The Prototype .280 FAL from 1950s NATO Trials

[@herknorth8691]

I remember playing the "If you could go back in time and kill someone..." game with a few friends some years ago. One of them, a veteran, answered with "the entire post-WWII US Ordnance Department" without hesitation.

[@davefellhoelter1343]

Yeap! we Won it! with our shi%% and your men! here is your new stuff, this is your bill! but the world was safer for the moment.

[@AreGeeBee]

@Michael Dinneweth Wonder how many time travelers got gunned down in munich 1923?

[@LiamNajor]

@Michael Dinneweth Or it creates an alternate reality. What most people don't understand about parallel universe theory, however, is that the alternates are most likely causally disconnected. The only way to access an alternate you create is to take the time-altering actions and then remain in the past (the long way). If/When you travel back forward, you end up in the "present," the original timeline.

[@moemaster1966]

Don’t worry ..the next group to have gotten in there would have been just as bad …a traveler would have to go back a few time until they got it right …I don’t know what time travel costs nowadays but I’m sure the electric bill would add up ….LoL

[@jakobc.2558]

- Not adopting .280 FAL and instead forcing NATO to adopt the FAL in 7.62 which was trash. - Refuzing to install a stabilisor in U.S. tanks untill the M60(AOS) even though the U.S. pioneered mechanical gun stabilisation with the westinghouse gyroscopic stabilisor fitted to the M3 Lee, all the Stuarts and all the M4 Shermans (meaning they deliberately downgraded the firecontroll system on U.S. tanks after world war 2). - Destroying all 10 YB-49s for litteraly no reason at all. - Litteraly completely halting tank development so U.S. troops had to go into Korea with Shermans and Pershings. - Adopting the M14. - Using the 90mm on every tank untill the M60. - Not adopting APDS untill the L/7. - Dropping the entire T95 program even though it was extremely successfull. - Not having a light machinegun untill the M60 (in 1957). - Spending billions on light tank development with LITTERALY ALL of the U.S. post world war 2 light tanks being failiours which would never see real successfull service up untill today. Yeah, I do share your friends attitude. WTF was going on?

[@thesturm8686]

The americans : "The 7mm is too small, it is useless" Also the americans : **adopts the 5.56mm few years later**

[@knutdergroe9757]

As a U.S. MARINE (third generation Marine combat veteran). The U.S. has always been behind the ballistic curve..... The 30-06(7.63x63) was a dump ass move, too much recoil with no advantage in ballistics . .308(7,62x51) a shortened 30-06 ...... .223(5.56x45) is the best thing we have ever done. And not perfect. Had we done the 6mm Lee navy, 7mm Mauser, or 8mm Mauser back in 1900. We would have been so much better off.

[@efirizaki5656]

That is the less evil at this chapter

[@generalpatton8468]

Not shocked. We said we wouldn't go with anything below .45 but we adopt the 9mm, replacing the .45 later on

[@rasdread0989]

It took them as late as early 1970s to fully adopt the M16, even longer for them to finally adopt a 9mm sidearm

[@charlesphillips4575]

@@knutdergroe9757 Both the Americans and the British got a shock fighting enemy armed with 7x57mm rifles, and both set out to develop a new round as a result. Unfortunately both nations tried to improve the round. The US wanted to launch a 7.62mm bullet just as fast as the 7mm, resulting in the overpowered 30-06. The British tried to have even more velocity, resulting in the .276 Enfield which was eventually abandoned. One of my “what if” ideas is suppose both nations had done the sensible thing and adopted 7x57mm? That would have given us both a better round and given standardisation in both world wars.

[@AlexN2022]

"if you skipped forward to this" - I actually enjoy the historical parts more than the disassembly, unless there's something peculiar mechanically about the firearm

[@alexsis1778]

Agreed. Like he said several times, its mechanically not different from any other FAL so the history is the entire point of this video. Well that the fact this prototype rifle is its own trigger mechanism cut away!

[@ChuckBeefOG]

Like the H&K G11 German Space Magic.

[@ogscarl3t375]

IKR same here :D

[@ironleeFPS]

Yeah once he starts taking it apart I’m done watching. Unless you’re a gunsmith, it’s not that interesting.

[@JustIn-op6oy]

I like seeing the quality of surface finish work on internal components, particularly on prototype or one off firearms. Tool marks help tell the history of an object.

[@HALO-2304]

"A" for Automatic fire. "R" for Repetition fire. "S" for Safe and a hidden position of "E" for Examination Those cheeky Brits!

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

Nice, I could totally see that being something of an inside joke.

[@charlesphillips4575]

Perhaps you should point that out on www.arrse.co.uk

[@HALO-2304]

@@charlesphillips4575 I'm afraid to click the link...

