My knowledge of the .276 Pedersen and its' non-adoption is that 1) Garand developed his rifle for it, at first, and 2) the Army, possibly Gen. MacArthur, didn't want to invest in a new chambering that by definition would make stocks of .30-06 unusable. My question is this - was the .276 ever tested in any firearm OTHER than Garand's prototype rifle? Was it ever tested in either a LMG or sub-machine gun?
.276 Pedersen question
- Thread starter BrianBM
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Well, Pedersen's rifle was developed for the .276, of course. And I think one or two other prototypes from the 1920s may have been, as well.
I don't know of any other firearms to be developed for the cartridge, though.
Jean Huon's book, "Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges," lists only the Pedersen rifle and the prototype Garand as being chambered for this round.
I don't know of any other firearms to be developed for the cartridge, though.
Jean Huon's book, "Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges," lists only the Pedersen rifle and the prototype Garand as being chambered for this round.
The American Rifleman had an article on this weapon a few years back. The Pedersen rifle was a toggle action like a Luger and was a blowback design. There were issues with the ejection of the cartridge after firing and Pedersens idea of a fix was to wax coat the cartridges for easier extraction. Wax coated ammo in the field was not going to work hence the demise of the cartridge. The 276 Pedersen was also known as the 7x51. For those who think Hatcher is the end all of weapon knowledge, he endorsed the Pedersen rifle and rejected the Garand according to the article.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Wax coated ammo in the field was not going to work hence the demise of the cartridge."
I'd think that drawback would have more to do with the demise of the rifle, and not the cartridge.
The early Garands apparently worked well with the .276 cartridge.
I'd think that drawback would have more to do with the demise of the rifle, and not the cartridge.
The early Garands apparently worked well with the .276 cartridge.
Read "Hatcher's Notebook " . He explains all the rifle developments between the wars.
The 276 Pederson was a Delayed Blowback and to prevent tearing apart the case on firing the cases were waxed. There was no need to do this in the field ! Other delayed blowback actions like the G3 series have fluted chambers to solve that problem That incudes various HK rifles and pistols like the P7.The fluting is in shoulder /neck area only.
The 276 Pederson was a Delayed Blowback and to prevent tearing apart the case on firing the cases were waxed. There was no need to do this in the field ! Other delayed blowback actions like the G3 series have fluted chambers to solve that problem That incudes various HK rifles and pistols like the P7.The fluting is in shoulder /neck area only.
Jim Watson
New member
The last iteration of the Thompson Autorifle was in .276 although it started out in .30-06. It required lubed cases, too.
I wonder if a Pedersen or Thompson would have worked with a fluted chamber a la H&K instead of lube.
But how much trouble would the dry wax lube on .276 been, anyhow? Ammo would have been waxed and loaded in clips and bandoleers at the factory, so it would not have been handled all that much. How much dirt does the wax on your car hold?
I think the leftover .30-06 rifles and ammunition argument against the .276 was just an excuse to keep from going to a less powerful round. The Springfields could have gone to trainees, reserves, and support troops. The ammo could have been belted up for machine guns, what wasn't needed for the rifles that weren't going to be shot much.
There is an article in P.O. Ackley's books by an Army doctor who worked on the terminal ballistics trials in those days. Shooting was done at cadavers, pigs, and goats. He said that the .276 was not a great wounder, that there was a .256 (6.5mm, not .25 cal) variant that did more damage.
A few years later, they didn't mind adding a caliber for the Carbine.
And look at us now with a duke's mixture of .223 and .308.
I wonder if a Pedersen or Thompson would have worked with a fluted chamber a la H&K instead of lube.
But how much trouble would the dry wax lube on .276 been, anyhow? Ammo would have been waxed and loaded in clips and bandoleers at the factory, so it would not have been handled all that much. How much dirt does the wax on your car hold?
I think the leftover .30-06 rifles and ammunition argument against the .276 was just an excuse to keep from going to a less powerful round. The Springfields could have gone to trainees, reserves, and support troops. The ammo could have been belted up for machine guns, what wasn't needed for the rifles that weren't going to be shot much.
There is an article in P.O. Ackley's books by an Army doctor who worked on the terminal ballistics trials in those days. Shooting was done at cadavers, pigs, and goats. He said that the .276 was not a great wounder, that there was a .256 (6.5mm, not .25 cal) variant that did more damage.
A few years later, they didn't mind adding a caliber for the Carbine.
And look at us now with a duke's mixture of .223 and .308.
MacArthur had witnessed two changeovers (45-70 to 30-40 Army, and 30-40 Army to .30-03 later changed midstream to .30-06), so he knew what a major changeover involved. MacArthur had just participated in The World War (The War To End All Wars, The European War, World War I, whatever you would like to call it), several regional wars were ongoing in South America and the Caribbean area, and war with Japan was on the horizon. Between the two World Wars, US policy was "separationist", meaning we were not going to get involved in anyone else's wars, mostly because we were able to find wars by ourselves without looking for them. I think he was being cautious, or perhaps he did not want to authorize another poorly thought out overhaul of the munitions supply systems to replace a totally functional cartridge with an unknown.
Might have. From what I read, the Nazi’s found out about fluted chambers from captured Russian machine guns. They used it very successfully in their roller bolt designs, but the Pedersen rifle was 20’s, about ten years before this idea came out of the Soviet Union.
There may have been people around who were familiar with 19th century externally lubricated cartridges, which were messy, and extrapolated to waxed cases. And since waxed cases were not in common use they could raise all sorts of hay. There were period guns that used oil, which is messy. Messy is why lubricants were designed out of firearms.
I really don’t think wax is much of a problem, I have rubbing Johnson Paste wax on 308 and 30-06 cartridges for decades. I use these cartridges in M1a’s and Garands and the wax prevents case head separations. I will pass unfired rounds to people and they can’t tell there is a coating. They can tell after firing as the wax is sticky from melting.
I actually believe there may well be wax on the sides of cartridges we buy, at least some. I noticed a spider corrosion pattern on Federal 30-06, this corrosion pattern occurs under films. It would not surprise me to find that ammunition is waxed to keep it shiny on the shelf.
You got it. Change is always too expensive, too much trouble. Cost is always used to justify the “do nothing” decision. Cost is so easy to use and it hides agenda’s.
Ammunition stockpiles go bad and the stuff has to be scrapped. WW1 stockpiles were at the end of their shelf lives and probably most were scrapped prior to WWII.
We successfully got the M1 Carbine into production and its round. The world did not end did it?
The 276 round was a good round and it is likely we would still be using it instead of the .223.
I suspect the decision to stay with the 30-06 was driven by a dislike of what is new, a dislike of something that would be less powerful, and it may have been driven by ego. Douglas MacArthur was a supreme egotist, he may have disliked the 276 because of someone on the 276 team or just as a way of asserting his power. After all, General Eisenhauser said he “studied theatrics under General MacArthur.” These top prima donnas do things that don't make sense just to show people they are in charge.
Such as General Patton requiring line officers to wear ties, shine their shoes, etc. It was just a way of jerking everyone’s chain and reminding them that “my Dogs wear my collars”.
Here is a link to the original letter "Report on 30.06 cal. to stay with the US Army"
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325681&highlight=macarthur
If you notice, the letter is very condescending in tone and the arguments specious. Acknowledges the “technical perfection ” of the new round, but then the author creates misleading inferences to the Committees recommendations. One can be summarized as “The selected round must not be very good if you are recommending further research”.
You can recognize that whomever wrote the report had an agenda, and that agenda was to stay the course, damn any alternatives.
As for the historical use of lubricated cases there are plenty of known examples. On page 39 of his book “Hatcher’s Notebook”, Hatcher provides excellent explanations why lubricated cartridges were necessary in the early Automatic Gun mechanisms. Tests of which he oversaw as a junior officer.
Just read this entire section, top of page 41 summarizes it well. . Lubricated cartridges were needed for the Schwarzlose, (oiler in mechanism) Pedersen rifle (ceresin wax) , the oil soaked pads used in the Thompson Autorifle “worked as long as the oiled pads were used” page 153.
<...Insult removed...>
Last edited by a moderator:
Had Mac Approved The .276 It'd Still Be Our Main Round Today!
Garand wanted a .30-06, not .276 which is what he was ordered to build a rifle for. He whined. And skated around his ice-rink Living Room, sulking (he was Canadian, right?). Eventually he was allowed to over-build a rifle for the .30-06. Adopted 1936.
A .276 Garand with a 10-round removeable mag (ala the Enfield) would have been a smaller, lighter, shorter, higher-firepower gun with more ammo carried per man and American lives saved.
IMO we would STILL be using the .276 in a version of the AR-10 today as our standard main battle rifle if we had adopted it then. No M-14 or 7.62x54mm. No M-16. No 5.56x45mm. No 6.8mm SPC (a shortened .276 Pedersen).
