M1 Garand...a missed opportunity.Why the .30-06 Garand was a mistake

[MDphotographer]

I know this topic has been beaten to death over the past few years but after reading hundreds of forum posts on the internet I had to chime in.I also know that I am treading on the holy of WWII and military firearms collectors hollies with this article but sometimes it is good to use your head when thinking instead of your heart.I love the M1 Garand rifle as many do.I firmly believe it to be the finest military rifle of its era and give it great credit as being the weapon that for the only time in US history,before and after, that the US infantryman and Marine had a weapon far superior to that of any he faced on the battlefield.I just think it was in the wrong caliber and let me tell you why.

Our story starts in 1898 in Cuba where our forces armed with .30-40 Krag and .45-70 Springfield rifles were outgunned by the Spanish with their 7mm Mauser rifles.The army decided in 1900 it needed a replacement for the Krag and developed its own improved Mauser rifle the 1903 Springfield and developed a new cartridge for it instead of chambering it in the nearly ideal 7X57 Mauser cartridge.The turn of the 20th century being at a time of ultra nationalism we had to have the biggest and best cartridge for our new rifle and we got it in the .30US round (7.62x63mm) a cartridge with a 220gr round nose bullet,no one before or since has had such a big powerful rifle cartridge.In 1906 it was decided that a lighter bullet of spitzer design would be more effective and thus was born the immortal .30 M1906 round (.30-06)

The '03 Springfield and .30-06 cambering was a tremendous combination with great accuracy and stopping power out to and beyond 800 yards.The problem was it kicked like a mule and many troopers couldn't shoot it accurately because they would flinch and why the Army and Marine Corps in the inter-war year gave a $3 marksmanship bonus to those who qualified expert with the Springfield.

After WWI the Army starting thinking about a Self Loading Rifle (SLR) that could replace the Springfield and perhaps the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) The Army also started to think about a caliber change because their combat experience had shown that the .30-06 was excessively powerful at,-500 yard ranges,that infantry combat was likely to take place.Before the war the British were working on a 7mm replacement for the .303 round and after the war the Swedes did a study on what is the most effective caliber for combat,they concluded that 6.5mm (.264) caliber was it.

In 1923 John Pedersen was contracted by the Bureau of Ordnance to develope a SLR and a cartridge in the 6-7mm (.256-.284) range. By 1926 he had developed the .276 Pederson (7x51mm) round and a delayed blow-back rifle for it.The .276 Pederson round fired a 125gr bullets 2700 fps and was 25% lighter,produced 1/3 less heat,and half the recoil of the .30-06 round.The only drawbacks was that tracer & AP performance wasn't as good in the smaller caliber and it used a waxed cartridge to facilitate loading that might attract dirt.In 1928 the Army Infantry Board was impressed with Pedersen's and called for the adoption of Pedersens T1E3 rifle to replace both the Springfield rifle and BAR.

Doubts about the lethal effect of the .276 round were strong enough to result in extensive tests in June and July 1928 by the “Pig Board” (so called because lethality tests were carried out on anesthetized pigs). The Board found all three rounds (.256, .276, and .30) were lethal out to 1,200 yards (1100m), and wounding ability out to 300 or 400 yards was comparable. The “tiny” .256 caliber round was perceived to be the deadliest of them all. No compelling case could be made against the Pedersen rifle and round that it could not perform on the battlefield.

Starting in 1919 John Garand had been working first at the Bureau of Standards and then Springfield Armory on a primer actuated SLR.When the army in 1926 adopted the M1 Ball ammunition he gave up on the primer actuated design because of the staked in primer and started work on a .276 Pedersen chambered gas operated rifle without the need for the waxed ammunition.In the spring of 1931 the .276 chambers Pederson and Garand rifles competed against each other along with a .30 Garand but it had to be withdrawn because of a cracked bolt.The .276 Garand was the clear winner.In January on 1932 the Semi Automatic Rifle board recommended the adoption of the .276 caliber and production of 126 of Garands T3E2 rifles. In the meantime Garand had redesigned the bolt on the .30 caliber T1E2 rifle and was retested.

