.276 Pedersen Rifle

[Timthinker]

Garands, Garands and Garands. We read a lot about this rifle at THR. This is not surprising since the Garand was the battle rifle America used to win World War II. Yet, we read comparative little about the Pedersen rifle, a design that some hoped would become the first official semi-automatic rifle to equip U.S. forces. The Pedersen failed in this attempt. Even so, the Pedersen rifle seems like an interesting and appropriate topic for discussion. This is why I would like to read opinions about this interesting weapon.


Timthinker

 

[Slamfire]

Read about it in Hatcher's Book of the Garand. If it were not for his documenting this period of rifle development, no one would really know much about what happened.

There were not enough of them produced to really get into civilian hands. I have seen one at a Gun show, the guy wanted like $10K for the rifle. Today it is probably worth a lot more.

 

[Nolo]

I have to say that i think the .276 Pedersen cartridge is probably one of the most attractive rifle cartridges I've ever seen.

 

[max popenker]

I have to say that i think the .276 Pedersen cartridge is probably one of the most attractive rifle cartridges I've ever seen.

Now imagine BAR M1918 reworked for .276. Probably about a pound lighter, with 25- or even 30-round magazine, and also probably more controllable in full-auto... Must be a really fun gun

 

[Ash]

The Pedersen rifle was a toggle-locked design, wasn't it?

Ash

 

[max popenker]

The Pedersen rifle was a toggle-locked design, wasn't it?

Yes it was. And IIRC the toggle tended to hit the rim of the old steel helmet when firing prone

 

[Ash]

Kinda disconcerting, eh?

Ash

 

[Trebor]

Personally I think the .276 Pederson cartridge is more interesting then the .276 Pederson rifle. My understanding is that it was a flat shooting cartridge with lower recoild then the standard .30 - '06. I've heard it compared favorably to the .270.

The Garand prototype was originally chambered in .276 Pederson. John C Garand saw the writing on the wall and realized that we were likely to stick with .30 - '06 after all so, on his own initiative, he modified the design to work with the .30 - '06 round. When the decision to stick with '06 was made, the rifle was essentially ready. If he hadn't done the work ahead of time the design might not have been finalized before funding was cut. We very well could have fought WWIII with the 1903 Springfield as a result.

The .276 Garand had a 10 round clip. When the rifle was redesigned the capactiy was dropped to 8 rounds to accomodate the larger cartridges.

A .276 Garand would have had less recoil and 10 rounds on tap. I'm sure the GI's would have loved it. We might not have needed to develop the "intermediate" 5.56 round later if we had replaced the .30 - '06 with the .276 Pederson round. We could have basically developed a .276 M-14 and then stopped there.

Interesting what if's.

 

[BigG]

The Pederson rifle, according to Hatcher, would eject the cases so hard they would penetrate into the door of the firing chamber and if they hit mouth first, they would stick. It was a gun that was dangerous on both ends.

I can't remember all the details but I think it had a fixed bbl and was therefore retarded blowback rather than mechanically locked. Hatcher's Book of Garand or Hatcher's Notebook both have stuff if you'd care to look it up.

 

[BigG]

Name has all e's

There's a pretty good article at Wiki under Pedersen rifle. Here's an excerpt:

Development of the Rifle and Cartridge

Pedersen got to work in 1924, focusing first on the cartridge. The .276 Pedersen (7 x 51 mm) cartridge as finally standardized and manufactured at Frankford Arsenal was ½ inch (12.7mm) shorter than the .30-06, one quarter lighter, would generate nearly a third less heat and about half the recoil energy. Despite being smaller, it had a trajectory similar to the .30-06.,with a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet per second (792m/s). The cons of the design were diminished tracer performance, less effective armor piercing, plus anticipated logistical complications coming from the fact the .30-06 would remain in use for machine guns. The cartridge did, however, make a reasonably light yet effective semiautomatic rifle possible.

By early 1926, Pedersen had designed and built a prototype rifle. He had researched Army tactics and operational concepts, and had engineered the tooling for parts manufacture as an integral part of engineering the gun parts themselves. Such an application of sound research and development made a very strong impression on Army personnel when the rifle was presented for inspection and testing. The rifle was a solid, well-finished weapon, 44 inches (112cm) long, weighing slightly over 8 pounds (3.6kg). It utilized a disposable ten-round en bloc clip, a system favored at the time. Pedersen's rifle utilized a sophisticated up-breaking toggle-joint system like the Parabellum P.08[1] but improved by utilizing delayed blowback. This system was simple and free of both the fragility and severe kick of recoil operation, and the weight and complexity of gas operation (as in the Browning Automatic Rifle). To ease extraction, cartridge cases were coated in mineral wax.[2] This left a thin film that was “hard, and durable, and was not sticky,”[3]. The waxed cases solved the issue of difficult extraction, but hindered acceptance of the Pedersen rifle because officials feared that the wax would attract dirt and cause operating failures.

