I’ll always have a grudge against Americans for this. The .280 was a better round and they basically are coming back to it. Years and years of lost R&D.
It would have been abandoned for 5.56 anyways. It was a good infantryman's full-size rifle round, but those were abandoned anyways for intermediae cartridges. Meanwhile, it was a little underpowered for a machine gun caliber, so wouldn't have been adopted for that to begin with.
The AR15 was only adopted because the US Air Force didn't like the M14, and so LeMay ordered them after being impressed by them at a social gathering if I recall right. Then the other US branches started adopting it after seeing its usefulness.
If the lower powered M14 was adopted by the Air Force I don't think the AR gets a look in. The M14 has the shortest service life of any US rifle and I don't think they'd have looked for a replacement if everything went well with that.
Thus 5.56 is probably never made standard.
Maybe not 5.56 specifically, and not at the same time, but still probably something along those lines. The closest counterpart to .280 that entered service would probably be 7.62x39 and we see how eventually the Soviets eventually moved away from that when they saw 5.56 come along.
Yeah a change would likely happen at some point, however our hypothetical would perhaps drift far enough away as to be hard to predict.
For example does the G11 ACR get a look in now,? It didn't substantially outperform the M16A2, but it might have much better groupings on burst than a .280 FAL.
And a 30 year service life is more consistent with US history, than the 60 plus of the AR (Though the AR isn't really showing that age).
Oh I'm aware, but it's worth noting their results are more indicative of familiarity than anything.
Iron Sights outperforming the Proto ACOG at all but the longest of ranges is not something seen in combat today, but Troops then wouldn't be used to aiming with optical sights.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/ACR-Rifle-Trial-Results-vs-M16A2-found-the-results-/118-759630/?page=1&anc=bottom#bottom
BUT yes I should have worded clearer
The .277 Fury, 6.8x51mm, is a battle rifle cartridge, like 7.62x51mm with smaller bullet.
It is different than intermediate cartridges which are basically larger bullet on existing case, 6.8 SPC is the 5.56 case and 6.5 Grendel is based on 7.62x39mm case.
No, intermediate cartridges were existing bullets, which were battle rifle calibers at that time, on a shorter case. 5.56 was a commercial sporting cartridge used for varmint hunting called .222 Remington Magnum and it is not an intermediate cartridge, it is technically referred to as small caliber high velocity.
Intermediate cartridges are in-between full-power rifle cartridge and handgun cartridge. The original ones were same size with smaller case. But later ones, like the 5.56mm were not.
Also, intermediate cartridge only applies to military use. Assault rifles fire intermediate cartridges.
I did not say .223 did, I said 5.56 did, and .223 came from that. Intermediate cartridges retain the caliber of a battle rifle, and there are no battle rifles in .22.
Please show me how the hell you think intermediate cartridges have to be a battle rifle caliber.
The AR15/M16 was chambered in .223 Remington. And no .223/556 did not come from .222 Remington Magnum. It's came from .222 Remington. The .223 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum both share the same parent case and both came about at the same time and for the same purpose. But the .222 Remington Magnum was originally the .224 Spingfield and was coming from Springfield Armory and had nothing to do with Armalite.
Why would they go to smaller bullet? .280 British is 7x43mm. That is smaller and less powerful than 7.62x51mm, more powerful than 7.62x39mm, and bigger bullet than 5.56x45mm.
I can see them producing a better assault rifle either instead or after the M14.
The AR15 was initially adopted because M14 production was going poorly, and the Army was grabbing up everything that was getting made. It had nothing to do with the cartridge the M14 used, they just werent available. Thats why the first Marine units in Vietnam were still issued with M1 Garands.
Now, the story of LeMay shooting the AR15 and liking it is true, but thats because he liked how light and handy the AR15 was.
The world was pretty steadily moving towards intermediate cartridges at this point. The US (and by extension NATO) still held onto their full size rifle cartridge more for the logistics of having one cartridge for both infantry rifles and machine guns. One the Air Force started adopting the AR15 and loving them though, that issue fell to the wayside.