This is where history changed.Of course we all know the history of the M1 Garand BAR and M14 in WWII,Korea,and the Vietnam war.Douglas MacArthur as Army Chief of Staff decided,based on the 2 billion rounds of .30 caliber ammunition in storage,that work be stopped on the .276 round and the .30 Garand be produced giving us in 1933 the U.S.Rifle Caliber .30 M1.But really what kind of history is that? We know how great the Garand rifle was serving our country for 20+ years in the regular army and even longer in the National Gaurd and reserves.I propose the greatness of the Garand would of been even more historic had it been produced as the U.S. Rifle Caliber .276 (or maybe .28) M1!

MacA's main reasoning for adopting the .30 M1 was because of the ammunition in storage(the bulk of it being M1906 not M1),but what of that ammo? By 1931 the Bureau of Ordinance reported that 20% of M1906 ammunition being issued for training was defective because of corrosion when visually inspected (powders and primers used for WWI ammo were very corrosive and had a short shelf life). No records were kept of what percentage of issued ammunition failed to fire.The same thing happened in 1917 with surplus 6mm Lee ammo the powder used in the 6mm government cartridges had deteriorated to such a degree they were determined to be unfit for sale, and the company destroyed the entire lot rather than resell them to the public. Also because of modifications the Garand didn't reach 100 rifles per day production until 1939. By this time a lot of ammunition had been used for training and a further 188 million rounds were shipped to Britain in lend lease (with the approval of Bureau of Ordnance as it wanted to replace that ammunition with fresh stock) along with 1/3 of all pre-war BAR's.Very little to none of that 2 billion rounds of ammunition was used in combat in M1 Garands during WWII.

I can hear all you internet forum posters say but what about commonality of ammo with our machine guns and the BAR? I say what about it? Ammo was shipped from the US as thus:

.45 ACP in 50 round boxes in wooden crates or ammo cans
.30 Carbine in 50 round boxes in M6 ammo cans or wooden crates
M2 AP 20 round boxes in wooden crates
M2 Ball in 20 round boxes 12 boxes to waxed cardboard box 4 boxes per wooden crate
M2 AP and/or Ball and or Tracer in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 AP and/or Ball and or tracer in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 Ball in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 4 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
M2 Ball in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 5 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
.30-06 machine gun ammo was shipped in various lengths either belted or linked either in wooden crates or ammo cans

ALL of these types of small arms ammunition were shipped to U.S. Army and Marine divisions,regiments and battalions.Very few if any Garand clips were loaded in the field from either boxed or stripper clip ammo containers or machine gun belts(very few soldiers saved spent clips). Same goes with BAR ammo or machine gun belted ammo being redistributed to men with Garands. BAR magazines were loaded from 20 round boxes and 5 round strippers and could be loaded with Garand clips (extremely rare) either in the field or in ammo depots.Ammo supply would not of been 1 bit more difficult in WWII had we switched to the .276 for the Garand.In fact 25% more rifle ammo,per weight,for the Garand could of been shipped.

This brings us to the BAR and also the rifle we adopted in the 1950s to replace the Garand BAR sub-machine gun and Carbine,the M14. John Garand's first rifle the RIFLE, MILITARY - U.S. RIFLE GARAND T1919 .30 was a selective fire rifle fed by a standard BAR magazine.As stated above in 1928 the Army Board recommended that the BAR be replaced by the Pedersen rifle.It would of taken very little effort to turn the Garand into a replacement for the BAR.In 1944 the army did just that by starting development work on the selective fire T20 rifle that was fed with a BAR magazine and with bi-pod and empty magazine weighed 12.5 pounds the Ordnance Dept recommended 100,000 T20s be procured but the end of the war saw that number cut to only 100.The work on the T20 and Remingtons work on the T22 eventually led to the T44 and M14 rifle adopted in 1957.The biggest problem's with most of the fully automatic Garands,the BAR,and the M14 is the fact that they overheat and are not controllable on fully automatic fire.Imagine a selective fire Garand with a box magazine using a cartridge just as effective to 500 yards as the '06 round but with 1/3 the heat,half the felt recoil,and weighing in at 11 or 12lbs with a bi-pod (as opposed to the almost 20lbs for a BAR) and that weapon could of been available PRIOR to WWII instead of still not getting it right in 1957.Parts commonality between the Garand and a SAW derivative would of greatly increased manufacturing of both weapons had BAR assembly lines been switched to Garand/T20 production not to mention the firearms that might have been designed for a weapon not needing to deal with the power of the .30-06 or later 7.62Nato rounds.

What could the .276 Garand of given us? Lower weight rifles and SAW's,larger ammo load-outs for our troops,increased firepower at no loss of effectiveness at normal combat ranges,less flinching when shoot means better accuracy and finally the elimination of the M14 which despite its recent revival as a longer ranging alternative to the 5.56x45 NATO is still not the answer for an all around main battle rifle.Maybe the M16 would of been designed around a .276 Kurz round which is almost what the 6.8 Remington/6.5 Grendel rounds are that is all the current rage.Unfortunately we will never know what might of been had the caliber switch been made instead of being quashed by Douglas MacArthur.

I say it wouldn't of been worse only better.What do you say?

 

[fanchisimo]

I enjoyed reading your post and there is a lot of info I learned from it, but you have to understand the weapons procurement process is a lot more than what would be the best. How many times has there been trials to replace the M16/M4, the M9, and the 5.56 caliver and a superior weapon/caliber is found? The M4 is a good rifle, the Beretta a good pistol, the 5.56 a good round, but thus the added expense, not just in ammo is factored in. I'm sure that they considered the ammo makers as well, since they'd have to retool to mass produce that round. Then you have cost to benefit ratio, and the factors just go on and on. Despite the shortcomings you mentioned, we won. Lol.

 

[MDphotographer]

I enjoyed reading your post and there is a lot of info I learned from it, but you have to understand the weapons procurement process is a lot more than what would be the best. How many times has there been trials to replace the M16/M4, the M9, and the 5.56 caliver and a superior weapon/caliber is found? The M4 is a good rifle, the Beretta a good pistol, the 5.56 a good round, but thus the added expense, not just in ammo is factored in. I'm sure that they considered the ammo makers as well, since they'd have to retool to mass produce that round. Then you have cost to benefit ratio, and the factors just go on and on. Despite the shortcomings you mentioned, we won. Lol.

All of what you say is true.However we took that leap in 1957 switching to 7.62 NATO and again in 1965 switching to 5.56 in 1957 we had a lot more M2 ammo in stock then the 2 billion rounds of the early 1930s and it was much newer ammo that has a long shelf life as we see by still using that ammo in the collectors market today.Tooling to load the billions of round of ammo we needed for WWII wouldn't of been any more expensive for the .276 then it was for the '06.When BAR production was started again in 1942 it was found the tooling was either worn out or not compatible to new manufacturing techniques so totally new tooling for the BAR was needed for it as well as for the '03A4.The experts sent to pick the best rifle and ammo to replace the '03 were overruled by one man for what turned out to be erroneous reasons and we have been living with the cost of that decision ever since.

 

[Jim Watson]

But in the pre-assault rifle era, the trend was towards greater infantry rifle power.
The P13 Enfield 7mm was more powerful than .303, not less, and no relation to the much later
.280 EM2.
The Swedes never had to fight a war with their tidy 6.5.
The Japanese and Italians did and were sufficiently unimpressed that they attempted to change calibers after hostilities were already under way. The Japanese ended up with two bolt action rifles and corresponding machine guns to feed. The Italians actually backed up and restored the 6.5.
The Spanish took a lesson from their German contacts and went to 8mm from the Yankee thumping 7mm.

Present enthusiasm for medium calibers did not inform choices 60-100 years ago.

 

[MDphotographer]

But in the pre-assault rifle era, the trend was towards greater infantry rifle power.
The P13 Enfield 7mm was more powerful than .303, not less, and no relation to the much later
.280 EM2.
The Swedes never had to fight a war with their tidy 6.5.
The Japanese and Italians did and were sufficiently unimpressed that they attempted to change calibers after hostilities were already under way. The Japanese ended up with two bolt action rifles and corresponding machine guns to feed. The Italians actually backed up and restored the 6.5.
The Spanish took a lesson from their German contacts and went to 8mm from the Yankee thumping 7mm.

Present enthusiasm for medium calibers did not inform choices 60-100 years ago.

Both the 6.5mm Arisaka and Carcano were hampered by poor bullet choice.The Carcano's 162gr round nose was equivalent to the 220gr round nose of the '03 Springfield round.The Arisaka's 139gr bullet was better but both rounds would of benefited from 120-125gr spitzers and been much more effective.The Arisaka round wasnt all that bad as the original Federov SLR's came chambered for that round not the 7.62x54R I don't know why the Spanish reverted to the 8mm maybe they got the tooling and or ammo from Germany to make the switch make sense. One of the points of my article was that NO ONE after WWI went to a more powerful cartridge with the exception of the Japanese and Spain in WWII lets not forget the Japanese kicked a lot of ass up until 1942 with the 6.5mm. All major WWI combatants new their rounds were powerful enough or over-powered as it was. The Norwegians and Swedes had to drop their 6.5mms after WWII to standardize their weapons to 7.62 NATO that the US jammed down everyone's throat.Somehow after 2 World War's we didn't learn you didn't need a bullet to kill horses anymore as cavalry was a thing of the past or one for 2000 yard indirect fire! lol

 

[200Apples]

.
Sounds like you're mad at MacArthur. lol.

Thanks for your fine post... it was interesting and quite thought provoking. ...and it's "would've" as in "would have", not "would of". Had to mention that.

What are your thoughts, then, on the 7.62 (X 51) /.308 NATO cartridge as used, say, in the FAL?

Just curious...

 

[MDphotographer]

.
Sounds like you're mad at MacArthur. lol.

Thanks for your fine post... it was interesting and quite thought provoking. ...and it's "would've" as in "would have", not "would of". Had to mention that.

What are your thoughts, then, on the 7.62 (X 51) /.308 NATO cartridge as used, say, in the FAL?

Just curious...

lol thanks I never claimed to be a English major.

My thoughts on the .308? It is a fine hunting cartridge and for a dedicated sniper rifle or light to medium machine gun a la M60 it is a superb round. It never should of seen the light of day in an assault rifle platform. I am hesitant to even call the M14 or FN_FAL an assault rifle because to me they really are full auto battle rifles or just lighter versions of the BAR.
The M-14 as we all know is a reworked Garand that the Army had to rig the test for so it would beat the FN FAL.The FN FAL is a very good rifle has been proven over the years....with an over-powered cartridge (I had to get that in) lol

As far as MacA is concerned I think he was a military genius and one of the top 5 generals this country has ever produced.With that being said he was an arrogant prima donna who had no use for anyone's opinion unless it matched his own in every minute detail and in certain matters should of let the experts do the jobs the army was paying them for and accept their findings instead of imposing his will over something he had little information on or knowledge of.I hope that didn't come off as cynical. lol

 

[200Apples]

.
Hahaha... not at all. Makes sense to me in that it seems par for the course.

..Welcome! to The High Road.

 

[MDphotographer]

For those who care here are a list for some of my sources:

Springfield Armory Archives
Weapons and Warfare-Rifles An Illustrated History of Their Impact by David Westwood
The Big L American Logistics in World War II National Defense University
Department of the Army Supply Manual ORD-11 SNL Group T (Small Arms Ammunition)
Outing, Ballistics of Cartridges: Military Rifles III, Outing Publishing Co. Vol. 62
CMH Pub 10-9 The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions For War

 

[WestKentucky]

Seems very logical but one odd bit strikes me funny. The military rounds are chosen to mame rather than kill. Let's face it, a guy hits the deck leaking and screaming and there's a fair chance his buddy is coming back or slowing down for him giving us a second, slower target. If said buddy skedaddles then we have a wealth of info to pound out of the guy. So. If the smaller round was more effective, why WOULD we use it. We lose the advantage that a maming round gives us. Seems that with this logic Mac made the right choice, which was supported by an existing stockpile of weaponry and ammunition to field reserves with commonized caliber weapons. It would be like today if we chose to abandon the m4, and SAW to go with a 300blk chambered weapon. It wouldn't make much sense.

 

[MDphotographer]

Seems very logical but one odd bit strikes me funny. The military rounds are chosen to mame rather than kill. Let's face it, a guy hits the deck leaking and screaming and there's a fair chance his buddy is coming back or slowing down for him giving us a second, slower target. If said buddy skedaddles then we have a wealth of info to pound out of the guy. So. If the smaller round was more effective, why WOULD we use it. We lose the advantage that a maming round gives us. Seems that with this logic Mac made the right choice, which was supported by an existing stockpile of weaponry and ammunition to field reserves with commonized caliber weapons. It would be like today if we chose to abandon the m4, and SAW to go with a 300blk chambered weapon. It wouldn't make much sense.

It makes all the sense in the world. Again you missed the point of that stockpile by the start of the war was either 1.no longer effective ammunition due to the powder and primers used on WWI ammo. 2.Had been used in training. and 3. A large percentage of shipped to Britain under lend lease BEFORE the start of the War. I didn't say the .276 was a more effective killing round the board stated that a .256 .276 and .30 caliber rounds were all effective out to 1200m and the lesser 2 as effective as the .30 caliber round out to 300-400m.Those extensive stockpiles of weapons didnt exist in 1931 we had 1.4 million '03s that were produced up until the end of WWI and about 80,000 BAR's
1/3 of which we shipped to Britain again as Lend Lease.Springfield and Winchester had delivered about 400,000 rifles by the end of 1941. Production of the Bar and '03 was restarted in 1942 for both weapons the BAR tooling was either so worn out or out of date technology wise new tooling was required as well as new tooling for the '03 by 1943 that Remington was turning out.If the Garand had been adopted in .276 manufacture would of been a bit easier as it wasn't as bulky as the .30 version not to mention the less felt recoil by the troops and them also being able to carry more ammo.Remember most soldiers in WWII were city boys who never fired a gun before now you are giving them BAR's that weight 20lbs and are hard to maintain in the field not to mention shoot. The average GI would of been an even better soldier with weapons that didn't try to beat them to death,why do you think so many front line soldiers loved carrying a carbine?.A BAR derived from the Garand was achievable pre-war and would of shared a lot of parts commonality with the Garand not to mention production times would of been greatly facilitated. 2 manufacturers produced less then 170,000 BAR's during WWII Springfield alone in its peak month of Nov.43 produced 111,500 Garands
Ammo for the '03 and BAR was shipped differently from the Garand ammo little to no difference would of been noticed if that Garand ammo had been in .276

 

[Onmilo]

It has been beaten to death because these arguements are in retrospect.
We WON using .30/06
End of story.

 

[eastbank]

i,ll tell you that in my time of being in harms way, i wanted who ever i shot at to be dead now. i was happy with the m-14 and found that it would go threw alot of grass-sticks and light to mediam walls and still kill. the m-60(762x51) got a lot of work due to the m-16,s not being able to get threw the afor mentioned items.eastbank.

 

[BobTheTomato]

What should be pointed out is back when the garand was being developed, the US did not have troops stationed all over the globe itching to inject themselves in every regional conflict. Also, the government did not yet embrace the concept of the military industrial complex where vast sums of money could be thrown at every project. Spending money on military equipment when the people did not want to get involved overseas did not make sense. With the US dollar still linked to gold, it was impossible to drum up massive amounts of money to make a different kind of ammo we didn't need. So when you look at it, economic played a part in this decision.

