.276 Pedersen... a better alternative?

YouTube - LERA - Mad Minute - SMLE 100 Year Anniversary

 

It was a combination of guts and using their weapons far beyond their designed parameters. The soldiers were very fire domination conscious and did their best to return fire in equal volumes. Modern doctrine calls for carefully aimed fire. The paratroopers in that situation fired all of their weapons at melting rates. Had the troopers been armed with weapons that used a full powered cartridge, they would not have been able to match that fire.

One of the things that shocked me was the 50 cal went out of action after three minutes because the barrel melted down. That was how intense the combat was.

 

I call bigtime BS on this one. A 30rd mag dump will neither get the gas tube nor the barrel hot enough to light a match. I also suspect the author of the Afghanistan battle used creative license (12 sticks of ammo??). M4 barrels would not be glowing or "fusing bolts to barrels". The M-16/M4 is designed to blow the gas tube before the barrel would get too hot. It's cheaper to replace gas tubes than barrels. Onto WW2...

The Germans learned through the MKb 42 trials that concentrated deployment of SMGs would make a good stopgap. The High Command realized that they could never muster enough troops to face the Russians. Therefore firepower became their saving grace. Units that could field platoons, companies, or battalions of troops uniformly armed with StG44 (all variants), MP40s, or G43s (seldom encountered) did well against numerically superior forces. It was usually air power and/or arty that was able to drive the German units back.

Many experienced American units began to employ similar tactics in Europe. Replacements were told to shoot where everyone else was regardless of seeing a target or not. My grandfather's speech was "we can get more ammo sooner than we can a new replacement."

 

Us grunts only fear one thing. Running out of ammo. Anything else can be sorted.
I like the .308 for it's power, but as I used to be in the Recce coy in the Jaeger Bn running carrying all that heavy ammo is tough.
Now that I am part of a mot unit it doesn't matter...

The 5.56mm is going to far. We now have the HK 416 as our new service rifle (and for once it is brand new) and it is in the 5.56mm calibre. It is a dream to shoot, and the ammo weighs next to nothing.

However it is a very flimsy round, and it doesn't fit to our manouvre doctrine. We want to engage our enemies in infantry country where the advantage of Inf fighting vehicles and tanks are rendered useless. That means that there is going to be trees and other man made obstacles that our enemy can hide behind. A 5.56mm round will change direction or fail to penetrate wheras a bigger round will get the job done.

Our professional mech bn operating in Afganistan has another arguement that a smaller calibre means less colateral damage. But then again they choose weaponry according to mission type.

The 6.5mm round is the best choice for the rest of us who doesn't have the magic key to the depot.

A nice flat trajectory and plenty of punch, and it doesn't weig too much either. On the side I can mention that my cousin only ever use the 6.5mm even on bear hunting in Canada, or big game in Africa.

I am sorry for not having relevant experience with the 6.8mm that is also discussed here, but I guess it has more in common with the 6.5mm than the 7.62mm.

Nice thread btw.

 

The weapon with the inoperable fused bolt was actually a M240, and the barrel that glowed was a M2 .50 cal. The M-4's just jammed.

 

Everyone would be well advised to remember that the 0.276 is about 7.01mm, not 6.8 or 6.5mm. The Italian and Japanese 6.5mm is much closer to a 0.25 caliber weapon than a .30 caliber.

I believe the preference for the 30.06 round as expressed to Garand was completely economically driven. It was also an easy sell to a cash strapped military in the thirties. Remember also that the first M-16 design used a completely different powder than the one eventually promoted by the military. This was mainly because Olin had tons of the stuff already made up and stockpiled. It was a "hotter" powder, but burned dirtier, a definite problem for the intricate works of the new little rifle. Another flaw was in the training and advice given out to the troops when it was first deployed. The military "higer-ups" (not the designer, Stoner), claimed it was so advanced it was "self cleaning". Big opps.

The .270 round in the hunting mode is an excellent round, and while others have used it on really big game, I myself wouldn't. But then again I was a dyed in the wool fan of the .06 which I reloaded for myself and others. When I broke down a bought my .300 Win Mag Ruger #1 single shot, I still kept the .06 around for speed goats and deer. But that .300 was the route on elk and bear. It was a one shot drop without doubt.

All that said, I haven't bothered to look up the ballistics on the .276 Pedersen so I'm just going with the economics slant.

 

I believe the 6.8 and 6.5 allude to 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. Both are excellent in the M4. But the real problem over there is the low number of troops committed to fight. The selling point for the M-16's light weight was that several soldiers would engage the same target. Thus a few rounds expended per rifle would minimize barrel heat. Today we have SOCOM troops with M4A1s that fire full-auto because they field fewer troops. The M4A1 HB buys you a little more time but it still heats up the gas tube fast. When you fire beyond that, the gas port in the front sight base erodes and the double-lined handguards trap all that heat around the barrel. A RAS and/or M203 will allow better airflow.

