.280 British: How the Americans Took Our Guns Away

Now, this isn't a TL or even a vague hint about it, though I am brainstorming on an early Cold War timeline. Because, in that timeline, things will eventually be messed up greatly, I want to give it a bit of a silver lining.

One of those 'improvements over OTL' (which sounds odd and rather silly, I know) is making it so that the British .280 calibre round becomes the NATO standard (as 7mm NATO) in about 1953, just in time for the Korean War equivalent a few years later. This is very close to the one the gun nuts of today have the hots for, and is an intermediate cartridge that has a bot more punch than the 5.56mm while not as heavy and comparatively uncontrollable at firing fully automatic.

Now, the main problem is, of course, that the Americans pushed a much different round that made fully automatic fire hard to control, which of only secondary importance to the Americans. Due to American persistence the Canadians and later the British gave in and the 7.62mm NATO round was established.

I wonder how this outcome may be changed; it was more of a political decision than a military one. I was considering my TL to feature a small political split between the US and the European countries in OTL NATO, with the latter forming a European Defence Community instead, but the first would be rather unlikely, and I wonder if the EDC would be able to make such decisions about standard rifle calibre without Americans interfering. Perhaps there's a way the Americans could be convinced .280 is superior?
 
If only you could find a way the avoid having the U.S. Army get a sudden attack of "didn't invent it here". If U.S. Army had adopted the M-14 in .280 British perhaps we could have avoided 5.56mm NATO and the AR rifle with its DI gas system.

One big result would be that variants of the FN FAL would still be in service with the only replacement being a more refined FAL.

Didn't the British develop bullpup rifles chambering this cartridge?
 
If only you could find a way the avoid having the U.S. Army get a sudden attack of "didn't invent it here". If U.S. Army had adopted the M-14 in .280 British perhaps we could have avoided 5.56mm NATO and the AR rifle with its DI gas system.

One big result would be that variants of the FN FAL would still be in service with the only replacement being a more refined FAL.

Didn't the British develop bullpup rifles chambering this cartridge?

2 Bullpup rifles were developed, during this time period firing the .280 round, the EM-1 & EM-2 respectively...
 
The Rifle No.9, Mk.1, to give the EM-2 is formal in service designation, had the potential to be a very good weapon, as did the TADEN machine-gun. It's a crying shame that the Americans didn't think that 7mm was not powerful enough forced the 7.62mm on NATO and then decided to change to 5.56mm.

Interestingly the 7mm/.280 was also known as the 'BBC' round as it was to have been used by Britain, Belgium and Canada.
 
The 7.62mm NATO or the .308 Winchester in its civilian guise is a great hunting cartridge, however except for sniping a military cartridge doesn't need to shoot past 200 yards. The .280 was perfect for this. Ironically SOCOM would partner with Remington to develop the 6.8mm SPC decades later.

The U.S. Army also turned its nose up at the .276 Pedersen (7 x 51mm) a generation earlier.
 
Aye, the problem is that the US Army didn't go for it and thus the rest of NATO didn't. I could just write something fancy about hijinks at the firing range causing for the .280 to be used, bt that's a non-optimal choice.

Though I guess if perhaps the 'BBC' group mentioned by JN1 would be more persistent, it would work. Peabody-Martini, perhaps we could have the 7.62/.308 in use in the Designated Marksman capacity, though that might be a bit improbable for the fifties. Why did the Soviets have the doctrine of Designated Marksmen far earlier than NATO?
 
The reason the DM role took off in Soviet forces sooner than in the West was due to the phenomena of sniperism during WW2 in the USSR. I would suggest the book "War of the Rats" by David L. Robbins. I won't comment on authenticity of the book, but it a good yarn.

In the West snipers were quite simply hated even by their own side, most notably by General Omar Bradley. There are anecdotes of sniper detachments being referred by such names as "The Leper Colony" or "Murder Inc."