 

[cfullgraf]

So when you look at it, economic played a part in this decision.

When it comes to government decisions, economics is always a factor.

As Onmilo said "We won using the 30-06."

In my opinion, the choice of firearm was more critical to victory than the caliber bullet that it shot.

 

[MDphotographer]

yes money was tight in the 1930s but not as tight as many people believe by 1931 when Japan invaded China the Army new many of its weapons were obsolete.In 1934 the army put out the requirements for the competition that left to the B-18 and Congress still bought a limited number of YB-17s because the army decided it couldn't let the B-17 die even thought it lost the competition to the B-18 because it crashed in the last phase of testing because of army pilot error.They put money into the Boeing XB-15 a one off big bomber test bed.So to say the money wasn't there isn't so.Frankford Arsenal already had the tooling to produce the .276 round that is how they had ammo to do the testing of the Semi-automatic Rifle and Pig Boards

All of the usual reasons people give why the .30 Garand was the right decision ring very hallow and usually when looked at closely turn out to be erroneous

We had troops in Cuba,a rather large garrison in the Philippines,the 4th marines and 15th Infantry regiments in China,Panama,and in the 30s we sent the Marines to Nicaragua and Haiti.

 

[MDphotographer]

When it comes to government decisions, economics is always a factor.

As Onmilo said "We won using the 30-06."

In my opinion, the choice of firearm was more critical to victory than the caliber bullet that it shot.

AH I agree the choice of firearm was crucial I agree my whole point of the post however was not was the Garand the right weapon was the caliber? Why? Because retaining the .30-06 caused us problems in the 50s and 60s and some say even to this day that we are still dealing with

 

[HexHead]

As far as MacA is concerned I think he was a military genius and one of the top 5 generals this country has ever produced.With that being said he was an arrogant prima donna who had no use for anyone's opinion unless it matched his own in every minute detail and in certain matters should of let the experts do the jobs the army was paying them for and accept their findings instead of imposing his will over something he had little information on or knowledge of.I hope that didn't come off as cynical. lol

Military genius? The army played 2nd fiddle to the Marines in the Pacific battles of WWII, and they were commanded by Adm. Nimitz. The army played a small part in defeating the Japanese. Korea? We didn't exactly win that one. Yep, he was a prima donna.

 

[HexHead]

It has been beaten to death because these arguements are in retrospect.
We WON using .30/06
End of story.

You sound like a friend of mine that refuses to use 9mm because "It lost two World Wars".

 

[MDphotographer]

Military genius? The army played 2nd fiddle to the Marines in the Pacific battles of WWII, and they were commanded by Adm. Nimitz. The army played a small part in defeating the Japanese. Korea? We didn't exactly win that one. Yep, he was a prima donna.

Well the army did play a pretty significant role in the Pacific driving the Japanese out of New Guinea and the Northern Solomon's then the Philippines and also on Okinawa. Not to mention the Army Air Forces.
MacA kept pressure on the Japanese and did so in a way that kept army casualties to a minimum.His landing at Inchon was one of the most brilliant military operation conceived or carried out by a US general so yes he was a military genius.

 

[dvdcrr]

The wwii vet in my family said that they liked the 3006 because if the enemy were lined up right you could take out two or three with one shot. He crossed the whole of France on foot using 3006 and had not one complaint. He told his sons to get a 3006 and sight in four inches high at 100 yds. I think it speaks to the useful range of the weapon and cartridge. He never said how many enemy he killed but he said the first few he had in his sights he let them go until they killed his friend then he never let another one get away.
I disagree with any assertion that the 3006 as a main infantry cartridge was a disadvantage for that war.

 

[MDphotographer]

The wwii vet in my family said that they liked the 3006 because if the enemy were lined up right you could take out two or three with one shot. He crossed the whole of France on foot using 3006 and had not one complaint. He told his sons to get a 3006 and sight in four inches high at 100 yds. I think it speaks to the useful range of the weapon and cartridge. He never said how many enemy he killed but he said the first few he had in his sights he let them go until they killed his friend then he never let another one get away.
I disagree with any assertion that the 3006 as a main infantry cartridge was a disadvantage for that war.

