The Return of Weekly DTIC: Comparing The .280 British and .30 Light Rifle, 1950

by Nathaniel F

Published: February 28th, 2016

the return of weekly dtic comparing the 280 british and 30 light rifle 1950

The next few installments of my Light Rifle series of articles will cover in detail the development of the two calibers that shaped the NATO rifle trials until 1953: The .280 British and the .30 Light Rifle, the latter of which – spoiler alert – subsequently became the 7.62x51mm NATO in 1954. The subsequent rejection of the more intermediate .280 British as the standard NATO rifle cartridge caused considerable controversy in the UK, and many experts today believe that it was the superior choice for a standard round versus the much more conventional .30 Light Rifle. Advocates of the .280 British lament its rejection as being politically-driven, but – while there’s considerable truth to that notion – there is another side to the story. One critical document from this period is A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Ammunition for Lightweight Weapons, from 1950.

.280/30 Ball compared to .30 Light Rifle Ball, AP, and API, as used in A Comparison. Photo by DrakeGmbH, used with permission.

The document illustrates the more advanced stage of development of the .30 Light Rifle cartridge (the program for which began in 1944) versus the .280 British (starting circa 1948), particularly in the accuracy results:

In accuracy tests conducted as part of the February – May 1950 evaluation of the two rounds, the .30 Light Rifle consistently grouped with nearly half the dispersion of the British .280 cartridge. Further, the .30 Light Rifle was also shown to be superior with regards to penetration and trajectory, with the .280 pulling ahead in API ignition and tracer and observation round consistency.

The development of .30 Light Rifle illustrated in a photo. Photo by DrakeGmbH, used with permission.

The poor showing of the British round would prove to seriously hamstring the push for its adoption. While many other factors were in play, it’s likely that one of the major factors in the US officials resistance to the .280 caliber round was its inferior performance in these and other tests. While today, we know their standards were unrealistically high for modern warfare, the rejection of the .280 was a little more complicated than simple “Not Invented Here” syndrome.

#History #LightRifle #7.62 #7.62X51 #7.62NATO #.30LightRifle #.280British #7x43

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.

More by Nathaniel F

Comments

Join the conversation

9 of 92 comments

Alex Nicolin on Mar 01, 2016

The problem with "universal" rounds is that they are both too heavy and have too much recoil to allow for large quantities to be carried by the individual soldiers and controllable automatic fire without bipod support, and are too weak to reliably penetrate barriers at longer ranges. These tests show that it had been well known 60 years ago. You will need 2 rounds to fill the individual roles of personal small arm/light machinegun and designated marksman rifle/squad served machine-gun. The shortcut the US could have taken in the early 1950s would have been to keep the .30-06 in service (and push for more powerful loads, similar to current commercial ones), and introduce a full auto rifle shooting an SCHV cartridge to replace the M1 Carbine and many M1 rifles. But it would have been the same: 2 complementary rounds. There is no way around it.

Like Reply
William Taylor on Mar 01, 2016

If Saive's original "small" FAL chambered in 8x33 had been adopted late in WW II or soon after the War ended, a modernized version of it would very likely STILL be the main battle rifle of the western allies. No M-14, no M-16, no 7.62x51, no .223.

Like Reply
- See 6 previous
- Nathaniel F. on Mar 01, 2016
  
  @William Taylor Counterargument: AKM -> AK-74
  
  Like
- Dave on Mar 01, 2016
  
  @Nathaniel F. Counter-counterargument:
  M14 vs. AKM=M16
  M16-->AK74
  
  Like
- Nathaniel F. on Mar 01, 2016
  
  @Dave That is incoherent and wrong.
  
  Like
- Dave on Mar 02, 2016
  
  @Nathaniel F. I don't think it is incoherent, although it may be too simplistic and therefore "wrong." Do recall that ol' Mikhail Kalashnikov hisself dismissed the need for the 5.45mm cartridge. Would the Soviets really have bothered to introduce the 5.45mm absent the M16? Certainly your postings on the 5.45mm cartridge are among the best I have read.
  The long version of the counter-counterargument:
  The M16 was being developed by Eugene Stoner, and he impressed ol' cigar-chompin Curtis LeMay with it. Aim high Air Force.
  Meanwhile, in armed conflicts, WWII small arms continued to be used while the U.S. was adopting the M14. The M1 carbine and Garand vs. the Mosin-Nagant (Korea, Vietnam during the "advisor period" became increasingly the M1 carbine and Garand vs. SKS.
  When the U.S. moved in directly in 1965, the M14 was vying with the M16. The M14 was used by the Berlin garrison, one of the most prestigious postings. The M16 went to Vietnam, where the M14 vs. SKS was also becoming the M16 and M14 vs. AKM.
  The M16 displaced the M14 in Vietnam, hence "M14vs. AKM=M16" shorthand.
  The SCHV cartridge revolution that enthralls your research interests, in turn, leads to the short-hand: "M16-->AK74."
  Your "counterargument" is simply a caliber change and refinement of the Kalashnikov. This was in response to a post about the original 8mm kurz patrone and .280 cal. and M1 carbine-caliber FAL. The FAL has been reduced in caliber from 7.62x51mm to 5.56mm only by Brazil. Other FAL user nations have adopted purpose-built 5.56mm rifles, whether C7s, AUGs, SA80/L85s, FAMAS, HK du jour, etc. etc. The M16/M4 caribine "platform" rules all of the various alternate calibers like 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, and even the new-improved 7.92x33mm kurz known as .300 Blackout.
  So while "AKM-->AK74" is technically "correct" the M16/M4 is the Lebel 86/93 of U.S. service rifles in terms of its lengthy term of service... And I don't think Russia is actually going to be able to replace the AK74 with anything else soon either.
  
  Like
- Nathaniel F. on Mar 02, 2016
  
  @Dave By 1965, the M14 had been cancelled for two years. It wasn't "vying" for anything. The M16 was at that point supposed to be a temporary solution until SPIW came online (it was scheduled to do so in 1968, hahahahah).
  Again, look at the reasons the Soviets switched from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39. They are equivalent to the reasons an alternate-history Bizarroland NATO that adopted the 7.92x33 (why? What logistical rationale did they have for adopting such a poorly optimized round?) would be incentivized to adopt an SCHV round. So your argument that 7.92x33 would have obviated .223 development is, um, wrong. The same rationales and reasons existed, and the same people with the same interests who made up the early SCHV program would have existed. Perhaps a rifle that wasn't so much of a stinker as the M14 would have caused the subsequent M14 crisis to be avoided, but eventually an SCHV round would have been developed, and likely adopted - especially given what a stinker the 7.92x33 is performance-wise.
  Also, the idea (promoted by Karl Karsada) that the .300 Blackout is in any way related to the 7.92x33 is just Germanocentric wankery. The two rounds are ballistically similar, yes - which isn't remarkable as they both belong to a class of rounds that are all ballistically very similar.
  "[T]he M16/M4 is the Lebel 86/93 of U.S. service rifles in terms of its lengthy term of service..."
  Erm, the Lebel was actually replaced several times beginning in 1913, the only reason it had such a long service life was the demands of war. So not at all like the AR-15 family.
  
  Like
- Nathaniel F. on Mar 02, 2016
  
  @Dave By 1965, the M14 had been cancelled for two years. It wasn't "vying" for anything. The M16 was at that point supposed to be a temporary solution until SPIW came online (it was scheduled to do so in 1968, hahahahah).
  Again, look at the reasons the Soviets switched from 7.62x39 to 5.45x39. They are equivalent to the reasons an alternate-history Bizarroland NATO that adopted the 7.92x33 (why? What logistical rationale did they have for adopting such a poorly optimized round?) would be incentivized to adopt an SCHV round. So your argument that 7.92x33 would have obviated .223 development is, um, wrong. The same rationales and reasons existed, and the same people with the same interests who made up the early SCHV program would have existed. Perhaps a rifle that wasn't so much of a stinker as the M14 would have caused the subsequent M14 crisis to be avoided, but eventually an SCHV round would have been developed, and likely adopted - especially given what a stinker the 7.92x33 is performance-wise.
  Also, the idea (promoted by Karl Karsada) that the .300 Blackout is in any way related to the 7.92x33 is just Germanocentric wankery. The two rounds are ballistically similar, yes - which isn't remarkable as they both belong to a class of rounds that are all ballistically very similar.
  "[T]he M16/M4 is the Lebel 86/93 of U.S. service rifles in terms of its lengthy term of service..."
  Erm, the Lebel was actually replaced several times beginning in 1913, the only reason it had such a long service life was the demands of war. So not at all like the AR-15 family.
  
  Like
- Dave on Mar 02, 2016
  
  @Nathaniel F. The Soviet adoption of 5.45mm had nothing to do with the U.S. SCHV 5.56mm M16? Really? Just an entirely unrelated development? The Kalashnikov in original 7.62x39mm is still in widespread use worldwide, even in small European states like Finland. Nato expansion has put paid to most 5.45mm small arms in Central and Eastern Europe. Certainly Russia uses it, and likely will for quite some time.
  I don't recall making the argument that the 7.92x33mm kurz patrone would have obviated the SCHV that W. Taylor did up post, but certainly the FAL was originally put out in prototype form in a)8mm kurz, b) .280, c) .30 carbine. Ultimately, it was put out in 7.62mm NATO, of course, and at least one large nation not typically regarded as a "power" put one out in 5.56mm. In support of W. Taylor's assertions, the impetus for NATO to defacto adopt the .30-06 came from the post-WWII settlement and reflected U.S. hegemony. There were different ideas of what was required in a service cartridge, and the U.S. decision for 7.62x51mm, as you put it, "won." And thus it became the NATO standard, but for the U.S. adoption of the 5.56mm. There were then different ideas on what the specific cartridge should be, and the Belgian SS109 version of the 5.56mm won and became the M855. So Nato responded to U.S. changes--except for the Beretta 9mm I suppose. So your assertion that "The same rationales and reasons existed, and the same people with the same interests who made up the early SCHV program would have existed" holds true for the United States, but I'm failing to grasp how other NATO nations might have been persuaded about the 5.56mm absent the larger and heavier 7.62x51mm rifles and MGs? On the other hand, Switzerland, Sweden, and some other neutral nations did abandon the larger calibers in favor of the SCHV, so perhaps the older small arms "plateau" of rifle calibers might have given way to the current "plateau" of lighter weight carbines and the 5.56mm cartridge.
  The Lebel was the first small caliber smokeless powder repeating rifle. It soldiered on and on because there was nothing deemed an "improvement enough" unless something spectacular like a self-loading rifle came out. Replaced in 1913? I don't really think that the Berthier 07/15 with Mannlicher clips was coming online until about 1916. Of course, the five shot 1916 variant started appearing at the front late in 1918. The M16 was the first SCHV rifle, and it has proven to be the longest serving service rifle in U.S. history--unless I'm mistaken. Until something super-über spectacular comes along, it is deemed "good enough." Its use was, again, as far as I understand, prioritized for Vietnam while U.S. troops in Western and Central Europe retained the M14 for a good long while. So given U.S. priorities for Europe versus the "other superpower" and its proxies, why does one suppose the M16 was rushed over to Vietnam... The mere existence of "shooting war?" Or is there something worth analyzing in the first armed conflict where both sides had so-called "assault rifles?" by which I mean automatic carbines with detachable magazines, capable of full-automatic fire designed around cartridges that allowed for a man-portable individual weapon of reasonably portable weight and compactness?
  I do not know who Karl Karsada is, and I don't think I tend towards, erm, "Germanocentric wankery" as you put it--rather crassly IMO. The only point I made was your latter comment, namely, the circular phrase that "The two rounds are ballistically similar, yes - which isn't remarkable as they both belong to a class of rounds that are all ballistically very similar." Yes. Yes they are.
  
  Like

News

Articles/Features

Guns & Gear

Shows

TFB Top Products

The Return of Weekly DTIC: Comparing The .280 British and .30 Light Rifle, 1950

You may also be interested in