MDphotographer
Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 64
I know this topic has been beaten to death over the past few years but after reading hundreds of forum posts on the internet I had to chime in.I also know that I am treading on the holy of WWII and military firearms collectors hollies with this article but sometimes it is good to use your head when thinking instead of your heart.I love the M1 Garand rifle as many do.I firmly believe it to be the finest military rifle of its era and give it great credit as being the weapon that for the only time in US history,before and after, that the US infantryman and Marine had a weapon far superior to that of any he faced on the battlefield.I just think it was in the wrong caliber and let me tell you why.
Our story starts in 1898 in Cuba where our forces armed with .30-40 Krag and .45-70 Springfield rifles were outgunned by the Spanish with their 7mm Mauser rifles.The army decided in 1900 it needed a replacement for the Krag and developed its own improved Mauser rifle the 1903 Springfield and developed a new cartridge for it instead of chambering it in the nearly ideal 7X57 Mauser cartridge.The turn of the 20th century being at a time of ultra nationalism we had to have the biggest and best cartridge for our new rifle and we got it in the .30US round (7.62x63mm) a cartridge with a 220gr round nose bullet,no one before or since has had such a big powerful rifle cartridge.In 1906 it was decided that a lighter bullet of spitzer design would be more effective and thus was born the immortal .30 M1906 round (.30-06)
The '03 Springfield and .30-06 cambering was a tremendous combination with great accuracy and stopping power out to and beyond 800 yards.The problem was it kicked like a mule and many troopers couldn't shoot it accurately because they would flinch and why the Army and Marine Corps in the inter-war year gave a $3 marksmanship bonus to those who qualified expert with the Springfield.
After WWI the Army starting thinking about a Self Loading Rifle (SLR) that could replace the Springfield and perhaps the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) The Army also started to think about a caliber change because their combat experience had shown that the .30-06 was excessively powerful at,-500 yard ranges,that infantry combat was likely to take place.Before the war the British were working on a 7mm replacement for the .303 round and after the war the Swedes did a study on what is the most effective caliber for combat,they concluded that 6.5mm (.264) caliber was it.
In 1923 John Pedersen was contracted by the Bureau of Ordnance to develope a SLR and a cartridge in the 6-7mm (.256-.284) range. By 1926 he had developed the .276 Pederson (7x51mm) round and a delayed blow-back rifle for it.The .276 Pederson round fired a 125gr bullets 2700 fps and was 25% lighter,produced 1/3 less heat,and half the recoil of the .30-06 round.The only drawbacks was that tracer & AP performance wasn't as good in the smaller caliber and it used a waxed cartridge to facilitate loading that might attract dirt.In 1928 the Army Infantry Board was impressed with Pedersen's and called for the adoption of Pedersens T1E3 rifle to replace both the Springfield rifle and BAR.
Doubts about the lethal effect of the .276 round were strong enough to result in extensive tests in June and July 1928 by the “Pig Board” (so called because lethality tests were carried out on anesthetized pigs). The Board found all three rounds (.256, .276, and .30) were lethal out to 1,200 yards (1100m), and wounding ability out to 300 or 400 yards was comparable. The “tiny” .256 caliber round was perceived to be the deadliest of them all. No compelling case could be made against the Pedersen rifle and round that it could not perform on the battlefield.
Starting in 1919 John Garand had been working first at the Bureau of Standards and then Springfield Armory on a primer actuated SLR.When the army in 1926 adopted the M1 Ball ammunition he gave up on the primer actuated design because of the staked in primer and started work on a .276 Pedersen chambered gas operated rifle without the need for the waxed ammunition.In the spring of 1931 the .276 chambers Pederson and Garand rifles competed against each other along with a .30 Garand but it had to be withdrawn because of a cracked bolt.The .276 Garand was the clear winner.In January on 1932 the Semi Automatic Rifle board recommended the adoption of the .276 caliber and production of 126 of Garands T3E2 rifles. In the meantime Garand had redesigned the bolt on the .30 caliber T1E2 rifle and was retested.
This is where history changed.Of course we all know the history of the M1 Garand BAR and M14 in WWII,Korea,and the Vietnam war.Douglas MacArthur as Army Chief of Staff decided,based on the 2 billion rounds of .30 caliber ammunition in storage,that work be stopped on the .276 round and the .30 Garand be produced giving us in 1933 the U.S.Rifle Caliber .30 M1.But really what kind of history is that? We know how great the Garand rifle was serving our country for 20+ years in the regular army and even longer in the National Gaurd and reserves.I propose the greatness of the Garand would of been even more historic had it been produced as the U.S. Rifle Caliber .276 (or maybe .28) M1!
