.276 Pedersen and .280 British
How are both cartridges alike and different? What if the M1 Garand had been .276 instead of .30-06? What if the US had adopted the .280 instead of the 7.62 NATO. I understand the 6.8mm is similar, but less effective than either .276, or .280, so are there any rifles available today chambered for those rounds?
What would have happened, someone would post a thread asking what if the M1 Garand had been 30-06 instead of the .276 and the US adopted the 7.62 NATO instead of the .280. It really becomes a endless circle. They say time runs in a circle.Originally Posted by CJackson
Then it would have been a lesser weapon.
But its actually an interesting question...if we had adopted a moderate round back then would we ever have gone to 5.56?
We can play what if all day and night.
We would have unneccessarily complicated our Small Arms supply chain. With a .276 Rifle and .30 cal BAR's, .30 cal Browning Machineguns (Air and Watercooled), and the War reserve Rifles still in .30 it would have been a nightmare. ALso remember the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Phillipine Army all used the .30US
All would have needed replacement to what advantage?
Lets say we convert the Brownings to .276
Not only new barrels and Bolts, but new Belts, ammo boxes- but the guns would all need extensive retesting for operability and new firing tables for the gun crews(back then Machinegunnery wasn't like todays glorified trigger pullers- you had to know trajectories for overhead fires, firing as Battery, etc). for the BARs new Magainzes and testing firing tables
I would have loved to have seen the FAL in .280, as originally intended by the British.
This happened anyways though. The .280 was designed after World War II had ended, around the same time as the 7.62x51mm. The 7.62 NATO was accepted into service after the Korean War, alongside the M14, and so 30-06 was already being phased out. I'm assuming R&D on the .280 would have taken as long, and so it would have probably been ready for widespread service at the same time, or earlier, than the 7.62. Since we were replacing all the M1 Garands, BAR's, M1919's etc (or at least converting them from 30-06 to 7.62 NATO) after the Korean War for frontline combat units, the conversion process would have happened either way.
.280 was a round from the UK. The U.S. dictated what NATO would use.
FWIW, the UK actually developed a pretty hot little .276 cartridge a century ago, but then WWI happened, and they stuck with .303.
Last edited by James; 05-10-2012 at 03:15 AM.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't a .276 Petersen really a 7.01mm and the .280 British is a 7.11mm. So they really are just a shade under the current 7.62 NATO being used now.
I think they should have gone with .257 Roberts. Just because I think Ned Roberts was cool.
And done after the War ended and the depression over. Funds available, time available and also trying to make some concessions to NATO. Compare to switching over during the depression when billions of rounds of .30-06 were available and Money short & time was short with the Germans and Japanese overrunning Asia and Europe. 3 years before the Garand was adopted for instance the Marine Corps had to reduce all Enlisted men one pay grade due to funding cuts. there was little money for the Garand, for the M1919A4, for the streamlining of the M2 series machineguns. Remember also the Air Corps used the same .30 ammo and would a .276 Pedersen be effective in Air to Air combat?
Also the 7.62NATO casing is a .30-06 casing shortened .5 inch.
Early mods were a Glued in chamber ring adapters until new barrels were produced. The Army even did tests if a Unit with .30-06 weapons were accidentally issued 7.62NATO ammunition would the weapons suffer catastrophic damage. It was found with the M1 for example the casing would fireform in the chamber till it looked similar to a 45-70 casing with a lip at the case mouth. Accuracy was found to be severely affected, at 200yds you could expect a 6 o'clock low by 2 feet from point of aim. As well the M14 wasnt in service as fast as you think, though adopted, regular army units were still using the Garand as late as 1963. Some National Guard units used the Garand until 1977. and its sniper variation even longer. I was amazed in 1985 to see the 69th snipers using M-1D's at Ft. Dix, NJ when the Army was already thinking of replacing the M-21 with the M-24.
Add to that the initial runs of M-14's had severe accuracy problems, only TRW rifles holding to standards of accuracy. Thousands of M-14's were rejected by the inspectors and had to be completely reworked or scrapped. That also doesnt account for its failure to replace the M1918A2 BAR. 7th Army & the infantry school reported a significant drop in the ability of Automatic riflemen to quailfy with the M-14 in the Autorifle role compared to the BAR.
that a whole easier thing than different bullet diamters and casings.
But the Main and final nail in the .276 Pedersen chambering for the Garand was the .276 pedersen was a Lubricated casing in Pedersens rifle.
Some small aspects. Barrels in caliber size (not cartridge size) can be chambers easily and cheaply into any cartridge of that caliber compared to building new barrels (Barrels, tooling etc)
Next aspect, the head case is the same, ego uses the same bolt face. Saves money again.
3) The 7.62 and 30-06 are approximately the same in regards to bullet and muzzle energy ( 2700 FPS).
As it has been pointed out, the cost to convert to a different caliber and a rifles would be very expensive. Would any gains in performance justify the cost?
There is still a lot of military surplus 30-06 still out there after all of these years.
Cost is one reason why the 30-06 is the bases for many other cartridges/wild cats.
LD, I was issued a TRW M14. The design was not conducive for a LMG/Automatic rifle. Barrel lift was terrible. 1-2 rd burst was necessary to maintain control. Today, there are suppressors/comps than greatly improve the performance of the M14. When it first came out, it looked like they mated the BAR with the M1 Garand. But the full auto feature was a failure on the most part. Probably a reason for the short life of the M14 in the '60s and the push for the AR battle rifle.
Actually the belgians were originally planning\had developed a 7mm intermediate round for the FAL, the .280 was for the EM-2. The FAL and the .280 was, i think, mated for a short time for tests, but it was never a combination intended to be fielded.
I'm still bitter at LD for crushing my dream of ever having an M1 Garand in .270 caliber.
Egads man!!! what did those hippie yoga chicks do to you. Dreaming about firearms would be almost last on my list compared to scantly clad gals doing yoga.
Umm, Springfield Armory (the Commercial firm) did Make M-1 Garands in .270 Winchester, .30-06, 7.62NATO, .243 Winchester, and early on some 7mm-08 were made.
IIRC you asked about a .270 M14/M1A which wouldnt work due to cartridge length and receiver length of the M1A/M14 (not even considering pressures and other considerations.
M1As were offered in .308/7.62NATO, .243 Winchester and 7mm-08
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote