07-08-2019, 02:47 AM
Fess Wrote:The tooling issue in not as big a deal as many believe. I am familiar with that type of equipment, having worked at a plant that did deep-drawing, machining and assembly of brass and steel components. The most important thing was that the .276 Pederson was similar in length and diameter than the 30-06. Deep-drawing and assembly equipment are largely designed around the product length, so a longer cartridge might have been a problem. As it was, the existing equipment could have been easily adapted to the new cartridge. The actual punches and dies were non-durable tooling. In other words, even though they are working with brass, they are replaced fairly often. The cost savings in raw materials, brass and lead, would have quickly paid for the modifications. While writing this, it just occurred to me that it is possible that the Pedersen cartridge was designed around the existing tooling.That seems unlikely to me. I would think that if Pedersen wanted to use as much of the existing tooling as possible, the cartridge would've had the same rim/base diameter as for .30-06, and a .30-caliber projectile. Instead, all of the case and bullet dimensions are different.
Fess Wrote:The US military argued that the .276 Pedersen would add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. Nevertheless, by mid-war, they ended up needing to supply 30-06 (loose, in belts, stripper clips, and enbloc clips), .30 carbine and .45 acp at the front line.Yes, they were able to handle three different calibers, but they clearly did not like it. As soon as they could after WWII, they set about replacing .30-06, .30 Carbine, and .45 ACP (for shoulder weapons) with a single caliber: 7.62 NATO.