This is all good I want to point out its 250-3000 Savage not 25-3000 in the title
Yes, we'll save weight and some length due to the short OAL, but I was talking about cartridge width, which is the same 12mm for both the .250 and the .30-06. This was why the .30-06 Garand only held 8 rounds instead of the 10 they held in .276 and the .250 Savage would have that same limitation. I was trying to figure out how to make a thinner rifle (therefore, also less "bulk") by reducing the stack overlap and thereby reducing the receiver width without loss of magazine capacity. This version would then be the new M14, basically your post-war "M1A2"--or Mk.2 as you said--Garand altered to accept a detachable external box magazine using this thinner receiver design. I figure a 20 round box in semi-double-stack and maybe 1/4" less overall width.The .250 was ~64mm AOL, the .30-06 was ~85mm. Granted, 21mm is not a big deal in a rifle 1.1m long.
you're welcome, I have read about the Savage 99 recently and all I can say about this is that I think if you slap the BAR mag underneath the rifle you will get something no one will matchGood eye - I've changed the designetion where I've spotted the miss.
Yes, we'll save weight and some length due to the short OAL, but I was talking about cartridge width, which is the same 12mm for both the .250 and the .30-06. This was why the .30-06 Garand only held 8 rounds instead of the 10 they held in .276 and the .250 Savage would have that same limitation. I was trying to figure out how to make a thinner rifle (therefore, also less "bulk") by reducing the stack overlap and thereby reducing the receiver width without loss of magazine capacity. This version would then be the new M14, basically your post-war "M1A2"--or Mk.2 as you said--Garand altered to accept a detachable external box magazine using this thinner receiver design. I figure a 20 round box in semi-double-stack and maybe 1/4" less overall width.
I think a high RoF belt-fed LMG is very likely in the post-war era. Something akin to the OTL M60 based on the MG.42 using this short action intermediate cartridge. It would be an incredible fire-support / SAW weapon by 1960's standards.
So like the OTL first attempt at a Garand Carbine? The OTL .30-06 cartridge was too powerful for a folding stock, cut down carbine.The .250 was ~64mm AOL, the .30-06 was ~85mm. Granted, 21mm is not a big deal in a rifle 1.1m long. Some weight savings will be due to using lighter barrel, plus the lighter receiver group. Hopefully we'll arrive at about 7.5-8 lbs empty, looking at EM-2 weight.
The ALT 'M1 Garand Carbine' will need folding stock, and probably a barrel cut by, say, 4-6 in?
If there was a .256 Pedersen in the 1920s, why not suggest that we have a .250 Pedersen with boat tail?Well, the 6.5mm cartridge they used for the Pig Board tests was, iirc, the .256 Pederson (a .25 caliber 125gr flat base bullet in a Pederson case).
I don't think any of the discussion so far here has been derailing at all.But this is getting away from the question of what kind of spin-offs and down-stream effects the adoption of the .250 Savage, specifically would have. We belabored the 6mm-7mm range of cartridges to death in the NATO doesn't adopt 7.62x51mm thread some months ago.
It would be a full on RPK, not equivalent to the Bren or even BAR.Looking at the pictures of the BAR in 6.5mm Swedish, seems like the 30 rd magazine would not be over-the-top? Their ammo was actually slightly thicker than either .30-06 or .250-3000.
So, proposal for another spin-off - a LMG that is based on the ALT M1 Garand, with thick & heavy barrel, bipod, 30 rd mag. Comparable to the Bren (but upside-down and lighter) or RPK.
Would you be opposed to having a necked down .250 Pedersen?
The Pedersen cartridge is thinner and overall lower capacity, so to get exactly the same power you probably need to raise the pressure with different powder. Though with an M1 ball style bullet in .250 caliber may well not need that extra velocity to be effective down range due to the aerodynamics of the round. The recoil would be even milder and with the thinner case you could fit more rounds per en bloc clip or magazine.No probems with that, either. I've choosen the .250-3000 for this thread beacuse of two/three things - it was historically available, and it will make automatic fire from a hand-held rifle both useful and possible.
Rechambering of MGs was never contemplated for the .276, why would it be here?I just can’t see the cash strapped 1930’s Army adopting a new rifle cartridge that requires also refitting all of their automatic rifles.
The Pedersen cartridge is thinner ... and with the thinner case you could fit more rounds per en bloc clip or magazine.
John Garand and his Rifle Prototype , the M1920
modified BAR magazine, Rotating Bolt, and Primer actuated
What's that?
Let Gun Jesus explain
There is no law that prevents Army to request new automatic rifles and MGs for new round.
Not within this thread.
Rechambering of MGs was never contemplated for the .276, why would it be here?
And as far as new Cartriges, no .30-06 made before 1939 was ever sent to a combat zone.
The M1 Ball and M1928(and earlier) was never put into Garand Clips for Service Rifles, just M2 Ball and Blanks for Grenade launching
You mean like how NATO had both 5.56 and 7.62, and Pact forces had 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R?Doctrinally it would be pretty ridiculous to have a squad’s rifles and their LMG/Automatic Rifle in two different calibers.
Congress wasn’t going to approve the expense in the 1930’s. By the time 1940 rolls around and more funding for the Army is available, they aren’t going to adopt a new round because they need to churn out existing weapons as fast as they can.
You mean like how NATO had both 5.56 and 7.62, and Pact forces had 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R?
Yeah, thats crazy talk.
The 6.35x48mm experimental cartridge also
known as (FA-T116) from Carton E 1, same
as the.25 Winchester experimental that
was designed by Frankford Arsenal .
These were packed March 25, 1959.
It was one of the experiments in the mid-1950s
to early 1960s by the USA and NATO to
develop a new Service Rifle Cartridge.
The cartridge was one verison based on the .25
Remington case, the (FA-T116) measures
6.35x48mm and loaded with one 70 grain
which had a velocity of 3,345 feet per second.
However, the decision against the .223 was
overturned by further trials in 1959, which
again found the AR-15 superior to the M14
and recommended that its development should
be pursued as a replacement for the 7.62 mm
rifle, which had only been formally adopted for
service two years before.