US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stanc
    Banned
    • Apr 2011
    • 3430

    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    If one were to read the diplomatic cables of the 1930s even today, it would change much of the way you view the history of that era.
    I'm always glad to gain knowledge. Please cite any such cables dated before the .276 was cancelled in 1932.

    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    Also, look at how many carriers were built from other ships or purpose-built in the 1930s. 3 carriers were built from 1934 to 1940, to add to the existing Langley and Lexington.
    Conversion of the Saratoga was ordered in 1922.
    Construction of the Ranger began in 1931.
    Construction of the Yorktown began in 1934.

    Considering that Japan and Germany didn't really start "misbehaving" until 1937 and 1939, respectively, I'm not seeing a linkage.
    Looks to me more like a gradual introduction of a new class of ships that the leadership recognized as superior to legacy platforms.

    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    I think a combination of factors came into play that prevented the .276 Pedersen from being adopted, many of them potentially more valid for the decision-makers if we were to see their perspective and what they were factoring into the process.
    Concur.

    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    Either way, it retarded small arms cartridge development for the infantry rifle in the West by decades...
    I question that. Even if the .276 Pedersen had been adopted, it would have been only marginally better than keeping .30-06 for the infantry rifle.
    First, the T3E2 Garand was nearly as big and heavy as the M1 Garand, so it would still have been necessary to develop and field the M1 carbine.
    Second, the ballistics would not have satisfied the SCHV folks in the Army, so we would still have ended up with the 5.56 cartridge and M16 rifle.

    Comment

    • montana
      Chieftain
      • Jun 2011
      • 3209

      Originally posted by stanc View Post
      1937 - Japan invades China
      1939 - Italy invades Albania
      1939 - Germany invades Poland
      1939 - Russia invades Poland
      1939 - Russia invades Finland
      1940 - Germany invades Norway, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands
      1940 - Germany attacks Britain
      1940 - Italy invades Greece

      By 1941, it didn't take a crystal ball to see that it might be a good idea to prepare for war.
      And this directly threatened the US how? My point is during 1940 we were in the midst of a depression yet they started building the largest bomber factory in the world based on no direct threat to the U.S.? The majority of US citizens and the administration "publicly" were in support of neutrality and did not want another replay of WW1. The powers that be had other ideas and like the 276 they probably already had their game plans in action. I know this subject can go down the rabbit hole which I don't care to go but to dismiss 52's observation is subjective at best.

      Comment

      • stanc
        Banned
        • Apr 2011
        • 3430

        Originally posted by montana View Post
        And this directly threatened the US how?
        ??? Nobody said those actions were a direct threat to the US.

        Originally posted by montana View Post
        My point is during 1940 we were in the midst of a depression yet they started building the largest bomber factory in the world based on no direct threat to the U.S.?
        Hmm. Since you said "There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor," it sounded to me like your point was that some people had sufficient foresight to build the largest bomber factory in the world, in anticipation of US involvement in the war that was then ongoing.

        If they didn't think that the events I listed portended the distinct possibility of drawing the US into the conflict, why would they invest time and money building a bomber factory that wouldn't be needed due to the lack of a direct threat?

        Originally posted by montana View Post
        The majority of US citizens and the administration "publicly" were in support of neutrality and did not want another replay of WW1. The powers that be had other ideas and like the 276 they probably already had their game plans in action.
        Undoubtedly, some "game plans" were already in action. For instance, the construction of aircraft carriers during the 1920s and mid-1930s almost certainly resulted from plans to implement new technologies, not as a reaction to events in other parts of the world.

        Your bomber factory, however, was clearly a response to said events.

        But, the .276 Pedersen decision, if we take MacArthur at his word, was strictly based on economics. Which is perfectly reasonable and plausible, given that the Great Depression was in full swing in 1932. To think that the minor incidents listed by Paul -- which posed no possibility of threats to the US -- would have been the basis for the decision, is illogical. Shoot, in 1873 the Army adopted a new caliber for rifles and Gatling guns, along with a new caliber for revolvers, all while fighting the Indian Wars. Yet we're supposed to think that a few coups and rebellions in other countries was reasonable cause to stop .276 adoption? Puhleez.

