I need a .276 Garand POD

The more interesting question will involve some follow-on changes that I have in mind, like a .276 cal BAR. That'll be more involved, and fielded much much later.

This in particular I find interesting. The US went into the war relying on stocks of WW1 Surplus BARs. Production of new BARs didn't get off the ground until early 1944. If they want to maintain a unified caliber for rifle squads and have to adopt new-build weapons anyway, there might be an earlier competition for an infantry light machine gun to replace the BAR - OTL this didn't occur until 1939, and none of the entrants were completed in time to be of use, and were thus cancelled in favor of lightened M1919s. So in TTL with the .276 adopted in the early 1930s , a new LMG may be developed or licensed early enough for production to start before the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yes, though at a weight and recoil/controllability penalty, both of which are critical for a modern service rifle. You cannot only cite ballistic performance in this instance, or pretty soon you're proposing that every infantryman have a .50-caliber rifle!
Sure, there is a limit, which is why I said this right after:
The trick is finding out which is the optimal balance given modern advancements in casing/weight and powders.

Yes, what I'm saying is that with modern technology (non-lead bullets, polymer cased-telescoped casings, etc) that the "optimum tradeoff" has moved a bit and we can get better range for no appreciable recoil penalty and actually a lower weight.

But I'm done talking about modern cartridges, so....

There was never any disagreement about that.

I have a ton of notes, and a few vignettes made. I'm actually toying with the idea of releasing the TL for anyone who wants to to write WWII vignettes when the time comes, since that's not what I'm interested in. If it works well I could do it with other wars. I mean, I could "officially" start it right now, if you really want, but I'm still getting ducks in rows. I'd also really like to know with higher confidence that the ZH-29 was as influential as it is being presented.
Some times, if you're interested in doing a TL, you have to operate with imperfect knowledge.
 

Deleted member 1487

This in particular I find interesting. The US went into the war relying on stocks of WW1 Surplus BARs. Production of new BARs didn't get off the ground until early 1944. If they want to maintain a unified caliber for rifle squads and have to adopt new-build weapons anyway, there might be an earlier competition for an infantry light machine gun to replace the BAR - OTL this didn't occur until 1939, and none of the entrants were completed in time to be of use, and were thus cancelled in favor of lightened M1919s. So in TTL with the Garand and .276 adopted in the early 1930s , a new LMG may be developed or licensed early enough for production to start before the war.
Johnson LMG was adopted and used in the field in greater numbers than the German FG42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
Could easily have been chambered for the Pedersen round. Apparently was liked by the para-marines that used it.
 
This in particular I find interesting. The US went into the war relying on stocks of WW1 Surplus BARs. Production of new BARs didn't get off the ground until early 1944. If they want to maintain a unified caliber for rifle squads and have to adopt new-build weapons anyway, there might be an earlier competition for an infantry light machine gun to replace the BAR - OTL this didn't occur until 1939, and none of the entrants were completed in time to be of use, and were thus cancelled in favor of lightened M1919s. So in TTL with the .276 adopted in the early 1930s , a new LMG may be developed or licensed early enough for production to start before the war.

Well, there is more complexity to that. There were actually some really neat ideas floating around to improve the BAR pre-war, but none were adopted for the sake of continuing uniform production. In this TL that won't apply as much and I can probably include those improvements much much earlier for the .276 BAR.

Johnson LMG was adopted and used in the field in greater numbers than the German FG42...
Could easily have been chambered for the Pedersen round. Apparently was liked by the para-marines that used it.

I've thought of that, but I haven't decided if the USMC is going be be luddites and want to keep .30-06. If so, they'll adopt the Johnson in .30-06 as "their" rifle. I think re-chambering the BAR is more likely as a general-issue LMG, though. It was a very adaptable design.
 
Last edited:
I am away from my sources and no expert on ammunition but IIRC round nosed rifle bullets have greater mass for their length with the Center of Mass (COM) further forward than Spitzer type bullets. This has two effects:
1 Due to the COM of the round nosed bullet being so far forward they are more likely than Spitzer bullets to unstable in flight and tumble.
2. With the Forward COM a round nosed bullet is less likely to tumble upon impact with flesh. Hunters tike these bullets for big game for their deep penetration.

Writers are sometimes careless in describing bullets a likely to tumble or not without being specific as to whether it is in flight or after impact this can cause confusion and the wrong assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Look at the Commonwealth ammo supply during WWII
38 S&W
9mm
455 Webley
45 Auto
303
30-06
8mm
50 Browning
50 Vickers
55 Boys
15mm BESA

Its not quite as bad as it looks. 30-06, 8mm, .50 Browning and 15mm BESA were used by Armoured vehicles which had a seperate supply train to Infantry. Vickers .50 was also an Armoured vehicle weapon but was hardly used after 1941. .55 Boys was also very rare after about 1942. .45 Auto was mostly used by Special Forces as was .455 Webley.

That leaves .38, 9mm and .303 as the main Infantry ammo and I bet the use of .38 was a fraction of 1%. It wouldnt surprise me if .303 was 90% plus of the ammo supply.

The guy you have to feel sorry for was the Commonwealth Armoured supply officer
.303
30-06
8mm
.38
.50
15mm
20mm
37mm
40mm
2 inch smoke
57mm
75mm
3 inch CS
76.2x583
76.2x350
76.2 M1
3 inchM7
88mm 25 pounder
95mm
105mm
 
Last edited:
Its not quite as bad as it looks. 30-06, 8mm, .50 Browning and 15mm BESA were used by Armoured vehicles which had a seperate supply train to Infantry. Vickers .50 was also an Armoured vehicle weapon but was hardly used after 1941. .55 Boys was also very rare after about 1942. .45 Auto was mostly used by Special Forces as was .455 Webley.

That leaves .38, 9mm and .303 as the main Infantry ammo and I bet the use of .38 was a fraction of 1%. It wouldnt surprise me if .303 was 90% plus of the ammo supply.

The guy you have to feel sorry for was the Commonwealth Armoured supply officer
.303
30-06
8mm
.38
.50
15mm
20mm
37mm
40mm
2 inch smoke
57mm
75mm
3 inch CS
76.2x583
76.2x350
76.2 M1
3 inchM7
88mm 25 pounder
95mm
105mm


When you consider that they were moving a staggering amount of Fuel, Artillery ammo (regarding ammunition this probably accounted for the lions share) and all the supplies necessary for an army to simply exist in the field then the problem about certain small arm ammunition kind of isn't a problem so long as the logistics system is robust enough to move it and deliver to the correct sub units.
 
Top