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

[MDphotographer]

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

Hmmm where to begin? Lets start with the Pig Board findings that the .276 performed equally as the .30-06 out to 300-400 meters going on that basis I would imagine out to 300-400 meters the .276 would perform equally as well as the '06 in penetrating vegetation. Our main WWII tactic was to use a base of fire (usually 1 or 2 BAR"s) to allow others to outflank the enemy position.We used maneuver tactics a la Saving Private Ryan taking the machine gun position.After WWI an army study noted that sub 500 yard infantry combat was most likely to take place after WWII a study showed that most infantry combat took place in the sub 200 yard zone(which is one of the reasons the Russians had no issues switching to the 7.62x39 after the war completely for their main battle rifle).Outside of maybe the desert 500 yard plus range combat situations were and are still not the norm. Having a .30 weapon didn't dictate our tactics having automatic weapons dictated our tactics from the BAR to the Garand to the Thompson and M1 Carbine.The .30 caliber Garand isn't unwieldy in close combat? Or for that matter the M-14? You are kidding right? lol If I was in WWII and had to clear a building room to room I would want a Thompson or Carbine not a Garand of any caliber

 

[MistWolf]

Gen. MacArthur had flaws and did some terrible things. He also did great things for our country. Many men who have done great things have had great flaws. They were human, after all

 

[MDphotographer]

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.

Nom I agree with you about MacA on several points Dec.of 41 he was a dissaster after that in WWII and up until Korea he didnt make many strategic or tactical mistakes.He kept the Russians of of Japan He got Japan on the road to democracy (as they know it) and rebuilding after WWII and turning them into a good US ally.He should of known Korea was coming and he should of known the Chinese were coming in and the plans to use the A-bomb on China was idiotic other then that he was good in Korea as well.Many Japanese and Filipinos still revere him.I also dont care for MacA the man but let us give him his due credit

 

[MDphotographer]

Gen. MacArthur had flaws and did some terrible things. He also did great things for our country. Many men who have done great things have had great flaws. They were human, after all

well said Mist

 

[Nom de Forum]

.............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.

Only in a good way, if at all. Not a problem, since it was sufficient. Just as "unwieldy", with sufficient penetration, and more ammunition capacity with the benefit of a greater basic load of ammunition carried by the soldier. Very unlikely. Not in any significant (and probably immeasurable) amount.

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

You are greatly over-estimating the necessity of having penetration equal to the 7.62x63/51 cartridges. The reason why cartridges like the .30-06 were thought necessary when adopted was a mix of lack of understanding of what was really needed for how individual soldiers shoot in combat and planning to used rifles to do things that infantry weaponry readily available today do. Even Jeff Cooper finally had to admit today's soldier does not use or need a rifle to do what other infantry weapons and infantry support weapons do better. To bad we didn't get the .276, we would have been much closer to having a great cartridge for the 20th/21st century battlefield instead of the .30-06 which was a great cartridge for the 19th Century battlefield. Even in WWI the .30-06 was not what was needed. I write this even though I think the .30-06 is the greatest hunting cartridge ever created.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Gen. MacArthur had flaws and did some terrible things. He also did great things for our country. Many men who have done great things have had great flaws. They were human, after all

I agree completely. This is why as a society we should prevent to much accumulation of influence and power to make decisions from being controlled by any one or small group of men because we know from history that "Many men who have done great things have had great flaws. They were human, after all."

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You omit a couple of problems: The Chief of Cavalry objected to the .276 because the .30 caliber was so much more effective against material targets, such as tires and vehicle bodies.

And second, the rifle the .276 was designed for required lubricated cases -- it actually had wool pads in the receiver what were meant to be soaked with oil to keep the cases oiled. Imagine how that rifle would have fared in New Guinea or the Sahara?

As an old infantryman myself, I can tell you MacArthur was right when he said infantrymen have to shoot through things -- the 5.56's lack of penetration was quite a shock to us when it came out.

 

[Hangingrock]

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.

Hatcher Conducted studies after WW1 that found for the average infantry soldier it was a 300yd war in regards to seeing and hitting the enemy. The most effective tool of war may simply have been the field radio that allowed timely and decisive artillery to be placed on the enemy.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Nom I agree with you about MacA on several points Dec.of 41 he was a dissaster after that in WWII and up until Korea he didnt make many strategic or tactical mistakes.He kept the Russians of of Japan He got Japan on the road to democracy (as they know it) and rebuilding after WWII and turning them into a good US ally.He should of known Korea was coming and he should of known the Chinese were coming in and the plans to use the A-bomb on China was idiotic other then that he was good in Korea as well.Many Japanese and Filipinos still revere him.I also dont care for MacA the man but let us give him his due credit

Having read "American Caesar" and other biographical writings, I think I know what credit he is due, unfortunately I think too many people think he is due more than he deserves. Just trying to keep the scale balanced. I don't think I am a sole voice in the woods. If Ike (who served on his staff prior to WWII) was in this discussion he would probably not think I am being unfairly critical. Neither would Nimitz. "American Caesar" is the perfect description of what Mac thought he was and what fate he created for himself, the death of his ambitions without suffering the actual death Julius did.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You omit a couple of problems: The Chief of Cavalry objected to the .276 because the .30 caliber was so much more effective against material targets, such as tires and vehicle bodies.

And second, the rifle the .276 was designed for required lubricated cases -- it actually had wool pads in the receiver what were meant to be soaked with oil to keep the cases oiled. Imagine how that rifle would have fared in New Guinea or the Sahara?

As an old infantryman myself, I can tell you MacArthur was right when he said infantrymen have to shoot through things -- the 5.56's lack of penetration was quite a shock to us when it came out.

A Garand chambered in .276 would not need lubricated cases. It is regrettable that the Garand was not a detachable box magazine, .276 caliber rifle. It would have been significantly better rifle for many a man who died that should not have.

Chief of Calvary - An anachronism in and of itself. What vehicles did he think would be on the battlefield that the .30-06 would be effective in neutralizing that the .276 could not? His concern was unrealistic. It would not surprise me if it could have been more politically motivated than based on battlefield necessity.

I am not disagreeing with you that better penetration capability than the 5.56 would not be a good thing. If we had adopted the .276, the path to something like the 6.8 would have been much easier complete.

 

[bainter1212]

I take issue with the idea that the Garand will "beat up" a shooter....I have shot mine plenty with surplus ammo and I find it to be very soft shooting for an -06. I am a smaller guy as well.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Hatcher Conducted studies after WW1 that found for the average infantry soldier it was a 300yd war in regards to seeing and hitting the enemy. The most effective tool of war may simply have been the field radio that allowed timely and decisive artillery to be placed on the enemy.

Yup. Nothing more deadly than a radio to Arty and Air.

 

[MistWolf]

Hmmm where to begin? Lets start with the Pig Board findings that the .276 performed equally as the .30-06 out to 300-400 meters going on that basis I would imagine out to 300-400 meters the .276 would perform equally as well as the '06 in penetrating vegetation. Our main WWII tactic was to use a base of fire (usually 1 or 2 BAR"s) to allow others to outflank the enemy position.We used maneuver tactics a la Saving Private Ryan taking the machine gun position.After WWI an army study noted that sub 500 yard infantry combat was most likely to take place after WWII a study showed that most infantry combat took place in the sub 200 yard zone(which is one of the reasons the Russians had no issues switching to the 7.62x39 after the war completely for their main battle rifle).Outside of maybe the desert 500 yard plus range combat situations were and are still not the norm. Having a .30 weapon didn't dictate our tactics having automatic weapons dictated our tactics from the BAR to the Garand to the Thompson and M1 Carbine...

I was talking about penetration, not terminal performance. Pigs ain't brick & mortar, wood planking or sandbags. One thing our GIs love about our hard hitting 30 calibers is the ability to defeat hard cover the smaller calibers lack. It's one reason Marines in Nam were reluctant to give up their M14s. With the 7.62x51 they had the punch to shoot through trees and sandbags the enemy used to shoot from behind. They gave that up when going to the M16. Having a powerful 30 caliber infantry does impact tactics. Soldiers use the strengths of their equipment while minimizing weaknesses. You adapt your tactics to do that.

Shooting 500 meters may not be the norm, but when you need to do it, you have a real need. That's why support weapons have good penetration and destructive power at those ranges and beyond. I don't say the infantry rifle needs that capability, especially in modern warfare, but the GIs in WWII took advantage of and put to good use every bit of performance the '06 had.

The .30 caliber Garand isn't unwieldy in close combat? Or for that matter the M-14? You are kidding right? lol If I was in WWII and had to clear a building room to room I would want a Thompson or Carbine not a Garand of any caliber

I think you need to slow down and read posts of an opposing view with an objective eye. What I said was

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

A negative result of adopting the .276 Pedersen is that we probably would not have adopted the AR in 5.56x45. This would have left a gap in arms for law enforcement. The .276 Pedersen would not be a good choice for LE style CQB due to over penetration. Agencies would have been stuck with using pistol caliber subguns for dynamic entries.

