Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I love this weapon (except for the weight).

Anybody know why they were considering .276 caliber?

1 posted on 05/18/2012 11:00:15 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Mikey_1962

Love ‘em too. Got two myself.


2 posted on 05/18/2012 11:01:31 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

The .270 caliber bullet riding on the same powder makes a hell of a weapon. Fast, flat & hard hitting.


3 posted on 05/18/2012 11:02:52 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

Favorite rifle evuh!

Well, except for my Springfield M1A in .308.


4 posted on 05/18/2012 11:03:59 AM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

What ever happened to the rifles that were supposed to be coming home from Korea?


6 posted on 05/18/2012 11:04:07 AM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

My Dad talked about “M-1 Thumb”.


9 posted on 05/18/2012 11:10:45 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: archy

“Anybody know why they were considering .276 caliber?”


10 posted on 05/18/2012 11:12:20 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
Part of my collection and one of my favs.
11 posted on 05/18/2012 11:13:46 AM PDT by oyez ( Yomomacare going done once, going down twice, going---..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

I loved the M-14. Once you humped the thing long enough you never noticed the weight.


14 posted on 05/18/2012 11:24:46 AM PDT by Little Bill (Sorry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
I am correctable, but if I remember right it was because a 7mm bullet (or a .276) has a better BC for a given weight than a .308 bullet.

Look at the ballistics of the .270 and 30-06. The .270 is flatter shooting when you compare bullets of similar weight.

I think it boiled down to we had a lot of .30-06 ammo, and didn't want to change. Note that the US military is still looking at .270 or 7mm bullets for their next cartridge. The 6.8 SPC for instance.

15 posted on 05/18/2012 11:27:37 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
Anybody know why they were considering .276 caliber?

~7mmx50 (.27) has been shown over and over by numerous different studies, starting in the 1920's, to be the perfect military round.

Curiously, the 7x57 Mauser had it right from the very beginning.

I love my Garands though.

18 posted on 05/18/2012 11:52:25 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962; All

About a decade ago, I had the opportunity to fire a Garand M-1 and a German Kar Mauser at Ft. Meade’s Rifle Range. Both rifles were the standard infantry rifle of that time.

There is NO comparison!

The Garand, though heavy and lovingly cared for didn’t rattle or make noise, outside of its sling and stacking swivels.

There was no slop between the metal to metal components and furniture. The clip of 30.06 rounds needed some force to insert with the thumb of my left hand.

The magazine/charging cover snapped back sharply with little help and the Garand SOUNDED like something forceful, authoritative and intimidating when squeezing off rounds for sighting and dope. The recoil with a properly adjusted sling was there. To relax and ride up. Then fall back into where it had been before. An absolute dream to shoot!

The Kar, on the other hand rattled wood to wood and metal to wood. With noticeable slop and looseness in the travel of the bolt.

A less than satisfying lock between bolt and barrel. A less than confident feel when squeezing a trigger that didn’t break evenly or consistently. Though, after settling in. The rifle did have decent, relatively tight groupings at 100 yards.


20 posted on 05/18/2012 11:55:10 AM PDT by Jack Deth (Knight Errant and Resident FReeper Kitty Poem /Haiku Guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
"Anybody know why they were considering .276 caliber?"

I don't know if it is true, but I read somewhere that the .276 Pedersen also had an ever so slight taper to the case which would make extraction easier than with a straight walled case.

There were also crew served machine guns developed in the same caliber for the same reason. But as said upthread, millions of stored 06 rounds dictated the final decision.

29 posted on 05/18/2012 12:29:50 PM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik (In a tornado, even turkeys can fly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

Garand’s original design was a 10-round gun- the smaller .276 facilitated that.


31 posted on 05/18/2012 12:33:29 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

When I arrived at Fort Knox in ‘69 I,a kid from a middle class Boston suburb,had never even *seen* a firearm let alone fired one.However,I soon came to realize that rifle range was the only enjoyable part of BCT.We qualified with both the M-14 and the M-16 and I felt much more comfortable,and scored higher,with the M-14.


33 posted on 05/18/2012 12:41:06 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
The .276 Pedersen (7x51mm) round shot flat and had less recoil than the .30-06 Springfield round. The problem was that John C. Garand’s prototype M1 (T3) and Pedersen’s T1E3 self-loading rifles were in head-to-head competition at Springfield Armory in Massachusetts. Both rifles used a non-interchangeable, 10-round enbloc clip to hold the cartridges.

The Pedersen T1E3 was a delayed blowback operated rifle that used a toggle link lock (similar to the German P.08 Luger pistol); the Garand T3 was a conventional gas operated rifle. The .276 Pedersen T1E3 had a major drawback: it required lubrication of the cartridge to work in the action of the T1E3. Frankford Arsenal developed a proprietary dry lubricant so the cartridge would not stick in the T1E3 chamber due to its lack if primary extraction — a problem not shared by the Garand T3 rifle.

Tests held in 1929 showed the T1E3 and T3 rifles superior to other candidate rifles. Improvements were requested, including a redesign of the T3 to accept the .30-06 caliber. The Board ordered 20 each of the improved Pedersen and Garand rifles for testing.

The Army's infantry Board tested the T1E3 and T3E2 in 1931. It reversed itself and switched from favoring the T1E3 for production to the T3E2 design. One reason was the T3E2 (Garand) rifle only had 60 parts and the T1E3 (Pedersen) had 99 parts. The Board also recommended the rifle caliber be upped to .30-06. The .30-06 caliber Garand rifle was designated I1E1. Army Chief of Staff, GEN Douglas MacArthur, recommended the .30-06 caliber due to the huge amount of ammunition on hand and the likelihood of war in Asia.

The Infantry Board met once more in January of 1932. The Board decided to drop the T1E3 Pedersen from consideration, the T3E2 (.276 Garand) continued in limited procurement, and the T1E1 (.30 Garand) continued in development. Four years later the improved T1E1 rifle (T1E2) was cleared for production on 7 November 1935, and type classified as the M1 on 9 January 1936.

Between its type standardization in 1936 and its replacement by the M14 rifle in 1957, approximately 6,25 million M1 rifles were made. Producers were Springfield Armory, International Harvester (Korean War), Harrington and Richardson (Korean War), and licensed production by Beretta in Italy for NATO.

49 posted on 05/18/2012 7:59:11 PM PDT by MasterGunner01 (11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962

It’s one of the sweetest firing weapons.....


56 posted on 05/19/2012 4:25:54 AM PDT by Lazamataz (The so-called 'mainstream' media has gone from "biased" straight to "utterly surreal".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Mikey_1962
The Brits had considerable experience with the .270, and reckoned it to be the most effective bullet that could be mass-produced and give the best ballistic results with the rifles then available. They were looking to replace the rimmed .303 service round [there was even an unrimmed .303 round produced for aircraft gun use during WWI; no idea why it wasn't pursued further. Also the Brits had considerable experience with the smaller caliber 6.5mm Jap round. producing it for the Arisaka rifles they supplied. among other things, to the Arabs in the Arab Revolt involving T.E. Lawrence. The 6.5 was considered *too light* for use in such goodies as the Lewis Gun, Hotchkiss Portative andVickers watercooled, but belt and pan feeding with a rimless cartridge was certainly attractive.

The .276, or thereabouts, is nothing to sneeze at. And notice that after WWII, when the Brits were considering the EM-2 bullpup, yep it was a .276/.280.

Sorta puts you in mind of the Remington 6.8 SPC cartridge for the M16A2/M4, doesn't it?

63 posted on 05/19/2012 11:45:21 AM PDT by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson