AHC: Britain adopts .256 Caliber Rifles

At any rate, if the US got the 5.56mm NATO to tumble and deliver maximum KE on impact, I see no reason it could not be done in theory with th 6.5mm Arisaka.

The interwar British high command ordered the .380-200 handgun round reloaded with a 178 grain projectile out of fear of tumbling bullets that might breach the Hague convention on anti-personnel ammo (they wouldn't even go to a 200 grain round nose!); you have to change that entire leadership metality to get them to allow the design of a carbine- or even main-SAA round like that.
 
I'm thinking there were probably deer rounds that would be suitable starting points...

What about capturing copies of the German-licenced Mondragóns?

Fedorov...
There are some hunting rounds that would be a good starting point, but I wonder if they might not be a stigma there? The 6.5mm is small, but at least it is a genuine military round. The Empire of Japan managed to beat the Russians with it. It's not "only" a hunting catridge.

The Mondragon was a technical marvel, to be sure. It was decades ahead of its time. I would prefer something a bit smaller than 7mm Mauser, but at least it's a move in the right direction. However, I've heard that the Mondragons that the Kaiser's boys used experienced a lot of jamming problems. They were built well, and they did fine in the dry dusty environment of nothern Mexico. But they simply weren't built for the mud and muck of European trenches. Unless that problem is solved quickly, I fear it will simply back up those in the old guard who believe automatic rifles and self-loaders are overcomplicated and unreliable.

As for the Federov... the wiki article provides some good info about when and where it was produced, but not much else. It didn't mention if there were any issues with controllability at full auto, for example. It did give me an idea, though. I wonder if there is any way that during the choas of the civil war, the rifle could be produced in the Far East? Then, the Japanese units supporting the Whites could get their hands on one. Might be interesting.:) But this thread is about the British, not Japan.

The interwar British high command ordered the .380-200 handgun round reloaded with a 178 grain projectile out of fear of tumbling bullets that might breach the Hague convention on anti-personnel ammo (they wouldn't even go to a 200 grain round nose!); you have to change that entire leadership metality to get them to allow the design of a carbine- or even main-SAA round like that.
Interesting, I did not know that. Thanks for the info. At any rate, the 6.5mm Arisaka as designed doesn't tumble. So there should be no treaty issues. It just means that the round won't be as effective as it could be if it did tumble.
 
mcdo said:
There are some hunting rounds that would be a good starting point, but I wonder if they might not be a stigma there? ... It just means that the round won't be as effective as it could be if it did tumble.
I was thinking in terms of bullet design: that is, you want shock transferred to the animal to bring it down, & a small caliber round needs that even more, so a "tumbling" deer round might be preferable. Which presumes the idea of "tumbling" had even occurred to anyone in 1916...:rolleyes: I'm far from sure it had.
 
What about having the EM-2 develop early enough for an early production run to see service in Korea? If it's successful enough that might light a fire under the conservative US Ordnance officers when you get around to declaring a NATO cartridge.
Maybe US troops end up using EM-2s due to logistics issues when the Chinese come into the war and are impressed with it and the cartridge it fires?
 
You don't have to develop the EM2 early to get it into Korea, just convince Churchill not to Kow Tow to the US over rifle caliber. Then again if they hadn't developed the .280 round but kept to the proven 6.5mm Arisaka round maybe the EM2 would have already been entering service before the 1951 election. If so it's a fare bet to say they would have been rushed into the hands of the British troops fighting there.
 
You don't have to develop the EM2 early to get it into Korea, just convince Churchill not to Kow Tow to the US over rifle caliber. Then again if they hadn't developed the .280 round but kept to the proven 6.5mm Arisaka round maybe the EM2 would have already been entering service before the 1951 election. If so it's a fare bet to say they would have been rushed into the hands of the British troops fighting there.

Yeah and even a relatively small number in service could have a major influence on future weapons development. The FG-42 of WWII certainly had an influence disproportionate to the numbers used.
 
This is the history of an AU Garand...

Semi-Automatic Rifle, Caliber 256, M1
1919 Canadian-born Garand went to work at the United States Army's Springfield Armory and began working on a .30 caliber primer-operated breech. In the summer of 1924, twenty-four rifles, identified as "M1922", were built at Springfield. At Fort Benning during the summer of 1925, they were tested against models by Berthier, Hatcher-Bang, Thompson, and Pedersen, the latter two being delayed blowback types. This led to a further trial of an improved "M1924" Garand against the Thompson, ultimately producing a positive report in May of 1926 from both the Infantry and cavalry boards.
13 August 1926, a Semiautomatic Rifle Board carried out joint Army, Navy, and Marine Corps trials between the .30 Thompson, both cavalry and infantry versions of the T1 Pedersen, "M1924" Garand, and .256 Bang, and on 21 September, the Board reported no clear winner. The .30 Garand, however, was dropped in favor of the “.256 fat” or what will be the iconic 6.5x39mm, based on a shortened 30-06 cartridge that is necked down to accept a 6.5mm 90 grain bullet. Especially after the first Ballistic Gelatin Experiments in October reveal that the .30-06 performance could be duplicated in the .256 with little effort and be more cost effective, lighter and have less recoil, allowing the construction of a smaller more controllable SAR.
Against strenuous objections from the ‘Big Bore Mafia” led by General MacArthur on 1 January 1927 the Ordinance board recommends that for the next US service Rifle for both the Army and Marines be chambered for the M1926 .256 caliber cartridge based on the ‘.256 fat’. The Ordinance Board also orders disintegrating link belt ammunition for testing a M1919 Browning Machine gun in that same cartridge caliber.
Further tests by the SRB in July 1927, which included rifle designs by Browning, Colt-Browning, Garand, Holek, Pedersen, Thompson, and an incomplete one by White, led to a recommendation that the T3E3 Garand be ordered for further testing in November 1928.
Twenty gas-operated .256 T3E3s Garands were made and competed with T1 Pedersen rifles in the spring of 1929. The .256 Garand was the clear winner of these trials.
7 January 1930 Patrick Hurley Secretary of War overruled Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur 5 January declaration on the 30-06 and accepts the 4 January 1930 recommendation of the SRB to order 225 of the .256 T3E2 for Field testing, with the addition of a twenty or thirty round box magazine based on the BAR type magazine in place of its fixed magazine, this weapon is to be designated the T3E3.
In a controversial move to lighten up the weapon to the target weight of less than seven pounds a composite fiberglass-graphite cloth stock in green and black, with steel and rubber inserts was used for the stock. This radical design cut the weapons weight in half and was nearly totally immune to climate and weather effects, even in the extreme cold and was praised by many of the weapons testers and users for lightening the infantries load. Marine Force Recon and Airborne Infantry used the M1A version which has a folding steel stock and a pistol grip that was well liked in both services.
On 1 November 1930, the T3E3 became the Semi-Automatic Rifle, Caliber 256, M1. In May 1930, 125 M1s went to field trials; 50 were to infantry, 25 to cavalry units and another 50 to the Marines. Numerous problems were reported, forcing the rifle to be modified, yet again, before it could be recommended for service and cleared for procurement on 1 May 1931, then standardized 9 March 1932. The first production model was successfully proof-fired, function-fired, and fired for accuracy on July 21, 1933. In 1935 the barrel, gas cylinder, and front sight assembly were all redesigned based on recommendations following significant field use and after action reports.
Production difficulties delayed deliveries to the Army and Marines until September 1934. Machine production began at Springfield Armory that month at a rate of ten rifles per day, and reached an output of 100 per day within two years. The M1 had very few vices and experienced surprisingly few problems in the field after the 1935 mods. Production of the Garand increased in 1937 despite various material and political difficulties, reaching 600 a day by 10 January 1938, and the rapidly expanding Army and Marine Corp were fully equipped by the Christmas of 1940, even with having large orders for the new rifles placed both by the Free French and the Free Poles after the fall of France. Finland and later the Scandinavian Defense League (Norway, Sweden and Finland in 1941) also licensed the M1 in 1936 and used them extensively in their Winter War with the Soviet Union (1939-40).
UK
Great Britain produced its own intermediate cartridge, the 280 in 1932 for its own radical Enfield M-2A bull pup rifle which it adopted as their replacement for the Lee-Enfield in December of 1936 and started production of that weapon at 450 a day by May of 1937. The BEF went to France in 1940 with this weapon and the 280 caliber Vickers Light machine gun or 280 caliber Lewis guns for its infantry. Radically increasing the firepower of the British infantry formations.
 
Top