.276 Pedersen: Debunking the Myth

[stanc]

To this day, there are people who complain that the Army made a serious blunder in not adopting the .276 Pedersen cartridge and the T3E2 Garand rifle, instead choosing to stick with the .30-06 chambering for the M1 rifle. I agree that the Army missed a golden opportunity in the 1930s, but strongly dispute the idea that .276 Pedersen was the path that should have been taken. The .276 round would have offered only a few minor advantages, while incurring some significant drawbacks.

In that time period, there was an existing cartridge which was nearly ideal for the WWII blitzkrieg operations in Europe, and the jungle combat in the Pacific: The .30 Remington.



All the Army would need to have done is shorten the case a bit, load it with a 125-grain spitzer FMJ bullet, and they could've had the world's first "intermediate" rifle cartridge...a decade earlier than the Germans!

Such a .30 Remington Short would also have enabled Garand to design his rifle to be considerably lighter than the .276 and the .30-06 versions. In addition, it would've been far more amenable to use with a straight, 20-round, box magazine than the .276 cartridge, which has such extreme case taper that it would require a more expensive and difficult-to-manufacture curved magazine.

Very little was lost by not adopting .276 Pedersen. The .276 T3E2 Garand was only 12 ounces lighter and 1.5 inches shorter than the .30 M1 Garand. As for clip capacities of 10-rd vs 8-rd, I don't see a difference of two rounds as having any significant impact on combat effectiveness. Additionally, if the .276 Garand had been adopted, the US would've entered WWII with a 3-caliber system: .30-06 machine guns, .276 rifles, and .30 M1 carbines. In contrast, if the Garand had fired .30 Rem Short, its minimal size and weight means there would not have been a perceived need for the M1 carbine, because everyone would've had a short, lightweight assault rifle!

------------------- .30 M1 --- .276 T3E2 --- .30 M1AR
Unloaded Weight --- 9.5 lbs ---- 8.75 lbs ------ 6.5 lbs
Overall Length ----- 43.5 in ---- 42.0 in ------- 36.0 in
Ammo Capacity ----- 8 rds ----- 10 rds -------- 20 rds

[usmc1371]

good info. wasnt the .276 used in ww1 or something like that.

[stanc]

.276 Pedersen wasn't developed until after WWI. The British developed the .276 Enfield prior to WWI, and IIRC intended to switch to it from .303, but the onset of war cancelled that plan.

Might you be thinking of the Pedersen device, created during WWI to convert M1903 rifles to fire .30 Pedersen ammo, semi-auto from detachable magazines?

[LRRPF52]

I have to say that 12oz. less rifle weight is not a trifle matter, nor is 10rds vs. 8 rounds. The combat power that could be projected by riflemen equipped with 10rd clips vs. 8rd clips may seem trifle to us now, but would have been pretty decisive back then, especially against the German mix of bolt-action Mausers and MP38's and MP40's.



This rifle concept raises an interesting point, as I tend to agree that the M1 carbine might not have gained favor with Infantry, but what about the support troops the M1 Carbine was meant for? Is that photoshopped, BTW?

I agree that a .30 Remington case with less taper would be better for mags, but if I could have been influential back then, I would like to have seen it necked down to .26 caliber of course, learning from the Swedes.

[stanc]

I have to say that 12oz. less rifle weight is not a trifle matter, nor is 10rds vs. 8 rounds. The combat power that could be projected by riflemen equipped with 10rd clips vs. 8rd clips may seem trifle to us now, but would have been pretty decisive back then, especially against the German mix of bolt-action Mausers and MP38's and MP40's.

It would certainly have helped, but I just don't see any reason to think it would've made a significant -- let alone, decisive -- difference. But, maybe I'm overlooking something.

Perhaps it could be tested, by running typical WWII scenarios, first with mags loaded with 8 rds, then with 10 rds?