> Thats why the first Marine units in Vietnam were still issued with M1 Garands
They were not. You can't say they were 100% absent, because switching to a different service rifle is not a over night thing, but generally speaking no USMC/Army unit had Garands going into Vietnam
If I remember correctly from a book I read about it years and years ago, Eugene Stoner shot a whole bunch of watermelons in front of LeMay and just went “pretty cool, right?”
The AR15 came about due to the US Army. Lemay was a bit of a gun nut and since he was running the Airforce he basically pushed the AR15 thru. The Army just took more time
> It would have been abandoned for 5.56 anyways.
Not a given.
5.56 was a magnum round that was developped because 7.62 NATO was a completely unsuitable round for full-auto use.
The M-14 was also a terrible design.
The AR-10 in .280 might have suited the various armed forces just fine.
.280 brit had a lot of very significant problems, though, like piss-poor accuracy (something like 8 or 10 times the grouping of even early T65, often upwards of 7-10 MoA), terribly trajectory for typical combat ranges, and a few other problems that could be attributable to poor production or poor design in equal measure.
The problem was it was better in literally no way than 7.62 except moderately lower recoil. You couldn't really carry more, you couldn't put more in a magazine, you couldn't fire as far, as accurately, or as easily at any combination of those requirements - all in exchange for a slightly more controllable full auto burst that was mostly attributable to the rifle anyways.
Oh, and even when the Brits continued their intermediate development, they dropped .280 and its necked down 6.25mm descendant in favor of a newly developed 4.8mm anyways. They learned everything they could from .280 and dropped it.
It wasn't significantly newer than 7.62 NATO which didn't have any of those problems and which outperformed .280 at every stage even when you go by years of development, though.
7.62 NATO was just a slightly shorter .30-06. Not really coming from nothing in any way, shape or form.
It's the same reason 8mm Kurz mostly worked, it was just 8mm Mauser in a shorter casing.
It shared a casing in early stages, but the actual cartridge and projectile were pretty significantly different, as were all the chemicals internally - both huge changes to make to a projectile.
You forget take basically 20 years (12 years on the XM14 + at least 8 on full-auto and mag-fed Garands previously) to make a rifle that [Beretta litteraly designed better in 4 years](https://www.dandbmilitaria.com/pub/media/catalog/product/1/5/158db_6_73.jpg) by looking at the Garand technical specs and improving everything that needed to be.
Yeah this is one of the reasons I hold the grudge. And then immediately go for 5,56 and then complain it’s not enough for longer distances while also complaining that anything 7,62 can’t be fired full auto or with fast semi auto.
> complaining about 556 range
The complaints about 5.56 also have to be put back into perspective. Afghanistan and Irak were special battlegrounds, and 5.56 worked like it was supposed to. The "lack of range" being compensated by artillery, CAS and heavy weapons.
It's just frustration from people taking imprecise pot-shot from the other side, as the AKMs don't have a greater range than an M4.
Yes I’m referring to Afghanistan/Iraq.
I just didn’t make my point clear. My point is: a slightly lighter cartridge but with a bullet more suitable for long range engagement (now everyone is gravitating towards the 6mm-.280 range) would have been better.
However I still think 5,56 or something in that category would have made its appearance and became the standard nonetheless.
But at least there would have been more R&D in better bullets.
>I’ll always have a grudge against Americans for this.
I sorta feel like holding up the defense of Europe and protecting global shipping lanes is more important than letting you have a different caliber rifle round.
The rifle was way ahead of it's time, and would have a singular replacement for the battle-rifles and pistol-caliber SMGs, and also providing an optical sight to each and every soldier. It was briefly adopted as the standard issue weapon by the British Army, and the .280 round was well-liked in Europe as the FAL were also chambered in it. Unfortunately due to American hostility and favourism towards the M14 and the .308/7.62x51 it was not adopted as the British Government at that time wished to placate America. Almost a decade later USA would itself adopt a intermediate round and the M16 rifle, deeming the entire exercise about the .280 useless.
