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

[Vern Humphrey]

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.

The politics of the Ordnance Department were such that if the .276 had been adopted, Pedersen's design would have been adopted.

I agree the Garand should have had a box magazine -- and that's what Garand wanted, but Pedersen invented the en bloc clip design, and that was his consolation prize.

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.

However much of an anachronism the name is, we still have Armored Cavalry, and the Chief of Cavalry in question is the man who launched the mechanization of the US Cavalry -- he knew whereof he spoke, and he was dead on wanting a cartridge that would be effective on vehicles.

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.

Possibly. However, I was issued an M2 carbine as an Adviser to Viet Namese infantry, and got rid of it, borrowing a Garand from the unit I was advising. On my second tour as a Company Commander, I got my battalion commander to get me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21) and kept one for myself.

I know from experience that the .30 cal/7.62mm is much more effective in thick jungle or in fighting in fortified positions than any lesser caliber.

 

[MDphotographer]

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.

And they never would of developed a 140-150gr AP bullet for the .276 right? Do you really believe those training films that shows a M1919a4 shooting through 8" of concrete and chopping down a 18" diameter tree happened in combat? Not often if at all an officer would of shot a GI using up a 100 rounds of ammo trying to shoot a German through a tree lol

 

[Mike OTDP]

The OP is right, but you have to remember that in 1935, World War 2 was not at all evident - and the idea that the U.S. would have two full years to mobilize before having to fight utterly implausible. MacArthur made a defensible decision.

BTW, I suspect that if the Garand had been adopted in .276 Pedersen, it would still be the issue rifle. Rifle, M1A1...with a 20-round detachable magazine.

 

[MDphotographer]

The politics of the Ordnance Department were such that if the .276 had been adopted, Pedersen's design would have been adopted.

Wrong the T3E2 Garand in .276 was the clear winner of the competition between it and the Pedersen rifle the SRB recommended that 125 T3E2's be produced, BY that time Garand redesigned the bolt on the T1E2 .30 caliber Garand was re-tested and passed and then MacA ordered work stopped on the .276 John Garand was a salaried employee of the SPAR Pedersen was a contractor he was paid for the development the .276 cartridge and Pedersen rifle in anything politics were on Garands side.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Regardless of the winner or not, Pedersen had the clout -- it wasn't until MacArthur made his decision that the Pedersen was ruled out.

 

[MDphotographer]

Regardless of the winner or not, Pedersen had the clout -- it wasn't until MacArthur made his decision that the Pedersen was ruled out.

OK Vern I have to ask then where is your proof of this? ALL the resources I have looked at states the Pederson rifle was ruled out.Why wasnt Pederson told to develope a .30 rifle? You are basing this on what proof?

 

[MDphotographer]

The OP is right, but you have to remember that in 1935, World War 2 was not at all evident - and the idea that the U.S. would have two full years to mobilize before having to fight utterly implausible. MacArthur made a defensible decision.

BTW, I suspect that if the Garand had been adopted in .276 Pedersen, it would still be the issue rifle. Rifle, M1A1...with a 20-round detachable magazine.

Switching Calibre's wouldn't of been hard.The BofOrd stated in 1931 20% of ammo issed for training was defective on visual inspection more undoubtable FTF.As rounds were used for training they were replaced with new manufacture which is why there was no objection to almost 200million rounds being shipped to the Brits.The Garand didnt start to be issued until 1938 as rifles were issued supplies of ammo could of been obtained for training and reserve based on X number of round per rifle issued and not obtaining new stock '06 ammo to replace it.This would of been in 1938-1939 when the BofOrd starting issuing educational contracts to firms for the study,buying of tooling,and planning to convert these firms to war production. One educational contract was let to Winchester for producing the Garand.Other were let for procurement of tooling for ammo production. Check out MH Pub 10-9 The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions For War it is interesting reading

 

[Vern Humphrey]

OK Vern I have to ask then where is your proof of this? ALL the resources I have looked at states the Pederson rifle was ruled out.Why wasnt Pederson told to develope a .30 rifle? You are basing this on what proof?

Pedersen did attempt a .30 caliber rifle. His failure to do so resulted in the .276 round -- which was called the .276 Pedersen. He had enough clout with Ordnance that when he failed to produce a rifle that could handle the .30 Caliber, they were willing to let him design his own cartridge!

 

[HexHead]

IIRC the U.S. Army actually conducted more amphibious operations in WWII than the USMC.

You taking into account the landings in Europe? He had nothing to do with that theatre of operations.

 

[MDphotographer]

I have never seen anything about a .30 Pedersen rifle he was the designer of the Pedersen device for the '03 during WWI that and his other work at Remington is why he got a contract for a cartridge (which came first) and THEN the rifle I suggest you read Hatchers Handbook specifically page 165.

 

[Nom de Forum]

You taking into account the landings in Europe? He had nothing to do with that theatre of operations.

Actually I am not. Everybody remembers the big USMC operations and conveniently forgets the U.S. Army operations in the Pacific.

 

[MDphotographer]

Nom is correct MacA staged many little landings jumping up the coast of New Guinea as well as in the Phillipines

 

[amprecon]

I didn't see if anyone mentioned it yet, but the .276 Pedersen Garand was slightly smaller and lighter than the .30 M1 and was designed to hold 10 rounds instead of 8.
I think it would've been a real winner and it would have evolved into a smaller version of the M-14 as well, which also would've been a real winner.

But regardless, considering the aforementioned .276 Pedersen Garand history, it led me to choose the 6.8spc in an AR platform, my modern version of what could've been with the T1E3.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The politics of the Ordnance Department were such that if the .276 had been adopted, Pedersen's design would have been adopted.

I disagree. That ridiculous toggle operated hesitation lock system the Pedersen rifle used would have never been adopted. If by some miracle Pedersen had the epiphany of using a fluted chamber it still would have lost to the Garand in 1929. Even the cronyism and shortsightedness of the Ordinance Board could not have gotten the Pedersen rifle adopted. I think you overestimate Pedersen’s gravitas.

I agree the Garand should have had a box magazine -- and that's what Garand wanted, but Pedersen invented the en bloc clip design, and that was his consolation prize.

I think you mean everyone else’s booby prize. I don’t think it was just a consolation prize. It was more stupid thinking that detachable box magazines would cause soldiers to waste ammunition and of course clips are cheaper in dollars now if not lives later.

However much of an anachronism the name is, we still have Armored Cavalry, and the Chief of Cavalry in question is the man who launched the mechanization of the US Cavalry -- he knew whereof he spoke, and he was dead on wanting a cartridge that would be effective on vehicles.

Oh I know, I spent a little time hanging out with the 11th ACR among other “Cavalry” units. No, I don’t think he did know “whereof he spoke". Any additional capability of the 30-06 versus the .276 was insignificant. The ’06 is just not enough of a performance step-up. What vehicles is the ’06 going to disable that the .276 would not. Even in WWII the ’06 would only be marginally effective on the thin skinned vehicles on the battlefield. The Ma Duece was the only efficient non-explosive projectile vehicle disabler and it was not going to do anything to a vehicle with more than the minimum of armor plate. Do you realize that even thin-skinned WWII aircraft were difficult to disable with hits from massed rifle caliber MGs? Any loss of capability the .30-06 provided in very limited situations is compensated for by the benefits of the .276 in most situations.

Possibly. However, I was issued an M2 carbine as an Adviser to Viet Namese infantry, and got rid of it, borrowing a Garand from the unit I was advising. On my second tour as a Company Commander, I got my battalion commander to get me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21) and kept one for myself.

I know from experience that the .30 cal/7.62mm is much more effective in thick jungle or in fighting in fortified positions than any lesser caliber.[

The .276 Pedersen cartridge is incomparably better than a .30 carbine cartridge. I don’t think you in Vietnam or a soldier in the PTO in WWII would find a 150 grain .284 caliber bullet from a .276 Pedersen (7.22x51) insufficient in foilage penetration. You would also have more of them to do it with. BTW the .276 is just about in the middle in muzzle energy between the 5.56 and WWII .30-06. Perfect for an infantry rifle. Modernize the case design to be shorter for use with better modern propellants and you have a better rifle, SAW, and GPMG cartridge. Those few things it doesn’t do well enough on the battlefield should be done by other weapons that are readily available.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have never seen anything about a .30 Pedersen rifle he was the designer of the Pedersen device for the '03 during WWI that and his other work at Remington is why he got a contract for a cartridge (which came first) and THEN the rifle I suggest you read Hatchers Handbook specifically page 165.

It is my understanding that Pedersen was contracted to work at Springfield Armory in 1923 to design both the cartridge and rifle. In 1929 the rifle lost out to the Garand and in 1932 the .276 lost out to the .30-06.

 

[MDphotographer]

It is my understanding that Pedersen was contracted to work at Springfield Armory in 1923 to design both the cartridge and rifle. In 1929 the rifle lost out to the Garand and in 1932 the .276 lost out to the .30-06.

Nom that was also my understanding the way I understand it he designed the cartridge first and then started the rifle work.The FA 29 loading that was tested by the Pig Board and used in the rifle testing was 125gr spitzer boat tail loaded over 33 grains of of IMR 25
That is basically correct about the timeline of how the rifle and caliber was chosen.The .30 cal garand cracked its bolt in the testing and dropped out OCT 9 31.In Jan 32 the Semi-automatic Rifle Board recommended that the .276 Garnad be adopted and 125 rifles be produced in the interim Garand redesigned the .30 bolt and the T1E1 was retested and it passed. THEN it was announced that all further work on the .276 was to be abandoned in Feb 32

 

[MDphotographer]

I didn't see if anyone mentioned it yet, but the .276 Pedersen Garand was slightly smaller and lighter than the .30 M1 and was designed to hold 10 rounds instead of 8.
I think it would've been a real winner and it would have evolved into a smaller version of the M-14 as well, which also would've been a real winner.

But regardless, considering the aforementioned .276 Pedersen Garand history, it led me to choose the 6.8spc in an AR platform, my modern version of what could've been with the T1E3.

I thought my OP covered that

The work on the T20 and Remington's 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

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.

 

[another pake]

......MacA staged many little landings jumping up the coast of New Guinea as well as in the Phillipines

I've never heard them described this way.

And I've heard many first person accounts. Among other things he brought home a stack of 100 unbelievable photos showing exactly what those little landings were like; if that is even possible to do in a photo. The images, of bodies rolling in the surf, are forever etched in my mind.

Three amphibious landings (little landings) at New Guinea, Leyte and finally Luzon affected him so profoundly that until the day he died he subtracted the three years and six months which he spent in the Pacific theater from his true age. Leyte and the months afterword in the jungle were practically a picnic.

 

[MDphotographer]

I've never heard them described this way.

And I've heard many first person accounts. Among other things he brought home a stack of 100 unbelievable photos showing exactly what those little landings were like; if that is even possible to do in a photo. The images, of bodies rolling in the surf, are forever etched in my mind.

Three amphibious landings (little landings) at New Guinea, Leyte and finally Luzon affected him so profoundly that until the day he died he subtracted the three years and six months which he spent in the Pacific theater from his true age. Leyte and the months afterword in the jungle were practically a picnic.

Mac A was famous for,especially in New Guinea and the Philippines,for staging small regimental to divisional sized landings behind the enemy lines to outflank or totally cut off their positions much in the same way Patton leapfrogged along the northern coast of Sicily
These are in addition to the very large better known landings he staged that you speak of.I didn't mean to imply all he did was stage small landings but he was famous for the "hit them where they aint" strategy and letting Japanese troops to wither on the vine.This is how he tried to keep army casualties to a minimum. He was asked about the large landings Nimitz was undertaking and the high casualties that were resulting from them and he took a shot at Nimitz by saying good commanders don't turn in large casualty lists. Nimitz was faced with a different tactical situation then MacA was and often had no option but to storm heavily defended islands to get the air bases and anchorages he needed to keep driving across the Pacific but some of his landing's didn't need to take place. The most horrific being at Peleliu this invasion was totally unnecessary as the invasion of the Philipines was only a month away and this in conjunction with the conclusion of the Marianna's campaign left the Palau Island completely cut off but Nimitz invaded anyway and casualties were very high almost 10,000 between the Marine and Army Divisions involved.Haley even went so far as to try to get Nimitz to call off the invasion and add these troops to MaA's Leyte force but Nimitz overruled him.

 

[Nom de Forum]

........He was asked about the large landings Nimitz was undertaking and the high casualties that were resulting from them and he took a shot at Nimitz by saying good commanders don't turn in large casualty lists.

MacArthur's ego needed to be constantly fed. Headlines were a needed staple of his diet. This was not the first time Doug acted spitefully by distorting the actions of rivals and non-rivals stealing the spotlight.

Nimitz was faced with a different tactical situation then MacA was and often had no option but to storm heavily defended islands to get the air bases and anchorages he needed to keep driving across the Pacific but some of his landing's didn't need to take place. The most horrific being at Peleliu this invasion was totally unnecessary as the invasion of the Philipines was only a month away and this in conjunction with the conclusion of the Marianna's campaign left the Palau Island completely cut off but Nimitz invaded anyway and casualties were very high almost 10,000 between the Marine and Army Divisions involved.Haley even went so far as to try to get Nimitz to call off the invasion and add these troops to MaA's Leyte force but Nimitz overruled him.

The invasion of the Phillipines and Peleliu are both examples of strategic mistake where ego played a part. Some historians think bypassing both would have been a better course of action. MacArthur wasn't the only Flag Officer to let his ego cause mistakes. I personally have spent more than enough time around Flag Officers to understand how their egos distort their sense of reality of even the simplest things. Thank God we have a civilian government!

 

[dvdcrr]

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...compariso.html

All I can say is he wouldnt have said it if it didnt happen, and myself having never walked a mile in those boots , I have no reason to doubt. I have shot two animals with one shot while hunting that werent even stacked up, kind of even surprised me.
Heck with all this body armor and Kevlar maybe we need to go back to 30-06 mixed with some assault rifles and smg's

 

[Jim Watson]

Let's say we had gone with the .276, probably in a 10 shot Garand.
I would expect a .276 Automatic Rifle and LMG as soon as the funds were available, with .30 HMGs being retained for a while at least. We had the logistics to handle that.

Would the M1 Carbine still have arisen? Would it have been a .30 or a .276 Short? Or would we have just pushed harder on the SMG front for a secondary weapon, with something akin to the M3 built sooner?

What would we have done when we saw the German 8x33 and the Soviet 7.62x39?
An AR10 in .276 P?
An AR15 in .276 Short?
.22 fever unabated and the AR15/M16 pretty much as now?

 

[MDphotographer]

Let's say we had gone with the .276, probably in a 10 shot Garand.
I would expect a .276 Automatic Rifle and LMG as soon as the funds were available, with .30 HMGs being retained for a while at least. We had the logistics to handle that.

Would the M1 Carbine still have arisen? Would it have been a .30 or a .276 Short? Or would we have just pushed harder on the SMG front for a secondary weapon, with something akin to the M3 built sooner?

What would we have done when we saw the German 8x33 and the Soviet 7.62x39?
An AR10 in .276 P?
An AR15 in .276 Short?
.22 fever unabated and the AR15/M16 pretty much as now?

Good questions Jim short answer is...who knows? lol I would imagine we would of kept the .30 cal MG's we had a pretty large inventory of them following WWI and they were very good weapons I do think that would of been the end of the BAR it was difficult to maintain in the field and also difficult to produce,as far as the carbine goes? That is hard to speculate even for me lol A better question is would the carbine of been as popular with infantrymen if the Garand was in .276 being lighter and kicking less and being able to carry more ammo? Again no way to know.

To the question of our response to the 7.62X39 I stated in my OP that maybe we would of had a .276 Kurz round when the M16 rolled around or perhaps NATO would of adopted the .280 Brit which had the same ballistics as the .276 but in a 43mm case insteaf of the 51mm case of the .276? I do think the M-60 would of still been on 7.62 NATO if for no other reason to make the newer weapon lighter by not having a 63mm case to deal with. Remember the Brits kept derivatives of the BREN in service well into the 80s I do firmly believe if the .276 had seen production and service in WWII Our Military arms history would be very different today.

Another thought is if the .276 performed as I and the army rifle board thought it would would the German even of gone to a 7.92X33 case? maybe they would of just gone to a 7x57 Mauser auto loading rifle design? Maybe even a shortened 7mm Mause? 7x33? and if they didn't would the 7.62x39 M43 Russian round ever been produced? Leaves a mind boggling amount of possibilities doesn't it?

 

[Field Tester]

Wow, where can I find this amazing round? Who makes a rifle for it? The way you guys make it sound, I have to try it out!

 

[kilibreaux]

Outstanding post!
You laid it out very nicely...but the bottom line is, "we always fight the last war." Thus, the "minds" at the time perceived the NEXT war would be properly addressed using the .30'06 round. Certainly we know NOW...in hindsight that a smaller, lighter cartridge been introduced it would have accomplished the same thing, but this is now, and that was then.

Unfortunately, even TODAY there are forces seeking to return to the era of gargantuan cartridges, fired from excessively heavy rifles simply because it fulfills some egotistical void.