A Garand that takes Browning BAR (machine gun) magazines. Had John Garand invented that, we would have been in phat city all the way through the end of the cold war.

Wasn't that an M14, more or less?

Winchester prototyped such a thing, also. Had a pic, can't find it.

Sort of, but 30 years earlier and using existing designs. Just add a mag.

Fire superiority is everything in an infantry battle. You want lots of bullets going down range.

quote:

A Garand that takes Browning BAR (machine gun) magazines. Had John Garand invented that, we would have been in phat city all the way through the end of the cold war.

Or if Douglas MacArthur hadn't been so set on the USA retaining the .30-06 so that the Garand had been produced in .276 and so kept is designed TEN ROUND capacity.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
A Garand that takes Browning BAR (machine gun) magazines. Had John Garand invented that, we would have been in phat city all the way through the end of the cold war.

Beretta BM 59. Obviously not too many people were impressed.
Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:

quote:

A Garand that takes Browning BAR (machine gun) magazines. Had John Garand invented that, we would have been in phat city all the way through the end of the cold war.

Or if Douglas MacArthur hadn't been so set on the USA retaining the .30-06 so that the Garand had been produced in .276 and so kept is designed TEN ROUND capacity.

The .276 pedersen had GREASED LEAD BULLETS,if I remember correctly.

and the cases used a dry wax lube, too.

The messy .276 ammo was probably required for the Borchart styled (knuckle) action Pederson rifle.

You are correct, I believe- extraction problems.

You underestimate the conservative nature of the Infantry. Garand had a rifle with a box magazine. The Army did not want it because magazines cost more than stripper clips. (and many other bogus reasons) You can read a 1952 rant, from an Army Infantry Colonel, pg 65 “The FAL rifle". This Infantry Colonel wrote a long letter to the requirements board, explaining in detail how box magazines are undesirable. I don’t know his organization, but he was provided the latest FN rifles for test and evaluation, so he must have been the Infantry User Representative. He was trying to get the requirements document changed to eliminate box magazines.

When this guy’s 1932 counterpart wrote similar objections, (I assume) the box magazine was removed from the Garand rifle.

By 1952, it was recognized that detachable magazines had proved their worth. However, to placate the powerful dinosaurs, the M14 box magazine was called “semi detachable", and the M14 has a stripper clip guide on top of the receiver. You will see on the History Channel, a vintage film introducing the new M14. And the guy in the Campaign hat is charging the rifle with stripper clips!!

If it was left up to the Infantry, they still would be using flint locks.

Knuckle draggers......

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:

Beretta BM 59. Obviously not too many people were impressed.

Grizz

The Beretta BM 59 was pretty well made and gave complete satisfaction, every bit as good as the M14.

quote:

If it was left up to the Infantry, they still would be using flint locks.

And all that money saved on brass cases too...

The British Army reaction to the self-loading rifle after WWII when it was suggested that the cut-down Lee Enfield No4 (known as the No5 or "Jungle Carbine") be adopted was different.

It was tested and said to be unsuitable because of a problem with a wandering zero. Now here in the UK many of use have seen, used, shot the No5. Nobody has ever seemed to have that wandering zero problem.

So it is now thought that it didn't have the problem but that it was "invented" to save the British Army from having to adopt it instead of a self-loading rifle!

there was an old gunsmith here that used to covert m1's to take bar mags years ago. they did work fine

My best friend is a collector and he has boxes of 276 bullets, brass, and other items. I can tell you that round is as normal as the 30-06. Recently a gun rag did an article on it and had some original ammo and test fired it along with reload ammo made from 6.5x54MS cases. They were very impressed with the original ammo and the reloaded stuff. Basically just a 7mm...nothing special about it. That other stuff talked about probably was made for something else, but I believe the original idea for the Garand was pretty much normal ammo.

quote:

My best friend is a collector and he has boxes of 276 bullets, brass, and other items. I can tell you that round is as normal as the 30-06.

The 276 Pederson would have been an excellent battle cartridge. It is just at the length of a 308.

The Army conducted a huge number of tests in the 1920's, to show the Infantry that the 276 was just as lethal, or was good enough, as the 30-06. The Infantry would have none of it.

It took higher authority to over ride the objections on the Infantry to continue development.

Then, Gen MacArthur canceled the whole thing and made the Army use the obsolete 30-06.

I read/heard somewhere that the army had too much '06 ammo stockpiled after WWI to just throw away or not use. That's why the Garand was chambered for 30-06.

quote:

I read/heard somewhere that the army had too much '06 ammo stockpiled after WWI to just throw away or not use. That's why the Garand was chambered for 30-06.

You must learn to be skeptical about decision makers and the rationale they provide for their decisions. They often have agenda’s or personal biases which are not revealed at the time of announcement.

Usually they make their decision, based on their own personal agenda, and then they find "facts" to support their decision.

I don’t believe we will ever know the “true†reason MacArthur turned down the 276 Pederson. But the excuse given at the time was in fact stockpiles.

