The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapons Discussion > Ammunition

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14, 2020, 14:44   #1
BarnOwlLover
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 81552
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 326
Should the Brits persisted with the 6.25mm round?

In the form which its known and emerged, it was basically a .280 British (7x43mm) necked down to take a 6.25mm (basically .25 cal) round and designed as a British attempt to better the performance of the 5.56mm M193 round. The aim was to have better short and mid-range (out to 600 yards/meters) stopping power than the 5.56mm often offered with much better penetrative abilities, that at mid-range can rival the 7.62mm NATO.

This was actually years ahead of the trend to the current 6-7mm rounds being looked at as intermediate cartridges. The British started this back in the late 1960s, just after the US Army and USMC adopted the M16. And the 6.25 was capable of penetrating helmets and other forms of armor and cover just as the 7.62mm NATO can out to 600 yds/m, but offered significantly less recoil and was much more controllable in full auto.

Problem is that now with modern rifle designs and propellants, 7.62mm NATO rifles are much easier to control in full auto with reduced recoil and muzzle climb without sacrificing performance. Also, 6.25mm (which was arrived at as a compromise between 6mm and 6.5mm) is sort of an odd ball caliber in reality. Also, though the .280 shell casing was used as a proof of concept (and performed well), the definitive version would've used a shell casing that was slightly longer and narrower, sort of a hybrid of the .280's and the .270 British's dimensions.
BarnOwlLover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2020, 15:06   #2
yovinny
Uneducated NYC Boy
Silver Contributor
 
yovinny's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 7679
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wastelands of Western Kentucky
Posts: 6,435
Didnt they move on from that back in the 70's to 4.85x45 ? .....which didnt work out either.
yovinny is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2020, 15:54   #3
BarnOwlLover
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 81552
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 326
Ironically if the Brits developed the round now, it'd likely feed the best for modern 6-7mm class intermediate rifle rounds intermediate in performance between 5.56mm and 7.62mm. But it was killed off in favor of the 4.85mm, which the Belgian/FN version of the 5.56mm killed that.
BarnOwlLover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2020, 08:49   #4
raubvogel
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 64403
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,035
Have to wait until the US invents that round so it can then be adopted by NATO
__________________
All I'm really asking for here is a knife that will not jam and a unicorn that doesn't need sharpening. Will_Power
It's been my experience that all you really need to harvest a deer is a car. They come right through the windshield just fine. 357ross
That poop is priceless. MFC
raubvogel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2020, 11:23   #5
ammolab
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 10923
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,338
If the US had adopted the M1 in John Garandís .276 caliber I think we might be shooting it in GI weapons today.

If not in rifles ...at least in SAWs/LMGs.
ammolab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2020, 13:54   #6
BarnOwlLover
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 81552
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 326
The .276 was designed by John Pedersen for his rifle that competed against what became the M1. The .276 died because of Gen. MacArthur's insistence to continue to use the .30-06 for cost, logistical and performance reasons. That also lead to the US Army and USMC shoving the .30 T65/.308 Winchester down NATO's throat (Olin/Winchester released the 7.62x51mm T65 commercially as the .308 Win in 1952, a year before NATO adopted it).

Interestingly, the .280 British produced performance similar to the .276 Pedersen from a much more compact round (7x43mm vs 7x52mm).
BarnOwlLover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2020, 15:01   #7
BarnOwlLover
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 81552
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Mansfield, Ohio
Posts: 326
I also wonder how modern versions of the 6.25, .270 British (6.8/7x46mm) and .280 British (7x43mm) would perform with modern bullet and propellants, out of like short barreled rifle with 14-16.5 inch barrels. I think that those rounds were originally designed mostly for 20-25 inch barrels.

The .277 Sig Fury (based on Sig's .308 Win based 6.8mm round for their proposed automatic rifle and LMG program for the US Army) can hurl 140 grain bullets at nearly 3000 fps from a 16 inch barrel on the Sig Cross rifle.
BarnOwlLover is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:35.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2019 The FAL Files