.276 Pedersen question

it is simple really. most aircraft,ships,tanks and rifles used the same round at that time and if you had a cartrige change you would have to swap everyone of those others out.

so if you want a M1 with a 276 that meant the 1919 would need a rechamber, well shoot now the warhawks and the B-17's need new guns along with the battleships.

People always seem to forgette that more than just infantry are effected by your main cartridge
 
"the B-17's need new guns along with the battleships."

After 1930-32 or so, very few American aircraft were armed with rifle caliber machine guns. By 1938, I can only think of two designs that had rifle caliber machine guns on them.

Same with Navy ships -- the M2 was pretty much the standard GP machinegun for shipboard use.
 
"Mac over-road the Ordnance Department/Semiautomatic Rifle Board unamimous adoption of the .276 Garand."

Which was his perogative as top dog of the US army.

Being recommended by the Ordnance Board and being adopted by the US Army are two VERY different things.

MacArthur prevented the .276 from being adopted.

Had MacArthur not done so, the entire process could also have been killed Congressionaly at the budget level.
 
Lest I wear out my welcome, I'll go a-Googlin' for the Garand derivatives mentioned by Jim Watson. I had no idea ..... but you noticed that. ;)
 
It was Mac's perrogative. And Mac's mistake we lived, and died, with for decades to follow. Not just to me but, first, unamimously to the military's experts directed to develop a semi-auto rifle and ammo for US service. Then to history. Mac was a modern-day General James Wolffe Ripley on this issue.

As for Congress, they funded the new gun that had no committee supporters -- only eccentrics MacArthur and Garand himself at the end of a 16-year effort. As indicated previously, the funding was alreay being re-arranged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top