You'll note the ammo had to be lubed with wax, which was a perceived failing of all those delayed blowback types like the Thompson rifle and later SMG. The HK fluted chamber is a work around of this issue.

 

[Jim Watson]

The Pederson rifle, according to Hatcher, would eject the cases so hard they would penetrate into the door of the firing chamber and if they hit mouth first, they would stick. It was a gun that was dangerous on both ends.

That was the Thompson Autorifle, not the Pedersen. Hatcher, pg 153. The Blish system in that rifle and Thompson SMGs up through the 1928 is just weird. Assumes that lubricated surfaces in contact at an angle will bind before they slip under sudden high pressure. Riiight.

Hatcher says the Pedersen passed all tests for adoption but the Garand won out when the .276 was dropped. One reason I suspect was that the Pedersen depended on waxed cases and a .30 cal version would not likely have been able to handle naked brass .30-06 left over from WW I. Probably some NIH involved, too, since Mr Garand worked for Springfield Armory at the time.

 

[BigG]

Thanks for the correction, Jim. Brain fade.

 

[BigG]

Jim

I thought the Thompson rifle was based on Thompson's (or Blish's) observation of the big Naval guns with the interrupted screw breechblocks that would fire and then unscrew when the pressure subsided with the case popping out automatically. That was the adhesion of inclined surfaces when high pressure was applied. Seemed to work on the big guns.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The Pedersen required luibricated ammunition -- there were lube-soaked wool pads lining the sides of the magazine. Imagine how that would go over in the desert or jungle!

 

[peyton]

Why did the cartridge not get used in a commerial rifle, heavens knows it would of fit a lot of rifles.

 

[Jim K]

Not true of the Pedersen, Vern. The Thompson SMG has lubricated pads in the receiver, but not in the magazine.

In spite of what some have written about the Pedersen system, it is not a toggle locked action like the Luger. The Luger is a locked breech design with a moving barrel, where the Pedersen uses a clever system of curved surfaces to keep the breech from opening too far until pressure drops. The barrel is fixed; it is thus a retarded blowback, not a locked breech system. Because retarded blowbacks tend to have extraction problems, the Pedersen required the use of waxed cartridges. This was not some sort of grease or soft wax, but hard wax like that used on cars, and would probably have been perfectly OK in the field.

But the Pedersen story, as told, is essentially backward. Pedersen developed his rifle but found out that the .30 was too powerful for the system. So he reduced the caliber (and the power) to get his rifle to work, and then persuaded Army Ordnance officials to go along with his caliber and his rifle. We need to know that Pedersen was not some guy off the street with a neat invention. He had been Remington's chief designer for years and, of course, had invented the Pedersen device which had so impressed the Army brass.* So they certainly had good reason to respect him and listen to his ideas.

But remember, his research and work and salesmanship were all pointed toward one goal - having the Army adopt his rifle, which he would allow them to make on a royalty basis, making him very rich indeed.

The rifle had drawbacks, the use of special ammunition being one, but it seemed on the way to adoption when the CSA (MacArthur) considered the millions of rounds of .30 in storage and nixed the caliber change. That left Pedersen out in the cold since his rifle would not work with the .30.

In retrospect, the decision was the right one. Not only would millions of rounds of ammunition have been scrapped, but the .276 would have been out-ranged and out-powered by the 7.9 German cartridge. I believe the Pedersen rifle, would been more susceptible to problems of dirt and weather than the M1 rifle was.

*The Pedersen device, used as intended, would probably have led to a massacre, but that is another story.

Jim

 

[Jim Watson]

Why would millions of rounds of ammunition have been scrapped? If the infantry rifle was a .276, belt up most of the '06 for machine guns with some in stripper clips for secondary service in old Springfields. With a lighter rifle, the M1 carbine might not have come along and the logistics would have been no worse.

 

[Ash]

Plus the added difficulty of fielding two major small-arms calibers for troops. BAR's, 1903's, 1919's were all already chambered for the 30-06 cartridge. The cost of converting them all would have been huge. Otherwise, you would have had less universality of ammo, with machine gunners unable to acquire ammo from riflemen and vice-versa. Granted, belt-fed machine guns had their ammo linked before battle, but BAR guys didn't.

Ash

 

[BigG]

I always get a kick out of the discussion that crops up once in a while about what a big goof it was to pass up the wonderful new ctg* and get a semiauto rifle issued and MacArthur is always given the kick in the pants over quashing it. Nobody ever seems to mention the decision was made in the years 1929 - 1931.

Did anything else happen during that time frame that would have made it difficult to buy a new weapons system?

As I recall is was little more than a .250 Savage (1915 era) class round with a long taper to assure easy extraction. I love history!

 

[Timthinker]

Jim Keenan, I almost forgot that John Pedersen created the Pedersen device, an invention that would transform the '03 Springfield into an automatic rifle. Thanks for reminding us about that connection.

While I find Pedersen's .276 rifle interesting, I think its toggle-action would have been unsuited to actual combat conditions. It seems that I am not alone in this opinion.


Timthinker

 

[Ian]

Hatcher's book mentions that both .30 and .276 Garand were given peacetime field-testing by a couple units, and the .276 was preferred over the .30 by pretty much everyone.

Of course, look at the 6.8 SPC and you'll see that we've basically come back to the .276.

 

[SoonerSP101]

In the pig test the .276 Pedersen was deemed the best projectile against a human target.

The .276 Pedersen M1 held 10 rounds instead of 8. It launched a 125-grain 7mm projectile at 2,550 fps.

Excerpt from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
Pedersen's round was actually a true 7 mm (0.284 in) and designed to be a mid-power cartridge akin to the Italian 6.5 x 52 mm (0.264 in) Carcano or the Japanese 6.5 x 50 mm (0.264 in) Arisaka. Surviving examples have bullets of 140 or 150 grains (9.1 or 9.7 g). It was supposed to produce a velocity of around 2400 feet per second (730 m/s). Its case was two inches (51 mm) long with significant taper. Tapered cases require the use of highly curved magazines similar to that of the Kalashnikov. It was produced in both lubricated and non-lubricated forms, for the Pederson Rifle and Garand rifle, respectively.

So I guess that chart (below) that was also from Wikipedia contradicts itself? Maybe .284 is really a “true” 7 mm? I’m confused because .276 in. equals 7.0104 mm. BUT if the .276 Pedersen was in fact .284 in. then that equals 7.2136 mm.


Another thing!!! Why wouldn’t the .276 Pedersen be in the chart with the 7.0mm(.277) data? If it really is 7.214mm(.284) then John Pedersen should have called it the .284 Pedersen and stopped the madness of false advertising!!!!!!!!!!! That irritates me that he had the nerve to call it a .276

Also looking at the chart the .280 Remington and the 7 mm Remington Magnum are both ( 7.214 mm / .284 ) so wouldn’t one of those be today’s best choice?

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/1997.php

The link above is one of many research papers done on the life of the M1 Garand.

It mentions that John Pederson came out with the “.276 Pederson” cartridge. Since the military’s cartridge effectiveness study concluded the .276 was the winner against a human (they used pigs) target John Garand initially builds his M1 around that “.276 Pederson” cartridge. Gen. MacArthur told everyone that they were going to make a .30 Garand and that decided that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_mm_caliber


Here’s interesting stuff...the research paper says .276 which is approximately 7 mm. I suppose that’s true since “approximately” is a subjective word.

According to the chart taken from Wikipedia, the .276 Pederson was a 7.2 mm or .284 in reality. So wouldn’t it be more prudent to say a 7.2 mm and/or a .284 is the most effective against a human target?

So...is a .276 or a .284 the best round for human targets?

 

[Ash]

What's interesting is that at the same time we were considering a round based loosely on the Japanese and Italian service rounds, the Japanese and Italians were abandoning theirs for larger caliber weapons based on combat experience.

Ash

 

[Jim K]

And the same folks who say we should have adopted the .276 Pedersen also deride the 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Japanese as being weak and underpowered. And note that both countries went to larger bullets, the Italians to 7.35mm using the same case, and the Japanese to a new cartridge the 7.7 (.303).

Sooner, the .276 and .284 are the same thing. .276 is bore diameter, .284 is groove diameter (bullet diameter), the same way .300 is bore and .308 groove for the .30-'06. The .270 bullets are .270 bore and .277 groove.

How a particular cartridge is named, bore diameter, groove diameter, or something else, is up to the developer of the cartridge. Pedersen chose to call his a .276; Winchester, developing a cartridge with the same bullet diameter, called theirs a .284. Remington, also developing a cartridge with the same bullet diameter, chose to call it a 7mm. By any name, they are all 7mm, .276 being 7.01mm.

FWIW, Pedersen played a role in WWII arms production; he was the Pedersen of Irwin-Pedersen, which contracted to produce M1 carbines but was unable to do so and had its contract taken over by Saginaw.

Jim

 

[Tony Williams]

For those who haven't seen it, this is a pic of the .276 Pedersen round from the article on assault rifle history on my website. The .30 Pedersen is for the WW1 Pedersen device:

Rounds for early automatic rifles: the 6.5x52 Carcano, 7.65 Mannlicher Carbine, .30 Pedersen, 8mm Ribeyrolle (replica), Swiss 7.65x35, .276 Pedersen, Swiss 7.65x38 with bullet alongside, 9x40 Lilja, 9x35 Lahti

Incidentally, the Pedersen and Garand rifles weren't the only US military rifles being touted around at that time - there were also the White rifles, described in another article on my website, which were tested in the UK.