04-14-2012, 07:59 AM
stanc Wrote: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