[@charlesphillips4575]

@@HALO-2304 It's the Army Rumour Service the unofficial voice of the British Army

[@voiceofraisin3778]

@@HALO-2304 Mostly known for their erm...robust sense of humour, encyclopaedic knowledge of the British army going back to the 1920s when its believed some of them served and a religious belief in the FAL/SLR as gods favoured instrument of justice. Do not not argue with them over technical issues, especially do not start a flame war you will lose

[@bel1066]

NATO Chooses a rifle round. A story of international harmony NATO: Right guys I think we should all use the same bullets and service rifles USA/rest of NATO: sure sounds like a great idea Belgium: we've got a lovely rifle Rest of NATO: yeah it's a lovely rifle Britain: we've got a really good .280 cartridge Rest of NATO: This is coming together nicely, don't you just love all this international cooperation Britain: Urr belgium can you make it a bullpup rifle? FN: ...No Britain: ok we'll make our own bullpup Rest of NATO: so much for international cooperation USA: we've decided a soldier needs a 30 caliber round! that little British thing has no stopping power. Rest of NATO: what like that little fat 7.62 the soviets have started using. USA: kinda. Imagine a 30-06 but a little bit shorter. Rest of NATO: So exactly like what we're all using already? USA: yep Rest of NATO: but we said we wanted an intermediate cartridge Canada: we're happy with the British round if the US are Rest of NATO: shut up Canada you're not helping. OK so we all use the FN rifle in the USA's big old fashioned calibre. Britain: Our bullpup doesn't work in .308 :( oh well, we'll just adopt our own .280 instead. Rest of NATO: Fine go sulk on your little island we'll all use the FAL in .308 Britain: Urrr labour lost the last election, Churchill said we'll take the FAL, he says standing by NATO is more important than our bullpup.... we will get one someday you watch Rest of NATO: Great! so we all use the FAL in .308 USA: we like our M14 better Rest of NATO: isn't that just an old M1 with a box magazine thats worse than the FAL in every way. USA: No it won our trial! Rest of NATO: so we just rechambered the FAL in your cartridge for you and your not gonna use it? USA: Yep Rest of NATO: (Facepalms) ------------ 8 years later------- USA: we're gonna use this little tiny .223 now, turns out soldiers don't need to shoot stuff a long way away afterall. Its great you can carry 3 times the ammo too! Rest of NATO: So all that talk about needing a full power rifle round and the British .280 being underpowered 8 years ago? USA: ... sorry, my bad...

[@davidn4956]

Best way it's ever been summarized.

[@Ushio01]

Having different rifles wasn't a problem since the Germans also dumped the FAL and the French never even bothered keeping the MAS-49 till 1979. It was standardisation of ammunition that was the goal and the US fucking it up.

[@wraithwyvern528]

About 30 years later: So we're all in Afghanistan and we need to shoot things at long distances again. Everybody: Fuck

[@LordDirus007]

Well I mean the US funds like 90% of NATO. It should be renamed "The US Military featuring NATO" Also just stop dicking around and adopt the AR platform. The amount of upgrades and parts are unmatched

[@LordDirus007]

@@jantschierschky3461 Actually not true at all. Where are you getting your information from? The US funding of NATO is nothing more than National Defense welfare for Europe funded by the US Indirect - or national - contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so. Direct contributions are made to finance requirements of the Alliance that serve the interests of all 30 members - and are not the responsibility of any single member - such as NATO-wide air defence or command and control systems. Costs are borne collectively, often using the principle of common funding. Within the principle of common funding, all 30 members contribute according to an agreed cost-share formula, based on Gross National Income, which represents a small percentage of each member’s defence budget. Common funding arrangements are used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities). Projects can also be jointly funded, which means that the participating countries can identify the requirements, the priorities and the funding arrangements, but NATO provides political and financial oversight. The funding process is overseen by the North Atlantic Council, managed by the Resource Policy and Planning Board, and implemented by the Budget Committee and the Investment Committee

[@scoe5908]

Finding an unpublished Forgottenweapons video is the only instance where you'll find one with a few hundred views

[@BlairMaynard]

Cool, I didn't notice that. This was referenced in the other video about the British SLR trials.

[@redram5150]

I thumb them up as a reminder I’ve watched an episode. But it’s not like I won’t watch again

[@timothybayliss6680]

Your comment is 3 days old but this video is only 3 hours old

[@scoe5908]

@@timothybayliss6680 A link to this was provided at the end of the previous FAL video, yet the video hadn't been published at the time.

[@FBobby]

@@scoe5908 You're a time traveler. It's ok to admit it. lol

[@charlesboots6508]

Time traveller from the NGSW program: "Okay. I guess you guys aren't ready for this, yet. But your grandkids are going to love it."

[@Quintus_Fontane]

As much as I get out of your breakdowns of the mechanical aspects of firearms (And I do find it fascinating), I love your talks on the history and context of firearms even more. Please don't ever feel like you're going on too long with that.

[@Mongo63a]

I love seeing the early versions of guns that were later put into mass production. The differences the final design incorporated to make manufacturing easier and cheaper are so neat from an engineering perspective. Looking at this , the lower was changed to stamped and even small details like the latch catch on the lower went from an oval to round which is easier to perform the machining operation.

[@jonniezodiac]

And the wooden foregrip, that's a decent amount of machining

[@ernstbergerbrent]

The 18 dislikes must be from Colonel Studler's descendants.

[@ccmogs5757]

..........another 5 cousins now :)

[@ncrtrooper7246]

@@ccmogs5757 no more cousins now :)

[@SnoopReddogg]

303 likes...I appreciate that irony

[@martinh2783]

Why would anyone fastforward Ian getting side tracked? Isn't that the point with forgotten weapons?

[@ebouwman034]

I also mainly come for the gun history...

[@nullvoid2560]

Here at 69 likes

[@cozmcwillie7897]

You might've acquired one and are in a hurry to see how best to field strip it; with the intention to go back to the start later on.