The best way for the West to have a greater interest in a true intermediate cartridge would be for the STG 44 rifle to be in more widespread use on the western front in Europe. The 7.92 x 33mm kurz made an impression on the Soviets resulting in M43 7.62 x 39mm cartridge. Perhaps something similar could happen to the U.S. Army.
 
The reason the DM role took off in Soviet forces sooner than in the West was due to the phenomena of sniperism during WW2 in the USSR. I would suggest the book "War of the Rats" by David L. Robbins. I won't comment on authenticity of the book, but it a good yarn.

In the West snipers were quite simply hated even by their own side, most notably by General Omar Bradley. There are anecdotes of sniper detachments being referred by such names as "The Leper Colony" or "Murder Inc."

The best way for the West to have a greater interest in a true intermediate cartridge would be for the STG 44 rifle to be in more widespread use on the western front in Europe. The 7.92 x 33mm kurz made an impression on the Soviets resulting in M43 7.62 x 39mm cartridge. Perhaps something similar could happen to the U.S. Army.
Thanks, I can work with that.

Interesting the decision to abandon 7mm and go for the American 7.62mm was made by Churchill.
I'll look into that, might be interesting.

NATO didn't need designated marksmen for forty years as the average NATO soldier was well trained enough to be equivilant to a Russian DM.
Well, I guess the equipment angle was covered by the 7.6mm rifles, but I'm not so sure about this training angle. Most NATO countries started adopting the DM doctrine some time after the Cold War ended, which coincided (quite closely, I might add) with the move towards professional armies. Unless you meant something about the training regimen.
 
Well, I guess the equipment angle was covered by the 7.6mm rifles, but I'm not so sure about this training angle. Most NATO countries started adopting the DM doctrine some time after the Cold War ended, which coincided (quite closely, I might add) with the move towards professional armies. Unless you meant something about the training regimen.


Quite simply the AK47 wasn't designed for accuracy and Soviet soldier wasn't trained as well as the average NATO conscript in marksmanship. Look at the controls on an AK, safe, full auto, semi auto, and if Zaloga is to be believed Soviet troops of the Cold War were trained to attack firing full auto from the hip. The Russians, particularly after their experiences in WW2, believed in weight of fire not accuracy of fire. Russian use of the SVD, which until recently was always listed as a sniper rifle, wasn't a piece of advanced tactical thinking, it was a way of compensating for the inadequacies of the rest of the Red Army rifle squad.
 
The U.S. Army also turned its nose up at the .276 Pedersen (7 x 51mm) a generation earlier.
Actually, the M1 Garand was designed to use a .276 round. The Pederson was lubricated (or waxed), which is a bad idea. Also, there were substantial stocks of .30-'06, which would've been obsoleted had any .276 round been adopted. (Yes, these could've been surplussed off...)
 
Actually, the M1 Garand was designed to use a .276 round. The Pederson was lubricated (or waxed), which is a bad idea. Also, there were substantial stocks of .30-'06, which would've been obsoleted had any .276 round been adopted. (Yes, these could've been surplussed off...)

The .276 Pederson round needed to be waxed when used in the Pederson rifle it wasnt waxed when used in the Garand rifle.
 
Actually, the M1 Garand was designed to use a .276 round. The Pederson was lubricated (or waxed), which is a bad idea. Also, there were substantial stocks of .30-'06, which would've been obsoleted had any .276 round been adopted. (Yes, these could've been surplussed off...)

There were three rifles submitted to the U.S. Army. The designs by Thompson and Pedersen required a wax lubricant to function. The winning design by Garand did not, even with the .276 cartridge. That and the Thompson rifle was considered dangerous in ordinary use seeing how it would throw out brass at considerable velocity. The adoption of the .30-06 required a major redesign that greatly increased the weight of the M1, reduced the magazine capacity by 2 rounds to 8 and worst of all delayed the introduction of the rifle by nearly 3 years. This happened pretty at the sole insistence of Douglas MacArthur, who might have been trying to kill the whole program.

