US adopts Pederson cartridge AFTER WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I think I see where the confusion is coming from. OK, so .276 Pedersen immediately post-war basically did happen IRL, but it was .30 cal and they ended up adopting it as 7.62mm NATO. Here's an excerpt from my unpublished fifth installment of the Light Rifle series:

"In 1931, he (Studler) returned to the United States and was appointed Assistant Officer in Charge of Engineering Division of the Small Arms Ammunition Department at Frankford Arsenal, where the U.S. Army's new experimental .276 caliber ammunition was being developed. Studler therefore was present for the last year or two of development of the .276 caliber, including design and testing of .276 caliber armor piercing and tracer type bullets. The conclusions drawn from this program provide an important piece of the puzzle: Testing had shown that while the .276 caliber was an excellent fit for infantry rifles, it could not replace the .30-06 caliber in the machine gun, as it could not match the .30 caliber's performance with armor-piercing projectiles and other ammunition types. In fact, while the .276 produced excellent performance with lead-cored bullets, its low case capacity became a hindrance with larger, lower-density armor piercing projectiles, and performance was also reduced when loaded with certain kinds of commercial propellants, a serious downside in the event of commercial contract production during wartime. As a result, Frankford Arsenal began development in 1929 of a new round, called the .276 T2, which used a larger diameter (0.470" vs. 0.450"), longer case, which would alleviate these issues. By the time Studler arrived at Frankford, development of the T2 was thoroughly underway, and it continued until the .276 project's cancellation in the Summer of 1932. Largely due to the need to retain the .30 caliber at the machine gun level, the .276 was abandoned and the .30 caliber Garand rifle was adopted instead of its .276 caliber counterpart."

"Studler remained at Frankford until 1935, and continued developing improved armor-piercing ammunition for .30 caliber and .50 caliber weapons. During this time, he graduated from Assistant to Officer in Charge of the department, and presided over the development of the .30 cal. M1 Armor Piercing cartridge, a higher-velocity, higher-performance (but more complex to produce) predecessor to the M2 Armor Piercing round used in World War II. For his efforts in this, and .50 caliber armor-piercing development, Studler received a commendation."

It was Col. Studler who oversaw the end of the development of the .276 Pedersen in the early 1930s, which means he was intimately familiar with the program. He was also the manager for the .30 caliber armor piercing program of the same period, which was a type of projectile that the .276 had some issues with. By the time .276 development had finished, it no longer offered much of an advantage in ammunition capacity versus .30-06, as it shared the same case base. By 1943, Studler, now CSA for Ordnance, would notify the industry that the Army was investigating the .300 Savage as the basis for a new round. The .300 Savage, of course, was the commercial round most similar in size to the .276 T2 round, and in .30 caliber which would ease the development of AP and other styles of bullet. Notably, the case length and diameter specifications set for the .30 Light Rifle were virtually identical to that of the .276 T2 - this is likely not a coincidence.

I have very little doubt that Studler considered the .30 Light Rifle to be a "perfected" version of the .276 Pedersen he worked on in the early 1930s. It would also explain why he so quickly dismissed the British .280 proposal - in his mind, the Army had already "been there, done that".
 

Deleted member 1487

The key detail you are missing is that literally the only thing those two rounds have in common is the diameter of their bullet. The .276 Enfield is in the same class as .30-06, so what does it matter for .280 British development? All of the groundwork that led to the .280 British occurred post-war.
Yes, things changed in the more than 30 years between the work on the 7mm Enfield round pre-WW1 and then the work on the .270/.280 rounds after WW2, including technology and doctrine. The choice of 7mm for it's wounding characteristics and ballistics potential compared to existing .303 was recognized pre-WW1 and post-WW2. The difference what how much and what powder to put behind as well as doctrinal changes, as magnum type bolt action rounds from 1913 were recognized during WW1.

So where is this mythical wartime 7mm development you were talking about? Come come, I want primary sources. Get to it!
Never claimed there was wartime 7mm development, just said there was pre-WW1, then post-WW2. More strawmanning.

...Do you know what the word "strawman" means?
In the context of this thread you pretending I'm saying things I haven't.

...Do you know what the word "derailing" means?
In the context of this thread you whining about people you've interacted with in the past talking about things that annoy you and complaining the thread is pointless in your opinion.
 
Of course, you could just say "well I'd rather it have been 7mm", and fine, but that's not how it happened. The only way to get Studler to change his mind in this respect would probably be to convince him that one round for infantry and another for MMG use was OK... But I doubt he'd accept that line of reasoning, given his history.
 
Yes, things changed in the more than 30 years between the work on the 7mm Enfield round pre-WW1 and then the work on the .270/.280 rounds after WW2, including technology and doctrine. The choice of 7mm for it's wounding characteristics and ballistics potential compared to existing .303 was recognized pre-WW1 and post-WW2. The difference what how much and what powder to put behind as well as doctrinal changes, as magnum type bolt action rounds from 1913 were recognized during WW1.

You are drawing a line between two completely separate events with no more basis than a similarity in projectile diameter. These are completely different rounds, with completely different reasoning behind them. .303 is more similar to each of the .276 Enfield and .280 British than either are to each other, and there is virtually no connection between the two programs aside from the fact that they were both British.

Never claimed there was wartime 7mm development, just said there was pre-WW1, then post-WW2. More strawmanning.

You are very quick to accuse others of trolling. It would have been more magnanimous of you to ask why I was under that impression and then clarify what you meant. Because - and I see it as you meant it now - your original statement is fairly ambiguous as to what time period you are referring to.

In the context of this thread you whining about people you've interacted with in the past talking about things that annoy you and complaining the thread is pointless in your opinion.

Ah, tut tut. You must remember, strawmen are my thing, you said.
 

Deleted member 1487

You are drawing a line between two completely separate events with no more basis than a similarity in projectile diameter. These are completely different rounds, with completely different reasoning behind them. .303 is more similar to each of the .276 Enfield and .280 British than either are to each other, and there is virtually no connection between the two programs aside from the fact that they were both British.
I am aware they were separate programs separated by over 30 years, yet both settled on the 7mm bullet and the .280 program would have been aware of the developments of the .276 Enfield work. The experience of WW2 of course changed the demands of the round, which caused it to drop the magnum concept to gain range superiority over the enemy and instead use the ballistic/wound advantages of the 7mm to create a round with nearly the same range as the existing .303, but with lower recoil, weight, and cost. The commonality is that both programs recognized the advantages of the 7mm caliber to the existing .303 even if the rounds were designed for different purposes, suggesting that the latter program was influenced by the results of the former. Seems remarkable that both studies settled on the 7mm caliber as a replacement for the .303

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/7mm-the-ideal-military-caliber/9905/14
I forgot too the potential bridge, the British tested the Pedersen Rifle in 1932 and Vickers made a number of them, chambered in his .276 caliber. For some reason they didn't move on it, potentially due to the US moving on the .30-06 Garand, funding issues due to the Depression, problems with the rifle, or a combo of all of the above. Thing of it was they were still interested in 7mm caliber rounds and tested a few different calibers again (TonyE talks about it in comments).

Seem like for a bunch of independent efforts, they kept coming back to 7mm as a caliber regardless of the power of the round.

You are very quick to accuse others of trolling. It would have been more magnanimous of you to ask why I was under that impression and then clarify what you meant. Because - and I see it as you meant it now - your original statement is fairly ambiguous as to what time period you are referring to.
You've been putting words in my mouth and been quite rude throughout your posting here, understandably I'm not in the mood to be magnanimous and ask why you're behaving like that. At no point did I ever type anything about development during the war, so I have no idea why you were stating I was saying that other than to derail given your tone and complaints about the premise of the thread.

Ah, tut tut. You must remember, strawmen are my thing, you said.
Not strawmanning if you actually said it:
The .276 Pedersen is interesting, but not game changing. I know, I know, it's the darling of the coke-bottle-goggle-wearing small arms althist community, but it's just a round. It's not particularly different than 6.5mm Japanese or 6.5mm Carcano. Does anybody ask "duuuude, what if the US fought World War II with M1s in 6.5 Carcano?" No, because asking that is like asking what it would have been like if USGIs had gone to war with black socks instead of green socks. Basically, nothing would be different.
Unfortunately though talking about something I wasn't.
 
I am aware they were separate programs separated by over 30 years, yet both settled on the 7mm bullet

There is no "the 7mm bullet". You are looking at two men named "John" and assuming they must be related.

The experience of WW2 of course changed the demands of the round, which caused it to drop the magnum concept to gain range superiority over the enemy and instead use the ballistic/wound advantages of the 7mm to create a round with nearly the same range as the existing .303, but with lower recoil, weight, and cost.

.280 had considerably inferior range to .303, which is why the British plan was to retain the MMG in .303 caliber. "The ballistic/wound advantages of the 7mm" - now you are ascribing to a dimension magical properties. It may surprise you to learn that the .303 Mk. VII had a superior ballistic coefficient than the .280 Type C. And the 165gr .276 bullet was superior to the .303. So there really is no similarity here.

The commonality is that both programs recognized the advantages of the 7mm caliber to the existing .303 even if the rounds were designed for different purposes, suggesting that the latter program was influenced by the results of the former. Seems remarkable that both studies settled on the 7mm caliber as a replacement for the .303

It's remarkable that John is 5 feet tall and John is 8 feet tall, but folks still go on and on about how Johns are all the right size.

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/7mm-the-ideal-military-caliber/9905/14
I forgot too the potential bridge, the British tested the Pedersen Rifle in 1932 and Vickers made a number of them, chambered in his .276 caliber. For some reason they didn't move on it, potentially due to the US moving on the .30-06 Garand, funding issues due to the Depression, problems with the rifle, or a combo of all of the above. Thing of it was they were still interested in 7mm caliber rounds and tested a few different calibers again (TonyE talks about it in comments).

Yes, and TonyE (pbuh) very astutely says this:

"Post WW2 when the subject of a new calibre arose again, very extensive trials were held, again with no pre-conceived ideas about the result."

So it is sheer coincidence that these rounds happen to share one dimension of many.

You've been putting words in my mouth and been quite rude throughout your posting here, understandably I'm not in the mood to be magnanimous and ask why you're behaving like that. At no point did I ever type anything about development during the war, so I have no idea why you were stating I was saying that other than to derail given your tone and complaints about the premise of the thread.

You figure I just came here to troll you, and what better way for me to do that than by cracking open books, looking at primary sources, and sharing photos of some of the actual articles we're talking about, eh?
 
Based on conversations I've had with Russians on other forums there is a lot of use of 7.62 sniper rifles and MGs even in regular army units, while the SF does use AK47s for certain missions.

Can't comment on the AKs, but I'm not surprised that they're still using 7.62 in those roles. The 7.62x54 round is a bloody powerful thing, slightly bigger than the 7.62x51 NATO round, and it's well-suited to GPMGs and sniper rifles. But it's NOT the same round as used in the AKs, and it's not at all suitable as an assault rifle round. The fact that it continues in service in certain roles don't say anything about the suitability of the 7.62x39 round.
 
Can't comment on the AKs, but I'm not surprised that they're still using 7.62 in those roles. The 7.62x54 round is a bloody powerful thing, slightly bigger than the 7.62x51 NATO round, and it's well-suited to GPMGs and sniper rifles. But it's NOT the same round as used in the AKs, and it's not at all suitable as an assault rifle round. The fact that it continues in service in certain roles don't say anything about the suitability of the 7.62x39 round.

Anyone who confuses the 7.62x39 with 7.62x54 really has no business taking part in even a semi-serious conversation on firearms.
 
Anyone who confuses the 7.62x39 with 7.62x54 really has no business taking part in even a semi-serious conversation on firearms.
Oh, I agree. But some people seem to get fixated on the fact that they're both 7.62mm and ignore everything else! There even used to be a 7.62 pistol round - 7.62x25, I think it was. You'd look pretty silly putting that through a GPMG!
 

Deleted member 1487

Can't comment on the AKs, but I'm not surprised that they're still using 7.62 in those roles. The 7.62x54 round is a bloody powerful thing, slightly bigger than the 7.62x51 NATO round, and it's well-suited to GPMGs and sniper rifles. But it's NOT the same round as used in the AKs, and it's not at all suitable as an assault rifle round. The fact that it continues in service in certain roles don't say anything about the suitability of the 7.62x39 round.
I said 762 round, not 762x39 AK round specifically, but Russian SF does still use AK47s when they feel it is necessary.
 
I said 762 round, not 762x39 AK round specifically, but Russian SF does still use AK47s when they feel it is necessary.

If they do it's probably either to fit in covert, or for subsonic rounds. And if they are going subsonic at this point the VAL/Vintorez are much more prevalent for short range quiet fights, and appear to be seeing heavy use in Syria in urban situations. That being said, the PKM/PKP and SVD and it's variants are still the bugaboo of the US 'overmatch' crowd.
 
If they do it's probably either to fit in covert, or for subsonic rounds. And if they are going subsonic at this point the VAL/Vintorez are much more prevalent for short range quiet fights, and appear to be seeing heavy use in Syria in urban situations. That being said, the PKM/PKP and SVD and it's variants are still the bugaboo of the US 'overmatch' crowd.

Worth noting, VSS/AS Val are both rather expensive weapons, so the use of 7.62x39mm rifles may be a cost saving measure if optional subsonic capability is required. Keep in mind as well that the 7.62x39mm chambering is the only chambering in Russia right now that I am aware of which has both supersonic and subsonic loads available to it - 9x39mm is subsonic only. So that may also be a factor.

Or it could just be perception. Lots of people buy into the "biggest rock is best rock" theory of things, and there's often a significant irrational element to procurement that usually goes unspoken. If you want an absolutely brain-busting take on that, try Matthew Ford's book Weapon of Choice - just mind the beginning, it's a bit tedious.
 
Top