I tried researching to little avail info on these test around 1928, there was talk that the 30 cal did no better than the 276, and I believe the 6.5mm (256) did apparently the best, though Gen. MacArthur picked the 30, perhaps due to old stockpiles of 30/06 ammo from earlier.

http://www.wlhoward.com/id547.htm

I found that link, and another:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:eeAsSlLTZlcJ:www.q...n&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Does anyone KNOW what specific round the '256' was that was used, referred as 256 and 6.5mm in the 'pig board' and 'goat board' when those animals were shot to determine lethality and wound channel, etc?

It seems the little reading I did the 6.5mm did VERY well, if not better, not having any improvement with 30cal vs smaller two rounds.

It seems possible the 6.5mm tested was perhaps the 256 British or 6.5 mannlicher carcano, but I may be wrong in speculating here.

Anyone know as there was not much written on this that I could find. I BELIEVE PO Ackley's book referred to these test but I may be wrong as long ago I read something on this and would be interested in knowing more about the round used in 6.5mm, the bullets/velocity and twist rate that was tested.

Thanks if anyone has info on this. Oh, one more neat article:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:fLnxahJBCTkJ:www.q...&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

this one shows the 7mm Compromise, VERY close to the modern 7mm/08, interesting a round like it, the 7/49 FAL, or perhaps the 6.5/43 german did not become a standard military round, something between the 5.56 and the 7.62 nato. I think on the AR platform the 6.5Grendel comes out on top, but in a bolt sniper or perhaps a belt feed or similar machine gun, the 6.5x47 Lapua-designed for competition, and or the 6/6.5x47L and the 6x47 Swiss would be a hard flat shooting round, better trajectory and weight savings over the 308, and much better stopping power than the 5.56.

Thoughts? What would be your pick for a military round if a change was an option?

quote:

Thoughts? What would be your pick for a military round if a change was an option?

6.5 X 41, 115gr bullet, .264" neck length, 26.5 degree shoulder, .470 base diameter, same body tapper as the .250 X 3000 which in itself would make a pretty good military cartridge. roger

Your first link very well sums up the tests of different calibers that were conducted in the late 1920s.

Up until then, all of the semiauto rifle designs submitted for evaluation had to be adapted to the service rifle cartridge (30-06). Around 1927 J.D.Pedersen perfected a rifle based on the blow back principle and it did very well during trials. So well that Pedersen established a reputation as a rifle designer to be listened to, so when he suggested that the 30-06 was more powerful than necessary and a reduction in caliber should be considered, the Army listened. He recommended 7mm as the ideal caliber but tests were also done with .256 (6.5mm), and 30 caliber bullets. The .276 (7mm) proved to be the most effective (as Pedersen had predicted) and it was recommended for adoption. However, the decision was made not to change the caliber of the service cartridge and so final action was never taken.

The cartridge was the .276 (7mm) Pedersen. The .256 (6.5mm) tested was probably similar in size to the .276. The reason the .256 did so well was because the bullet tended to tumble on impact and make a very lethal wound. But a military round has other requirements besides letahlity.

BTW, I question the comment that it was MacArthur that killed the change. Up until 1930 he was in the Phillipines and had nothing whatever to do with Ordnance development. In the 1930s he certainly would have had the authority to determine the outcome but my guess is that others with more Ordnace experience, such as Hatcher, Whelen and Pershing, would have had more influence on the decision.

The best cartridge for military use?? This is an arguement that has been going on since the first metallic cartridges were introduced into the military in the 1860s. Decisions are not always based on ballistics and/or battlefield experience. Politics will always play a big role (as they should, IMHO).

Ray

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:

I question the comment that it was MacArthur that killed the change. Up until 1930 he was in the Phillipines and had nothing whatever to do with Ordnance development. In the 1930s he certainly would have had the authority to determine the outcome but my guess is that others with more Ordnace experience, such as Hatcher, Whelen and Pershing, would have had more influence on the decision.

Of course you may be correct. Still, there are so many written documents of the period which lay the decision at MacArthur's feet, that I tend to believe them.

I suspect the decision was not made by any technical person or persons, for any technical reason(s). I believe it was essentially a decision based both in politics of the day, and the responsibility for managing the Army so it would be adequately equipped in case of war.

If you recall that period, you likely remember we had not only just been through the first world war where we were caught with our pants down equipment-wise, but we had also spent several years immediately thereafter fiddling in the internal politics of Russia and the Soviet Union....inluding sending troops to both Siberia and Archangel on the Russian mainland to support the Mensheviks and fight the Bolsheviks.

As I seem to recall it, the final decision on the cartridge and the production of Garands was not made until almost the mid-30's.

As the Japanese had already invaded both Manchuria and China, as well as Korea, it was pretty apparent even then that we had a major Asian war looming as a distinct possibility.

It was pretty clear even then that with all the peaceniks and isolationists in Congress that funding and manufacturing assets would not be made available in time to face any threat prior to about 1945 unless we were forced to...in fact our pitiful small forces were not fully equipped even with weapons of WW I vintage.

So, what turned out to be the correct decision was made...to take precautions not get caught up in another war while also in the midst of a primary caliber change.


Sometimes, though, even hindsight is not a perfect science, so who really knows? Certainly not I.......

AC

Good points all.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that MacArthur did not have the authority to make the decision or that he lacked the experience to do so. As Chief of Staff that was his job and, as you said, it was the correct one. But I do think that his subsequent military and civilian records may tend to embellish his earlier service accomplishments, especially those that involved ordnance.

Ray

I did not read thru thoroughly on that link but seems like if what I was looking for was in it, I missed it, but yes I realize 'lethality' may not be the goal, and politics do play.....anyone thought about the 6.8 or 6.5grendel? Seems the grendel is better downrange, but said to be too short for belt feed, though some argue if a machine gun needs to be fed via a belt, vs mag. Anyway, seems to be a growing trend of reports that the 5.56 is very lacking. I am not surprised.

Good info above, thanks. Oh Bartsche, 6.5x41? Sounds neat.

From everything I have read it was general Mac or Mc that put the kybosh on the Garand .276. This by no means is conclusive. If Alberta Canuck and Cheechako are discussing this it would pay to listen. Amen to that brother; two fine sources of knowledge. Cream to the top. roger

quote:

Originally posted by Cheechako:



I certainly didn't mean to imply that MacArthur did not have the authority to make the decision or that he lacked the experience to do so. As Chief of Staff that was his job and, as you said, it was the correct one. But I do think that his subsequent military and civilian records may tend to embellish his earlier service accomplishments, especially those that involved ordnance.

Ray

And I certainly agree with you on that point. I don't think Dougie knew squat technically about weaponry.

I received a very biased education about "Foxhole Doug" though. When I served with the 25th Infantry Division, there were a lot of fellows there who had served under MacC, and to a man it seemed the ones I served with all hated him as a coward and a blustering blowhard.

He may not have been either of those things, but that's what the troops in the 25th generally seemed to think of him. (And the 25th was the Army Division which held the record for the most consecutive days on the front line with no relief...125 days in the Phillipines.)

Best wishes,

AC

According to Hatcher in "Hatcher's Notebook" p 165, MacArthur, Army Chief of Staff in 1932 stated there would be no change in caliber even though the 276 came out on top in the tests. Hatcher had been involved with the tests and the book gives good insight into the whole story..

One thing to remember is that at that time the US Air Force did not exist as an independent unit. It was a corps of the army. Therefore, for logistics reasons, it was considered necessary that the service round be adequate for aerial use.

It was internationally accepted that only the large military bores (7.5 to 8 mm) were adequate for aerial combat. Those nations that fielded a small military bore (6.5 to 7 mm) infantry cartridge all adopted a larger one for use in aerial combat. Italy and Japan adopted the .303 British; the Netherlands adopted an 8 mm round based on a necked up .303; Sweden adopted the powerful 8x63 mm Bofors cartridge; Norway and Spain adopted the 7.9 mm Mauser. In this context, the US Army decision was both logical and wise.

Cheers, Al

Interesting about the aircraft role.....not thought of it. Yes, re: Hatcher, believe I read some of that, or another book he wrote on Ballistics at my college library 20+ yrs ago. Good info.

Been a lot of documentary on WWII this past week on public tv here, really never realized just how big that war was, being younger than some here, but it was a heck of an operation, globally, way too much loss in life, and more. Lots of sacrifices that we owe our freedom to those served and those who paid the ultimate price......many brave men,,,,,and some women.

quote:

Originally posted by ClassicAl:
In this context, the US Army decision was both logical and wise.Cheers, Al

I have a hard time with that ,Al. The 50BMG was interduced in 1923, I believe, and was mounted on American aircraft as early as spring 1942 and possibly before. The Garand rifle was issued for the first time to combat units about the same time period. If the Army truely had any forsight, the selection of the 06 in the Garand would have had no relevance to airial combat as the 06 was phased out for use on future American fighter planes.

I think the general's hands are dirty on this one. roger

The best I can tell, the .256 so liked by Dr Chamberlin of the pig and goat tests (Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders, Vol II; P.O. Ackley)
was just the .276 Pedersen necked down. He did not say what rifle was used and I cannot find mention of it.

I note that actual combatants who started WW II with one of those neat small infantry rifle cartridges decided they needed something more powerful. The Japanese went from 6.5 to 7.7 and the Italians from 6.5 to 7.35. True, the Japanese had to keep their 6.5s in service and supply ammunition for both; and the Italians were so far behind that they converted most of their 7.35s back to 6.5; but they saw a need.

The very first model Garand, ca 1919 was a .30-06 operated by primer setback, per Hatcher. Didn't work when they changed from the old Pyro DG to progressive burning IMR, though.

Of course by the end of the war, changing infantry doctrine and more air and arty support started the assault rifle fad.

Combat shooting is I am sure different in need than game shooting, perhaps a 7mm bore would be the ticket, but to think we have a 22 cal, anything 6mm-6.5mm would I believe be an improvement.

Shooting my 7BR today, 120 gr 2873/2877/2873 fps, which was more than the same bbl length ....21", 6.5x55 I had shortened, a '96 mauser.

I think a 6.5Grendel up through 260 or 7mm/08 would be a step up.

Thanks for that info, I believe I read the 6.5mm (cold have been the 276 ..)in those pig test tumbled, indicating possible less than optimum twist rate, YET for combat, a tumbling bullet on impact using FMJ's helps inside an enemy. Apparently the pigs/goats were not happy about that wicked bullet!

quote:

I believe I read the 6.5mm (cold have been the 276 ..)in those pig test tumbled, indicating possible less than optimum twist rate, YET for combat, a tumbling bullet on impact using FMJ's helps inside an enemy. Apparently the pigs/goats were not happy about that wicked bullet!

Tumbling bullets can be either good or bad.

Against combatants who greatly value human life but do not have body armour, they can be a plus. They do not KILL as dependably as bullets which do not tumble, but do create massive non-fatal wounds sometimes...which require a lot of care if the recepients are to be saved and to recover fairly well. Every person required to give that care is a person who cannot be employed full time in killing their enemies.

Against those who might be wearing body armour, or where their lives are not considered of any great value, however, tumbling bullets can be a disadvantage. They do not peneterate body armour as well, and a wounded man can still be propped up where he may suffer considerably and be forever a cripple even if he does recover, but can still shoot as an expendable defender in the ebb and flow of battle. And among some fighters/cultures, that's all that counts.


Just for interest's sake, here's a glimpse of the technical "expertise" of one of our other former Chiefs of Staff; some advice given to both Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, by William D. Leahy, military Chief of Staff under both Presidents:

"This is the biggest fool thing we have ever done.... (it) will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives." William D. Leahy.

(He said this when he was advising them on the Atomic Bomb Project....the "Manhattan Project".)

Might it be they used it because the existing machine guns, the 03's the BAR's the Johnson semi auto's and some aircraft all used it and possibly it would be more practical to make 1 tracer 1 ap 1 ball bullet and the same brass for all instead of starting another line for a .276? They already had a .38 a .45acp a .30 carbine and the .50bmg. Just a thought, already a logistics nightmare!

Quote:

"I have a hard time with that ,Al. The 50BMG was interduced in 1923, I believe, and was mounted on American aircraft as early as spring 1942 and possibly before. The Garand rifle was issued for the first time to combat units about the same time period. If the Army truely had any forsight, the selection of the 06 in the Garand would have had no relevance to airial combat as the 06 was phased out for use on future American fighter planes."

Bartsche:

You are correct that the .50 Browning was developed in the '20s. However, that was to supplement, not replace the .30s. Even the first P-52s, which entered service in April 1942, carried a mixed armament of 4x.50 and 4x.30 Brownings. The .50 Browning did not become the dominant aerial gun on US warplanes until a bit later in the war. According to Hatcher, MacArthur made his decision to retain the .30-06 for the Garand in the early '30s. At this time the norm for fighter aircraft was still paired rifle-calibre machine guns. The phasing out of the .30 machine guns came about as a result of WW2 experience, in particular British disappointment in the performance of the 8x.303 batteries carried by the Spitfire and Hurricane against aircraft armour. MacArthur would have to have been clairvoyant to forsee this almost 10 years in advance of the experience.

Cheers, Al

What's a P52?

The F4Fs sold to England as the Martlet in 1940 had 4ea. 50 cal MGs.

MacCarther's Tachtical foresight or lack there of was obviated often in his discusting leadership in the Pacific.

A period of ten years from concept and planning to birth of new weapontry was not at that time unheard of considering the enormous military inertia that had to be overcome.

The Battle of Britain did prove what already was known ; Better armor and armament was needed on military aircraft. roger

What's a P52?

Sorry, Bartsche, should be more careful typing when I have a migraine. Should have read P-51, aka Mustang. And you are right, the F4Fs did carry 4x50 cal, but they were navy aircraft, not army, and even then the prototypes in the late '30s carried 30 cal Brownings.

I won't argue MacArthur's abilities or otherwise; I think we're on the same page there

Cheers, Al

Canuck, I agree re: body armour/tumbling bullets....a consideration for sure.