Garand wanted a .30-06, not .276 which is what he was ordered to build a rifle for. He whined. And skated around his ice-rink Living Room, sulking (he was Canadian, right?). Eventually he was allowed to over-build a rifle for the .30-06. Adopted 1936.
A .276 Garand with a 10-round removeable mag (ala the Enfield) would have been a smaller, lighter, shorter, higher-firepower gun with more ammo carried per man and American lives saved.
IMO we would STILL be using the .276 in a version of the AR-10 today as our standard main battle rifle if we had adopted it then. No M-14 or 7.62x54mm. No M-16. No 5.56x45mm. No 6.8mm SPC (a shortened .276 Pedersen).
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Read Post #1.
Read it again.
It most likely would be unwise to again mention anything about lubrication.
Read it again.
It most likely would be unwise to again mention anything about lubrication.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Garand wanted a .30-06, not .276 which is what he was ordered to build a rifle for. He whined. And skated around his ice-rink Living Room, sulking (he was Canadian, right?). "
I'd LOVE to know where you came up with this "fact."
About the only things you got right in that paragraph were that Garand was Canadian and turned his living room into an ice skating rink.
Everything else is either fantasy, imagination, or... well, I'm not sure what.
I'd LOVE to know where you came up with this "fact."
About the only things you got right in that paragraph were that Garand was Canadian and turned his living room into an ice skating rink.
Everything else is either fantasy, imagination, or... well, I'm not sure what.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I suspect the decision to stay with the 30-06 was driven by a dislike of what is new, a dislike of something that would be less powerful, and it may have been driven by ego."
Actually, the decision to retain the .30-06 cartridge was based on very sound considerations.
I'm not really sure how anyone who takes a look at the economic and political situation in the United States and world at the time arrives at the conclusion that MacArthur's decision was based on ego.
Fact. Post World War I, the US military has literally BILLIONS of .30-06 cartridges in stock. So many, in fact, that many US troops training for WW II service stateside were trained with cartridges made in 1917 and 1918.
Fact. When MacArthur made the decision to retain the .30-06 cartridge, the United States was mired in a crippling depression, and military budgets, which had been cut dramatically in the 1920s, became practically non-existent.
Fact. Funding for development and adoption of the Garand was, at various times, very close to being canceled due to budget constraints.
If you're having trouble funding the prototype rifle, do you really think you're going to have much success scrapping every single round of rifle ammunition in US stores and replacing it with new ammo? Oh, and the money would also have to be found to change the production military ammo production facilities to the new round, as well.
MacArthur, as Army chief of staff, was also chief of the Army's money bag. He knew what he had to work with, and knew that given the economic situation of the day he wasn't going to be able to bleed from Congress the money needed to replace the entire US ammo store.
MacArthur's well described and known ego had NOTHING to do with his decision.
It was actually a well reasoned and entirely pragmatic decision based on the requirements of the times.
To suggest it was anything else, especially an act of egotism, is downright silly.
Actually, the decision to retain the .30-06 cartridge was based on very sound considerations.
I'm not really sure how anyone who takes a look at the economic and political situation in the United States and world at the time arrives at the conclusion that MacArthur's decision was based on ego.
Fact. Post World War I, the US military has literally BILLIONS of .30-06 cartridges in stock. So many, in fact, that many US troops training for WW II service stateside were trained with cartridges made in 1917 and 1918.
Fact. When MacArthur made the decision to retain the .30-06 cartridge, the United States was mired in a crippling depression, and military budgets, which had been cut dramatically in the 1920s, became practically non-existent.
Fact. Funding for development and adoption of the Garand was, at various times, very close to being canceled due to budget constraints.
If you're having trouble funding the prototype rifle, do you really think you're going to have much success scrapping every single round of rifle ammunition in US stores and replacing it with new ammo? Oh, and the money would also have to be found to change the production military ammo production facilities to the new round, as well.
MacArthur, as Army chief of staff, was also chief of the Army's money bag. He knew what he had to work with, and knew that given the economic situation of the day he wasn't going to be able to bleed from Congress the money needed to replace the entire US ammo store.
MacArthur's well described and known ego had NOTHING to do with his decision.
It was actually a well reasoned and entirely pragmatic decision based on the requirements of the times.
To suggest it was anything else, especially an act of egotism, is downright silly.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"A few years later, they didn't mind adding a caliber for the Carbine."