MacA's main reasoning for adopting the .30 M1 was because of the ammunition in storage(the bulk of it being M1906 not M1),but what of that ammo? By 1931 the Bureau of Ordinance reported that 20% of M1906 ammunition being issued for training was defective because of corrosion when visually inspected (powders and primers used for WWI ammo were very corrosive and had a short shelf life). No records were kept of what percentage of issued ammunition failed to fire.The same thing happened in 1917 with surplus 6mm Lee ammo the powder used in the 6mm government cartridges had deteriorated to such a degree they were determined to be unfit for sale, and the company destroyed the entire lot rather than resell them to the public. Also because of modifications the Garand didn't reach 100 rifles per day production until 1939. By this time a lot of ammunition had been used for training and a further 188 million rounds were shipped to Britain in lend lease (with the approval of Bureau of Ordnance as it wanted to replace that ammunition with fresh stock) along with 1/3 of all pre-war BAR's.Very little to none of that 2 billion rounds of ammunition was used in combat in M1 Garands during WWII.
I can hear all you internet forum posters say but what about commonality of ammo with our machine guns and the BAR? I say what about it? Ammo was shipped from the US as thus:
.45 ACP in 50 round boxes in wooden crates or ammo cans
.30 Carbine in 50 round boxes in M6 ammo cans or wooden crates
M2 AP 20 round boxes in wooden crates
M2 Ball in 20 round boxes 12 boxes to waxed cardboard box 4 boxes per wooden crate
M2 AP and/or Ball and or Tracer in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 AP and/or Ball and or tracer in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 Ball in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 4 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
M2 Ball in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 5 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
.30-06 machine gun ammo was shipped in various lengths either belted or linked either in wooden crates or ammo cans
ALL of these types of small arms ammunition were shipped to U.S. Army and Marine divisions,regiments and battalions.Very few if any Garand clips were loaded in the field from either boxed or stripper clip ammo containers or machine gun belts(very few soldiers saved spent clips). Same goes with BAR ammo or machine gun belted ammo being redistributed to men with Garands. BAR magazines were loaded from 20 round boxes and 5 round strippers and could be loaded with Garand clips (extremely rare) either in the field or in ammo depots.Ammo supply would not of been 1 bit more difficult in WWII had we switched to the .276 for the Garand.In fact 25% more rifle ammo,per weight,for the Garand could of been shipped.
This brings us to the BAR and also the rifle we adopted in the 1950s to replace the Garand BAR sub-machine gun and Carbine,the M14. John Garand's first rifle the RIFLE, MILITARY - U.S. RIFLE GARAND T1919 .30 was a selective fire rifle fed by a standard BAR magazine.As stated above in 1928 the Army Board recommended that the BAR be replaced by the Pedersen rifle.It would of taken very little effort to turn the Garand into a replacement for the BAR.In 1944 the army did just that by starting development work on the selective fire T20 rifle that was fed with a BAR magazine and with bi-pod and empty magazine weighed 12.5 pounds the Ordnance Dept recommended 100,000 T20s be procured but the end of the war saw that number cut to only 100.The work on the T20 and Remingtons work on the T22 eventually led to the T44 and M14 rifle adopted in 1957.The biggest problem's with most of the fully automatic Garands,the BAR,and the M14 is the fact that they overheat and are not controllable on fully automatic fire.Imagine a selective fire Garand with a box magazine using a cartridge just as effective to 500 yards as the '06 round but with 1/3 the heat,half the felt recoil,and weighing in at 11 or 12lbs with a bi-pod (as opposed to the almost 20lbs for a BAR) and that weapon could of been available PRIOR to WWII instead of still not getting it right in 1957.Parts commonality between the Garand and a SAW derivative would of greatly increased manufacturing of both weapons had BAR assembly lines been switched to Garand/T20 production not to mention the firearms that might have been designed for a weapon not needing to deal with the power of the .30-06 or later 7.62Nato rounds.
What could the .276 Garand of given us? Lower weight rifles and SAW's,larger ammo load-outs for our troops,increased firepower at no loss of effectiveness at normal combat ranges,less flinching when shoot means better accuracy and finally the elimination of the M14 which despite its recent revival as a longer ranging alternative to the 5.56x45 NATO is still not the answer for an all around main battle rifle.Maybe the M16 would of been designed around a .276 Kurz round which is almost what the 6.8 Remington/6.5 Grendel rounds are that is all the current rage.Unfortunately we will never know what might of been had the caliber switch been made instead of being quashed by Douglas MacArthur.
I say it wouldn't of been worse only better.What do you say?
Our story starts in 1898 in Cuba where our forces armed with .30-40 Krag and .45-70 Springfield rifles were outgunned by the Spanish with their 7mm Mauser rifles.The army decided in 1900 it needed a replacement for the Krag and developed its own improved Mauser rifle the 1903 Springfield and developed a new cartridge for it instead of chambering it in the nearly ideal 7X57 Mauser cartridge.The turn of the 20th century being at a time of ultra nationalism we had to have the biggest and best cartridge for our new rifle and we got it in the .30US round (7.62x63mm) a cartridge with a 220gr round nose bullet,no one before or since has had such a big powerful rifle cartridge.In 1906 it was decided that a lighter bullet of spitzer design would be more effective and thus was born the immortal .30 M1906 round (.30-06)
The '03 Springfield and .30-06 cambering was a tremendous combination with great accuracy and stopping power out to and beyond 800 yards.The problem was it kicked like a mule and many troopers couldn't shoot it accurately because they would flinch and why the Army and Marine Corps in the inter-war year gave a $3 marksmanship bonus to those who qualified expert with the Springfield.
After WWI the Army starting thinking about a Self Loading Rifle (SLR) that could replace the Springfield and perhaps the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) The Army also started to think about a caliber change because their combat experience had shown that the .30-06 was excessively powerful at,-500 yard ranges,that infantry combat was likely to take place.Before the war the British were working on a 7mm replacement for the .303 round and after the war the Swedes did a study on what is the most effective caliber for combat,they concluded that 6.5mm (.264) caliber was it.
In 1923 John Pedersen was contracted by the Bureau of Ordnance to develope a SLR and a cartridge in the 6-7mm (.256-.284) range. By 1926 he had developed the .276 Pederson (7x51mm) round and a delayed blow-back rifle for it.The .276 Pederson round fired a 125gr bullets 2700 fps and was 25% lighter,produced 1/3 less heat,and half the recoil of the .30-06 round.The only drawbacks was that tracer & AP performance wasn't as good in the smaller caliber and it used a waxed cartridge to facilitate loading that might attract dirt.In 1928 the Army Infantry Board was impressed with Pedersen's and called for the adoption of Pedersens T1E3 rifle to replace both the Springfield rifle and BAR.
Doubts about the lethal effect of the .276 round were strong enough to result in extensive tests in June and July 1928 by the “Pig Board” (so called because lethality tests were carried out on anesthetized pigs). The Board found all three rounds (.256, .276, and .30) were lethal out to 1,200 yards (1100m), and wounding ability out to 300 or 400 yards was comparable. The “tiny” .256 caliber round was perceived to be the deadliest of them all. No compelling case could be made against the Pedersen rifle and round that it could not perform on the battlefield.
Starting in 1919 John Garand had been working first at the Bureau of Standards and then Springfield Armory on a primer actuated SLR.When the army in 1926 adopted the M1 Ball ammunition he gave up on the primer actuated design because of the staked in primer and started work on a .276 Pedersen chambered gas operated rifle without the need for the waxed ammunition.In the spring of 1931 the .276 chambers Pederson and Garand rifles competed against each other along with a .30 Garand but it had to be withdrawn because of a cracked bolt.The .276 Garand was the clear winner.In January on 1932 the Semi Automatic Rifle board recommended the adoption of the .276 caliber and production of 126 of Garands T3E2 rifles. In the meantime Garand had redesigned the bolt on the .30 caliber T1E2 rifle and was retested.
This is where history changed.Of course we all know the history of the M1 Garand BAR and M14 in WWII,Korea,and the Vietnam war.Douglas MacArthur as Army Chief of Staff decided,based on the 2 billion rounds of .30 caliber ammunition in storage,that work be stopped on the .276 round and the .30 Garand be produced giving us in 1933 the U.S.Rifle Caliber .30 M1.But really what kind of history is that? We know how great the Garand rifle was serving our country for 20+ years in the regular army and even longer in the National Gaurd and reserves.I propose the greatness of the Garand would of been even more historic had it been produced as the U.S. Rifle Caliber .276 (or maybe .28) M1!
MacA's main reasoning for adopting the .30 M1 was because of the ammunition in storage(the bulk of it being M1906 not M1),but what of that ammo? By 1931 the Bureau of Ordinance reported that 20% of M1906 ammunition being issued for training was defective because of corrosion when visually inspected (powders and primers used for WWI ammo were very corrosive and had a short shelf life). No records were kept of what percentage of issued ammunition failed to fire.The same thing happened in 1917 with surplus 6mm Lee ammo the powder used in the 6mm government cartridges had deteriorated to such a degree they were determined to be unfit for sale, and the company destroyed the entire lot rather than resell them to the public. Also because of modifications the Garand didn't reach 100 rifles per day production until 1939. By this time a lot of ammunition had been used for training and a further 188 million rounds were shipped to Britain in lend lease (with the approval of Bureau of Ordnance as it wanted to replace that ammunition with fresh stock) along with 1/3 of all pre-war BAR's.Very little to none of that 2 billion rounds of ammunition was used in combat in M1 Garands during WWII.
I can hear all you internet forum posters say but what about commonality of ammo with our machine guns and the BAR? I say what about it? Ammo was shipped from the US as thus:
.45 ACP in 50 round boxes in wooden crates or ammo cans
.30 Carbine in 50 round boxes in M6 ammo cans or wooden crates
M2 AP 20 round boxes in wooden crates
M2 Ball in 20 round boxes 12 boxes to waxed cardboard box 4 boxes per wooden crate
M2 AP and/or Ball and or Tracer in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 AP and/or Ball and or tracer in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 25 bandoleers to metal lined wooden chest
M2 Ball in 5 round stripper clips in bandoleers 60 rounds to a bandoleer 4 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
M2 Ball in 8 round enbloc clips in bandoleers 48 rounds to a bandoleer 5 Bandoleers to M8 ammo can
.30-06 machine gun ammo was shipped in various lengths either belted or linked either in wooden crates or ammo cans
ALL of these types of small arms ammunition were shipped to U.S. Army and Marine divisions,regiments and battalions.Very few if any Garand clips were loaded in the field from either boxed or stripper clip ammo containers or machine gun belts(very few soldiers saved spent clips). Same goes with BAR ammo or machine gun belted ammo being redistributed to men with Garands. BAR magazines were loaded from 20 round boxes and 5 round strippers and could be loaded with Garand clips (extremely rare) either in the field or in ammo depots.Ammo supply would not of been 1 bit more difficult in WWII had we switched to the .276 for the Garand.In fact 25% more rifle ammo,per weight,for the Garand could of been shipped.
This brings us to the BAR and also the rifle we adopted in the 1950s to replace the Garand BAR sub-machine gun and Carbine,the M14. John Garand's first rifle the RIFLE, MILITARY - U.S. RIFLE GARAND T1919 .30 was a selective fire rifle fed by a standard BAR magazine.As stated above in 1928 the Army Board recommended that the BAR be replaced by the Pedersen rifle.It would of taken very little effort to turn the Garand into a replacement for the BAR.In 1944 the army did just that by starting development work on the selective fire T20 rifle that was fed with a BAR magazine and with bi-pod and empty magazine weighed 12.5 pounds the Ordnance Dept recommended 100,000 T20s be procured but the end of the war saw that number cut to only 100.The work on the T20 and Remingtons work on the T22 eventually led to the T44 and M14 rifle adopted in 1957.The biggest problem's with most of the fully automatic Garands,the BAR,and the M14 is the fact that they overheat and are not controllable on fully automatic fire.Imagine a selective fire Garand with a box magazine using a cartridge just as effective to 500 yards as the '06 round but with 1/3 the heat,half the felt recoil,and weighing in at 11 or 12lbs with a bi-pod (as opposed to the almost 20lbs for a BAR) and that weapon could of been available PRIOR to WWII instead of still not getting it right in 1957.Parts commonality between the Garand and a SAW derivative would of greatly increased manufacturing of both weapons had BAR assembly lines been switched to Garand/T20 production not to mention the firearms that might have been designed for a weapon not needing to deal with the power of the .30-06 or later 7.62Nato rounds.
What could the .276 Garand of given us? Lower weight rifles and SAW's,larger ammo load-outs for our troops,increased firepower at no loss of effectiveness at normal combat ranges,less flinching when shoot means better accuracy and finally the elimination of the M14 which despite its recent revival as a longer ranging alternative to the 5.56x45 NATO is still not the answer for an all around main battle rifle.Maybe the M16 would of been designed around a .276 Kurz round which is almost what the 6.8 Remington/6.5 Grendel rounds are that is all the current rage.Unfortunately we will never know what might of been had the caliber switch been made instead of being quashed by Douglas MacArthur.
I say it wouldn't of been worse only better.What do you say?
Last edited: