M1 Garand adopted in '.30 Short' cartridge, plus knock-on effects

[tomo pauk]

There is a few '.276 Pedersen + M1 Garand' threads here, but nore like this.
So let's say Americans design the M1 rifle in the late 1930s around a ".30 Short" cartridge ( that is something like the 7.62x45 Czechoslovakian cartridge, or, something more powerful than the 7.62 x 39). The rifle is semi automatic, weights 8-9 lbs vs. 10-11 lbs of the historical example. Yes, very much the size and weight of the SKS or the Vz.52. It might carry 9 or 10 rounds in a clip vs. 8. Rifle is produced in millions.
Americans still buy the M1 carbine, since the weight & size difference is still considerable. BAR in this caliber, with at least 25 rd box mag? Automatic version of the M1 Garand materializes, with a box magazine, heavy barrel and bipod? What do the other countries do once this is known? Germans jump on their take on short cartridges even earlier (including the LW, making the design job for the not-FG42 much easier), ditto for Soviets? British do the EM series in this caliber, plus the Bren spin-off (there were the post-war Chinese modifications of the Bren to take the 7.62x39)?
Post war developments, including possible sibling of the StG-44 or not-FG42 in this caliber?

 

[Driftless]

Knowing jack-squat about this topic, I'll still jump in and ask:

What's the estimated ballistic performance of such a round on the WW2 battlefield, and beyond? Could that intermediate (sort of....) round carry into the later 20th and even 21st Century as a mainstream US military round?

Late WW2, or post war, could you get further weight saving by replacing the wooden stock with some kind of synthetic material?

I could see the M-1 or M-2 carbine going forward, first for use by drivers, second-line guys as it was intended OTL, but soon expanded from there. Those guys need something other than the full sized rifle, and the M-3 had its own start up bumps. Does the utility of the more powerful Short .30 you suggest, alter the decision making process?

 

[Driftless]

@marathag is temporarily sidelined for a few days. I expect he'll have some observations on his return

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

One thing I would expect is that instead of the 8 round clips or a 10 round internal magazine this Garand would have detachable magazines of at least 15 rounds like the M1 carbine.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

There is a few '.276 Pedersen + M1 Garand' threads here, but nore like this.
So let's say Americans design the M1 rifle in the late 1930s around a ".30 Short" cartridge ( that is something like the 7.62x45 Czechoslovakian cartridge, or, something more powerful than the 7.62 x 39). The rifle is semi automatic, weights 8-9 lbs vs. 10-11 lbs of the historical example. Yes, very much the size and weight of the SKS or the Vz.52. It might carry 9 or 10 rounds in a clip vs. 8. Rifle is produced in millions.
Americans still buy the M1 carbine, since the weight & size difference is still considerable. BAR in this caliber, with at least 25 rd box mag? Automatic version of the M1 Garand materializes, with a box magazine, heavy barrel and bipod? What do the other countries do once this is known? Germans jump on their take on short cartridges even earlier (including the LW, making the design job for the not-FG42 much easier), ditto for Soviets? British do the EM series in this caliber, plus the Bren spin-off (there were the post-war Chinese modifications of the Bren to take the 7.62x39)?
Post war developments, including possible sibling of the StG-44 or not-FG42 in this caliber?

@marathag is temporarily sidelined for a few days. I expect he'll have some observations on his return

Why not just have a alternate M1 Carbine chambered in .250-3000 Savage and go from there? The advantage is that the Savage cartridge still uses the .30-06 but necked down. The disadvantage is that it isn't .30 Caliber yet the M1 Carbine used a roundnose and not a Spitzer plus the .250 doesn't necessarily have to be militarized but rather used as inspiration for a necked down .30-06.

.250-3000 Savage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If I had to guess, the alternate M1 Carbine could still be able to use a fifteen round magazine but unlike OTL it might only be a twenty rounds detachable box magazine maximum and that is guesswork.

Still, while I'm quite a firearms enthusiast myself, I would like to hear the opinions of @marathag and @Dreadpool once their kicks are expired because they have been here longer and are likely considered more credible on the site.

 

[Driftless]

There is a few '.276 Pedersen + M1 Garand' threads here, but nore like this.
So let's say Americans design the M1 rifle in the late 1930s around a ".30 Short" cartridge ( that is something like the 7.62x45 Czechoslovakian cartridge, or, something more powerful than the 7.62 x 39 Warsaw Pact (snip)

I just added Wikipedia links for the two rounds mentioned in the OP, to save some look up time for everyone.

 

[Korlan]

For this to happen, you first have to get rid of Bug Out Doug if you want the US Army to adopt a rifle in anything other than .30-06 .

The technical problems are not too difficult to solve, it will just take some time.

Then, I don't think that the M1 carbine would exist ITTL, as a shortened version of the rifle could be practical for anyone not needing a "full length rifle" (as opposite to trying to make a shortened "carbine length" Garand in 30-06 that wouldn't be usable).

A shortened Garand in an intermediate caliber would be functionnally the same as a SKS.
So, why not ?

Why not just have a alternate M1 Carbine chambered in .250-3000 Savage and go from there? The advantage is that the Savage cartridge still uses the .30-06 but necked down. The disadvantage is that it isn't .30 Caliber yet the M1 Carbine used a roundnose and not a Spitzer plus the .250 doesn't necessarily have to be militarized but rather used as inspiration for a necked down .30-06.

In a way, a "short cartridge Garand" and a "enlarged M1 Carbine" would meet at the middle point and be almost the identical
(As the M1 Carbine is somewhat a scaled down Garand made to use a smaller round)
The only difference would be the op rod (long-stroke vs short-stroke)

It would only be a question of which is easiest (and cheapest) to make

(I bet on the short-stroke version)

 

[Catsmate]

For this to happen, you first have to get rid of Bug Out Doug if you want the US Army to adopt a rifle in anything other than .30-06 .

The technical problems are not too difficult to solve, it will just take some time.

Then, I don't think that the M1 carbine would exist ITTL, as a shortened version of the rifle could be practical for anyone not needing a "full length rifle" (as opposite to trying to make a shortened "carbine length" Garand in 30-06 that wouldn't be usable).

A shortened Garand in an intermediate caliber would be functionnally the same as a SKS.
So, why not ?



In a way, a "short cartridge Garand" and a "enlarged M1 Carbine" would meet at the middle point and be almost the identical
(As the M1 Carbine is somewhat a scaled down Garand made to use a smaller round)
The only difference would be the op rod (long-stroke vs short-stroke)

It would only be a question of which is easiest (and cheapest) to make

(I bet on the short-stroke version)

This. Which will have many interesting results on it's own, far more so than a mere change in rifle cartridge.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There is a few '.276 Pedersen + M1 Garand' threads here, but nore like this.
So let's say Americans design the M1 rifle in the late 1930s around a ".30 Short" cartridge ( that is something like the 7.62x45 Czechoslovakian cartridge, or, something more powerful than the 7.62 x 39). The rifle is semi automatic, weights 8-9 lbs vs. 10-11 lbs of the historical example. Yes, very much the size and weight of the SKS or the Vz.52. It might carry 9 or 10 rounds in a clip vs. 8. Rifle is produced in millions.
Americans still buy the M1 carbine, since the weight & size difference is still considerable. BAR in this caliber, with at least 25 rd box mag? Automatic version of the M1 Garand materializes, with a box magazine, heavy barrel and bipod? What do the other countries do once this is known? Germans jump on their take on short cartridges even earlier (including the LW, making the design job for the not-FG42 much easier), ditto for Soviets? British do the EM series in this caliber, plus the Bren spin-off (there were the post-war Chinese modifications of the Bren to take the 7.62x39)?
Post war developments, including possible sibling of the StG-44 or not-FG42 in this caliber?

While probably a more sensible round than the 30-06 what would be the driver for such a change?

One of the considerations for rifle calibre in the first part of the 20C was the ability to engage Horses at range (and then trucks etc) as until pretty much WW2 and in most cases still in WW2 the horse was the principle mover of a man and his rifle cross country as well as the prime mover for artillery and logistics

One thing I would expect is that instead of the 8 round clips or a 10 round internal magazine this Garand would have detachable magazines of at least 15 rounds like the M1 carbine.

The enbloc clip is actually not a bad method for reloading a rifle and arguably faster than a magazine and easier to carry / resupply and do not have to be retained

(I appreciate that Carbine magazines were almost used as 1 use items by the US armed forces in WW2 but any such consideration would not be used pre war)

So in my opinion a factory supplied 10 round enbloc clip like the 8 round 30-06 would still make sense for a 1930s design.

However its not a hill I am defending with any vigour let alone dying on

 

[Triune Kingdom]

There was a timeline, it may be of some use to you.

 

[tomo pauk]

What's the estimated ballistic performance of such a round on the WW2 battlefield, and beyond? Could that intermediate (sort of....) round carry into the later 20th and even 21st Century as a mainstream US military round?

Late WW2, or post war, could you get further weight saving by replacing the wooden stock with some kind of synthetic material?

The 7.62mm x 45 (a round that I suggest Americans emulate, some 15-20 years earlier of course) when fired from a 20 in barrel (vs. 24 in on the M1 Garand) was supposed to be good for 600m worth of effective range. A slightly less powerful 7.62 x 39 is still in service today. Yes, Americans might still go with the 5.56 NATO equivalent by 1960s/70s. Replacing the wooden stock with synthetic material is easy peasy.

I could see the M-1 or M-2 carbine going forward, first for use by drivers, second-line guys as it was intended OTL, but soon expanded from there. Those guys need something other than the full sized rifle, and the M-3 had its own start up bumps. Does the utility of the more powerful Short .30 you suggest, alter the decision making process?

M1 carbine was supposed to be a replacement for the 1911 pistol, while the M1 Garand lite is replacing the 1903 Sprnigfield. So I see the Carbine still adopted.

Why not just have a alternate M1 Carbine chambered in .250-3000 Savage and go from there? The advantage is that the Savage cartridge still uses the .30-06 but necked down. The disadvantage is that it isn't .30 Caliber yet the M1 Carbine used a roundnose and not a Spitzer plus the .250 doesn't necessarily have to be militarized but rather used as inspiration for a necked down .30-06.

M1 Carbine in .250-3000 is not a replacement for the 1911 pistol. Yes, it will make a splendid military cartridge IMO - thus the thread about that many moons ago - in a full-size rifle. Talk 8-9 lbs semi-automatic rifle, rather than ~5.5 lbs semi-automatic carbine.

One of the considerations for rifle calibre in the first part of the 20C was the ability to engage Horses at range (and then trucks etc) as until pretty much WW2 and in most cases still in WW2 the horse was the principle mover of a man and his rifle cross country as well as the prime mover for artillery and logistics

Horses in the cavalry units (those that are very likely to charge on infantry and artillery units) were the legitimate targets the military rifles were supposed to beat. Horses that are the mover are not a threat. Truck is a simple target even for the 7.62 x 25 in Soviet service.
Horse cavalry was pretty much rendered obsolete after the horrors of ww1.

So in my opinion a factory supplied 10 round enbloc clip like the 8 round 30-06 would still make sense for a 1930s design.

Agreed pretty much.

There was a timeline, it may be of some use to you.

Tanks, the timeline is very informative. Too bad it abruptly ended.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Horses in the cavalry units (those that are very likely to charge on infantry and artillery units) were the legitimate targets the military rifles were supposed to beat. Horses that are the mover are not a threat. Truck is a simple target even for the 7.62 x 25 in Soviet service.
Horse cavalry was pretty much rendered obsolete after the horrors of ww1.

Horse Cav was used by all armies during the period 1939 - 1945 (early war the British had Horse troops in the Middle east)

Until reliable motor transport that was capable of reasonable off road performance and just as importantly the army's nation capable of producing enough vehicles for their needs there was still the requirement for the horse born soldier.

Cavalry were not used to 'charge' enemy positions per se - this was proven suicidal with the invention of rifles and shrapnel shells long before machine guns and barbed wire - but where sill useful in allowing a 'rifleman' to cross terrain at a far more rapid rate than an infantryman and be far less fatigued when they arrived.

Indeed even as late as 1941 US Army manoeuvres took place using Horse Cavalry and the US Army were still not fully decided on the obsolescence of the 'Cavalry man' - perhaps not such a mad idea when you consider the terrain in much of the CONUS at the time and the area of the Mexican boarder

So in classical terms they were 'dragoons' - its just no right thinking cavalry man wants to be called a 'dragoon' but the Horse was still a legitimate target for the infantry man

That it proved not to be an issue would not be the case during the 30s when deciding on what rifle to arm troops with

 

[Driftless]

(snip)

Indeed even as late as 1941 US Army manoeuvres took place using Horse Cavalry and the US Army were still not fully decided on the obsolescence of the 'Cavalry man' - perhaps not such a mad idea when you consider the terrain in much of the CONUS at the time and the area of the Mexican boarder

So in classical terms they were 'dragoons' - its just no right thinking cavalry man wants to be called a 'dragoon' but the Horse was still a legitimate target for the infantry man
(snip)

Even as as late in the 1930's, there were a couple of well connected US staff officers who argued that horse cavalry made much better sense than mechanized vehicles. To be fair, too many of US leadership were anchored in that frontier constabulary mentality for far too long. But to your point, those behind-reality guys were also drivers of doctrine and policy.

View attachment 780722

That is an epic list! Love it!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

View attachment 780722

So the ideal cavalryman would have the horse and armour of the Cuirassier, the weapons and intelligence of the Dragoon and the charm and success with the ladies of the Hussar. (And everyone else in the Army would hate them)

 

[ArtosStark]

So the ideal cavalryman would have the horse and armour of the Cuirassier, the weapons and intelligence of the Dragoon and the charm and success with the ladies of the Hussar. (And everyone else in the Army would hate them)

And so would their horses. Carrying all that extra weight on long scouting and harassment missions and then needing to charge at the end of it? Poor animal will be exhausted by noon.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And so would their horses. Carrying all that extra weight on long scouting and harassment missions and then needing to charge at the end of it? Poor animal will be exhausted by noon.

They're gonna need a bigger horse.

 

[tomo pauk]

Horse Cav was used by all armies during the period 1939 - 1945 (early war the British had Horse troops in the Middle east)

Be it as it was, there was no "it must kill a horse" requirement by the US Army when they were musing with .276 Pedersen (among the other candidates) in the 1930s.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Horse Cav was used by all armies during the period 1939 - 1945 (early war the British had Horse troops in the Middle east)

Only because war came before they could be mechanized as Palestine was not a high priority area.

 

[Driftless]

A bit of a tangent: would a 7.62 x 45 round become as much of a North American deer (and other big game) hunting round as the 30.06 and later on, the .308 did? Those civilian use market rounds were (still are?) a significant revenue channel for ammunition companies

 

[Driftless]

On a similar tangent: would this short .30 and a lighter M-1 Garand be as popular in civilian marksmanship programs the original was?