        Originally posted by montana View Post
        I know this subject can go down the rabbit hole which I don't care to go but to dismiss 52's observation is subjective at best.
        Meh. Isn't everyone's opinion subjective?

        Comment

        • LRRPF52
          Super Moderator
          • Sep 2014
          • 8569

          Originally posted by stanc View Post
          Oh, yeah. As if the Bonus March, Jewish terrorism in Palestine, a few military coups and minor rebellions in other parts of the world really factored into his decision.

          Budget considerations during the Great Depression, yes, certainly. That other stuff, nah, I don't buy it.
          While not available to citizens, the diplomatic cables and their assessments were a normal part of the information gathering and dissemination cycle dating back to the 1920s, particularly with Japanese traffic as a focus. The War Department had been cracking Japanese Naval and Diplomatic ciphers since the 1920s.

          There are many good books on this. A simple google search will turn up many hits.

          You're not going to see reference to .276 Pedersen in diplomatic cables unless it was cooperation with Allies, so that's a straw man that is easily torn down.

          The point is that there were plenty of conflicts and instability in the global tapestry of that era, with a particular focus on Japan, that could have factored heavily into MacArthur's decision to be apprehensive about a new service rifle and machine-gun cartridge.

          I don't claim to know his thoughts on the matter, but these realities of that era make me wonder. I also understand that he would have been advised by Army Ordnance Bureau. To me, there are parallels that could be history repeating itself again with this mistake of leaning on 7.62 NATO, at the same time we are starting to make a lot of headway with far superior chamberings that deliver more hit probability, more energy on target, with less recoil, and less ammo load weight.
          NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

          CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

          6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

          www.AR15buildbox.com

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            You're not going to see reference to .276 Pedersen in diplomatic cables unless it was cooperation with Allies, so that's a straw man that is easily torn down.
            There is no straw man, because I did not ask about diplomatic cables that discussed .276 Pedersen. I asked for examples of diplomatic cables during the 1930-32 period, which "would change much of the way I view the history of that era" in regard to MacArthur's rejection of .276 Pedersen.

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            The point is that there were plenty of conflicts and instability in the global tapestry of that era, with a particular focus on Japan, that could have factored heavily into MacArthur's decision to be apprehensive about a new service rifle and machine-gun cartridge.
            I'd wager there have been similar conflicts and instability in the world during every decade of the 20th century, if not during the entirety of this nation's existence. I've never seen any authoritative claims that such insignificant incidents had any effect whatsoever on adoption of a new cartridge by the Army.

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            I don't claim to know his thoughts on the matter, but these realities of that era make me wonder. I also understand that he would have been advised by Army Ordnance Bureau.
            Unless you can cite any historical record wherein MacArthur expressed concern in 1932 about war with Japan being imminent, it seems to me that we should accept his stated reason as to why .276 was rejected.

            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            To me, there are parallels that could be history repeating itself again with this mistake of leaning on 7.62 NATO, at the same time we are starting to make a lot of headway with far superior chamberings that deliver more hit probability, more energy on target, with less recoil, and less ammo load weight.
            Those other chamberings are not in service. Since the goal is to increase armor-defeat capability ASAP, 7.62 NATO is a perfectly logical choice as an interim caliber.

            Comment

            • montana
              Chieftain
              • Jun 2011
              • 3209

              Comment

              • stanc
                Banned
                • Apr 2011
                • 3430

                Neat video. Interesting to see a .276 Garand available for public auction.
                But, like everyone else who says, "If .276 Pedersen had been adopted, 5.56 never would have," he is wrong.
                The same factors that led to 5.56 replacing 7.62 NATO, would have resulted in 5.56 replacing .276 Pedersen.
                Last edited by stanc; 09-13-2017, 06:08 AM.

                Comment

                • montana
                  Chieftain
                  • Jun 2011
                  • 3209

                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  Neat video. Interesting to see a .276 Garand available for public auction.
                  But, like everyone else who says, "If .276 Pedersen had been adopted, 5.56 never would have," he is wrong.
                  The same factors that led to 5.56 replacing 7.62 NATO, would have resulted in 5.56 replacing .276 Pedersen.
                  I know,I know but I'll say it again, it is subjective LOL. I will have to agree with you on this one. The effectiveness and advantages of the smaller cartridges such as the 5.56 would have been the natural path to follow. I know I would have rather used the smaller and handier T3E2 Garand in WW2 if given the choice but with out the gas trap.

