PDA

View Full Version : .276 Pedersen Garand Reincarnate?


amprecon
August 24, 2009, 12:44 AM
It's funny how things just come together sometimes, just out of the blue. I'm sure most of you know the history of the M1 Garand, that it was initially built smaller and designed around the .276 Pedersen cartridge using 10-round en-bloc clips. I understand there are only a very few of these rifles around and probably in a museum somewhere. Either way, the .276 Pedersen was a very inovative and promising cartridge and as I understand it the military testers regarded it quite highly and seemed enthusiastic about its performance. However, as things would have it, it was dropped in favor of the much more available .30-06 cartridge.
Incidentally, the Brits designed their .280 British round during the end of WWII as their most effective, efficient "battle" cartridge from lessons learned during their experiences, it hauntingly closely duplicates the .276 Pedersen cartridge.
My curiousity about this subject was sparked when I learned of the 6.8spc cartridge and its development and purpose. I found that the 6.8spc comes really close to what the .276 Pedersen and .280 British rounds offered, but because of the new developments in powder chemistry, is able to provide more power with less powder, hence the shorter case length.
As I learned about the .276 Pedersen and .280 British rounds I came to realize that for their intended purposes, combat, they were close to ideal, providing good accuracy, energy and terminal performance without the stout recoil and its reduced size which allowed for smaller weapons and more ammo being carried.
I began searching for the various rifles that chambered the 6.8spc and practically all were mostly of the ubiquitous AR designs. As I don't like the direct impingement design my options were vastly narrowed down to the few piston driven AR designs such as the LWRC and Robinson Arms XCR, then there are the piston refit kits for standard AR's.
I saw that Ruger came out with their Mini in 6.8spc and didn't think much of it because of their prominent history of so-so accuracy. But again, as I've been learning, their new Mini's have been improved in the accuracy department and have made them appealing again.
As I looked at it, I realized that it uses the Garand style rotating bolt design and is basically a "mini" garand and in the 6.8spc caliber, which is close in performance to what the .276 Pedersen was. Have we re-discovered the .276 Pedersen Garand that was lost to time and the need for ammunition commonality requirements of the time?
I'm thinking so and am starting to realize this new Ruger Mini-14 in 6.8spc may be the diamond in the ruff. For those that prefer the classic Garand style and propensity for reliability and simplicity, this new Mini may be on my shortlist for a true do-it-all utility rifle, what the Garand was supposed to be.

jjbduke2004
August 25, 2009, 04:20 PM
I've been meaning to make a similar post on a gun forum about this.
It does seem that there is something magical about the 6.8mm (.277) - 7mm (.284) range in a military rifle.

The .276 Pedersen (actually a .284) came about because of Army wound ballistics studies as being an optimal caliber. I would not feel undergunned with a 10-shot .276 Garand. Gen. Douglas MacArthur required .30-'06 as we had too much of it lying around to just throw out (and add in ammunition incompatibility with the BAR and the .30 MGs). It was also the middle of the Great Depression.

We should have adopted the .280 British when we had the chance, but no, we had to have our .30 caliber despite what our own pre-war studies told us. And so we used the .308 (which is basically .30 M2 ball in a case a half inch shorter thanks to modern powder) and forced it on our NATO allies.

Our allies had their revenge when we tried to force the 5.56 on them. They said: "Didn't we tell you .30 was too big." And then they told us our 55gr ammo was too light. How dare they! ;)

So on three separate occasions we've come close to adopting this "medium" caliber. Maybe the fourth will be the charm. I don't see it happening in an infantry rifle or carbine but maybe it will come in a squad automatic weapon.

kwells6
August 25, 2009, 04:32 PM
there is one round the military did look into funding and using, the 6.5 Grendel...

TheManHimself
August 25, 2009, 06:42 PM
6.8SPC was closer to military adoption than the Grendel round ever was. 6.8 was actually developed with .mil input.

HorseSoldier
August 26, 2009, 10:01 PM
there is one round the military did look into funding and using, the 6.5 Grendel...

Hmmmm . . . not so much. "Looked at" perhaps, but not any more seriously than 4.7mm Caseless or a bunch of other foot notes. Underneath the marketing hype it just doesn't deliver on the promises as well as Alexander Arms would like you to believe.

olyinaz
August 26, 2009, 11:07 PM
Underneath the marketing hype it just doesn't deliver on the promises as well as Alexander Arms would like you to believe.

How so? The ballistics are quite impressive and the only one I have any experience is great. What's the scuttlebutt?

Thanks,
Oly

Kmar40
August 27, 2009, 11:05 AM
Have we re-discovered the .276 Pedersen Garand that was lost to time and the need for ammunition commonality requirements of the time?Well, I'm not sure I agree that the Mini is similar to Garand. I think it is more akin to an M1 Carbine. That's just from memory and I've been wrong before.

Funny however that our old gray haired guys that ran the military rifle selection process in the 30s made the changes they did. A .276 or .280 British Garand with a box magazine could have served admirably from WWII until the present day. Updated the stocks and maybe developing some lightweight alloy receivers could have been made in time, but we could have saved a good deal of money and perhaps lives (failures of the ealy M1 Garands in WWI and during the winters of Korea, the M14's unsuitability in close range combat, and the M16s powder and cleaning equipment gaffes) if old gray haired guys had not been convinced that box magazines were evil and that we needed a round capable of volley fire at 1200 yards (in case we have another trench war ala WWI) instead of an intermediate round that offered superior firepower.

Beware old gray haired farts that are stuck in the past.

RE: 6.8. I don't see any traction despite the attempts at developing media hype. 223 and 9mm are here to stay, I expect.