Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "" video.

  1.  @rosshughes7977  It's WAY far off than the .280. Power wise the .280 was closer to the 5.57 NATO than to the .277 Fury.
    9
  2.  @rosshughes7977  A 5.56 NATO out of a 24" barrel develops around 2000 joules of energy. The early .280 british rounds developed around 2300 joules of energy. The later high speed ones developed around 2900 joules of energy. .277 Fury is over 4000 joules of energy. So, even the later developements (that were already stretcehd beyond what the cartridge was intended to do) were closer to 5.56 NATO than .277 Fury.
    1
  3.  @rosshughes7977  You are taking 16" barrel specs for the .277 Fury. All of the specs I listed are from a 24" barrel (because the original .280 British specs were). From a 24" barrel .277 Fury develops around 4300 joules of energy (150 grain bullet at 3,120 fps, with a lighter bullet the energy would be even higher). Obviously any cartridge, if charged to higher pressure, would have higher specs. You can obtain 4000 joules from .30 Carbine, if you charge it hot enough. Would have been .280 British a better choice than .308 Winchester as main NATO round? Obviously yes, and for the same reason .277 fury is going to fail. The .308 WIn. was too heavy and not controllable in full auto from a lightweight rifle. Was the .280 British particularly special as a round? Not really. Energy-wise it was in the same ballpark of classic 6.5 rounds (Carcano, Mannlicher-Schonauer, 6.5X53r, 6.5mm Arisaka, 6.5x55 Swedish...) without having the long range accuracy those naturally had. A "compact" 6.5 (Carcano, MS, Swedish, etc), like the .308 Win was a compact 30-06 (made possible by advancements in metallurgy and propellants) would have probably been a better choice. Mind, IE, that the .264 USA / 6.5mm LICC is exactly that. Classic 6.5 performances from a compact case whthout searching for useless super-specs.
    1