WI: 7.62x51mm never becomes NATO standard

Deleted member 1487

Doubts about the lethal effect of the .276 round were strong enough to result in extensive tests in June and July 1928 by the "Pig Board" (so called because lethality tests were carried out on anaesthetized pigs). The Board found all three rounds (.256, .276, and .30) were lethal out to 1,200 yards (1100m), and wounding ability out to 300 or 400 yards (270-365m) was comparable. The "tiny" .256 caliber round was perceived to be the deadliest of them all.
I thought they said the 7mm was the deadliest, the 6.5mm the best ballistically.
 
I thought they said the 7mm was the deadliest, the 6.5mm the best ballistically.

"At 300 yards the caliber .256, 125-grain flat-base bullet gave by far the most severe wounds in all parts of the animal. All calibers caused very severe trauma, but the .256 seemed to be in a class of its own....
In referring to the table of 600 yard firing, it appears that the caliber .256, taking all wounds into consideration, gave up more pounds of energy to the tissues than any of the bullets at this range..."


"Hatcher's Book Of The Garand" on pg.81
 

Deleted member 1487

"At 300 yards the caliber .256, 125-grain flat-base bullet gave by far the most severe wounds in all parts of the animal. All calibers caused very severe trauma, but the .256 seemed to be in a class of its own....
In referring to the table of 600 yard firing, it appears that the caliber .256, taking all wounds into consideration, gave up more pounds of energy to the tissues than any of the bullets at this range..."


"Hatcher's Book Of The Garand" on pg.81
So why even go to the 7mm round?
 
So why even go to the 7mm round?

Rather than let testing and facts win out, the 'Bigger has got to be better' took hold, forgetting the reasoning for abandoning the .45-70, and the .50-70 and .58 Rimfire before that, in the first place. Bigger=better wasn't the case for bullets, no matter what the Generals thought.

Had the steels and smokeless powder been more developed, the USN hit the right choice with the 6mm Lee right off the bat, for a deadly, flat shooting cartridge.
 

Deleted member 1487

Rather than let testing and facts win out, the 'Bigger has got to be better' took hold, forgetting the reasoning for abandoning the .45-70, and the .50-70 and .58 Rimfire before that, in the first place. Bigger=better wasn't the case for bullets, no matter what the Generals thought.

Had the steels and smokeless powder been more developed, the USN hit the right choice with the 6mm Lee right off the bat, for a deadly, flat shooting cartridge.
Instead taking until the 1970s and computing the ideal round and getting the 6mm SAW only to not adopt it and instead stick to the NATO standard.
 
That was the Pedersen Rifle due to the toggle delay system and they hadn't thought of the grooved chamber to prevent the rounds from sticking.
It was not an issue in the Garand at all and the .276 outperformed the .30-06 version quite handily in testing.
At 1000m, well beyond most people's ability to actually see a target in battlefield conditions, even a horse, the .276 actually had more killing energy than the 1906 .30 bullet (which the M2 Ball that was used in WW2 was designed to match).

The waxed bullets worked really well. Some recent shooting (iirc TFB) with 1930's waxed rounds in a Pedersen resulted in zero extraction issues and they worked as advertised.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ok, looking into what little I can find on the 'Pig Board' study it seems like the smallest bullet pushed the fastest did the most damage at 300m, but the requirements were for longer ranges as well, so I think the flat based 6.5mm bullet petered out compared to the others at longer ranges.
 

Deleted member 1487

The waxed bullets worked really well. Some recent shooting (iirc TFB) with 1930's waxed rounds in a Pedersen resulted in zero extraction issues and they worked as advertised.
Sure, but the issue was in battlefield conditions and sustained fire the combo of heat and wax would cause build up from the melting wax AND dust/gunk that bonds to it. Plus the use of corrosive primers is going to cause some issues as well.
 
Sure, but the issue was in battlefield conditions and sustained fire the combo of heat and wax would cause build up from the melting wax AND dust/gunk that bonds to it. Plus the use of corrosive primers is going to cause some issues as well.

All of the military trials never determined that wax build up would be or was an issue, and the wax used had an extremely high melt point and was not susceptible to attracting dirt. All the problems with the Pedersen were more to do with rifle and not the ammo. The only concern ever expressed was worries the wax coating would not remain effective over time, concerns the recent test firings carried out by the TFB demonstrated were unfounded.

Forgotten Weapons

Shooting a .276 Pedersen

June 30, 2015 Ian McCollum garand development, Semiauto Rifles, Slow motion, Video 57

Thanks to Alex C. at TheFirearmBlog, I recently had an opportunity to do some shooting with a .276 caliber Vickers-Pedersen model PB rifle. This was one of the very first rifles Vickers built when they though the Pedersen would be adopted by the US military and couple be further marketed worldwide – after only about 16 PB rifles they made some changes and started making the improved PA model instead (the two main improvements being the use of a reversible clip and the addition of a mechanism to allow ejection of a partially-full clip).

Anyway, in addition to Alex and myself, we were joined by Nathaniel F (a TFB writer) and Patrick R (from the TFBTV video channel). Between us we put about 60 rounds of original 1920s wax-lubricated Frankfort Arsenal .276 Pedersen ammo through the rifle. We both put together videos on the gun – you can see the TFBTV piece here, and mine right here:

<iframe width="500" height="281" src="
" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My overall impression of the gun was very positive. I was frankly pretty surprised that the gun, the clip, and the ammunition all not only worked independently, but worked almost flawlessly together. In the 60 rounds, we had only one malfunction (aside from the trigger reset peculiarity of the gun) and that was simply the clip not fully ejecting once when empty.

The inevitably question is, should the US have chosen the Pedersen over the Garand? Hard to say, frankly, without being able to have experienced a .276 caliber Garand (and if anyone has one they would be willing to shoot, let me know!) The .276 Pedersen is a nicer gun to shoot than the .30-06 Garand, but that’s really not a fair comparison. In addition, battlefield reliability and production complexity are just as important (if not moreso) than how nice a rifle is to shoot on the square range. The Pedersen definitely seems like it would be susceptible to dirt and dust, although the Garand is too, more than most people would like to acknowledge. My gut feeling is to give the Ordnance Board the benefit of the doubt at this point (they certainly made the right decision on automatic pistols with the Browning over the Savage).
 

Deleted member 1487

It's probably balancing the ability to penetrate armor with wounding capability. If the .256 is causing more wounding than a larger caliber bullet, it's probably fragmenting.
Maybe not. It could be tumbling rapidly due to it's length, diameter, and speed. The others are heavier and as a result more stable, so more likely to just penetrate without being deflected.
 

Deleted member 1487

Everything used corrosive primers until the M1 Carbine, that's something everybody had to live with
Sure, which would cause issues with any sort of melting coating.

In addition, battlefield reliability and production complexity are just as important (if not moreso) than how nice a rifle is to shoot on the square range. The Pedersen definitely seems like it would be susceptible to dirt and dust, although the Garand is too, more than most people would like to acknowledge. My gut feeling is to give the Ordnance Board the benefit of the doubt at this point (they certainly made the right decision on automatic pistols with the Browning over the Savage).
Your own article quote ^. Not great for melting coating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1678162
Per the patent for the .276 Pedersen ammo:
I have found that a properly selected hard wax may serve both for the protective covering for the cartridge above mentioned and also when the cartridge is fired it will be melted by the heat and pressure so as to serve as a lubricant in rendering the extraction of the empty case easy and uniform.

Some of the characteristics of ceresin which render it so desirable for the purposes in view are that it is hard and non-tacky at normal temperatures, melting somewhere between C. to 80 C.


Your article mentioning the dirt and dust susceptibility for both the Pedersen and Garand rifles coupled with the wax melting during firing will certainly caused some problems, which the evaluation board understood, having experience with WW1 trench conditions and even just the open field conditions in the last 100 days of the war. The wax wouldn't attract dust specifically when in it's room temperature state, but battlefield conditions with a hot weapon from firing is an entirely different ballgame as your article explicitly states. That is why the fluted chamber was the preferred way to deal with the delayed blowback type weapon. Also it should be noted that lacquered cartridges made of steel have a problem of build up with heavy firing and that is with a substance better able to handle the heat of a hot, potentially dusty chamber.
 
Sure, which would cause issues with any sort of melting coating.


Your own article quote ^. Not great for melting coating:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
https://patents.google.com/patent/US1678162
Per the patent for the .276 Pedersen ammo:



Your article mentioning the dirt and dust susceptibility for both the Pedersen and Garand rifles coupled with the wax melting during firing will certainly caused some problems, which the evaluation board understood, having experience with WW1 trench conditions and even just the open field conditions in the last 100 days of the war. The wax wouldn't attract dust specifically when in it's room temperature state, but battlefield conditions with a hot weapon from firing is an entirely different ballgame as your article explicitly states. That is why the fluted chamber was the preferred way to deal with the delayed blowback type weapon. Also it should be noted that lacquered cartridges made of steel have a problem of build up with heavy firing and that is with a substance better able to handle the heat of a hot, potentially dusty chamber.

However, I have seen no report from a military trial that identified a specific issue with the waxed cartridges in actual trials conditions, which would have included simulated combat (mud/dust), rapid fire and extended firing trials, and none seem to note a build up of wax in the chamber or handling in hot conditions as issues. The main problems with the Pedersen rifle was deemed to be the action was likely more prone to dust/mud ingress than the Garand. A lot of countries were interested in and tried the Pedersen in everything from informal presentations to full on military trials including the UK and Japan and I have not seen any actual issues related to the ammo being a reason for rejection.

Certainly, the optimum and lowest cost option is a fluted barrel.
 

Deleted member 1487

However, I have seen no report from a military trial that identified a specific issue with the waxed cartridges in actual trials conditions, which would have included simulated combat (mud/dust), rapid fire and extended firing trials, and none seem to note a build up of wax in the chamber or handling in hot conditions as issues. The main problems with the Pedersen rifle was deemed to be the action was likely more prone to dust/mud ingress than the Garand. A lot of countries were interested in and tried the Pedersen in everything from informal presentations to full on military trials including the UK and Japan and I have not seen any actual issues related to the ammo being a reason for rejection.

Certainly, the optimum and lowest cost option is a fluted barrel.
Do you even have the full report from the trials? I can't find them online.
 
It's probably balancing the ability to penetrate armor with wounding capability. If the .256 is causing more wounding than a larger caliber bullet, it's probably fragmenting.
Navy originally went with the 6mm Lee because it had good armor penetration

The .256 was similar to the later 25-06. With a 125gr. loading, was 2,650fps

From the Lee Navy wiki
Firing a 112-grain (0.26 oz; 7.3 g) bullet at 2,560 ft/s (780 m/s) from a 28 in (710 mm) barrel,[9][16] the 6 mm U.S.N. was the highest-velocity cartridge used by any military force at the time of its adoption. Designed to achieve better penetration than the Army's .30 Army cartridge used in the Model 1892/98 (Krag) rifle, the round was intended to perforate the hulls of small enemy craft such as patrol and torpedo boats, and could penetrate 13 in (330 mm) of soft wood at 700 yd (640 m),[16] 0.5 in (13 mm) of low-carbon steel at 10 feet (3 m); 0.375-inch (9.5 mm) of ordinary boiler plate at 100 ft (30 m), or a .276 in (7.0 mm)-thick suspended chrome steel alloy boiler plate at 150 ft (46 m).[9][12] The 112-grain (0.26 oz; 7.3 g) round-nosed bullet had a flatter trajectory than its 135-grain (0.31 oz; 8.7 g) predecessor at all ranges up to 500 yards; above this distance, the heavier bullet began to show an advantage.[
 
Last edited:
Do you even have the full report from the trials? I can't find them online.

Me neither - no doubt they are there somewhere but I have found nothing that suggests the waxed ammo was a reason for rejection. I am pretty certain that had the ammo been an actual issue it would have been trumpeted as a reason not to buy it whereas the only objection to waxed ammo seems to be concerns it would not store well, also the US Army was not happy that they would have to pay Pedersen a licence fee for each rifle whereas Garand was an employee of Springfield Armory and therefore was a civil servant and just got a salary. Another point was that Pedersen suggested that the only way to get a semi-auto rifle was by using smaller/lower power ammo which the Czech ZH29 in 7.92 showed was not true and Garand later showed his rifle could use 30-06 whereas Pedersens could not.
 

Deleted member 1487

Me neither - no doubt they are there somewhere but I have found nothing that suggests the waxed ammo was a reason for rejection. I am pretty certain that had the ammo been an actual issue it would have been trumpeted as a reason not to buy it whereas the only objection to waxed ammo seems to be concerns it would not store well, also the US Army was not happy that they would have to pay Pedersen a licence fee for each rifle whereas Garand was an employee of Springfield Armory and therefore was a civil servant and just got a salary. Another point was that Pedersen suggested that the only way to get a semi-auto rifle was by using smaller/lower power ammo which the Czech ZH29 in 7.92 showed was not true and Garand later showed his rifle could use 30-06 whereas Pedersens could not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_rifle#Further_tests_and_a_final_decision
The Board found fault with the requirement for lubricated cartridge cases (seemingly regardless of the technical merits of Mr. Pedersen’s case treatment concept), poor trigger pull, and the upward break of the breech mechanism. A more substantive complaint had to do with the complete exposure of the breech mechanism when held open—the Board correctly cited the vulnerability of the rifle to mud and dust while in this condition. The Board also reported slamfires (the Garand T3E2 was reported to dimple cartridge primers with its firing pin, but did not slamfire).

In the end, funding issues forced a decision. Faced with the possible loss of funds already authorized by Congress, the Board met for one more time in January 1932 and decided to recommend approval of the T3E2 (the .276 Garand) for limited procurement by the Army and to continue development of the T1E1 (the .30-'06 Garand). With this action, the Pedersen rifle was effectively dropped from consideration.

So failings with the Pedersen rifle and the waxed ammo (not waxed in the .276 Garand) was a deal breaker in the end.
 
The board didn't like lubricated cases not that they thought it was an actual issue. As I said the main implied gripes seems to be concerns about the effect of prolonged storage on the coating and possibly the additional costs on manufacture of the ammo and scalability of manufacture if required.
 
Top