.276 Pedersen and the M1 Garand

[HorseSoldier]

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.

During WW2, we had tons of M1 carbines in service along with 30-06 rifles and MGs (plus a good number of 45 ACP submachineguns in the mix, too) and things seem to have worked out okay.

My recollection is that at least part of the motive for the M1 carbine was that the Garand in 30-06 was heavier than the 276 version, and so not suitable for guys who needed a PDW. I'm not sure I buy that 100% -- surely an M1 carbine would still be a handier weapon than a somewhat lighter Garand, but the softer shooting 276 round would have worked better in a cut down carbine version shooting the same cartridge than 30-06 would.

Anyway, upshot being that I don't think a 276 caliber service rifle and 30-06 machineguns would have overly complicated things above and beyond the real world complications we had with logistics.

 

[gondorian]

Except the BAR the machine guns used linked ammo anyway, so it had to come in different cans.

 

[Ian]

Different packaging, perhaps, but the ammo itself was identical. When necessary, you could take .30-06 ammo in any type of magazine or clip and transplant it into any other. The 1919 and 1917 belts could be reloaded by hand if you really had to, though I'm sure there were belt-loading machines generally available.

 

[Al LaVodka]

"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."


"Good point, as with pretty much any engineering decision, practicalities (like cost and production) almost always prevent the technologically ideal path from being taken."



Good point... if it were true. IIRC the gun and decision was made in the mid '30's and no war was expected so the amount of ammo in stores and the budget were the deciding factors that I think MacArthur, your "General who was promoted beyond his capability," made the decison to keep .30-06 (and Garand himself wanted it, the loony). Had the US transitioned we woulda consumed all the .30-06 or obsoleted and sold it over the intervening years and had a better, more firepowerful, main battle rifle and quality light and medium machine guns in WWII.

Al

 

[Al LaVodka]

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.

Um, isn't that the whole point of the 6.8 SPC? The .276 short!
Al

 

[61chalk]

As some have said, the Army fired both 30/06 an .276 an chose the
30/06....I believe the .276 round had to have a special coating on it to
make it funtion in the rifle right...too much hassle.

 

[Al LaVodka]

The coating on the .276 was, IIRC, due to the Pederson gun, not the ammo. However, if it was a minor angulation issue of the case then it was a simple fix too.
Al

 

[Averageman]

The .276 and the "Super" Sherman were both killed by budgets and retooling costs. As good as the .276 might be in comparison to 30.06, I can't imagine Commanding a Sherman against a Tiger. Watching your Main Gun rounds bounce off a Tiger had to be demoralizing.
It is a shame that your survival rests in the hands of someone thousands of miles away in a warm office crunching numbers to sum exactly what your life is worth.
I can see one real positive in the 30.06 Garand. No one could forsee The Battle of the Bulge and I would hesitate to think if we would have had one more caliber added in that situation.

 

[USSR]

Adopting the M1 Garand in .276 caliber would have been a logistical nightmare. Remember, early in the war, almost every squad had a 1903 Springfield that served in the rifle grenade launching role, to say nothing of the BAR and machineguns. So, you would have had to supply .276, .30 Carbine, .30-06, and .45ACP ammo. It's not fun to find out that the latest shipment of ammo to arrive does not include the ammo you need.

Don

 

[Ian]

It was the Pedersen rifle that required lubricated cartridges, in both .276 and .30 calibers. The result of the original trials was that .276 was found to be the more effective caliber, and .30 was chosen over it for logistical reasons.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Adopting the M1 Garand in .276 caliber would have been a logistical nightmare. Remember, early in the war, almost every squad had a 1903 Springfield that served in the rifle grenade launching role, to say nothing of the BAR and machineguns. So, you would have had to supply .276, .30 Carbine, .30-06, and .45ACP ammo. It's not fun to find out that the latest shipment of ammo to arrive does not include the ammo you need.

As I noted above, it's not clear if there ever would have been an M1 Carbine and its ammo in the inventory if we'd switched to the 276 Pedersen when adopting the Garand. No carbine means the ammo situation is no more complicated than it was in the real world.

Um, isn't that the whole point of the 6.8 SPC? The .276 short!

Yeah, nothing new under the sun. 276 Pedersen, 280 British, and 6.8 Rem SPC are all pretty similar in terms of muzzle energy, though 6.8 uses lighter bullets faster due to the STANAG magazine/magwell limits on its dimensions.

 

[USSR]

As I noted above, it's not clear if there ever would have been an M1 Carbine and its ammo in the inventory if we'd switched to the 276 Pedersen when adopting the Garand. No carbine means the ammo situation is no more complicated than it was in the real world.

Nope, there would have been a .30 Carbine regardless of what caliber the M1 Garand was developed for. The reason: the M1 Carbine was developed to be given to soldiers who would have been given a M1911 .45ACP and not a service rifle anyways.

Don

 

[BruceB]

At the time Douglas MacArthur decided against the .276, there was a DEPRESSION in full bloom. The Army had to fight for every damned dollar from Congress, just to maintain the minimal forces we had at that time. The tonnage of ammunition on hand was an incredibly huge asset, and the difference between the cartridges was essentially unimportant AT THE TIME.

John Garand, on his own volition, had developed a .30-06 prototype as well as the favored .276, and this allowed rapid development of the .30-06 version to issue status.

Is the .276 a "better" cartridge for the purpose? Probably. Is the .30-06 a "good enough" cartridge for the purpose? Definitely! Historical evidence is emphatic on this.

This discussion has to take the circumstances of the time into careful consideration. MacArthur made the right decision, and the .30-06 served us admirably right into the Vietnam war.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Nope, there would have been a .30 Carbine regardless of what caliber the M1 Garand was developed for. The reason: the M1 Carbine was developed to be given to soldiers who would have been given a M1911 .45ACP and not a service rifle anyways.

I don't believe that's correct. My understanding is that the M1 carbine not only filled slots on various TO&E's that had been previously filled by M1911s, but also a good number of them that were filled by long guns. With the requirement for the carbine and its unique ammunition only coming into the picture after the decision to adopt the Garand but stick with the 30-06 round, it is a legitimate part of the whole "what if" scenario.

 

[USSR]

The original request for a compact and lightweight shoulder arm to replace service handguns for second-line (non-fighting) troops was first issued by US Army in 1938. The idea behind this request was that a shoulder arm, such as carbine, firing ammunition of moderate power, will have more effective range and will be much simpler to train the users to fire it accurately, than the standard .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol or revolver. This request was probably the first recognition of the need in the Personal Defense Weapon in the modern sense.

Here's a link to the above:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm

Don

 

[HorseSoldier]

Wikipedia goes into more detail on the motives for the carbine, but neither is a primary source. I would note that at least in some WW2 TO&Es the carbine is definitely standing in for a rifle -- in the hands of assistant gunners for MG teams and such.

And as I noted above, there's no reason to suppose that a 276 caliber Garand would not have been suitable for spinning of a full-caliber carbine version for the PDW role that was not feasible with 30-06. Recoil can't have been much more than a 6.8mm AR, and those are nice handling with 16" barrels.

 

[USSR]

I give up. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Don

 

[Al LaVodka]

I tend to think MacArthur made the WRONG decision -- maybe he shouldn't have gone to West Point WITH HIS MOTHER! It was time for a new gun and the ammo to go with it. Phase out the old, phase in the new -- there would have been no real cost differential at the pace they were going, as we supplied our allies, and armed our expanding National Guard with older weapons. A war meant we probably consumed all the OTHERWISE left over ammo still in stock in weeks.

I agree we would have had a .276 carbine vs. the .30 M-1 Carbine and kept these until Vietnam.

This would have been better in every respect.

Al

 

[Maverick223]

Everyone knows those light, handy little carbines are worthless anyway...the 10lb Garand beats the tar out of it. PM me for an address to dump your worthless M1 Carbines.

 

[Glock Glockler]

At the time Douglas MacArthur decided against the .276, there was a DEPRESSION in full bloom. The Army had to fight for every damned dollar from Congress, just to maintain the minimal forces we had at that time. The tonnage of ammunition on hand was an incredibly huge asset, and the difference between the cartridges was essentially unimportant AT THE TIME.

John Garand, on his own volition, had developed a .30-06 prototype as well as the favored .276, and this allowed rapid development of the .30-06 version to issue status.

Is the .276 a "better" cartridge for the purpose? Probably. Is the .30-06 a "good enough" cartridge for the purpose? Definitely! Historical evidence is emphatic on this.

This discussion has to take the circumstances of the time into careful consideration. MacArthur made the right decision, and the .30-06 served us admirably right into the Vietnam war.

The ammo we had in stock was soon used up in training, so why is it not a good idea to use ammo that allows for a smaller rifle that uses less material and costs less, along with ammo that uses less material as well? That's aside from the fact that soldiers could have more rounds in the gun and have quicker follow-up shots, which is very useful in war, which is the entire point of the rifle.

 

[Art Eatman]

The time rate of change was accelerating in the military during the 1930s, for all that much of it was on-paper ideas. In the early 1930s, my father was breaking horses for the cavalry, and teaching soldiers how to ride. (Many cavalry horses wound up minus part of the left ear. Beginning cavalry troopers, learning the command, "Drawwww SABERS!" Oops.)

Gotta retool to make a new type of ammo. So, back to the Depression and budget--and the money for tooling. It was a time of $17/month for a Private, and people working for a dollar a day. They didn't even mint the 50¢ coin in my birth year of 1934. No demand.

Once the war started, far more money was available for R&D of all sorts, along with manufacture of new designs--be it tanks, planes or guns. Or A-bombs. The increase in the use of armor and trucks justified the Carbine over a full-size battle rifle for those who were not Infantry shooters.

 

[unit91]

Does anyone have an opinion on what the standard issue service rifle would be today if the switch had not happened?

This debate has raged for years in every niche of the military because people think that if certain key leaders only knew that X product was superior to Y (7.62 vs .276 vs 5.56, F-22 vs YF-23, you name it), we wouldn't be stuck with Y. The reality of it is, the military acquisitions process has "thresholds" (what they want) and "goals" (pie in the sky) for each "key performance parameter" (KPP). While you get a few extra points for hitting the goals in each category, the gov't wants the threshold product at the lowest possible cost. Period. The only time goals enter the picture is if two manufacturers both meet threshold at comparable cost, and you need a tie-breaker.

While that seems silly, you and I do the same thing at home. I drive a 2002 pickup because I want money left over for other toys. Is a 2010 "better?" Sure. But my '02 meets the threshold.

Bringing this back to the OP: If the threshold was kill at 500m, the .30-06 does the job, and -- at the time -- does so at the lowest possible cost. Would the military have spent extra money on a better bullet? No. Would they today? No. Will they ever? No.

Threshold is the name of the game.