.276 Pedersen Rifle

[BigG]

.276 vs .284

That was two different ways of expressing the same thing. I think the English first routinely expressed it in bore diameter (.256, .300. .303, ...) and later users began to express it in groove diameter (.264, .308, .311, for the same sizes)

I am thinking Winchester might have been first with their .264, .338, .458, .308 etc. giving exact bullet size.

 

[HorseSoldier]

We need to know that Pedersen was not some guy off the street with a neat invention. He had been Remington's chief designer for years and, of course, had invented the Pedersen device which had so impressed the Army brass.* So they certainly had good reason to respect him and listen to his ideas.

I'm quoting someone (American Rifleman article?) when I mention Pedersen had a reputation for "never using one part when 17 would suffice" or something to that effect.

In retrospect, the decision was the right one. Not only would millions of rounds of ammunition have been scrapped, but the .276 would have been out-ranged and out-powered by the 7.9 German cartridge. I believe the Pedersen rifle, would been more susceptible to problems of dirt and weather than the M1 rifle was.

The rifle may have been an issue, but the cartridge would have been entirely suitable for combat use, since the extended range of 7.92 Mauser or 30-06 was pointless and wasted in infantry rifles when the infantryman could not even acquire targets past 300 meters with any degree of reliability, and could not make the shot when he could under combat conditions.

If the Germans had had the resources they'd have been issuing nothing but assault rifles chambered in 7.92 Kurz for general service use, and .276 Pedersen was certainly a better round that that one in terms of external ballistics, barrier penetration (I suspect), and such.

 

[Tony Williams]

For the larger measurement, I think it is the bullet diameter rather than the groove diameter which is significant (they are more or less the same, but grooves can be of different shapes and sizes, or even non-existent with polygonal rifling).

Most military ammunition uses the bore diameter nowadays (e.g. 7.62mm, 5.56mm) although I think the 9mm pistol round uses the bullet diameter.

 

[BigG]

I'm quoting someone (American Rifleman article?) when I mention Pedersen had a reputation for "never using one part when 17 would suffice" or something to that effect.

With all due respect, the AmRifleman does not have the caliber of authors they once did and I wouldn't trust them to give much of an historical perspective today. I find much of their assertions riddled with ambiguity.

Julian Hatcher on the other hand was an authority and is still highly respected.

Pedersen was hampered by the other great gun designer Browning who had early patented almost every idea he came up with. Pedersen was required to find work arounds to avoid infringing Browning's patents which were sometimes as simple as "breechblock solid with slide. There fore, you couldn't build a small blow back auto without infringing Browning's patent. Thats why they came up with the momentum block or such horse pucky for the pocket .380 to make a gun Remington could market.

 

[BigG]

For the larger measurement, I think it is the bullet diameter rather than the groove diameter which is significant (they are more or less the same, but grooves can be of different shapes and sizes, or even non-existent with polygonal rifling).

I guess I was assuming traditional symmetrical cut rifling, so you are right. The
Euros have always gone even sizes 7mm 8mm, etc. even though the actual 8mm Mauser is 7.92mm if you look it up.

 

[Ash]

"The rifle may have been an issue, but the cartridge would have been entirely suitable for combat use, since the extended range of 7.92 Mauser or 30-06 was pointless and wasted in infantry rifles when the infantryman could not even acquire targets past 300 meters with any degree of reliability, and could not make the shot when he could under combat conditions."

Yet, again, those powers using similar rounds were discarding them because of unfavorable combat experiences, the Japanese in China and the Italians in Ethiopia. Combat experience seemed to indicate that these rounds were inferior. If these rounds did not demonstrate a problem, then Italy and Japan would not have decided to discard them.

Also, if your range is shorter than the machine gun, you are at a disadvantage. If the enemy can shoot at you before you can shoot at them (not a problem in city-combat, but a tremendous amount of Western Front combat was in the countryside), then you are at a disadvantage. Indeed, a shorter-range Garand would have lost advantage over the longer-range Mauser at longer distance. And one does not have to aim at a direct target for suppressing fire.

Ash

 

[Tony Williams]

Yet, again, those powers using similar rounds were discarding them because of unfavorable combat experiences, the Japanese in China and the Italians in Ethiopia. Combat experience seemed to indicate that these rounds were inferior. If these rounds did not demonstrate a problem, then Italy and Japan would not have decided to discard them.

The main problem with the Italian and Japanese 6.5mm rounds was that the bullets tended to zip straight through without significant yaw, so the wound channels were very small. It was a question of bullet design.

Research after WW2 showed that 90% of all small-arms engagements took place within 300 metres, and that the vast majority of people hit by aimed rifle fire (snipers excepted) were hit within 100 metres. If you got hit at longer ranges, it was usually because you had the bad luck to occupy the same space as a randomly-fired bullet. In fact, in Europe it proved extremely difficult to acquire targets at ranges longer than 300m, because the view tended to be blocked by the terrain, vegetation or buildings.

That's why the Germans adopted th little 7.92x33 Kurz round (it was designed to be effective out to 300m) and the Russians followed suit shortly afterwards with the 7.62x39. The US Army eventually recognised the same thing when the 5.56mm was adopted in the 1960s. Basically, they all realised that a high rate of fire and large magazine capacity are much more useful than the ability to reach out past 300m.

 

[Ash]

But, see, you make my point. These rounds, as understood at the time and with their designs, were not potent. As a result, the 276 as adopted, may have been a miserable round.

Ash

 

[Tony Williams]

??? The .276 would have been considerably more effective than the 7.92x33, the 7.62x39 and the 5.56mm and you call it a "miserable round"?

You could equally well say that the .30-06 was a "miserable round" because it came nowhere near the power of the .50 BMG. The .276 would have been easily powerful enough to do the job, which is what matters.

 

[Ash]

No, my point is if we had adopted a round with the same performance that the Japanese and Italians were disappointed with, we would have ended up with a round with a miserable reputation. Bullet development that followed could have made the 276 better, much better, but at the time, our soldiers could have been saddled with something that did not perform as well in combat.

Who knows? It isn't important at this time in any case. But again, we were considering a round in a class that, because of combat experience, was being discarded. The 276 was an interesting concept that, had we been able to field, could have been great. It could also have developed a terrible reputation based on bullet designs as the time.

Ash

 

[BigG]

Weapons system more important than cartridge alone

Just to note The 5.56mm and M16 were a weapons system and really a big leap forward for something to be actually fielded that has not been superseded yet.

 

[camp_gunner]

Personal perspective on this.

I fully understand why this gun was not adopted. In the seventies, I owned one of the Vickers guns for a time. I actually shot it a few times. It worked well, but only when it was clean. I am fully of the belief that it would not have worked well when dirty. It was a very nicely made gun, the workmanship was held to a high standard. It was somewhat lighter than the Garand and handled a little better. Something about not having all that iron at the front for the gas system.

Garand had his own problems as a designer, consider the first gas system for the M1, the so called gas trap system. It lead to a less than optimum system on the M1's, with the gas system being at the muzzle. That whole gas system could have been moved back down the barrel, and the gun would have been lighter and handier.

 

[Detritus]

an invention that would transform the '03 Springfield into an automatic rifle.

No, it converted the '03 into an oversized and unwieldy sub-machine gun. as mentioned earlier in the thread if used as intended (for "walking fire") it would have resulted in US troops being slaughtered.

as for my take on .276 pederson and the rifle it went with, cool cartridge, not so great rifle. maybe the .276 pederson could have had a chance if not for the issue of historical timing. as it was I like appearently many others think the garand was the better choice available.

 

[alsaqr]

MacArthur did the right thing when he canned the Pederson rifle and it's ammunition. The 03 Springfield, the 1917 Enfield, the M1917 Browning MG and the 1919 Browning MG all used .30 caliber ammunition. No reason to clutter up the logistics system with another caliber of ammunition.

 

[Brian Williams]

No reason to clutter up the logistics system with another caliber of ammunition

Like the 30 carbine, the 303 british and what ever the French were using...

One of the reasons the Japanese and the Italians had terrible problems with their 6.5s were the bullet design, a long round nose bullet preforms differently than a long spitzer design. Look at a 6.5 Swede, it had a nice pointy bullet and did very well for them. The 6.5 Lee was not a great performer either.

 

[max popenker]

Look at a 6.5 Swede, it had a nice pointy bullet and did very well for them

Yes but they also had a 8x63 machine gun round for their Browning MG's, which was considerably more powerful than .30-06
And most of their belt-fed Brownings were issued with two caliber kits (6.5mm and 8mm) so you can use whatever ammunition is available
Post war, and for a time, they even issued three caliber conversion kits for their Brownings, in 6.5mm, 7.62 NATO and 8mm.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

One of the reasons the Japanese and the Italians had terrible problems with their 6.5s were the bullet design, a long round nose bullet preforms differently than a long spitzer design.

The .30 US originally had a long, round nose bullet. It was changed to a streamlined 150 grain bullet in 1906 to create the .30-06. Changing the bullet is a non-problem - particularly in wartime, when you're rapidly shooting up your exiting stocks.

 

[Ash]

Not quite true because the sights were different on the original 1903's shooting 30-03 ammo. Ditto for the Russians who changed to spitzer at the same time, new sights were required. All the same, finding out during combat that your round was not very good is bad to say the least, then having to change the rifle sights while in combat operations would have been a nightmare.

Ash

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not quite true because the sights were different on the original 1903's shooting 30-03 ammo.

The sights were changed in 1905 -- when various changes were made to the rifle, including eliminating the rod bayonet. In '06 when the ammo was changed, the sights were not changed -- leaving the '03 Springfield with a battlesight setting of 547 yards (as I recall).

 

[kBob]

Vern,

I think it was 600 yards which would be about how many meters?

So if the sights on the WWI to WWII M1903 were set up for the round nose cartridge, then used with the '06 cartridge, I have to wonder what shooting the M1 cartridge must have done to training..... and then changing back to the clone of the cartridge of 1906 the M3 just in time for WWII?

Must have made for some confussed Range NCOs and Frustrated troops when folks really did try to shoot that far.

Surely there must be some AMerican Rifleman articles from the interwar period on the subjet

OF course if the folks at member services at the NRA would ever pay attention and provide a searchable CD collection of every magazine the way Nation Geographic socioty did several years ago we could just look them up.

I can not figure why the Geographic can sell those at a profit and yet NRA can not be bothered to offer its members the same service.

It would certainly free up a couple of cubic yards of storage place around my place and greatly reduce the chances of loosing my guns to spontanious combustion intiated fires. See multiple goodies all for one reasonable price.

-Bob Hollingsworth

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Nope -- the sights were not changed when the barrels were removed, faced off and new chamber reamers run in. The resulting battlesight zero was therefore not in round numbers -- it was just what fell out when you fired '06 ammo with an '03 sight setting.

 

[PercyShelley]

Not quite true because the sights were different on the original 1903's shooting 30-03 ammo. Ditto for the Russians who changed to spitzer at the same time, new sights were required. All the same, finding out during combat that your round was not very good is bad to say the least, then having to change the rifle sights while in combat operations would have been a nightmare.

Ash

Are you seriously advocating getting new rifles in a new caliber instead of loading existing cartridges with a new bullet?

Granted, that's what the Italians and Japanese actually did, but that doesn't make it any less a bad idea.

 

[Ash]

I am saying changing calibers from 30-06 was a bad idea. Do you seriously think it would have been a good idea?

Ash

 

[PercyShelley]

I'm not entirely sure, actually.

On the one hand, yes, there was a substantial stockpile of .30-06 on hand.

On the other, they seem to have adopted .30 carbine in large amounts without a hitch.

 

[Ash]

The M1 Carbine, even though used thoroughly in many places, still had nowhere near the ammunition requirements of the 30-06. Given the rifles and machineguns that were burning up 30-06 versus the much lighter use of the M1 Carbine (yes, there were plenty of places where it was preferred, but in no place was it even half the weaponry), we don't know how much trouble there would have been had demand been equal to the 30-06, or even half of the 30-06 requirements. Would it have caused us to lose WWII? Not at all. But, it could have caused all sorts of logistics problems, made worse if the 276 round ended up not performing as desired and the bullet required change or some such thing. Remember the troubles with 5.56 when it was adopted? How might the teething troubles have effected the US just prior to WWII? We will never know, of course, but the 30-06 was certainly so effective in its role that I find it hard to see where we could have been better served by having rifles in one caliber, machine guns, automatic rifles, and sniper rifles in another, M1 Carbines in yet another.

Ash