This rifle concept raises an interesting point, as I tend to agree that the M1 carbine might not have gained favor with Infantry, but what about the support troops the M1 Carbine was meant for?

If you have a 9.5-lb, 44-inch long rifle as your standard infantry weapon, there is considerable logic to fielding a "PDW" that's 4 lbs lighter and 8 inches shorter, even if it fires a different round.

However, if you have a 6.5-lb, 36-inch long carbine as standard, would you complicate your logistics to get a completely different, 5.5-lb, 36-inch long carbine for support troops?

Is that photoshopped, BTW?

Yes. It started out as this T20E2 Garand:

I agree that a .30 Remington case with less taper would be better for mags, but if I could have been influential back then, I would like to have seen it necked down to .26 caliber of course, learning from the Swedes.

I might have, too, but I stayed with .30 as the most realistic choice for this concept because of the fixation on .30 caliber in that time frame.

[Tony Williams]

Very little was lost by not adopting .276 Pedersen. The .276 T3E2 Garand was only 12 ounces lighter and 1.5 inches shorter than the .30 M1 Garand. As for clip capacities of 10-rd vs 8-rd, I don't see a difference of two rounds as having any significant impact on combat effectiveness. Additionally, if the .276 Garand had been adopted, the US would've entered WWII with a 3-caliber system: .30-06 machine guns, .276 rifles, and .30 M1 carbines. In contrast, if the Garand had fired .30 Rem Short, its minimal size and weight means there would not have been a perceived need for the M1 carbine, because everyone would've had a short, lightweight assault rifle!

I agree that if a carbine with a significantly better performance than the .30 Carbine had been adopted, then it would probably have become the standard weapon, leaving the .30-06 to snipers and MGs. That would have put the US in the same position as Germany was heading towards, and the USSR adopted post-WW2. Ironically, it would also have been a similar approach to the one some people seem to be advocating now, with the .300 Blackout partnering the 7.62x51!

However, the advantage of the .276 Pedersen lay in its potential rather than in the M1 Garand. It would have made controllable LMGs and even selective-fire rifles possible. It was clearly intended to replace the .30'06 (as the primary reason given for not adopting it was that there was so much .30'06 ammo in store) and a lighter carbine version would have made the .30 Carbine unnecessary - so the US could have gone into WW2 with one calibre, not three. I do agree, though, that the tapered case shape was not ideal. Something like the late-1904s .270 British would have been better

[Essayons]

Interesting thread, Stan. Why not .25 Remington? V.E. Markevich's identified .25 Remington as a suitable intermediate power round in 1930. Maxim Popenker and Tony quote him on paGES 11-12 OF Assault Rifle. Interestingly, in 1921 Springfield Armory modified 25 Remington Model 8s in .25 Remington for the Infantry School to use in developing tactics in anticipation of the eventual adoption of a self-loading rifle. John Henwood discusses that on page 116 of The Great Remington Model 8 and Model 81 Autoloading Rifles. I wonder if there's any record of the Infantry School's impressions regarding those rifles.

[Tony Williams]

I came across an interesting little item in Hatcher's Notebook.

Free recoil of the .30 M1 Garand (wt 8.83 lbs): 15.18 ft lbs.
Free recoil of the .276 Garand (wt 8.625 lbs): 7.25 ft lbs

15 ft lbs was reckoned to be right on the maximum for a general infantry rifle (in fact, the British thought 12 ft lbs was more reasonable). Even without an auto option, the light recoil of the .276 would clearly have facilitated training, making flinching much less likely, and would have permitted more rapid follow-up shots.

[LRRPF52]

That is interesting that the .276 Garand had less than half the recoil of the .30 Garand.

Also interesting that the Remington Model 8 and 81 were mentioned. The Russians have used the Remington Model 8 selector/safety lever religiously for a very long time, particularly on the AK, SVD, RPK, VAL, & VSS. It's so old, we don't even recognize the design as something made in the US for the first real commercial semi-auto hunting rifle designed by Browning.