Why Did America Win the Race for a Semi-Automatic Infantry Rifle?

[Nightcrawler]

P.P.S. The .276 Pederson was very close in size and performance to the 6.8 SPC.

Not exactly. The .276 Pedersen round was 7x51mm. That's the same case length and 0.62mm less bore diameter than a .308 round (with noticably more case taper). It's not anything that would fit into a current weapon built around the dimensions of the .223 round.

Ballistically, it was pretty much a rimless .30-30. It was a .276 caliber, one-hundred and fifty grain bullet, which wasn't exactly groundbreaking at the time. I don't really see that as being all that revolutionary.

 

[Gator]

A 125 gr bullet @ 2700 fps vs. 115 gr bullet @ 2800 fps sounds pretty close to me. And if we had stuck with the .276 we would probably have never had the 5.56.

 

[Nightcrawler]

The only info I can find on .276 Pedersen ballistics is a 140 or 150 grain bullet at 2,400 FPS, which is right in .30-30's envelope. Little bit better sectional density than .30-30, but that's about it.

.276 Pedersen would still considerably out-weigh and out-bulk 5.56mm ammunition. Its external dimensions are very close to .308 Winchester.

The .276 was a LOW PRESSURE round. Remember that this is the 1930s we're talking about. They didn't have the technology for high pressure, compact rounds like 6.8mm, nor did they have the powders to produce those kinds of ballistics from such a small case.

I'm not saying that it was a bad idea or anything, but I don't think it was groundbreaking as everyone seems to suggest, personally.

 

[Gator]

A 140 gr bullet was considered but dropped because it was thought that if a heavier bullet was wanted they might as well stick with the .30-06 (Hatcher).
The British .276 round was hotter than ours, it was 165 gr @ 2800 fps!

 

[roscoe]

The main thing it would have done is make the rifle lighter, possibly with less recoil and greater accuracy, and the soldiers able to carry and shoot quite a few more rounds. That seems like a pretty big advantage. Ballistically, it seems a bit better than the 7.62x39, which is no slouch in the right rifle.

 

[otomik]

The .276 was a LOW PRESSURE round. Remember that this is the 1930s we're talking about. They didn't have the technology for high pressure, compact rounds like 6.8mm, nor did they have the powders to produce those kinds of ballistics from such a small case.

I see your point, kind of. but 7.92x33mm and 7.62x39mm was fairly compact as well as the weaker .30 carbine. Those developments came from nations that used a rifle of the same caliber, had one of those nations a 6.5mm or 6mm military rifle they might have created a modern intermediate cartridge though it would probably be a little bit lower in pressure. A lower pressure cartridge would have been desirable for a large scale world war, the Chinese PLA 5.8mm cartridge is lower pressure because it's better for steel cartridge cases.

 

[Tony Williams]

thought the federov used a 6.5mm proprietary caliber that was similar to the 6.5 arisaka round, but not quite...

Kinda like load and neck differences in 308 and 7.62x51

Federov originally designed his own 6.5mm round for it, but then WW1 started and he knew that a new round wouldn't be accepted so he adapted the Avtomat to fire the Arisaka round, since it was already in Russian service (the UK supplied vast quantities of these to Russia).

 

[Tony Williams]

A 140 gr bullet was considered but dropped because it was thought that if a heavier bullet was wanted they might as well stick with the .30-06 (Hatcher).
The British .276 round was hotter than ours, it was 165 gr @ 2800 fps!

That was the pre-WW1 round which was dropped at the start of the war.

The post-WW2 British .280 (7x43) had a performance very similar to the US .276 (140 grains at 2,415 fps initially) and this was felt to be the best compromise assault rifle/MG round in 1950.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Not sure but I think the .276 Pederson was a necked up .25 Remington autoloader cartridge, which in turn was a scaled down .30/06 made for a very few civilian autoloader designs. Case capacity was a hair more than the 30/30 because of the shorter neck and less taper.

The Johnson was much simpler to manufacture, more accurate, more reliable, faster loading, easier to clean, and incidentally shared parts commonality with the M1941 LMG, which was nigh six pounds lighter regarded as so far superior to the BAR it's almost a crime it wasn't adopted.

But the Army was in charge of weapons adoption and standardization, and the Army said the Marines couldn't have the Johnson.

Actually the Marines were the only ones who got the Johnson. The Navy supplied arms used by the Marine Corp at that time.The Marines only got it because the Army didn't want it.


The Johnson LMG was found to be too light for the .30/06 and suffered the same problems the FG42 suffered, not very controllable in full auto. It saw some use with the Rangers I believe.
It was not superior to the BAR just different and a bit lighter in weight.

 

[Tony Williams]

Not sure but I think the .276 Pederson was a necked up .25 Remington autoloader cartridge,

No, the base diameter is different - the Pedersen's is wider. The .25/.30 Remington base was used for the current 6.8mm Rem SPC.

 

[Vaarok]

Johnson LMGs had quick detach barrels, more accurate, far lighter, and an in-line stock. Recoil operation meant they didn't gum up and foul like a BAR, they could be broken down for airdrop, and they could be topped-up with stripper clips.

Far better than the BAR, and if you don't believe me, buy the book and read some of the quotes in the chapter "Betsy and Emma go to war".

 

[BigG]

Personally, I'm unconvinced that the .276 Garand would've been a significant improvement over the one that was issued.

Me, too.

 

[amprecon]

I would have preferred the "reduced sized" .276 Pedersen Garand.
I can understand their predicament though where the military had warehouses stocked full of .30 cal, the BAR and all of the machine guns were already chambered for it.
It was the right decision to make the Garand in .30 cal for their time.

 

[Slamfire]

Obviously, I am not an expert on military procurement procedures, but I would have thought the 1930s was an inauspicious time for U.S. Army to request funding for such a project. This is why I am puzzled that America "won" that race.

Very true, the money really was not there. And there was a lot of hostility towards the Garand by Military Officers who thought a semi auto rifle would be military folly. You can find an example in the Jan 1941 American Rifleman, “Accuracy versus Volume in Rifle Fire”. Essentially this Captain thought infantry men should stalk machine guns and take them out at long range. Unfortunately, machine gunners never cooperated as expected, even as far back as WWI.

Why the Garand was adopted was because the Military had the will to push forward through all obstacles and make a semi auto rifle a priority. If you have never been involved in procurements, there are literally thousands of real unfunded needs, tens of thousands of great ideas, and someone at the top has to decide which five can be afforded. (please forgive a little hyperbole)

If you look at other nations, France went MAS36, Japan still used the Arisaka, Italy kept the Carcano, and Germany upgraded the M98. Britian showed just how conservative they were by upgrading to a better Lee Enfield!

It took WWII to show what a good thing it was to adopt the Garand. And then the military sat back and bought big ticket items, like neat nuclear bombers and tanks, and let the infantryman stay armed with the Garand up to 1961. In the mean time all major players had armed their troops with AK47’s, FN/FAL’s or G3 rifles.

 

[Glock Glockler]

The excess .30 cal ammunition was burned up in training by 1938, we could have easily switched calibers without a problem.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Having seen some clue of ammunition expenditure rates these days (don't think I've seen a pre-'05 headstamp in a while for M855 or M882), I'm inclined to agree that MacArthur's decision to can .276 Pedersen and stick with 30-06 was driven by basic conservatism and just justified by the existing stockpiles argument.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The excess .30 cal ammunition was burned up in training by 1938, we could have easily switched calibers without a problem.

Which would still have left us a huge War Reserve stock of ammo, plus the facilities to manufacture more. And all the other weapons -- the M1917 heavy machinegun, the M1918 BAR and the M1919 light machine gun would suddenly have become obsolete.

Keeping .30 caliber was a good decision -- and I speak as a man who has humped an M1 many a mile in combat.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Industrial Capacity is not the reason why we 'won' the race per se in regards to being numero uno in giving our troops good semi-auto rifles; the Germans could have had the greatest IC of any nation but 5 million G41s/G43s are still G41s and G43s. The big difference is that our troops had the Garand. We can replace the Germans with the Russians for that matter: 5 million SVT-40s are still SVT-40s. Both rifles [G43 and SVT-40] are funky setups and both of them have their flaws. The Garand is not perfect, but you won't have to be worried about rube goldberg tools or ivan being unable to deal with the maintenance by its design or when IC becomes a factor with total war.

It all comes down to design. The Garand worked after all of the heeby-jeebies got worked out, and the others didn't. We 'won' the race in getting the first one in that operate well, but the Germans beat everybody when they placed a concept-into-design with the Stg-44.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You have a good point there - no contemporary design can hold a candle to the Garand. There may be better battle rifles today, but they all came after WWII.

 

[Timthinker]

I wonder how influencial the views of General MacArthur, a rising star in the Army after World War One, were in adopting a semi-automatic rifle. I have heard that MacArthur espoused "progressive" views for the American Army following that war. I am sure that his "blessings" on a semi-auto rifle project carried great weight. If anyone knows about MacArthur's role in this story, I sure that it would add to these discussions.

Yes, I know MacArthur wanted the semi-auto chambered for a .30-06 round rather than the .276. Beyond this, I would like to know more about his influence in this particular policy matter.


Timthinker

 

[neby98]

Part of the puzzle is that we attempted to stick with bolt action rifles too long, seeing that they didn't work that well in ww1 was a wake up call, if I recall my college history class correctly.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Part of the puzzle is that we attempted to stick with bolt action rifles too long, seeing that they didn't work that well in ww1 was a wake up call

How did bolt action rifles not work well in WWI?

Every nation that fought in WWI retained their bolt action rifles, except the United States.

 

[Kman]

The basis is of course the spirit of free enterprise, the motivation to create a better world for ones self. Couple that with the industrial revolution, and a few guys like Winchester, Spencer, Browning and Garand.
Few years later and our Physicist harness and consequently unleash the power of the atom.

 

[Spiggy]

and not long after, the power of the sun!

How did bolt action rifles not work well in WWI?

Every nation that fought in WWI retained their bolt action rifles, except the United States.

It seems to have worked out fine. The problem is WW2 was a different kind of war. Sure there was a lot of trenches; but German powers brought on Urban combat(or rather, the Russians fighting back brought on urban guerrilla warfare.)
A good chunk of the European theatre turned into close quarters and house to house fighting.

Where as in the Pacific; a tidbit people often forget; was fought in jungle. A manually cycled weapon could easily be caught on vegetation and the movement to cycle made a good silhouette to fire at.

Then again, by the time the tides had turned, Japanese forces were suffering severe logistical problems. The Type 100 SMG was too late to issue, Type99 production was full swing; down to homeshop building. Tanks and tankettes were outdated and breaking down from exhaustion. It's easy to see why Japan did not really have a chance to bring out a semi-automatic battle rifle.

As for the Russians, they kinda fought by combination of guerrilla and attrition. Propping an expensive semi-auto in expendable hands didn't make much sense

 

[Limeyfellow]

How did bolt action rifles not work well in WWI?

Every nation that fought in WWI retained their bolt action rifles, except the United States.

+1 The bolt action worked really well for most conflicts. So well Britain was still using them in the Korean War to great effect. The only reason the US didn't use them more in WW2 is because they dumped the majority of troops with the M1 carbine on to the troops instead because it was cheaper and quicker to produce.

It must also take into account that the majority of the world was still in a depression when the US was getting out of there or in military activity that kept resources stretched.