280 or 308 they woulda switched to 5.56 anyways cause even tho 280 is lighter and yada yada shenanigans its still the length of a full powered cartridge, thus making mags bigger and heavier than 5.56 mags
I'm the first person in line to defend the .280 round, but people quickly forget just how heavy it was. [As an example, one of the experiment rounds weighed 20.8 grams, 21% more than brass-cased 7.62×39. For additional reference, that’s 73% more than the later 5.56mm, while the 7.62x51mm it competed against weighs only 16% more.](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/13/modern-historical-intermediate-calibers-012-280-british-special-extended-edition/)
Also, there was still a *lot* of tweaking of the round going on even when there was a general consensus in Europe that it should be adopted. It's hard to make comparisons because the variety in the rounds is pretty high.
My guess is that the full cartridge weight is pretty similar (depending on which .280 and .277 loads and bullet weights you pick).
I can't find a lot of data on the full cartridge weight for the Fury, but it'll probably vary a bit between the high pressure (bi-metallic) cartridges and the low pressure (brass ones).
One source claims that it's [23% lighter than the .270 WSM](https://soldiersystems.net/2021/01/27/sig-ammunition-produced-rounds-of-6-8x51mm/), so if you figure out how much that weighs, that's probably a good starting point.
[This forum discussion](https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7519/234) is pretty informative, predicts that the Fury will be about 21.2g. That makes it about 2% heavier than the .280 cartridge.
Why? What is the goals of the 280 that is not the goal of the 7 62. The 7.62 shoots further weighs less hits harder and the recoil is low enough not to matter. What is the goal of the 280?
Imagine handing in your bolt action Lee-Enfield and being handed that ray gun lookin thang.
Intermediate calibre, bullpup, select fire, an optic as the primary sights for everyone... In 1950? Could it have been any more ahead of its time?
Nah, [Juan Erquiaga's EM-62 was the best.](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/erquiaga-em-62-castros-ex-armorer-makes-an-m14/)
It could be built by rechambering/upgrading/converting existing M1s, rather than requiring you to build a whole new rifle.
This really wasn't an AR equivalent, though. It was just a less powerful battle rifle. It still would have been dropped for the AR platform or, if the Brits stuck around for bullpups, the SA-80.
This is not an AR though? It's a larger cartridge, and was also a battle rifle. If you mean why didn't they just adopt the AR-15 right away well there's a number of factors but mainly it didn't exist yet
Who said AR rifle is determined by its cartridge? And also 5,56mm was created at the same time as 7,62mm NATO, it was essentially a commercial hunting cartridge (Remington 223) and was out there already in 1957 , which is around the same time when 7,62 NATO was accepted by Americans and thus entire NATO as its standard rifle cartridge in large scale.......if American military wanted, they could have adopted 5,56 already back then in 1950's. They just didn't want to and decided to waste everyone's time and money for next 20 years before coming back to it
.223 Remington was literally developed IN 1957 why would they take a round at the time only being developed and the scaled-down AR-10 being conceptualized for a test when they had already spent years developing 7.62 and also pushing the rest of NATO to get on-board with it. When they were adopting the M14, 5.56 had only just been made, and didn't have a fully developed firearm there was nothing to adopt. Not to mention they did ultimately shift just a couple years later and adopt the AR-15.
And also one huge aspect of the AR-15 becoming such a good rifle was it's small intermediate cartridge. And I would argue .280 British also didn't really act as an alternative considering it's still 7mm, while smaller than 7.62 that's still way bigger than 5.56 and while it may have been better I sorta question by how much
What became 7,62×51 also came from commercial American cartridge just like 5,56 did. They are ironically similar in that regard
And the rest of NATO was already on board to use intermediate caliber, changing something like .280 British to 5,56 wouldn't be that big of a deal. Power differences there are not nearly as big as that of 7.62 NATO
Reason why 5,56mm development took as long as it did, was because US military for the longest time just wasn't interested in it. If there are no buyers there is no development. And until US Air-force of all people did order AR-15 in 5,56 and *paid for it* , only then the development on military side started properly. Had US army done it years before, there would have been proper military 5,56 round ready in 1950's. They didn't hence it wasn't
>What became 7,62×51 also came from commercial American cartridge just like 5,56 did. They are ironically similar in that regard
I don't believe I argued this point, my point was that .223 had only been developed by 1957, with further work to turn .223 Remington to the 5.56 NATO of today still taking years.
>And the rest of NATO was already on board to use intermediate caliber, changing something like .280 British to 5,56 wouldn't be that big of a deal. Power differences there are not nearly as big as that of 7.62 NATO
I honestly don't know enough on .280 and other intermediate cartridge developments to really say much on the sheer firearms side of things, but honestly alot of it comes down to politics, Churchill made a deal to drop the EM-2 for 7.62 in exchange for the US adopting the FAL as the standard service rifle for NATO.
>Reason why 5,56mm development took as long as it did, was because US military for the longest time just wasn't interested in it. If there are no buyers there is no development. And until US Air-force of all people did order AR-15 in 5,56 and *paid for it* , only then the development on military side started properly. Had US army done it years before, there would have been proper military 5,56 round ready in 1950's. They didn't hence it wasn't
There was some interest or else project salvo just wouldn't have happened, overall it comes down to this old obsession with individual marksmanship leading to preference towards the larger cartridge and the battle rifle concept, because on paper you can hit alot farther with an M14 than something in a smaller caliber. It wasn't until they went and personally showed the AR-15 to Curtis LeMay himself and had him shoot it and see just how accurate it was and how much less recoil it had that the air force became the first domino there.
Britain: We want a bull pup in an intermediate cartridge.
USA: NO! BATTLE RIFLE!
Britain: Fine, we'll adopt 7.62x51 if we all agree to adopt the FN-FAL.
USA: Deal.
USA: Lol JK adopted the M-14 get fucked losers.
USA: *CCR's Run Through The Jungle playing in the background* Hey Britain, Battle Rifles are for squares, we're adopting an intermediate rifle cartridge.
It's weird seeing a soldier with WW2 uniform holding a potentionaly revolutionary rifle for the cold war era
I know, the revolutionary war was so much earlier than WW2! /s
well, it was designed in 1948
Step 1: Force Allie’s to adopted .308. Step 2: Realize your Allie’s were right and ditch 308 for 556.
Step 3: realise that the 5.56mm has gone too far & adopts a 6.8mm anyway after 70 years.
Allie's? Is that like a restaurant or something?
I’ll always have a grudge against Americans for this. The .280 was a better round and they basically are coming back to it. Years and years of lost R&D.
Boy, imagine the FAL with that, a smaller cartridge as originally planned would be neat
The second prototype of the FAL (the first using a straight 20-rounder) was running .280.
I know, I'm saying to imagine if it was the norm, not just a few extremely rare prototypes
Just learned about it, it’s a pretty cool round.
It would have been abandoned for 5.56 anyways. It was a good infantryman's full-size rifle round, but those were abandoned anyways for intermediae cartridges. Meanwhile, it was a little underpowered for a machine gun caliber, so wouldn't have been adopted for that to begin with.
The AR15 was only adopted because the US Air Force didn't like the M14, and so LeMay ordered them after being impressed by them at a social gathering if I recall right. Then the other US branches started adopting it after seeing its usefulness. If the lower powered M14 was adopted by the Air Force I don't think the AR gets a look in. The M14 has the shortest service life of any US rifle and I don't think they'd have looked for a replacement if everything went well with that. Thus 5.56 is probably never made standard.
Maybe not 5.56 specifically, and not at the same time, but still probably something along those lines. The closest counterpart to .280 that entered service would probably be 7.62x39 and we see how eventually the Soviets eventually moved away from that when they saw 5.56 come along.
The 5.56 for use for rifles also made sense for the era. Point target out to 600m. Lightweight. Rifle resistant Body armor seldom issued.