[@martinh2783]

@@cozmcwillie7897 Impossible!

[@cozmcwillie7897]

@@martinh2783 Right enough: I must've gone temporarily insane -again. If it was just about any other firearm I'd be on firmer ground. I must go now and beat myself up.

[@codi149]

The rifle no one liked at the time but the rifle we needed instead they changed caliber and other things and only now we realize how good it was at the beginning

[@DAKOTA56777]

"No one liked," err, no. More accurately: The rifle everyone but a few influential Americans liked.

[@johnfisk811]

Trivia: but .303 was designed as a smokeless powder cartridge. Only the powder was not ready when the rifle went into production so a hollow pellet black powder charge was used in the interim until it got the smokeless powder that was intended.

[@matthayward7889]

Such a cool weapon. Love everything Ian does from the Royal Armouries 👌

[@cainsy8124]

Ah, brilliant. My friend and I were chatting about the SLR (we're both Brits living in Australia) the other day. I was trying to tell him about its origins but I didn't have the details. And here it is! Thank you. PS: Looks a bit EM2 with that woodwork.

[@Lpph96]

Excellent keep them coming, fascinating reading the trials books for the FN and EM2 era of British rifle development

[@COIcultist]

Still waiting for the fulfilment of a long ago promise to fire and evaluate a .280British FAL. I await patiently Ian. The front woodwork does have a very EM-2 look to itself. Fine example of using the right sized screwdriver for that disassembly Ian. I challenge you to find out which pre decimal coin was actually sized up to turn that screw head? With the viewing figures I presume this was actually released after the film on the two trial British FALs?

[@matthewspencer5086]

Halfpenny, I think, soldiers were not made of money!

[@faeembrugh]

In the British army, there was no way your sergeant was going to let you take that bit apart!

[@johnc8910]

You could have bought a 7mm FAL surplus in the USA in the early '60's for around $70 (about $600) each.

[@propdoctor21564]

Another excellent video as always. The FAL is one of my favorite rifles of all time and I have had several of them over the years.

[@donjones4719]

Winston Churchill didn't just have his WW II experience to rely on. He was the Minister for Munitions in WW I. So, yes, he understood the importance of munitions logistics. In his history of WW II he writes more about logistics and troop transport and vehicle shortages than he does of battles.

[@RunnJake]

It's so funny how the US Ordnance department said that .280 was too small. Since then, Adopted .308 Adopted a .223 Adopted a .277 History is a giant circle I swear to god.

[@MonkeyDespot]

Great video! I'm glad that I was able to finally find and see it. I only hope that a bunch of other people will get to see it, like it, and share it now.

[@chrisstephens6673]

"Let's all have the same cartridge so we can help each other out in times of crisis" Then comes Suez and your allies drop you in the crapper.! Great! However I love the way Ian is nonpartisan and tells it like it is. A true historian, isn't it about time some University gave him an honorary Doctorate 👍

[@paulshayter1113]

He's not a Hollywood celebrity, no honorary degree for him. Plus he's involved with guns and they could never honor something so evil. Look what they did to that "war monger" Greg "Pappy" Boyington (leader of the Black Sheep Squadron).

[@dougscott8161]

An Honorary Doctorate? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he already has an EARNED Doctorate.

[@chrisstephens6673]

@@dougscott8161 anybody can earn a doctorste but you have to be someone of note to be given an honorary one.

[@TheArchaos]

*Bureaucracy, bureaucracy never changes*

[@LL-cz5ql]

Corruption, corruption never changes*

[@moritamikamikara3879]

@@LL-cz5ql There's a difference?

[@tisFrancesfault]

@@moritamikamikara3879 yes, an effective bureaucracy actually reduces corruption.

[@moritamikamikara3879]

@@tisFrancesfault I've yet to see such a thing

[@tisFrancesfault]

@dustisdeadbodies85 Not the same result as no bureaucracy, without bureaucracy, everything bigger than small group of people becomes a shit show.

[@MartintheTinman]

What a beautiful weapon. I owned the Australian version of this the 7.62mm SLR L1A1 purchased brand new

[@55vma]

Yeah. Then the bastards took them off us!!!!

[@tpelle2]

I believe that I have discovered something. I shall deem it "The Studler Cut". Now we all know the story of how Colonel Rene Studler, Chief of U.S. Army Ordnance, scuttled the .280 British cartridge and forced on NATO his pet .30 cartridge, which ultimately became the 7.62 NATO. In this excellent video we can see some very clear images of the FN FAL prototype chambered in .280 British. Now as it happens I have a fairly early model FAL which I assembled from a "parts kit" (Kind of like a 3-D jigsaw puzzle without a picture on the box!), which was originally an Austrian StG 58. I've always appreciated the sophistication and precision in this rifle's design, but at the same time have always wondered about the machining of the rear sight. If you examine the lower receiver, you see that the fixed part of the sight base is cut at an angle, however the part of the sight on which the aperture slides up and down for various ranges is at a different, shallower, angle. It seems like a small thing, but it did add a slight additional complication in manufacturing which has always puzzled me. But, in reviewing this video I have noticed that for the original FAL prototype, the fixed base, part of the lower receiver, appears to be milled at the same steeper angle as it is on my 7.62 NATO rifle, and all of the angle cuts on the .280 rear sight are all parallel to this. My premise is that the .280 British cartridge required a slightly more "uphill" initial trajectory than did the later and final .30 caliber cartridge championed by Colonel Studler. It appears that FN, perhaps considering the possibility of such requirements for different caliber cartridges as may arise, simply redesigned this one simple part, the moveable base of the sight, to adapt to the 7.62 NATO, and would likewise produce different versions of this single part as required. Rene Studler is often characterized in someone who had two career goals: First, his ambition was to retire with at least one General's star. Second, he was obsessed with the idea that the American soldier should defend America and her allies with a rifle designed and manufactured in America, and which fired an American cartridge. This would be his legacy, but it all turned to ashes in his mouth with the perfidious behavior which came to light regarding his second ambition. But, there is always the "Studler Cut" to remember him by.

[@ianskinner1619]

I loved my C1 and C2.. i pretty much retired after CAF moved to the M16 chassis. Speaking of full giggle; a C2 will miss the barn , even if your standing inside it, when going to second position.

[@martinstrumpfer1620]

What kind of person skips the history to a gun!? I mean Small Arms Solutions gave me an in depth story on the Nato trials yet I still learnt something here. NeVeR sKiP tHe InTrO!

[@gunny1234]

one small correction..in service we referred to the 'bolt' as a breech block..with a breech block carrier..not a bolt carrier

[@Frykin]

Ian I for one love you talking about history. And you do it so well. So talk more and dont feel like you've gone on too long

[@DJTheMetalheadMercenary]

Man, this is certainly a fascinating time in weapon development history. That caliber certainly seems capable, but the 7.62 variant really showed it's efficacy in conflicts like Angola and the Falklands. What I would like to see is a "modernized"/ updated version of the EM-2 in 6.5 Grendel, I think that honestly would be a really smart and robust transition for the Brits to move to in the near future over the temperamental L85/ SA-80 systems, much like how us Americans are testing the 6.8 SPC again for implementation I think 6.5 Grendel would be a better option to shift to. Love this stuff Ian and crew, cheers.

[@davidjensen2411]

So...270 was determined to be the superior calibre as far back as the 50's!

[@donpaterson4476]

7 x57 Mauser 1893 worked pretty well for the Boer again the Poms in Africa .

[@Atombender]

7x57 Mauser. 6.5x55 Swedish. .270 Winchester. Decades of oustanding performances by established calibers were being dismissed, so that some selfish asshole could have his way. And the soldiers were paying the price for it on Asian battlefields.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

As far as the late 19th century (6.5X52, 6.5X53r, 6.5X54, 6.5 Arisaka...)

[@ScottKenny1978]

@Peter Connell 6.5 has better flight ballistics, 7mm/.284 has better terminal effect. 6.8/.270 splits the difference.

[@randymagnum143]

@@donpaterson4476 neck it down to 6.5, take all the taper out, and blow the shoulder forward to 40* and you probably have the best all around rifle cartridge on the planet.

[@richarddombakly413]

I could watch Ian talk about guns for hours,he's definitely an authority, gentleman and a scholar

[@roberttrester4030]

Damn that mag has one hell of a dent in it. Looks like someone took a very large punch to it lol. I bet that rifle is a great shooter shame they didn't keep that cartridge.

[@alexsis1778]

Totally at first thought you meant someone hit it with their fist and was going to say it looked more like a punch with its perfect circle... Then realized that's exactly what you said heh.

[@roberttrester4030]

@@alexsis1778 lol

[@suneilkumar]

This is cool! Just finishing up building a STG58 FAL Para and I am blown away with the FAL design.

[@rangefinder3538]

What a way to start the day.Another great video from Ian!

[@jonfox1919]

Freaky. I was watching Forgotten Weapons videos specifically on the FAL and EM2 only yesterday! Today this video is posted, very cool 😎

[@davidsolyom5604]

Would be interesting to see that early FAL in 8mm kurz!

[@MrWarwick15]

Thanks Ian! Always nice to see a FAL on the bench. Rich.

[@jwc00789]

Very Interesting History! We have Col. Strudler to blame for the adoption of the T65/M14, later replaced by the AR15/M16. I think that the 7x57mm Mauser would have been an excellent Cartridge for an FAL.

[@michaelwarenycia7588]

Yes，performance and accuracy wise, it probably would be. However it still wouldn't have been sufficiently American to please the US.

[@robertotaglienti6406]

Very solid weapon...never really took good care of mine but they never missed a beat. After firing the SLR and M60 on the range the M16 always felt like a novelty rifle.

[@FrostySire]

I think if the British actually adopted the EM-2 in .280 they would of been way ahead in firearms for a while and wouldn’t of had that total shit show of the L85a1

[@keptinkaos6384]

I also believe the AR would still have come about and been a better rifle for .280

[@hattyfarbuckle]

@Infectious Legume Gotta agree. H&K sorted the L85 so I'm sure us Brits could have if it had been done properly.. Since we dodn't likelyhood is we would have screwed up the EM2

[@AshleyPomeroy]

I dunno - by the 1980s the rifles would have been worn out, the factory would have still gone bust, and it didn't use STANAG magazines, so it would probably have been at the end of its life. The obvious solution would have been to adopt a domestic-built version of the AR15 at some point in the 1980s. The general argument against the EM2 is that it was mechanically complicated, but for both the kind of mission the British Army trained for in the Cold War (nuclear armageddon) and the mission it eventually got (slowly walking through Belfast) that wouldn't have been a huge problem.