This could be a good POD if you are looking for one, Theodoric.
 
There's nothing wrong with Pedersen's waxed cartridge. He developed a powdered wax hard coat, which was not messy or problematic in any way.
 
The wax lube was not the only thing wrong with the Pedersen rifle it was a complex design similar in operation to the Luger pistol. The biggest issue there would be that it would not be soldier proof. Plus there were lots of small parts, also not good.

The hard wax coating worked, however it would have been problematic in a hot sandy environment like say North Africa or the South Pacific.

Overall once you get past the whole cartridge issue the Garand rifle was a good choice. If the Army had adopted it in 7mm it would have required a redesign or replacement of the BAR and M1919 MG. The butterflies from that choice would be huge in regards to the tactics and conduct of WW2.

Funny how 3/125th of an inch could have changed the world.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The Browning MG comes in 5.56 and 7.62. I don't think an M1919 in 7mm would be much of a problem. A lighter BAR is precisely the kind of advantage* of such a round. Both used the 6.5mm x 55 Swedish round after some adaptation, but the larger US round requires the initial design to be beefier#. A Monitor R80 (FBI style) from an initially lighter design would be getting close to an assault rifle. Nineteen pounds is too much and twenty rounds is not enough.

*that and lighter magazines or more rounds per magazine.
#even so it is regarded a thin (small diameter) barrel that overheats easily.
 
Last edited:
This could be a good POD if you are looking for one, Theodoric.
I'd think so, yes, but the butterfly effect, even if I tone it down it just the traditional only-things-contingent-on-POD-change rule, would greatly influence WW2, and of course eliminate the 7mm British as we know it.

Then again, that's probably way more interesting by itself. I'd expect experiments with select-fire versions to perhaps lead to an earlier American assault rifle, or at least the concept of one.
 
The wax lube was not the only thing wrong with the Pedersen rifle it was a complex design similar in operation to the Luger pistol. The biggest issue there would be that it would not be soldier proof. Plus there were lots of small parts, also not good.

The hard wax coating worked, however it would have been problematic in a hot sandy environment like say North Africa or the South Pacific.

Overall once you get past the whole cartridge issue the Garand rifle was a good choice. If the Army had adopted it in 7mm it would have required a redesign or replacement of the BAR and M1919 MG. The butterflies from that choice would be huge in regards to the tactics and conduct of WW2.

Funny how 3/125th of an inch could have changed the world.

What evidence do you have that the Pedersen hard coat would have problems in hot climate?

The Garand was adopted because MacArthur decided to stay with the 30-06 and the Pedersen could not be redesigned to take this more powerful round. It's true that it also had more parts, but it was tested extensively and no fault could be found to disqualify it over performance.

Had Pedersen adopted the fluted chamber concept (already in use in one Italian machine gun), I believe he could have chambered his rifle for the 30-06 and do away with the wax hard coat.
 
The winning design by Garand did not, even with the .276 cartridge.
That I did not know.:eek: I presumed they all used a common round.
The adoption of the .30-06 required a major redesign ... worst of all delayed the introduction of the rifle by nearly 3 years. This happened pretty at the sole insistence of Douglas MacArthur, who might have been trying to kill the whole program.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If, as you say P-M, the .276 Garand was effectively a ".276-'06", that's almost exactly the solution I had in mind: a cut down, necked-down .30-'06.:cool: In a rifle in service in 1936.:cool:
Then again, that's probably way more interesting by itself. I'd expect experiments with select-fire versions to perhaps lead to an earlier American assault rifle, or at least the concept of one.
After exposure to the MKb-42, it wouldn't take too much adopt a reduced-power full-auto variant of the *M1, especially since the M14 was proposed OTL. How much the M14 drew on experience of the M1 Carbine IDK; a .276-'06 *M1 might butterfly it. That might actually advance the date of adoption of the *M14.
 
Last edited:
Top