                  Comment

                  • stanc
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 3430

                    Originally posted by montana View Post
                    I know I would have rather used the smaller and handier T3E2 Garand in WW2...
                    I'm sure most riflemen would've preferred the .276 Garand, for a number of good reasons. But, I ain't seeing "smaller" as one of them.

                    Comment

                    • montana
                      Chieftain
                      • Jun 2011
                      • 3209

                      All those who participated in the trials preferred it for its better handling and faster follow up shots. Ian even stated the slight difference in weight and length felt much better than it would seem on paper. I guess the true test would be to shoot them side by side.

                      Comment

                      • stanc
                        Banned
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 3430

                        Originally posted by montana View Post
                        All those who participated in the trials preferred it for its better handling and faster follow up shots. Ian even stated the slight difference in weight and length felt much better than it would seem on paper. I guess the true test would be to shoot them side by side.
                        I'm not questioning the perceived difference in handling.

                        I'm saying the difference in length is negligible, so small that it can barely be discerned even when the rifles are side-by-side.

                        There's no way in Hell that Ian could feel the tiny difference in length. What he is actually noticing is the difference in weight.

                        Nominal weight of the T3E2 is the same as the M14, which is actually a bit longer than the M1, but handles noticeably better.

                        Comment

                        • montana
                          Chieftain
                          • Jun 2011
                          • 3209

                          No argument here. I love my old M1A1 and I took first place a few years ago with it in our local heavy metal multigun competition. I competed against an FN FAL, HK-91 and many AR-10's. I'm not saying I would want to hump a lot of miles with it but I do enjoy shooting it.

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430

                            Originally posted by montana View Post
                            No argument here. I love my old M1A1 and I took first place a few years ago with it in our local heavy metal muligun competition. I competed against an FN FAL, HK-91 and many AR-10's. I'm not saying I would want to hump a lot of miles with it but I do enjoy shooting it.
                            Ditto. My M1A was one of two rifles I liked over all others, the other being an M1 carbine I had about 40 years ago.
                            Regrettably, I panicked and sold the M1A the week before California's assault weapons law took effect back in 2000.

                            Comment

                            • JASmith
                              Chieftain
                              • Sep 2014
                              • 1620

                              I just skimmed the Wikipedia discussion of the 276 Pedersen.

                              Two things became clear.

                              First, the rifle appears to have been discontinued for valid technical reasons.

                              Second, the cartridge was effectively vetoed by Macarthur's decision to use the 30-06.

                              I am one of those who feel tha this was only one of multiple bad decisions by our senior leadership that ultimately cost our country dearly during Wold War II.

                              One could further speculate the precise rationale for the '06 decision, but the pattern continues even today. The military procurement system is loathe to implement new small arms cartridges. I suspect that the folks moving recommendations up the ladder did not fully appreciate the ammunition consumption that using semi-automatic battle rifles would cause.
                              shootersnotes.com

                              "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
                              -- Author Unknown

                              "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

                              Comment

                              • stanc
                                Banned
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 3430

                                Originally posted by JASmith View Post
                                I am one of those who feel tha this was only one of multiple bad decisions by our senior leadership that ultimately cost our country dearly during Wold War II.
                                I am not one who shares the view that it was a "bad" decision, because the .276 Garand offered only marginal improvement in weight and ammo capacity compared to the .30 M1 rifle.
                                IMO, the bad decision was to develop a clip-fed, semi-auto battle rifle to replace a clip-fed, bolt-action battle rifle, instead of creating a mag-fed assault rifle and intermediate cartridge.

                                The Garand rifle -- in either caliber -- was truly a classic example of "designing for the last war," instead of the war that was to come; preparing for trench warfare, instead of blitzkrieg.
                                With just a little bit of vision, the US Army could have opted for a two-caliber system, keeping .30-06 for machine guns, and developing a cartridge similar to 7.62x39 for assault rifles.



                                If designed for such a cartridge, the resulting Garand assault rifle could've been at least 8 inches shorter and 2 pounds lighter than the M1 rifle, with almost 4 times the ammo capacity.

                                Last edited by stanc; 09-14-2017, 06:25 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X