Not to be a smart ass but ask the vet in your family (thank him for his service for me) if you can....how many times did German soldiers line up in a row for him? It couldn't of been many.The Pig Board determined the .276 was just as effective to 300 yards as the '06 and it shot just as flat to 500 yards as the '06.And for the record I didnt say the .30-06 wa sa disadvantage I said the .276 would of been better

Here is a link to a comparative ballistics table
http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2011/12/for-those-who-think-that-the-280-british-and-the-276-pedersen-were-pipsqueak-cartridges-in-compariso.html

 

[MistWolf]

The United States has never ever chosen a cartridge because it simply maims. The whole "wound one, incapacitate 3" idea is nothing but a myth.

One thing the 30-06 gave the infantryman was less dependence on artillery & crew served weapons. It had the capability to reach out to longer ranges when needed and has superior cover penetration. In WWII those advantages were put to use to great affect. Going to a lighter caliber like the .276 would have meant a greater dependence on support weapons. TANSTAAFL. To get one thing, you have to give up another.

I have to disagree that the Garand was the last time the US infantryman clearly had the superior weapon. There's no denying the AK works. But the M14 and M16 family of weapons still give our soldiers & Marines an advantage. The Marine Corps in particular used M14s to great affect and by all accounts, most hated having to switch to the M16.

I know the debate of the reliability of the M16 FOW vs the AK still rages. But when you strip away all the smoke and thunder, we're left with the fact that the M16 FOW is a highly refined design that is very reliable, very durable, very consistent performer from rifle to rifle and pound for pound deals with heat better than any other design. It also has the advantage of being the easiest rifle to operate. It's also easier to add "force multipliers" to, such as red dot sights, than the AK.

If we had adopted the .276 Pedersen, it would have changed our tactics. We would have had a round with less penetration chambered in the Garand. We would have had a rifle that was unwieldy for close combat with less penetration. Soldiers would have been more dependent on other support weapons. It may have forced the US to develop a smaller infantry rifle with greater capacity sooner, requiring the introduction of another FOWs during the heat of combat. It would have placed a greater strain on communication technology.

The fallout of adopting the 30-06 leads to the adoption of the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45. The 7.62x51 carries on the legacy of the '06 by giving the US the capability of greater range and penetration in our support weapons. The 5.56 gives us a round that's more controllable, is much lighter, is lethal, is fired from a much lighter weapon and is inherently accurate.

Yes, the adoption of the .276 Pedersen would have changed things- tactics, weapon's development- but it may not have been for the better. The .276 would likely have better cover penetration that the 5.56, it also would be less than the 7.62x51. It would shift the reliance on support weapons up one level. We can't say for sure that would be good or bad, but it would be different. In any case, the adoption of the '06 has left us with the legacy of three great calibers (four, if you count the '06 itself)- the 5.56x45, the 7.62x51 and the .50 BMG

 

[MistWolf]

PS- The FAL was originally developed for a Kurz type cartridge. They had to stretch it to accommodate the 7.62x51

 

[Nom de Forum]

Military genius? The army played 2nd fiddle to the Marines in the Pacific battles of WWII, and they were commanded by Adm. Nimitz. The army played a small part in defeating the Japanese. Korea? We didn't exactly win that one. Yep, he was a prima donna.

IIRC the U.S. Army actually conducted more amphibious operations in WWII than the USMC. IIRC the U.S. Army was also responsible for more IJA casualties than the USMC, and yes I am not including IJA casualties created by the USAAF. "Prima donna" is an inadequately strong phrase to describe MacArthur. I have no problem saying I think him greatly overrated and that I dislike many of his actions and his personal and professional behavior. There are many people since WWII that have commented about the lives he saved with his strategies, but his many military decisions influenced more by ego than reason is unfortunately not generally acknowledged to have caused the unnecessary loss of many lives. Yes, his .276 decision was a mistake, but a small one compared to others.