The carbine was an addition. It wasn't a wholesale replacement of the .30-06 cartridge.
There's a HUGE difference between the two.
The carbine was an addition. It wasn't a wholesale replacement of the .30-06 cartridge.
There's a HUGE difference between the two.
Then you add trying to get congress to totaly restock the system with .276 ammunition while there are billions of rounds of 06 on hand. The Chief of Staff had enough brains to realise that this was not going to happen. In the start of WW-2 it was common to see 1917-18 ammunition in combat,if they had the .276 Bataan would have probably been a battle of pointed sticks vs the Ariska.
Mike Irwin
Staff
It's interesting to take a look at what happened to the other nations that tried to replace their service cartridges during the 1920s and 1930s.
France in the 1920s began to change from the 8mm Lebel to the 7.5 MAS. By the time the world-wide depression hit, the change-over was only partially complete. They adopted a new rifle in 1936 (the MAS 36) to go along with the conversions they were doing to existing Betherier rifles, but by the time WW II rolled around, the conversion process was only partially completed and they entered the war with a considerable number of 8mm Lebel rifles still in military service.
In the early 1930s Italy decided to change from the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano round to the 7.35mm. They were also significantly hindered by lack of money and entered the war with the change-over only partially compete. Starting in 1941 the Italians actually began to recall rifles chambered in 7.35mm to convert them back to 6.5mm to make supply easier.
The Japanese also attempted to adopt a new cartridge, the 7.7mm, starting in 1939. They were in a somewhat different situation, as the military got pretty much whatever it wanted, but the dual combination of ramping up the war in Asia and the need to increase spending on all levels of the military to support the war effort again torpedoed the effort.
In the United States and Germany the situation was made easier by the fact that they didn't attempt to make a wholesale change -- they augmented the standard military rifle/cartridge combination with new weapons chambering new rounds.
In the US the .30 Carbine wasn't even intended to be a front-line combat weapon, it was origially intended to be issued primarly to troops who normally would have drawn a pistol (crew-served weapons units, truck drivers, etc.). The fact that it was so light and handy, though, made it extremely popular with the troops.
In the case of the Germans, their Stgw 43/44 chambering the 7.92x33 round would have EVENTUALLY replaced the bolt action K98k, but during the war it was issued as an adjunct to the rifle and the submachine gun.
The simple fact is that MacArthur's decision to NOT replace the .30-06 in military service was, ultimately, an extremely wise decision.
France in the 1920s began to change from the 8mm Lebel to the 7.5 MAS. By the time the world-wide depression hit, the change-over was only partially complete. They adopted a new rifle in 1936 (the MAS 36) to go along with the conversions they were doing to existing Betherier rifles, but by the time WW II rolled around, the conversion process was only partially completed and they entered the war with a considerable number of 8mm Lebel rifles still in military service.
In the early 1930s Italy decided to change from the 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano round to the 7.35mm. They were also significantly hindered by lack of money and entered the war with the change-over only partially compete. Starting in 1941 the Italians actually began to recall rifles chambered in 7.35mm to convert them back to 6.5mm to make supply easier.
The Japanese also attempted to adopt a new cartridge, the 7.7mm, starting in 1939. They were in a somewhat different situation, as the military got pretty much whatever it wanted, but the dual combination of ramping up the war in Asia and the need to increase spending on all levels of the military to support the war effort again torpedoed the effort.
In the United States and Germany the situation was made easier by the fact that they didn't attempt to make a wholesale change -- they augmented the standard military rifle/cartridge combination with new weapons chambering new rounds.
In the US the .30 Carbine wasn't even intended to be a front-line combat weapon, it was origially intended to be issued primarly to troops who normally would have drawn a pistol (crew-served weapons units, truck drivers, etc.). The fact that it was so light and handy, though, made it extremely popular with the troops.
In the case of the Germans, their Stgw 43/44 chambering the 7.92x33 round would have EVENTUALLY replaced the bolt action K98k, but during the war it was issued as an adjunct to the rifle and the submachine gun.
The simple fact is that MacArthur's decision to NOT replace the .30-06 in military service was, ultimately, an extremely wise decision.
The only thing I was only 99.9% sure of was that Garand was Canadian (actually, it was a rhetorical devise). He was married to, compulsive, psychotic over the .30-06. He was a deranged individual -- um, I mean an eccentric genius. Yeah, that's it. Someone else here can go cite these about this idol.
The .276 had already been adopted by the Army -- maybe that isn't clear. It was only "equaled" 35 years later by the 7.62 x 54 NATO -- at best. Mac countermanded this, however, and the Garand, a gun that failed in SO many areas with the .30-06, was reworked and built-up over and over again until it was acceptable to be foisted on our fighting men to the acclaim of the best propaganda we could muster in wartime.
IMO the Brit experimental .280 should probably have been chosen over the .30 NATO round and ALSO would've displaced the 5.56 and been in use today in a 25 round AR-10 had it been adopted. We'd all have been better off, but that's another story about arrogance altogether...
The .276 had already been adopted by the Army -- maybe that isn't clear. It was only "equaled" 35 years later by the 7.62 x 54 NATO -- at best. Mac countermanded this, however, and the Garand, a gun that failed in SO many areas with the .30-06, was reworked and built-up over and over again until it was acceptable to be foisted on our fighting men to the acclaim of the best propaganda we could muster in wartime.
IMO the Brit experimental .280 should probably have been chosen over the .30 NATO round and ALSO would've displaced the 5.56 and been in use today in a 25 round AR-10 had it been adopted. We'd all have been better off, but that's another story about arrogance altogether...
Attachments
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The .276 had already been adopted by the Army."
Wrong.
The .276 cartridge was NEVER officially adopted by the military. It was, at the time its adoption was rejected, still considered to be a prototype.
"He was married to, compulsive, psychotic over the .30-06."
OK, once again, you've made a claim for which you have no proof and for which you can show no substantiation.
That's called trolling, and trolls are not suffered lightly here.
If you knew ANYTHING about the subject (and it's pretty obvious that you don't, so you're resorting to flights of imagination - also known as lies ) you'd know that Garand was concerned about the conversion to .30-06 because it was a far more powerful cartridge. Early versions of the Garand (designed prior to the genesis of the .276) had significant teething troubles.
Wrong.
The .276 cartridge was NEVER officially adopted by the military. It was, at the time its adoption was rejected, still considered to be a prototype.
"He was married to, compulsive, psychotic over the .30-06."
OK, once again, you've made a claim for which you have no proof and for which you can show no substantiation.
That's called trolling, and trolls are not suffered lightly here.
If you knew ANYTHING about the subject (and it's pretty obvious that you don't, so you're resorting to flights of imagination - also known as lies ) you'd know that Garand was concerned about the conversion to .30-06 because it was a far more powerful cartridge. Early versions of the Garand (designed prior to the genesis of the .276) had significant teething troubles.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Among others, Elmer Keith was involved in some of the testing, and wrote a good bit about it in his "Hell, I Was There".
Something that is being overlooked is that the whole process of alternate cartridge selection was an expensive failure.
Look at the resources applied, the weapons, cartridges made, the number of people involved, the cost of testing, and for what?
Based on the scope, in terms of today’s dollars, this was a $100 million to $200 million dollar effort.
So after all this expenditure of time, money and effort, which could have been spent on something better, the Army comes up with “Ah, not really?”.
That is waste and incompetence.
History is not inevitable but bad decisions do not get any better. If we had adopted the 276 Pederson round, and it is a good intermediate round, I think it is highly likely we would have kept the round but changed the rifles.
Instead, by the time you get to 1960 the need for an intermediate round is painfully obvious and we have to scrap all these M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, and M14’s (sob!).
Instead we got the .223, recognized as inadequate, and the best replacements are very close to the ballistics of the 280 British?
Imagine if the Garand had been made originally in 276, they could still be in war reserve, with more advanced weapons in the front line units. Instead Garands are only good for are scrap metal and for sale to collectors.
Look at the resources applied, the weapons, cartridges made, the number of people involved, the cost of testing, and for what?
Based on the scope, in terms of today’s dollars, this was a $100 million to $200 million dollar effort.
So after all this expenditure of time, money and effort, which could have been spent on something better, the Army comes up with “Ah, not really?”.
That is waste and incompetence.
History is not inevitable but bad decisions do not get any better. If we had adopted the 276 Pederson round, and it is a good intermediate round, I think it is highly likely we would have kept the round but changed the rifles.
Instead, by the time you get to 1960 the need for an intermediate round is painfully obvious and we have to scrap all these M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, and M14’s (sob!).
Instead we got the .223, recognized as inadequate, and the best replacements are very close to the ballistics of the 280 British?
Imagine if the Garand had been made originally in 276, they could still be in war reserve, with more advanced weapons in the front line units. Instead Garands are only good for are scrap metal and for sale to collectors.