If we had chosen the .276 Pedersen, we would be discussing how it lacks penetration against hard cover compared to the '06 but has too much for use in dynamic entries for LE work. We know this because we know how 7mm projectiles perform at that weight & velocity. It could be argued that choosing the .276 Pedersen would have been the mistake because it could have lead to a performance gap the 5.56 is needed to fill. We'd be stuck with a variety of calibers that could do the job but none with the institutional support the 5.56 enjoys. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The world of shooting wouldn't be better, it would be different

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Having personally - in theatre - de-linked .308 for M-21s & M-24s and de-linked .223 for carbines and M-16A2s, I see every reason in the world to have developed the Garand in 30-06.

The single point wisdom of having a Garand in .276 is sound as far as the rifle itself goes but on a multi-theatre, multi tiered, international war it would have been profoundly unsound.

These rifles were fed re-cilpped ammo meant for medium infantry, armor and aircraft machine guns.

Listing the entire range of manufactured and distributed ammo does not erase the utility aspect of commonality.

 

[MDphotographer]

Only in a good way, if at all. Not a problem, since it was sufficient. Just as "unwieldy", with sufficient penetration, and more ammunition capacity with the benefit of a greater basic load of ammunition carried by the soldier. Very unlikely. Not in any significant (and probably immeasurable) amount.

I agree for a shooter the Garand wasn't a beater but for the average 18-20 year old kid who never even shot a .22 before it sure felt like one....and the BAR sure would beat you up

 

[Nom de Forum]

A negative result of adopting the .276 Pedersen is that we probably would not have adopted the AR in 5.56x45.

This is a bad thing? An AR in a shorter version of the .276 would have been great. IIRC we have shortened other battle rifle cartridges succefully.

This would have left a gap in arms for law enforcement. The .276 Pedersen would not be a good choice for LE style CQB due to over penetration. Agencies would have been stuck with using pistol caliber subguns for dynamic entries.

Doubtful.

If we had chosen the .276 Pedersen, we would be discussing how it lacks penetration against hard cover compared to the '06 but has too much for use in dynamic entries for LE work. We know this because we know how 7mm projectiles perform at that weight & velocity. It could be argued that choosing the .276 Pedersen would have been the mistake because it could have lead to a performance gap the 5.56 is needed to fill. We'd be stuck with a variety of calibers that could do the job but none with the institutional support the 5.56 enjoys. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The world of shooting wouldn't be better, it would be different

Discussing yes. A problem no. TANSTAAFL is just a Heinlein platitude used most of the time to avoid the difficult task of comprehensive analysis of a situation and defense of a line of reasoning.

 

[MDphotographer]

Having personally - in theatre - de-linked .308 for M-21s & M-24s and de-linked .223 for carbines and M-16A2s, I see every reason in the world to have developed the Garand in 30-06.

The single point wisdom of having a Garand in .276 is sound as far as the rifle itself goes but on a multi-theatre, multi tiered, international war it would have been profoundly unsound.

These rifles were fed re-cilpped ammo meant for medium infantry, armor and aircraft machine guns.

Listing the entire range of manufactured and distributed ammo does not erase the utility aspect of commonality.

Well a BAR man could also de-link .30 from machine gun ammo as well even if the garand had been .276 the Machine guns still would of been in '06 which means you missed my other point.....the BAR would probably not of gone back into production in 1942 in the later 30s a .276 Garand BAR/T20 probably would of replaced the BAR hence the commonality of ammo at the squad level wouldn't of been any worse then it was with the .30 Garand. A .276 T20 type rifle would of been much faster and cheaper to manufacture had major parts compatibility and would of been much more controllable on full auto.It would of been a logical step to take in the year leading up to the war.The reason the T20 didn't start development until 1944 was because WE ALREADY HAD the BAR.In one year SPAR (while in the midst of peak wartime production) developed,tested and had approval to produce T20E2 100,00 rifle's

 

[MistWolf]

Adoption of the .276 Pedersen would have left us with a SAW with less penetrative power and we'd be discussing how we should never have abandoned the '06. In addition, adopting a new caliber would have put us behind the power curve in refining it's penetration and terminal performance. It would have left two gaps in caliber performance and set us back in performance refinement.

As it's turned out, being able to disable vehicles has become very important

 

[Nom de Forum]

Having personally - in theatre - de-linked .308 for M-21s & M-24s and de-linked .223 for carbines and M-16A2s, I see every reason in the world to have developed the Garand in 30-06.

The single point wisdom of having a Garand in .276 is sound as far as the rifle itself goes but on a multi-theatre, multi tiered, international war it would have been profoundly unsound.

These rifles were fed re-cilpped ammo meant for medium infantry, armor and aircraft machine guns.

Listing the entire range of manufactured and distributed ammo does not erase the utility aspect of commonality.

No problems a 1919 MG chambered in .276 caliber could not handle that a .30-06 did. So much for commonality of ammunition problems, especially when you consider the mixed bag of U.S. WWII infantry weapons.