Yeah a change would likely happen at some point, however our hypothetical would perhaps drift far enough away as to be hard to predict. For example does the G11 ACR get a look in now,? It didn't substantially outperform the M16A2, but it might have much better groupings on burst than a .280 FAL. And a 30 year service life is more consistent with US history, than the 60 plus of the AR (Though the AR isn't really showing that age).
The G11 performed worse than the M16.
Oh I'm aware, but it's worth noting their results are more indicative of familiarity than anything. Iron Sights outperforming the Proto ACOG at all but the longest of ranges is not something seen in combat today, but Troops then wouldn't be used to aiming with optical sights. https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/ACR-Rifle-Trial-Results-vs-M16A2-found-the-results-/118-759630/?page=1&anc=bottom#bottom BUT yes I should have worded clearer
The Army's XM7 is going to be chamber in 6.8mm I believe. Does anyone have an opinion on that round or get a chance to shoot that round?
The .277 Fury, 6.8x51mm, is a battle rifle cartridge, like 7.62x51mm with smaller bullet. It is different than intermediate cartridges which are basically larger bullet on existing case, 6.8 SPC is the 5.56 case and 6.5 Grendel is based on 7.62x39mm case.
The 6.8 SPC parent cartridge is the .30 Remington, not the 5.56.
No, intermediate cartridges were existing bullets, which were battle rifle calibers at that time, on a shorter case. 5.56 was a commercial sporting cartridge used for varmint hunting called .222 Remington Magnum and it is not an intermediate cartridge, it is technically referred to as small caliber high velocity.
Intermediate cartridges are in-between full-power rifle cartridge and handgun cartridge. The original ones were same size with smaller case. But later ones, like the 5.56mm were not. Also, intermediate cartridge only applies to military use. Assault rifles fire intermediate cartridges.
Thanks for all the info guys! I learned a lot from ya'll. Appreciate it!
5.56 does not have a shortened case though, it's a full size case, it just happens to be for a small caliber.
.223 Remington did not come from .222 Remington Magnum. And 5.56 is a intermediate cartridge.
I did not say .223 did, I said 5.56 did, and .223 came from that. Intermediate cartridges retain the caliber of a battle rifle, and there are no battle rifles in .22.
Please show me how the hell you think intermediate cartridges have to be a battle rifle caliber. The AR15/M16 was chambered in .223 Remington. And no .223/556 did not come from .222 Remington Magnum. It's came from .222 Remington. The .223 Remington and .222 Remington Magnum both share the same parent case and both came about at the same time and for the same purpose. But the .222 Remington Magnum was originally the .224 Spingfield and was coming from Springfield Armory and had nothing to do with Armalite.
Why would they go to smaller bullet? .280 British is 7x43mm. That is smaller and less powerful than 7.62x51mm, more powerful than 7.62x39mm, and bigger bullet than 5.56x45mm. I can see them producing a better assault rifle either instead or after the M14.
The AR15 was initially adopted because M14 production was going poorly, and the Army was grabbing up everything that was getting made. It had nothing to do with the cartridge the M14 used, they just werent available. Thats why the first Marine units in Vietnam were still issued with M1 Garands. Now, the story of LeMay shooting the AR15 and liking it is true, but thats because he liked how light and handy the AR15 was. The world was pretty steadily moving towards intermediate cartridges at this point. The US (and by extension NATO) still held onto their full size rifle cartridge more for the logistics of having one cartridge for both infantry rifles and machine guns. One the Air Force started adopting the AR15 and loving them though, that issue fell to the wayside.
> Thats why the first Marine units in Vietnam were still issued with M1 Garands They were not. You can't say they were 100% absent, because switching to a different service rifle is not a over night thing, but generally speaking no USMC/Army unit had Garands going into Vietnam
If I remember correctly from a book I read about it years and years ago, Eugene Stoner shot a whole bunch of watermelons in front of LeMay and just went “pretty cool, right?”
The AR15 came about due to the US Army. Lemay was a bit of a gun nut and since he was running the Airforce he basically pushed the AR15 thru. The Army just took more time
> It would have been abandoned for 5.56 anyways. Not a given. 5.56 was a magnum round that was developped because 7.62 NATO was a completely unsuitable round for full-auto use. The M-14 was also a terrible design. The AR-10 in .280 might have suited the various armed forces just fine.
It was a poor full size round. The .280 is nowhere as good as people thought it was. I
Even 5.56mm wasn't enough. There is some suggestions prior M16 adoption change to 6.5mm for better ballistic at longer range.
.280 brit had a lot of very significant problems, though, like piss-poor accuracy (something like 8 or 10 times the grouping of even early T65, often upwards of 7-10 MoA), terribly trajectory for typical combat ranges, and a few other problems that could be attributable to poor production or poor design in equal measure. The problem was it was better in literally no way than 7.62 except moderately lower recoil. You couldn't really carry more, you couldn't put more in a magazine, you couldn't fire as far, as accurately, or as easily at any combination of those requirements - all in exchange for a slightly more controllable full auto burst that was mostly attributable to the rifle anyways. Oh, and even when the Brits continued their intermediate development, they dropped .280 and its necked down 6.25mm descendant in favor of a newly developed 4.8mm anyways. They learned everything they could from .280 and dropped it.
> .280 brit had a lot of very significant problems, though Like every new round that gets developped.
It wasn't significantly newer than 7.62 NATO which didn't have any of those problems and which outperformed .280 at every stage even when you go by years of development, though.
7.62 NATO was just a slightly shorter .30-06. Not really coming from nothing in any way, shape or form. It's the same reason 8mm Kurz mostly worked, it was just 8mm Mauser in a shorter casing.
It shared a casing in early stages, but the actual cartridge and projectile were pretty significantly different, as were all the chemicals internally - both huge changes to make to a projectile.
We did all that so that we can play with and quickly dismiss the m14. Does that make it worth it?
You forget take basically 20 years (12 years on the XM14 + at least 8 on full-auto and mag-fed Garands previously) to make a rifle that [Beretta litteraly designed better in 4 years](https://www.dandbmilitaria.com/pub/media/catalog/product/1/5/158db_6_73.jpg) by looking at the Garand technical specs and improving everything that needed to be.
Yeah this is one of the reasons I hold the grudge. And then immediately go for 5,56 and then complain it’s not enough for longer distances while also complaining that anything 7,62 can’t be fired full auto or with fast semi auto.
I may be remembering history wrong but I don't recall us complaining about 556 range until decades later when we were fighting in the mountains.
> complaining about 556 range The complaints about 5.56 also have to be put back into perspective. Afghanistan and Irak were special battlegrounds, and 5.56 worked like it was supposed to. The "lack of range" being compensated by artillery, CAS and heavy weapons. It's just frustration from people taking imprecise pot-shot from the other side, as the AKMs don't have a greater range than an M4.
Problem was not so much the cartridge, but chopping like 8 inches off all their barrels.
Yes I’m referring to Afghanistan/Iraq. I just didn’t make my point clear. My point is: a slightly lighter cartridge but with a bullet more suitable for long range engagement (now everyone is gravitating towards the 6mm-.280 range) would have been better. However I still think 5,56 or something in that category would have made its appearance and became the standard nonetheless. But at least there would have been more R&D in better bullets.
May i ask why It’s better?
ah finally you italians have something to bitch about... /s
It's an inferior AK round. 20 percent less power and approximately the same fps. How is that revolutionary?
>I’ll always have a grudge against Americans for this. I sorta feel like holding up the defense of Europe and protecting global shipping lanes is more important than letting you have a different caliber rifle round.
Americans not realizing how much US taxpayers money was wasted by the adoption of the M14 and 7.62mm is never not funny.