This is a bogus argument. WWI stock piles were close to 20 years old in 1936. Powder deteriorates from the moment it leaves the powder mill. Twenty years is close to the end of the useful life of loaded ammunition. You keep the stuff too long and the nitric gases that come out of deteriorating powder will and has caused ammunition bunkers to explode. The military seldom keeps small arms ammunition much past 20 years, the stuff gets dumped when lot tests show powder deterioration has passed the point of safe keeping.

So what I am saying is, the old stockpiles were going in the demilling machine in a couple of years anyway. They could have been kept around as the 03 would have been kept in reserve. But with a new rifle, you could start new production. And the old ammunition would have been shot up in the old rifles.

Once the real war started, I suspect one day of production of ammunition was equal in quantity to all the old stockpiled ammunition.

The military walked away from the 308 and to the .223, in what, two years? They could have done the same with the 30-06 and the 276 Pederson.

quote:

The military walked away from the 308 and to the .223, in what, two years?

Not true. They still have M-60s, minis, and others to shoot the 7.62.

Well I was thinking of the transition from M14 to M16.

Early in the transition some troops were given the choice of firearm. I met a Marine who was given a new out of the box M16. His unit was being issued these rifles on a "if you like it keep it" basis. His jammed on test firing, before he had completely fired one magazine. He decided to keep his M14.

Within a couple of years Grunts did not have the choice. They were issued M16's and that was that.

There were lots of M60's in Nam.

While I see M249's on Hummer's now, the SAW seems to be the most popular squad automatic weapon.

From recollection the British Army kept ammunition for just FIVE years. After that it was disposed of to cadet units.

On prejudice it is said that prejudice by the Duke of Wellington (he of Waterloo) stopped the British Army adopting the .577 or .450 calibre until after his death. The Duke believing that it would give insufficient stopping power when compared to the .75 calibre Brown Bess musket.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
From recollection the British Army kept ammunition for just FIVE years. After that it was disposed of to cadet units.

On prejudice it is said that prejudice by the Duke of Wellington (he of Waterloo) stopped the British Army adopting the .577 or .450 calibre until after his death. The Duke believing that it would give insufficient stopping power when compared to the .75 calibre Brown Bess musket.

I think I would have to side with the Duke if you are comparing smooth bore to smooth bore.

Was there such a thing as a .577 smoothbore musket? I don't think. I believe all .577 or .58 were rifled.

quote:

Was there such a thing as a .577 smoothbore musket? I don't think. I believe all .577 or .58 were rifled.

'Tis true. That Frenchman Minie's bullet. But...the change to from .75 to .577 was prevented by Wellington.

quote:

Originally posted by butchloc:
there was an old gunsmith here that used to covert m1's to take bar mags years ago. they did work fine

There's one around now that converts them to .458's.

Found the Winchester prototype pic:

I'm sure somebody would have come up with an argument that it interfered with firing from prone positions....

...and the lack of a magazine cut-off

Was the 06 the best it could have been, no. But something to consider, they were still using 03's BAR's Johnson semi autos in limited use, and some of the early fighters had .30 cal guns to go along with the .50's. So you have 5 different guns using the same basic round, with it's variants, as AP tracer and std ball. So was it really that stupid to cut down on the number of types of rounds being made in the tens of millions?

Here is the equivalent.
Hakim with a 25 round magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by 500grains:
A Garand that takes Browning BAR (machine gun) magazines. Had John Garand invented that, we would have been in phat city all the way through the end of the cold war.

I don't have time to read thru all the answers, and maybe it's already been mentioned, but the Cal 30 T20 Rifle was just such a thing. It evolved into the M14.

ray

MAS 38/39 using the LMG 1924/29 25 rounds magazine.

quote:

Originally posted by Rub Line:
I read/heard somewhere that the army had too much '06 ammo stockpiled after WWI to just throw away or not use. That's why the Garand was chambered for 30-06.

Institutions can only make evolutionary little steps, but individuals can make huge leaps.

And if you had some great new gun, the engineers at Rock Island Arsenal would just listen and then ask, "So, what else is new?".

The only way to get money out of them was to respond to their RFQ [request for quotation]. Which meant it was their concept.

So an individual could make a leap, but would not get a dime from RIA.

I'm still kicking myself for passing up an FN49 in 30-06
with Luxemburg crest and proofs on it.

but that was 20 years ago...


AD

The M 14 has seen somewhat of a comeback in the Sand Box.

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:
Beretta BM 59. Obviously not too many people were impressed.
Grizz

I was.

Owned several at one time even a select fire; now down to a BM-59 and a Beretta made BM-62.

Great rifles.

quote:

Was there such a thing as a .577 smoothbore musket?

Ain't Saeed got one o' them thangs? I seen it in the videos...

quote:

Originally posted by homebrewer:

quote:

Was there such a thing as a .577 smoothbore musket?

Ain't Saeed got one o' them thangs? I seen it in the videos...

I think his is rifled,but dont know for sure.

The american rifleman this month has an article about the 276 ped/30-06 issue .