 

[MistWolf]

This is a bad thing? An AR in a shorter version of the .276 would have been great. IIRC we have shortened other battle rifle cartridges succefully.

Which makes my point. We still would have had to develop another cartridge to fill a role the 7.62x51 could not

Doubtful

7mm cartridges with the same ballistics as the .276 Pedersen are not anymore suitable for CQB than the 7.62x51.

Discussing yes. A problem no.

A squad support weapon that lacks penetration is a problem

TANSTAAFL is just a Heinlein platitude used most of the time to avoid the difficult task of comprehensive analysis of a situation and defense of a line of reasoning.

Clearly you are not an engineer or a technician. TANSTAAFL isn't a platitude, it's the laws of physics boiled down to fit on a bumpersticker

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Well a BAR man could also de-link .30 from machine gun ammo as well even if the garand had been .276 the Machine guns still would of been in '06 which means you missed my other point.....the BAR would probably not of gone back into production in 1942 in the later 30s a .276 Garand BAR/T20 probably would of replaced the BAR hence the commonality of ammo at the squad level wouldn't of been any worse then it was with the .30 Garand. A .276 T20 type rifle would of been much faster and cheaper to manufacture had major parts compatibility and would of been much more controllable on full auto.It would of been a logical step to take in the year leading up to the war.The reason the T20 didn't start development until 1944 was because WE ALREADY HAD the BAR.In one year SPAR (while in the midst of peak wartime production) developed,tested and had approval to produce T20E2 100,00 rifle's

"WE ALREADY HAD the BAR"

Not every one, squad or even platoon had them at every given moment.

"No problems a 1919 MG chambered in .276 caliber could not handle that a .30-06 did. So much for commonality of ammunition problems, especially when you consider the mixed bag of U.S. WWII infantry weapons.

No problem? Huge problem as they were using MG ammo from at least all three of the platforms I listed and maybe others... Huge problem.

 

[MistWolf]

This is a bad thing? An AR in a shorter version of the .276 would have been great. IIRC we have shortened other battle rifle cartridges succefully.

Which proves my point. The adoption of the .276 Pedersen would have left a gap

Doubtful.

The .276 Pedersen is no different than other 7mm cartridges of the same ballistics. Over penetration is not be as bad as the 7.62x51 but still has too much

Discussing yes. A problem no. TANSTAAFL is just a Heinlein platitude used most of the time to avoid the difficult task of comprehensive analysis of a situation and defense of a line of reasoning.

Clearly you are not an engineer or a technician. TANSTAAFL isn't a platitude, it's the laws of physics boiled down to fit on a bumper sticker.

Support weapons that lack penetration and destructive power are a problem. The adoption of the .276 Pedersen would have solved nothing. A more suitable cartridge for LE CQB be would still be needed and another would be needed to give suitable performance in a SAW. This discussion is the same if we were talking about consolidating both the 5.56 in the infantry rifle and the 7.62x51 for support weapons with a single cartridge. You have to give up too much of something to successfully fulfill both roles. The .276 Pedersen, like all other cartridges since developed to split the difference between the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45, doesn't offer enough advantages of either

 

[MistWolf]

Stupid internet

 

[BSA1]

MDphotographer,

What you are overlooking with your argument is how the 30-06 was actually used in combat during WW2.

Recruits fresh from the States were trained not to shoot until they could see the enemy soldier. When they arrived in the theater of operation they were retrained to shoot at the cover/concealment the enemy soldier was hiding between using armor piercing ammunition. Regretfully I no longer have the information but the large majority of 30-06 ammunition was A.P.

When you think about it it makes a lot of sense. Ammunition with a lot of penetration was needed to take out well entrenched enemies who were in defensive positions. It was never foreseen by the Generals prior to WW2 that the nature of warfare would be so much different than WW1.

Lessor calibers did not have the same capability. The 30-06 was the right cartridge at the right time for the right war.

 

[MDphotographer]

"WE ALREADY HAD the BAR"

Not every one, squad or even platoon had them at every given moment.

"No problems a 1919 MG chambered in .276 caliber could not handle that a .30-06 did. So much for commonality of ammunition problems, especially when you consider the mixed bag of U.S. WWII infantry weapons.

No problem? Huge problem as they were using MG ammo from at least all three of the platforms I listed and maybe others... Huge problem.

And the BAR was obsolete by the time of WWII we gave the Brits 25k of them and they only issued them to Home Gaurds not front line units...why? Because the Bren was a superior weapon more accurate bigger magazine easier to produce and interchangable barrels.

I know the second holiest of hollies is saying something bad about a Browning design but the BAR was a WWI weapon