Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

.276 Pedersen and the M1 Garand

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by 52grain, Apr 11, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 52grain

    52grain Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    664
    The M1 Garand was originally chambered for .276 Pedersen (7x51) but was switched to .30-06 before any significant quantity were produced. Does anyone have an opinion on what the standard issue service rifle would be today if the switch had not happened? Would infantry still be issued the AR-15 in 5.56 NATO or would it be something different? Would the M-14 have come sooner, later, or not at all?
     
  2. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    I believe the M-14 (using like ammunition) would have come just as soon...and still be used today. I believe the .276Pedersen would have made a fine infantry round, better than either the .30-06 or .308Win...or the 5.56NATO for that matter (not that any of the aforementioned cartridges are deficient...just not ideal IMO).

    :)
     
  3. jpwilly

    jpwilly Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,892
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    I think a 7mm would have and still could serve the infantry quite well.
     
  4. Al LaVodka

    Al LaVodka member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,040
    I think the .276 woulda continued through when the .308 was adopted. The .276 was ahead of its time but the .308 is probably better but not that much to have replaced the .276 until the .223.

    The 6.8SPC is WHAT now? LOL A modernized, short, .276 sorta.

    Al
     
  5. cheygriz

    cheygriz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Location:
    High up in the Rockies
    When the Garand was ready to be deployed, WW2 was about to start.

    The army had literally billions of rounds in war storage for the 1903, BAR and all of our general purpose machine guns. All ammo manufacturers were "tooled up" to mass produce .30-06.

    If we had deployed the Garand in .276, the rifles, BARs and machine guns would have fired different rounds. The ammo makers would have had to split their production between two different rounds. Supply would have been a nightmare.

    (Remember the adage, Looies study strategy, generals study logistics)

    Our service round today just might have been the 7.7 Arisaka, or the 8X57 Mauser! :evil:
     
  6. 52grain

    52grain Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    664
    A bit off topic, but work on the M14 originally started during the last bit of World War II. The project was shelved until the 1950s and the M14 was not accepted as the standard service rifle until 1957. Then because of production delays, the first unit was not completely equipped with M14s until 1961. This is the real shame. Had the M14s been available in 1950 (and chambered in something other than 7.62 NATO), history may well have a different view of it.

    nothing against 7.62 NATO or .308 win, just too much power for selective fire to be useful, in my opinion.
     
  7. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    I feel the same way.

    :)
     
  8. 52grain

    52grain Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    664
    Good point, as with pretty much any engineering decision, practicalities (like cost and production) almost always prevent the technologically ideal path from being taken.
     
  9. CZguy

    CZguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,976
    Location:
    Missouri
    :what: Sacrilege....... you know there is such a thing as "gun karma"............you'll pay for that someday. :D
     
  10. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    I know...I know...my .30-06 will probably get pissed off and KB on my tomorrow. :eek:
     
  11. Nugilum

    Nugilum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,003
    Location:
    Texas Panhandle
    You guys realize that the .276 Pedersen was the original caliber for the M1 design. The .276 Pedersen M1 held 10 rounds in it's en-bloc clip.
     
  12. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    Yep...
     
  13. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,791
    Which is the present situation; we are using large volumes of both .308 for MG and DMR and .223 for AR and SAW.

    The East Bloc has clung to the 7.62x54R for longer range applications than the AK.

    Maybe a 6.5 or 7mm would be the true intermediate cartridge that would let us shoot everything the same between pistol and .50. Maybe. Just recall that the Japanese tried to convert from 6.5 to 7.7 after hostilities were under way and ended up with two rifle calibers. The Italians tried to convert from 6.5 to 7.35 but backed out.
     
  14. Birddog1911

    Birddog1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Peyton, CO
    I'm only familiar with the .276 in name, not in ballistics. Let's just say that the 1903, BAR, and everything we had prior to the Garand was in that caliber. What is the recoil like with the Pedersen? Would it have been a decent select fire caliber?
     
  15. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    Recoil should be significantly less than the .308Win. Despite it being dimensionally similar to the 7mm-08Rem. it was a slightly weaker round, so recoil should be closer to .243Win. Factor in the weight and semi-automatic function of the Garand and you bring that down to 7.62x39mm recoil levels. It would be a powderpuff by comparison, thereby making it much more effective WRT fully automatic designs such as the M14.

    :)
     
  16. Jaws

    Jaws Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Messages:
    271
    .276Pedersen was a fine combat cartridge. If it wasn't for the bean counters and "promoted beyond their competence" generals.....:rolleyes:

    I have full confidence the US manufacturing would have had no problem switching to the new round.
    I mean, this is the industry that built during ww2over 18,000 four engine B24 liberators, over 50,000 M4 shermans, over 300,000 aircraft.
    A different cartridge would have been just a drop in the bucket....the same thing today.
    A single factory (Salt Lake) is keeping up with the whole production of 5.56mm ammo for US today, and there are other closed factories that could be reopen any time if needed to suport a switch.
     
  17. gondorian

    gondorian Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    358
    Location:
    Illinois
    The .276 Pedersen is great, but there was this little thing called to great depression that stopped the army from adopting a new cartridge.
     
  18. 52grain

    52grain Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Messages:
    664
    Another interesting topic would be what the standard civilian calibers would be today if the government had adopted .276 as the standard infantry round instead of using the venerable .30-06 for another 20 years.

    By the late 1930s there were probably enough rifles chambered in .30-06 around that it would certainly still be with us today, but would it still occupy the same place? .30 caliber is probably the most popular today (.30-06, .308 win, 300 Win Mag, .30-30, etc). Would this be different if a 7mm round had been chosen for the Garand?
     
  19. Lovesbeer99

    Lovesbeer99 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,413
    I don't think the .276 was the "original" M1 round, but rather an option during the trials. John Garand was building the M1 and Pederson was already known for the Pederson Device on the 03's so they asked Pederson to see what he could do with the M1. If you find any photos of the .276 Garand you'll notice that the bore in the barrel was off center. This is cause Pederson was in a rush to get the M1 to work with his cartridge and didn't have time to rework the entire action. Actually he did infact work the action somewhat. It was not a true Garand, I think it was a blowback of somekind.
     
  20. Uncle Mike

    Uncle Mike Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,129
    Location:
    never never land...never land here!
    If it would have been done right, we all would be shooting FAL's with a .284"(7mm) bore diameter!

    It'll take some time for the old ideas to die off, and through attrition, we may see the most excellent AR chambered in a 7mm caliber that isn't a wimp....no disrespect to you 6.8SPC fans out there...if there is any! lol hehehehe
     
  21. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    I've handled a Pedersen rifle. It's in no way a variant of the Garand. The Army wanted an autoloader, and both Garand and Pedersen submitted rifles for consideration. They were originally both submitted in .276 caliber, and then also in .30 cal when the Army decided it wanted to stick to the .30-06 cartridge. The Garand rifle won the trials, and for good reason. Garand's was the better design. Pedersen developed a good cartridge, though. The .276 was ballistically pretty similar to the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel.
     
  22. HorseSoldier

    HorseSoldier Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2006
    Messages:
    5,297
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    Had we adopted the .276 round with the Garand, it's an open question as to whether or not we'd have ever seen anything like the M14 adopted for US service. Assuming we got a hypothetical 276 caliber version of the T25 with its various ergonomic improvements over the Garand we'd more likely have wound up with that (it was the front runner US built rifle design for most of the post-war time frame).

    Had we improved on 276 after WW2 with better powder and such, and then forced that on NATO . . . we'd all be shooting 6.8 Rem SPC, as has already been pointed out. Not having the caliber war to contend with would have probably meant the British EM-2 got fielded as well . . .
     
  23. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,736
    Location:
    Alabama
    This is the standard “do nothing” excuse. Ammunition has a shelf life. The Army scraps single based ammunition at 45 years, double based at 20 years. Whatever ammo was left over from WW1 was rapidly heading for the scrap heap.

    The M1903 would have ended on the scrap heap sooner, as it should, if the 276 was adopted. The 276 Pederson was an excellent round and would have been an effective service round. Might still have been in inventory today.

    Incidentally, we sure as heck had more 30-06 in inventory after WW2 and Korea then before WW2. And we had just built several million more Garands and BARs. But finally, we adopted the 308 and a product improved Garand. It took two decades after the 276 was dropped that the opponents of change were finally revealed as false prophets. Change has its proponents and opponents. The path forward is seldom clear cut, but the consequences of rejecting change when you should have accepted change will have unintended negative consequences. And that consequence is the 223. An inadequate round that will be with us for decades to come.

    Supply is always a nightmare. Just as standardization remains an utopian idea used to reject change, and ignored when change is finally made. Six million 30 caliber Carbines were made in WW2, that was the most popular long arm in that war, and we were also able to make and supply all the ammunition, magazines, to supply the war effort. Our industry was able to supply all the new planes, ships, cannons, tanks, boots, cans, our Armies needed. Standardization will not fix the problems of an inadequate manufacturing sector.

    Which incidentally, we have today. We cannot sustain a major war because we have off shored our manufacturing. But in WW2, we could out supply anyone on anything.

    Today we are a service sector economy. We service what the Chinese design and build.
     
  24. Jim Watson

    Jim Watson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    22,791
    I substantially agree, although 1920s logistics probably favored sticking to the old caliber.

    I think the BIG reason for retaining the '06 was the Great Depression. The decision was announced in 1932, which was the worst or second worst year of the Depression, depending on which statistics you go by. The War Department budget was small and they could not afford to set up for a new caliber.
     
  25. Maverick223

    Maverick223 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    11,269
    Location:
    28078
    Yep, I believe you are right. Budget wasn't there so they promoted the existing cartridge rather than admitting that the new chambering had merit and simply waiting to replace the '06.

    :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page