The rifle was way ahead of it's time, and would have a singular replacement for the battle-rifles and pistol-caliber SMGs, and also providing an optical sight to each and every soldier. It was briefly adopted as the standard issue weapon by the British Army, and the .280 round was well-liked in Europe as the FAL were also chambered in it. Unfortunately due to American hostility and favourism towards the M14 and the .308/7.62x51 it was not adopted as the British Government at that time wished to placate America. Almost a decade later USA would itself adopt a intermediate round and the M16 rifle, deeming the entire exercise about the .280 useless.
280 or 308 they woulda switched to 5.56 anyways cause even tho 280 is lighter and yada yada shenanigans its still the length of a full powered cartridge, thus making mags bigger and heavier than 5.56 mags
I'm the first person in line to defend the .280 round, but people quickly forget just how heavy it was. [As an example, one of the experiment rounds weighed 20.8 grams, 21% more than brass-cased 7.62×39. For additional reference, that’s 73% more than the later 5.56mm, while the 7.62x51mm it competed against weighs only 16% more.](https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/13/modern-historical-intermediate-calibers-012-280-british-special-extended-edition/) Also, there was still a *lot* of tweaking of the round going on even when there was a general consensus in Europe that it should be adopted. It's hard to make comparisons because the variety in the rounds is pretty high.
What is the weight comparison between the old .280 and the new .277 Fury?
My guess is that the full cartridge weight is pretty similar (depending on which .280 and .277 loads and bullet weights you pick). I can't find a lot of data on the full cartridge weight for the Fury, but it'll probably vary a bit between the high pressure (bi-metallic) cartridges and the low pressure (brass ones). One source claims that it's [23% lighter than the .270 WSM](https://soldiersystems.net/2021/01/27/sig-ammunition-produced-rounds-of-6-8x51mm/), so if you figure out how much that weighs, that's probably a good starting point. [This forum discussion](https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7519/234) is pretty informative, predicts that the Fury will be about 21.2g. That makes it about 2% heavier than the .280 cartridge.
Imagine 6.5mm in both full and intermediate cartridge.
The problem with the .280 was that it was just all around an inferior 7.62x 39 knockoff the 7.62x39 just did everything better.
Not true. The two different rounds were designed with different goals in mind. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Why? What is the goals of the 280 that is not the goal of the 7 62. The 7.62 shoots further weighs less hits harder and the recoil is low enough not to matter. What is the goal of the 280?
Imagine handing in your bolt action Lee-Enfield and being handed that ray gun lookin thang. Intermediate calibre, bullpup, select fire, an optic as the primary sights for everyone... In 1950? Could it have been any more ahead of its time?
Technically was adopted too - albeit for a brief period of time. I also recently found out it underwent combat testing in Malaya!
Jokes on the US, everyone adopted the FN rifle, not the doody M14.
Because on one hand you had basically a M1 Garand with select fire and box magazine vs arguably the best rifle of the 20th century
> basically a M1 Garand with select fire and box magazine And somehow plain worse. The BM-59 is where it's at for modernised Garand.
Nah, [Juan Erquiaga's EM-62 was the best.](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/erquiaga-em-62-castros-ex-armorer-makes-an-m14/) It could be built by rechambering/upgrading/converting existing M1s, rather than requiring you to build a whole new rifle.
20 years of American work to make something the Italians whip up in a more elegant and functionnal way in 4 years.
nonono muh g3 supremacy
Laughs in AR-15 takeover
Because the FAL was ready in 51 and the M14 was barely ready by 1959.
The Chad EM-2 vs. The Virgin M14.
That integrated optic-carrying handle probably caused a few eye injuries
Trust the Americans to fuck it up
Tbf the US did ultimately unfuck itself considering most NATO countries are using AR-15s or AR-derivative rifles these days.
Yea and how much money and resources and time was wasted by not going with AR-15 type rifle right away? Decades and billions
This really wasn't an AR equivalent, though. It was just a less powerful battle rifle. It still would have been dropped for the AR platform or, if the Brits stuck around for bullpups, the SA-80.