[@DAKOTA56777]

@Infectious Legume The EM-2 is mechanically entirely different than the L85, check out Ian's video on it. Indeed he test fired one and liked it a lot I recall, despite the 60 year old ammo giving some problems.

[@DAKOTA56777]

@Infectious Legume Considering you said it would be a complete shitshow like the L85... which was a complete shitshow due primarily to its poor mechanical performance, the implication is there. From what I've seen and indeed Ian also has said about it, the EM-2 was a pretty good rifle, and considering Ian isn't generally a fan of bullpups that's quite the praise. As for the cartridge... well 10 years later America came to the same conclusion the rest of Europe already had that an intermediate cartridge was the way forward sooo... not sure what's rose coloured about that. .280 British may be a bit on the heavy side for automatic fire in light rifles, particularly compared to 5.56, so indeed it's not perfect, but it absolutely was a better infantry cartridge than 7.62.

[@supermick83]

As always a very knowledgeable and precise breakdown of a cool weapon. Thanks 👍

[@SKALS-ICY-TOM]

Ian: the .303 was totally obsolete by 1945, it had a rim.......... 7,62x54R: Am i a joke to you ?

[@jalpat2272]

for a standard combat rifle yes but for everything else especially gpmg no.

[@devincook2736]

Claims it doesn't work well in box mags.. Dragunov: Hold my vodka

[@jalpat2272]

@@devincook2736 i didnt said anything about box magazine , and considering russian never consider making high cap magz (not dp 28 pan magz) for 54r they know it ends there except for svd which only using 10 rounds magz. curiously they made gpmgs (rp-46 and pk) around the catridge.

[@devincook2736]

@@jalpat2272 to be fair, Ian mentioned box mag. I'm amused that sporter Veprs can be had in 7.62*54r despite the 'knowledge' that rims and box mags don't work, but I agree that using something like that as a standard rifle would be ridiculous in most environments.

[@ТолянЖига]

@@jalpat2272 how about АВС-36 with 15 rounds, СВУ-АС with 20 rounds mags?

[@gunner678]

Ahhh good old Pendine Sands, beautiful part of south West Wales coast! Warminster too, great memories. We had a fantastic weapon in our L1A1. Great video!

[@Gliese380]

lots of FALs lately, not that anyone is complaining

[@alltat]

I wouldn't complain if all of 2020 was spent looking at nothing but FALs and FNCs.

[@alltat]

@@toki89666 The FN CAL, F2000, and SCAR are also acceptable. As is the FN MAG, for entirely unrelated reasons. No Minimis, though.

[@AshleyPomeroy]

@@toki89666 I think he looked at the CAL, back in January 2019. It's relatively dull - the development seems to have been unproblematic, it had an AKM-style action, there were only two variants, it didn't sell. It doesn't have the same classic looks as the FAL.

[@xmm-cf5eg]

I'd like an FN-FNC video or two.

[@milsurpmarine8628]

I believe the Brits were planning on adopting the .276 Enfield cartridge in the P-14 back just prior to WWI, but to quote Othias, “war were declared” and the Brits instead chambered the P-14 in .303 instead to save time and get the new rifle into production.

[@Frenchcrop]

Ian, great video as always. Please note that “D’armes” (as in “Fabrique Nationale”) is pronounced as is written though dropping the final ‘s’. Think of it as “Darme”, though with a very slight roll on the ‘r’. Thanks!

[@glennwoodbury7384]

I'd love to see a review of the Venezuelan FN chambered in 7 mm Venezuelan/FN.

[@loupiscanis9449]

Thank you , Ian .

[@willwallacetree]

Pendine is a really interesting place on the Welsh coast. Lots of history of early (and sometimes tragic) car land speed record attempts on the beaches there and the MOD and Qinetig still have large experimental ranges.

[@paulandsueroberts4121]

Original size for the EM-2 was 4.85.I had a conversation with the co-designer back in the 1970s at the Royal Ordnance Factory in Manchester.....really interesting chat.

[@chironchangnoi]

I look forward to every new video you put out, Ian. Thank you, this as great stuff.

[@Vespuchian]

(Continues to impotently shake fist at historical figures for denying widespread use of 7mm)

[@SlavicCelery]

Well to be fair, 7mm isn't intermediate so that's a dead end. And if you're splitting a rifle and gpmg round...you'll want more oomph. Bad logic by USA, but accidentally right.

[@Vespuchian]

Timothy Soen I’m curious why you wouldn’t consider a 7mm cartridge‘intermediate’ given its development as precisely that.

[@Vespuchian]

@@SlavicCelery I see your point, although I think calling the .280 British 'intermediate' compared to the then-current .303 and 30.06 was reasonable. Are you thinking of the 7mm Winchester? That's a much more powerful round than the .280 (7x43 mm).

[@andresmartinezramos7513]

@@SlavicCelery 7.62x39 Russian is an intermediate round

[@jerryjohnsonii4181]

Love me some FN FAL's. Thanks for showing this awesome .280 FAL , Gun Jesus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@badpossum440]

An unacceptably light cartridge, so they went to a 5.56.

[@Killatomate85]

thats because all the beta-males cannot handle real guns. so pew pew 200m effective range it is.

[@Alex_Mitchell]

Logic!

[@joshwist556]

Killatomate85 Real men shoot 20mm Depleted Uranium with a handheld Vulcan Minigun.

[@StrangerOman]

Great story. And nice looking rifle. Extended stories about guns is always appreciated. :)

[@ron827]

It is interesting that Pederson had developed his .276 cartridge in 1923 in competition with the M1 Garand and the U.S. did not like it even back then because of ammunition logistics.

[@SnoopReddogg]

The fallacy of logistics supply... the same reason any proposed 'improvement' on the 5.56 has to fit into a AR Mag, not because a larger round would be better, just like the 30/06 in the 30s, they have so many AR mags in store they're never going to scrap them for anything else

[@claudiovillani5538]

Great video! Thanks, im waiting for a special video on all Belgian FAL in .308. My dad will love it, in my family we are special fan for Belgian FAL

[@jamiealcock118]

Britian: I've just invested this new bullpup assult rifle and a new cartridge which we should have and not be relient on any other countries. USA: I'm sorry i can't hear you over the sound of my 7.62 and we demand you adopt what we tell you. Britian *gritted teeth* fine. On a serious note didn't the czechslovakians have a simular problem with their guns and cartridges and the warsaw pact standerisation lead by the USSR.

[@RockSolitude]

Basically, but it the USSR was more... well USSR about it, opposed to the American cheat, lie and be stubborn arm twisting "diplomacy".

[@jamiealcock118]

@@RockSolitude basically usa more subtle ussr in your face

[@LL-cz5ql]

@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine good point

[@TheSlovenlyTactician]

@@RockSolitude "opposed to the American cheat, lie and be stubborn arm twisting "diplomacy". " That is exactly how the USSR conducted diplomatic relations. See their unofficial occupation of Poland until 1993.

[@Grandmaster-Kush]

US, Russian and EU all cut from the same cloth elites doing elite things

[@kevinoliver3083]

.303 originated as a smokeless round. The black powder loads were a stopgap while the British worked out how to safely mass produce smokeless propellants (without blowing ourselves up!).

[@TheArklyte]

Europeans: design better rifle and better cartridge for NATO. Americans: repeatedly sabotage NATO while screaming about soviet spies and saboteur on american soil.

[@MacMeaties]

And then adopt a bunch of weapons produced by European countries anyway... oh yeah and now they are evaluating a Swiss machine-gun in a Swedish calibre so...

[@johnreed3576]

Ian Royal armouries 280. FAL Perfect vid!

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

I know there's going to be so much hate for the M-14 and the 7.62 NATO cartridge here, but there were a few seemingly legitimate reasons why the U.S. Army was so set on them and they largely have to do with money. First, the rifle was initially billed as being able to be produced on the same machines and tooling as the M1, which I'm sure was a huge factor in the decision making considering how much that tooling cost. Sadly this proved to not entirely be the case. Second, I'm sure at some point there was some notion of being able to convert the M1 rifles already in inventory to what would become M-14 standard (after all, that's how the project started in the first place). Again, this largely came to nothing. Third, I imagine it would have been relatively trivial to adapt the tooling and machinery for the production of .30-06 to 7.62 NATO, which again considering the WWII investment made, it made a good bit of sense. And finally fourth, I imagine that by the time most of the problems with the previous points came to light, there was likely a sense of, 'well, we've spent this much time and effort on it, might as well keep going. It's gotta pay off eventually.' It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that's pretty much what happened. I think when the project was started, a lot of this made sense, but by the time it ended, they had made the perfect rifle for the previous war and spent far too much time and money on it. In a sense, my like one of my favorite battleships (points if you can guess which one), in their minds it had become too big to fail (or be allowed to fail).

[@travisdowdy3362]

Hindsight tends to bash their decisions harder than it should. The M-14 was suppose to be an upgrade to the Garand. A proven much praised rifle. The 7.62 nato was the new improved version of the .30-06. New powder, smaller case, and same ballistics. All logical choices. Proven concepts. The problem comes when trying to make the improved Garand also be the BAR, M1 carbine, Grease gun, etc. The M-14 and 7.62 Nato could have been an improved Garand. It could not be a replacement for everything.

[@imgvillasrc1608]

@@travisdowdy3362 If the Americans really wanted the M14 to be a jack-of-all trades gun that can perform 7 other guns AND be a converted M1 Garand, then I imagine a BM-59 with a pistol grip chambered in .280 British would have fulfilled those desires. Problem was it was hampered by conservatives who wanted a semi-straight grip rifle chambered in a .30 caliber round.

[@zanzabar53]

I never skipped forward! The history of the weapons is why I'm here!!!

[@lesjames5191]

Churchill had something to do with the war! that made me smile, he fought in the first war the Boer war and the Sudan war. A real warrior his books are well worth reading, And he was American on his mother's side. Thanks Ian for another excellent video

[@IceWolfLoki]

"And he was American on his mother's side." Well as they say nobody is perfect.

[@JohnHughesChampigny]

He also didn't like the EM-2 because A) he thought automatic fire would be a waste of ammo and B) it wasn't heavy enough to hit people with. Getting a bit past it by then if you ask me.

[@rossanderson4440]

Wish he would have mentioned how rechambering the FAL to .308 NATO pushed the rifle to the very limits of its capability. It would have been so much better in 7mm.

[@darthmartinez]

The 6.5 Grendal has similar ballistics to the 280 British. I find it funny that the Americans are complaining about 800 meter accuracy for a open sight gun firing a intermediate cartridge.

[@USSEnterpriseA1701]

Well, that is kind of what we do. There's always been this mythos of the 'American Rifleman' where our long range accurate fire was a decisive factor in combat. The reality is, well, a little different. True, there have been times where a fantastic shot made a difference, but those tend to be the exception and not the rule. Heck, the reason for the NRA's existence was that it was founded to promote marksmanship and competitions among civilians, so that raw army recruits wouldn't be such horrible shots when they got conscripted. It was a lesson taught by our Civil War that has apparently long since been forgotten by most, seemingly even the NRA itself.

[@neutronalchemist3241]

All the viable 6.5 rifle cartridges (6.5X52 Carcano, 6.5X53R, 6.5X54 Manlicher Shonauer, 6.5 Arisaka, 6.5 Grendel, .264 USA...) tend to have more or less the same ballistic once the different weight of the projectiles is taken into account. Is a "sweet spot" that's known since the late 19th century.

[@SlavicCelery]

IIRC grendal weighs a heck of a lot less

[@SlavicCelery]

14-17 grams roughly a cartridge (Grendel) vs 20+ grams a cartridge for 280 Brit. 6*100 = 600 grams for a standard loadout difference. That adds up quickly

[@LuciFeric137]

Thanks Ian. I like your in depth historical treatments. Very interesting.

[@mr.gunzaku437]

I wonder what the world would be like today if we had actually gone with the .280 cartridge...I like the FAL and CETME, but if I had one Western battle rifle, it would be the G3. Having it in .280 with a 30-round mag would be cool👍

[@santifresnel2320]

your channel is GOLD. Thank you for your work. We love you. And holly molly do you know your stuff.

[@yank-tc8bz]

Wish they would show dummy ammo or at least photos of same.

[@AtheistOrphan]

yank1776 - Yes, that would make it just that little bit more interesting. Good idea.

[@devincook2736]

Ian's blog post on this makes it sound like 7-08 Remington. Or 7mm based on t65 cartridge.. www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/

[@Curbsidecrafters]

Whoop Woop for the mention of Pendine. Just 45mins down the road from me. Very interesting video once again!

[@Atombender]

Fast forward 65 years: "The 5.56 x 45 is too small, let's run some tests using 6.5mm ammo to replace it! And make sure that it's all-American!"

[@RockSolitude]

@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine lol ok... Sound like a man after Studlers own heart...

[@2Potates]

Except not they are going for a full power 6.8mm +p+ round.

[@austinfontenot8955]

Realistically we won't see a change in round until someone comes out with a super reliable and cheap telescoping round or polymer case. The issue isn't so much lethality...it's how much lethality you can carry. Technology is lifesaving and augments soldiers in today's world while making them more effective. It's also heavy. So how do you make sure you can carry more while not using a .22? Advancements in ammunition packaging.

[@2Potates]

@@austinfontenot8955 I expect a polymer case. I've been looking into telescoped rounds long enough to know that the mechanical complexities with the guns aren't worth it. And by that i don't mean that the guns themselves are very complex, they are just hard to design as you have to reinvent everything that has already been figured out over the last 150 years. One reoccuring thing for example is that they would be very awkward to clear, and i've yet to see an elegant solution to that.

[@dunadan7136]

RockSolitude Let me know when you can get riflemen to consistently hit targets at 800m while shooting offhand, under stress and have to spot targets and operate the gun alone. Also do let me know if riflemen are actually capable of taking advantage of range overmatch, given that we know that rifle fire is only consistently effective out to 300m based on historical data due to the difficulties I’ve outlined above. Also do let me know how what you suggest is any better than simply issuing Mk 318/Mk 262 Mod 1 instead of M855, having more machine guns (which are fundamentally much more capable of long range combat than rifles) with trained machine gunners. Or even both. If anything, there should be a heavier emphasis on the machine gun elements of small infantry units rather than being hyperfocused on the rifle.

[@garnel66]

There was reports from the Falklands conflict in that British soldiers changed their FNs semi auto for Argentina’s full auto FNs. The brits found on full auto totally uncontrollable, and the 20 mag was just too small. However they enjoyed letting of lead but never used in combat on full auto. 👍👍👍

[@-OokySpooky-]

Gun Jesus: 11:11 minutes of pure unadulterated history of every turning cog in the clock of spacetime leading up to the development of this object including names, dates, ideologies, and things that couldve come to pass but didnt. Flannel Daddy: She's uhh... She's a hefty bitch.

[@jasoncarswell7458]

you're a strange fella

[@TJH1]

EXACTLY the sort of content I come here for, bravo!

[@mig1nc]

6.8x51 NGSW has entered the chat....

[@alanhelgeson690]

I would really love to see DSA Arms manufacturer a F.N.-F.A.L. rifles in caliber .243 Win. And 7 mm-08 Rem caliber.

[@davidreinhart373]

So this is just a better FAL that normal FAL :D Uses better cartridge, magazine and does have only one gas setting.

[@OldFurJar]

Hey ian! Two things: First dont seems so apologetic about going into the history behind this for so long that's honestly some of my favourite bits and where I learn the most! And second a tip behind your french pronunciation (which I actually very much so applaud your dedication to trying to pronounce all these names in their native tongues! Your french had come a long way!) On the word D'armes You pronounced it as "des armes", theres no need to keep them as separate words as the first word ends in a vowel sound and the second word begins in a vowel sound. Hence the contraction in the spelling, so you can just promounces "d'armes" as one syllable. :) Not trying to be picky here but I know you love french so just wanted to give a little tip. Thanks so much for all your hard work and immense self taught knowledge that you share!

[@yvesgerard1308]

une arme magnifique ! surtout avec la " longuesse " en bois strié ...il fut un temps où le look d' une arme était raffiné , profilé . Aujourd' hui seule importe la fonctionalité au détriment de a beauté . Heureux le possesseur d' un tel bijou !

[@davidhansen5067]

Love the history lessons! I'm absolutely not skipping forward past them.

[@MrOlgrumpy]

So we've come full circle,NOW 6.8 [270] is the correct mil calibre which has been as plain as the nose on a face.The Scandinavians had this sussed 120 years ago 6.5 x 55

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The Italians 129 Years ago, 6.5X52.

[@DonMeaker]

British did indeed use the .303 British round, but they also used 9mmx19 in the Sten, 7.92mm x 57 Mauser round for their armored coax guns, and aircraft use the .303 British, the 12.7x99 Browning machine gun and the 20mm x 110 cannon. Small wonder Churchill wanted to focus on a single round.

[@joshuaarroyo7235]

Still looks like an FAL so it still good in my book.

[@rumblin_cynth_rampo374]

When Ian pulled the receiver/barrel assy pivot bolt out I had horrendous flash back of basic training with the L1A1 and the dire threats from the weapons instructors of the fates that awaited anyone that pulled that screw. It was a armourer only job. Actually all it did was fubared the zeroing. But as recruits we didnt know that

[@theretrosaba7801]

Yep just like EM-2

[@tsmgguy]

The fourth US objection to the British 280 round: it was Not Invented Here (in the US).

[@DevilbyMoonlight]

Very interesting... I always wondered if the .280 was actually a viable cartridge.. and if so what happened to it...

[@SlavicCelery]

Nope.

[@SlavicCelery]

It's not an intermediate; it's splitting the difference between 6.5 and 7.7 Japanese. It weighs too much to function like a standard small, high velocity caliber intermediate round. Basically not a high ammo carrying benefit. And not powerful enough for a GPMG round. Sooo....appealing when talking about Afghanistan. But in every other environment...too much and not enough?

[@stamfordly6463]

It's worth noting that there are references to (and possibly pictures of) Churchill shooting both cartridges and reportedly much prefering the .280/EM2 combination so it must have been with a certain amount of reluctance that 7.62 was chosen. In hindsight it's probably a shame that they didn't try a large scale troop trial of .280 in Korea or Malaya anyway.

[@timothybayliss6680]

Although it seems a bit asthmatic compared to 7.62x51 it is a pretty good bump above 7.62x39. Unfortunate because this really could have been something that really would have worked well.

[@JimmySailor]

7mm Mauser was designed in 1892. Ever since then every other cartridge seems to be tap dancing around the fact that it already exists in the perfect sweet spot of full power cartridges. .280 Brittish, .276 Pederson, .and 277 Fury are all within squinting distance of 7mm Mauser. The old round is much longer than them in case length, but that’s about it. Had any major power adopted 7mm Mauser in 1893 they could absolutely still be using it today.

[@alimaleki6316]

one does not simply fast forward Ian talking

[@workingguy-OU812]

Awesome history lesson, Ian.

[@alexandermarinin7036]

Too bad that .270 British is so unknown. Probably the best intermediate cartridge for next 50 years.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Excellant explanation of the development and rational of the era .

[@connorbutters8479]

the americans were afraid of their soldiers missing their targets so they adopted a larger, less accurate cartridge with more recoil. sounds about right

[@Maeyanie]

It does sound very American.

[@charlesphillips4575]

I have never seen why it was so important to standardise rifle cartridges, when we standardised little else. On tank guns, we developed our own 20pdr, then 105mm, then 120mm. Granted the 105mm became a NATO standard, but that was after we adopted it. For artillery, in addition to keeping many WW2 designs for decades, we developed our own 105mm which was not compatible with US 105mm ammunition. Aircraft and naval armament were also not standardised. A few guns got standardised by us buying foreign weapons, e.g. M109, but very little that we built was chambered for a standard round.

[@blackwoodsecurity531]

Guns and ammo are very expensive when you manufacture them in the millions.

[@charlesphillips4575]

@@blackwoodsecurity531 True, but the larger weapons and ammunition were more expensive and heavier individually and still needed in large quantities. Also note that the smaller round we wanted would have used less raw materials and been easier to transport.

[@johnparrish9215]

Damn, they would have loved the AR15 in 6.5 Grendel. I know I do.

[@johnparrish9215]

@Flat Bastard Engineering Channel All the Brits would have to say is: Your not good enough, you can't have it. We Americans would been all over it.

[@Speetqq]

Please more history i could listen this all day