advise a new military cartridge with no concern for logistics (just the actual abilities of the cartridge) I'd say .277 wolverine or 25-45 Sharps. Long range I'd replace 7.62×51 with 6.5 Creed or .260 REM (not 6.5×47 Lapua, just because it isn't as available, however I do suspect it is the best actual round out of the three) just because they have better energy at range for less weight and powder. That's a real win in my book.
>>29352890
That round will be a terrible flop by my estimation. I'll have to see data and range reports but to me that looks like it'll be a fucked round that does nothing well.
>>29352180
It was an intermediate round that made a different type of compromise than 5.56 did; rather than having weaker terminal ballistics than .30-06 and a slightly lesser range, .280 brit had comparable terminal ballistics and a severely reduced effective range. It died because 7.62 NATO was seen as the better intermediate cartridge.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/
Man, we should have gone with 7x45mm instead of 5.56x45.
>>29352969
Tantal has a folder and better controls iirc. Maybe a few other things. Is Polish so contrary to the screen door in a submarine bit, the poles tend to have se pretty good designs
>>29352180
The American military refused to consider any round with a diameter less than 0.30 in. They said that they would never adopt a rifle cartridge that didn't have the same (or at least in the same ball-park) accuracy as the .30-06 SGFD. The FN FAL was being designed around the .280 British and then America came out with the 7.62x51mm Nato and said "THIS IS WHAT WE'RE USING. NO DEBATE." And so the FAL was designed around the 7.62 Nato and pretty much everybody (except the USA) ended up adopting the FAL.
>>29352812
It died because the US insisted that NATO adopt 7.62, when the rest of NATO was lining up to by FALs in .280 British.
US political stupidity prevails over common sense.
>>29353792
why do you think that the lapua is the better round compared to creed and rem. i mean doesnt it have less capacity for propellant.
>>29357411
>You use a hotter propellant.
6.5x47 & 6x47 both have longer necks, operate at higher pressures, and increadibly wide accuracy nodes.
The only reason the lapua loads haven't caught on in the mainstream is because most people don't like paying $130 for 100 cases.
http://www.accurateshooter.com/featured/65x47/
>>29352843
>>29352890
Literally why when 6.5 Grendel already exists.
>>29353818
.264 USA 16.7" bbl 123g - 2657fps
6.5 lapua 27" bbl 123g - 2900fps
What is it not doing well? 10" Shorter barrel and its only down 250fps
>>29358000
I see you like cracking bolt lugs.
>>29352881
At least post the more proper greentext:
>British cannot into firearms.
Actually, Britain made really tight rifles up to WWII. Then the following happened:
>Designed kickass new cartridge
>Design brand new rifle to fire it
>Bullpup design baby
>The club can't handle me right now
>Amerifats do not like BritBullet, not fat enough, doesn't do enough damage
>MUH STANDURDS
>Demands that everyone use 7.62 and refuses to stop clapping until we agree
>Fine, let's go with 7.62mm
>Amerifats build their automatic 7.62 rifle
>Britbongs go with license to build their semiautomatic SLR
>Amerifats realise that the 7.62mm round is too difficult to control in full automatic
>British had worked all of this out almost 20 years before hand
>Hard facepalming ensues
>Americunts design a new round and rifle
>5.56mm and M16 is born
>Britain can't understand why the Americunts have broken the standard they bitched about so much
>Furthermore, they reject the BritBullet because it wasn't as "powerful" as the 7.62, but then went with a cartridge less powerful than both of them.
>No, fuck you America- we're keeping the 7.62mm
>1980s comes along
>Need new cartridge
>MUH STANDURDS, RUSSIA WILL COME LET'S SHARE AMMO BRITFRIENDS
>Shitty caliber but fine, let's do it
>SA80 is born
>>Many years later....
>The USA's recent combat experience indicates that 5.56mm is not effective for their combat needs
>We need to research an intermediate-sized cartridge
>Fucking hell, America- we already built this shit for you 50 years ago
>This somehow becomes 'Britain cannot into firearms'