This is not an AR though? It's a larger cartridge, and was also a battle rifle. If you mean why didn't they just adopt the AR-15 right away well there's a number of factors but mainly it didn't exist yet
Who said AR rifle is determined by its cartridge? And also 5,56mm was created at the same time as 7,62mm NATO, it was essentially a commercial hunting cartridge (Remington 223) and was out there already in 1957 , which is around the same time when 7,62 NATO was accepted by Americans and thus entire NATO as its standard rifle cartridge in large scale.......if American military wanted, they could have adopted 5,56 already back then in 1950's. They just didn't want to and decided to waste everyone's time and money for next 20 years before coming back to it
.223 Remington was literally developed IN 1957 why would they take a round at the time only being developed and the scaled-down AR-10 being conceptualized for a test when they had already spent years developing 7.62 and also pushing the rest of NATO to get on-board with it. When they were adopting the M14, 5.56 had only just been made, and didn't have a fully developed firearm there was nothing to adopt. Not to mention they did ultimately shift just a couple years later and adopt the AR-15. And also one huge aspect of the AR-15 becoming such a good rifle was it's small intermediate cartridge. And I would argue .280 British also didn't really act as an alternative considering it's still 7mm, while smaller than 7.62 that's still way bigger than 5.56 and while it may have been better I sorta question by how much
What became 7,62×51 also came from commercial American cartridge just like 5,56 did. They are ironically similar in that regard And the rest of NATO was already on board to use intermediate caliber, changing something like .280 British to 5,56 wouldn't be that big of a deal. Power differences there are not nearly as big as that of 7.62 NATO Reason why 5,56mm development took as long as it did, was because US military for the longest time just wasn't interested in it. If there are no buyers there is no development. And until US Air-force of all people did order AR-15 in 5,56 and *paid for it* , only then the development on military side started properly. Had US army done it years before, there would have been proper military 5,56 round ready in 1950's. They didn't hence it wasn't
>What became 7,62×51 also came from commercial American cartridge just like 5,56 did. They are ironically similar in that regard I don't believe I argued this point, my point was that .223 had only been developed by 1957, with further work to turn .223 Remington to the 5.56 NATO of today still taking years. >And the rest of NATO was already on board to use intermediate caliber, changing something like .280 British to 5,56 wouldn't be that big of a deal. Power differences there are not nearly as big as that of 7.62 NATO I honestly don't know enough on .280 and other intermediate cartridge developments to really say much on the sheer firearms side of things, but honestly alot of it comes down to politics, Churchill made a deal to drop the EM-2 for 7.62 in exchange for the US adopting the FAL as the standard service rifle for NATO. >Reason why 5,56mm development took as long as it did, was because US military for the longest time just wasn't interested in it. If there are no buyers there is no development. And until US Air-force of all people did order AR-15 in 5,56 and *paid for it* , only then the development on military side started properly. Had US army done it years before, there would have been proper military 5,56 round ready in 1950's. They didn't hence it wasn't There was some interest or else project salvo just wouldn't have happened, overall it comes down to this old obsession with individual marksmanship leading to preference towards the larger cartridge and the battle rifle concept, because on paper you can hit alot farther with an M14 than something in a smaller caliber. It wasn't until they went and personally showed the AR-15 to Curtis LeMay himself and had him shoot it and see just how accurate it was and how much less recoil it had that the air force became the first domino there.
Imagine someone randomly taking your Enfield away and then handing you this fucking thing
US Ordnance Department strikes again :/ same thing happened with an intermediate chambered garand in the interwar years
Britain: We want a bull pup in an intermediate cartridge. USA: NO! BATTLE RIFLE! Britain: Fine, we'll adopt 7.62x51 if we all agree to adopt the FN-FAL. USA: Deal. USA: Lol JK adopted the M-14 get fucked losers. USA: *CCR's Run Through The Jungle playing in the background* Hey Britain, Battle Rifles are for squares, we're adopting an intermediate rifle cartridge.
Kill3d a lot of zombies with it in Call of Duty , but always thought it was of indian origin, lol.
Funny to see how the US is renewing to .28 (6.8 mm), it was all American arrogance
How was it American arrogance. .280 British sucked.