Back to the .276, didn't the rounds require lubrication or was it just the Garand's competitor rifle?

 

I think the people complaining about M-4 performance in that fight missed the point. They were 28 soldiers jumped by at least 200 Taliban. Their guns would malfunction even if they were shooting BARs. Actually one of the M249s overheated which says a lot about the intensity of the fire.

I don't think so. Something that "special" would have popped up in literature before.

 

It's bugging me now. I'll go digging.


Found this:
Pedersen's rifle utilized a sophisticated up-breaking toggle-joint system like the Parabellum P08 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 BAR). To ease extraction, cartridge cases were coated in mineral wax.
Illustrated Encyclopedia of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare (London: Phoebus, 1978), Volume 19, p.2092, "Pederson

 

Is there any adverse effect to dependability associated to with wax coating? Grease/oil was used by some Italian weapons for extraction and that didn't go over well.

 

I don't think the Garand would require the wax, just the Pederson rifle. I would think any coating could attract dirt and cause problems.

 

I think you are correct Dave, the T1 Pedersen rifle would require wax coating of it's cartridges but not the .276 Garand.

I just realized that the title of this thread is not accurate. It should read .276 Pedersen Cartridge... since the T1 Pedersen and Garand were in fact two different rifles.

 

The Pedersen rifle did require that its .276 rounds be wax coated, but the wax was a hard one which was supposed to be "non-sticky", and perhaps NOT attract dirt and crud. Here is an interesting article on the final competition between the Pedersen and Garand rifles, and mentions in passing that there were five other manufacuring concerns involved initially. Only Auto-Oridnance (Thompson) is mentioned by name, but one would assume Winchester, and others would be in there somewhere.

In February 1926, the new rifle and ammunition were tested in the presence of representatives of both the Army Chief of Infantry and the Chief of Cavalry. The results were "highly favorable" Production was authorized on May 20, 1926 of 20 rifles and 5 carbines. Following tests of reworked versions of the Thompson and primer-actuated Garand rifles, the Infantry Board in June, 1926 recommended further testing of all three rifles, but clearly indicated in its report the Pedersen rifle was the most developed of the three.

In April 1928 came the Infantry Board test report on the T1E3, and it was a solid endorsement of the rifle. The Board called for adoption of the T1E3 rifle to replace both the Model 1903 Springfield and the Browning Automatic Rifle

The Cavalry Board was also positive in its own evaluation of the T1E3. To soldiers used to the heavy recoil and exhausting manual operation of the Springfield rifle, the moderate recoil and self-loading functionality of the T1 rifle clearly must have made an impression. Due to problems with primer-actuation, John Garand gave up work on a .30-06 semiautomatic rifle and also focused exclusively on caliber .276.

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 anaesthetized 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 (270-365m) 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.

In July 1928, the War Department created the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps Semiautomatic Rifle Board to further test and evaluate both existing and newly submitted rifles with an eye toward focusing on standardizing the most serviceable design. Unlike previous boards, this one would continue to function for three years, and would end up undertaking three series of tests. This Board displayed a strong interest in the development of a caliber .30-06 semiautomatic rifle, but at the same time recognized the potential effectiveness of the caliber .276 round at ranges up to 600 yards and that relatively light weight rifles that could be built around it; the Board remained consistent with the de facto Army policy of favoring adoption of caliber .276. Counting the Pedersen T1E3 rifle (by this time covered by ), seven rifles were submitted for consideration. One of these rifles was John Garand’s gas-operated .276 rifle, the T3, which had a 10-round magazine loaded with a symmetrical en-bloc clip.

The conclusion of the tests, held in August 1929, saw the Board rate the T1E3 and the T3 as superior to all the others. Both rifles were found to be subject to excessive malfunctions, but the T3 was rated superior to the T1E3. Specific T1E3 defects were: failure of the breech mechanism to close, misfires, breech mechanism override (failure to feed), and breakage of a crank and a sear bar. The Board recommended manufacturing of 20 T3 rifles for service test, and in addition recommended building a caliber .30-06 version of the T3 for evaluation.

Cartridge lethality was again investigated by the "Goat Board", this time with shooting tests on anaesthetized goats and careful measurement of entry and exit velocities. However, the test results again demonstrated no superiority of caliber .30 ammunition at normal combat ranges.

The year 1931 saw testing of the T1E3 and the twenty T3E2 rifles by the Infantry. The Infantry Board rated the T3E2 superior in effective fire power and simplicity of construction (the T3E2 [Garand] had 60 parts, while the T1E3 [Pedersen]had 99 parts). This Board, which three years earlier had recommended adoption of the T1, now favored the T3E2; it continued to favor caliber .276. However, the Chief of Infantry broke with the Infantry Board and stated a preference for caliber .30. (emphasis mine)

The caliber .30-06 Garand rifle (essentially an enlarged T3E2) was quickly built and under the confusing designation of rifle T1E1 was tested along with the T3E2 and the Pedersen T1E3 during the remainder of 1931. The Semiautomatic Rifle Board now exhibited a notably critical attitude toward the T1E3. The Board found fault with the requirement for lubricated cartridge cases (seemingly regardless of the technical merits of Mr. Pedersen’s case treatment concept), poor trigger pull, and the upward break of the breech mechanism. A more substantive complaint had to do with the complete exposure of the breech mechanism when held open—the Board correctly cited the vulnerability of the rifle to mud and dust while in this condition. The Board also reported slam-fires (the Garand T3E2 was reported to dimple cartridge primers with its firing pin, but did not slam-fire).

In the end, funding issues forced a decision. Faced with the possible loss of funds already authorized by Congress, the Board met for one more time in January 1932 and decided to recommend approval of the T3E2 (the caliber .276 Garand) for limited procurement by the Army and to continue development of the T1E1 (the caliber .30-06 Garand). With this action, the Pedersen rifle was effectively dropped from consideration. In another four more years, almost to the day, an improved version of rifle T1E1 would be adopted as standard as rifle M1.

As Springfield Armory tooled for and refined the Garand, Pedersen continued to work on another rifle. He developed a .30 caliber model with a conventional gas-trap piston and multi-piece operating rod system. He fought to have it tested by the US Army prior to World War II. At around the same time, serious difficulties were being encountered with the Garand and questions had been raised. Both Pedersen and Mel Johnson attempted to capitalize on the troubles. It is thought that up to 12 models of the Pedersen rifle were made in .30 caliber. One example of the model G-Y resides at the Springfield Armory Museum.

See:

Pedersen rifle: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Not only was the Pedersen in need of the wax coating on its rounds, it had far more parts involved in its construction. Those flaws may have dealt it a death blow in the competitions.

 

Thanks, I hoped my brain wasn't failing me yet.

 

Thanks for clearing up the confusion to all.

2.76 cal/7mm was the ideal caliber chosen by the British for their EM-2 assault rifle.

 

This was on the Discovery Channel awhile back. Just some info on a modern intermediate cartridge.

YouTube - Future Weapons 5.56 mm NATO Replacement - 6.8 mm Remington SPC & 6.5 mm Grendel

 

In regards to 10 rounds vs 8 rounds, and getting lead down range, having a 10 round clip would help with suppression greatly. Every 4-soldiers firing the .276 round (10-round-clips) would have the same firepower (in regards to rounds down range) as ever 5-soldiers firing the .30 round. 12-man squads would have the firepower of 15-soldiers plus the smaller round enables them to carry more ammunition, which means even more firepower as far as suppression.

Would that sort of firepower make up for whatever advantages the larger round possess in regards to punching power? With hindsight and current military doctrine, I think that .276 would have been much more effective as you'd have more ammunition, more rounds down range, and while the individual bullets might not kill outright where the .30 would, it would eliminate 2 soldiers from combat instead of 1 (the wounded soldier and the one helping him...a much more modern view on combat that the US Army adopted when they went to the smaller round).

Does that make sense?

 

This was on military channel several times on a show about the special forces, i think. Anyway the whole demonstration is filmed without one cut-away. The hand guards on the standard issue M-4 are removed for the demonstration and the guy doing the firing is an ex-special forces guy, with seemingly no particular agenda other than showing the truth. Like i said, (if other people can please state the name of which military channel show it happened i'd appreciate it) the whole thing takes place before your eyes and i doubt any tricks were involved. If you don't believe this maybe it's just one for "Mythbusters" then?

 

That sounds great in theory. However, several post-ww2 studies showed that less than half of soldiers, who made contact with the enemy, actually fired their weapon. You'll always have soldiers who will hesitate to shoot another human and those that won't fire unless they "have the shot".

I can film a Beta C-mag (100rds) through my M4A1 and show that nothing melts. I'll even toss in a mag dump with the suppressor on. There is absolutely no way just one 30rd mag did any damage to the weapon-- the Army would have never accepted it!

 

Sources would be great, since this is a topic that comes up every now and again and too many rely on S.L.A Marshall.