Corps eyes next-generation service rifles

Brutus said:
Man! That's just downright embarassing........:redface:
Click to expand...

Yes but we vetoed it for 3 excellent reasons:
  • Canada was producing both 30-60 for the US and 303 British for the UK during the Korean War and we did not want to produce a third type of ammo 280 Enfield,
  • 280 Enfield bullet did not stabilize in winter conditions (simply, it did not work)
  • UK was almost bankrupt and the move was proposed by an anti-US Labour

Canada did not want to switch horses in the middle of the river,
it did not want to adopt a cartridge which did not work in winter condition,
and did not want to take financial/political risks with broke/untrustworthy party.

The 280 Enfield concept was great but the timing, the implementation and the party pushing it were terrible.

Alex
 
Regarding this British experimental cartridge, sometimes refered to as the 280/30, in 1950 the Springfield Research & Development Division under a Colonel Studler was tasked to trial several cases of this ammo, courtesy of the UK government and fired in a locally modified M1 Garand rifle.
The function of the rifle was found satisfactory with the gas port opened to .150 (seems like alot but whatever) and the Garand functioned successfully in the regular manner.
There was some problem with the British ammo though:

"During the firing procedure, hot flinders of bullet guilding and burning powder were exhausted back through the gas cylinder against the shooter's hand."

It's lucky for the Brits we made alot of service ammo for them during the Korean War. Looks like they could not even make this ammo to a basic standard and probably used poor materials.
 
Brutus said:
Regarding this British experimental cartridge, sometimes refered to as the 280/30, in 1950 the Springfield Research & Development Division under a Colonel Studler was tasked to trial several cases of this ammo, courtesy of the UK government and fired in a locally modified M1 Garand rifle.
The function of the rifle was found satisfactory with the gas port opened to .150 (seems like alot but whatever) and the Garand functioned successfully in the regular manner.
There was some problem with the British ammo though:

"During the firing procedure, hot flinders of bullet guilding and burning powder were exhausted back through the gas cylinder against the shooter's hand."

It's lucky for the Brits we made alot of service ammo for them during the Korean War. Looks like they could not even make this ammo to a basic standard and probably used poor materials.
Click to expand...

With an almost 3/16" gas port I am not supprised stuff was flying though it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom