WI: M1 Garand designed around .250-3000 cartridge

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by tomo pauk, Mar 14, 2019.

  1. wtw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    This is all good I want to point out its 250-3000 Savage not 25-3000 in the title
     
    tomo pauk likes this.
  2. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Good eye - I've changed the designetion where I've spotted the miss.
     
    wtw likes this.
  3. EverKing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2017
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Yes, we'll save weight and some length due to the short OAL, but I was talking about cartridge width, which is the same 12mm for both the .250 and the .30-06. This was why the .30-06 Garand only held 8 rounds instead of the 10 they held in .276 and the .250 Savage would have that same limitation. I was trying to figure out how to make a thinner rifle (therefore, also less "bulk") by reducing the stack overlap and thereby reducing the receiver width without loss of magazine capacity. This version would then be the new M14, basically your post-war "M1A2"--or Mk.2 as you said--Garand altered to accept a detachable external box magazine using this thinner receiver design. I figure a 20 round box in semi-double-stack and maybe 1/4" less overall width.

    I think a high RoF belt-fed LMG is very likely in the post-war era. Something akin to the OTL M60 based on the MG.42 using this short action intermediate cartridge. It would be an incredible fire-support / SAW weapon by 1960's standards.
     
    wtw likes this.
  4. wtw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    you're welcome, I have read about the Savage 99 recently and all I can say about this is that I think if you slap the BAR mag underneath the rifle you will get something no one will match
     
  5. SwampTiger Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    Although I like the idea, the .250 Savage, aka .250-3000, does not provide a huge savings in weight in a Garand. It offers a possibility of select-fire operation. But if you wish to change the Garand, the best change is to keep the .276 Pedersen.

    The real change needed to accomplish any change in cartridge is with the Army Ordnance Board and a certain General MacArthur. If the requested change in 1932 is granted, you have a small caliber Garand.

    I personally would go for a smaller, shorter cartridge. The .25 or .30 Remington cartridges are of similar length to the Pedersen, but are 0.424 base diameter compared to 0.476 for .250 Savage and 0.450 for the Pedersen. The Remington cartridges were proofed rated for 36000 psi. You can raise the pressure of the cartridge to push the 100 grain bullet faster than the 2300 fps of the .25 Remington above 2500 fps. I have seen data for near 2800 fps in a bolt gun. However, the cases are designed for low pressure loads. The case would need some redesign with lower capacity. Design for a 1.85 inch case with a 55,000 psi limit. Now try your gun.
     
    wtw likes this.
  6. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Looking at the pictures of the BAR in 6.5mm Swedish, seems like the 30 rd magazine would not be over-the-top? Their ammo was actually slightly thicker than either .30-06 or .250-3000.
    So, proposal for another spin-off - a LMG that is based on the ALT M1 Garand, with thick & heavy barrel, bipod, 30 rd mag. Comparable to the Bren (but upside-down and lighter) or RPK.
     
    wtw likes this.
  7. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    So like the OTL first attempt at a Garand Carbine? The OTL .30-06 cartridge was too powerful for a folding stock, cut down carbine.

    Would you be opposed to having a necked down .250 Pedersen?

    If there was a .256 Pedersen in the 1920s, why not suggest that we have a .250 Pedersen with boat tail?

    I don't think any of the discussion so far here has been derailing at all.

    It would be a full on RPK, not equivalent to the Bren or even BAR.
     
    wtw likes this.
  8. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    No probems with that, either. I've choosen the .250-3000 for this thread beacuse of two/three things - it was historically available, and it will make automatic fire from a hand-held rifle both useful and possible.
     
    wtw likes this.
  9. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    The Pedersen cartridge is thinner and overall lower capacity, so to get exactly the same power you probably need to raise the pressure with different powder. Though with an M1 ball style bullet in .250 caliber may well not need that extra velocity to be effective down range due to the aerodynamics of the round. The recoil would be even milder and with the thinner case you could fit more rounds per en bloc clip or magazine.
     
    wtw likes this.
  10. EverKing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2017
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    The more I think about it, the more I think the .250-3000 is just fine (with a suitably heavier and longer bullet in that 120gr +/- range). The case design is obviously one of the best considering it is the parent of the .308 Winchester (7.62 x 51 NATO) and therefore all of its derivatives. About the only real improvement would be to reduce the case taper and increase the shoulder, as done with the .250 Ackley Improved. Sure, it has the 12mm rim diameter like the .30-06, but history has shown that you can design a rifle around that without too much trouble--it is really only in the Garand that it seems overly "fat" and that could be as much because of stock design as anything--and that complaint may just be a personal one for me rather than a real problem. To correct that in the Garand-style rifle, you can update the receiver to a full steel frame and get rid of the wood stock around it, although that may make it a tad heavier so it is a bit of a trade off.
     
    wtw likes this.
  11. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Rechambering of MGs was never contemplated for the .276, why would it be here?

    And as far as new Cartriges, no .30-06 made before 1939 was ever sent to a combat zone.

    The M1 Ball and M1928(and earlier) was never put into Garand Clips for Service Rifles, just M2 Ball and Blanks for Grenade launching
     
    wtw and tomo pauk like this.
  12. SwampTiger Kicked

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2016
    I do note the Garand had less cartridges in the magazine with .30-06 than with .276 Pedersen. However, I doubt the reduction of two rounds was caused by the diameter of the cases. Five .276 cartridges high equals 2.250 inches. The .30-06 version with four cartridges was 1.905 inches. Noting these were only one of the two columns, I will concede an additional half a diameter for 2.475 in .276 and 2.142 in .30-06. If you then add an additional cartridge to the .30-06 stack, it should result in a height of 2.378. An additional cartridge of .30-06, for a total of nine will easily fit in the space for ten double stack .276 Pedersen. The thickness increase of the magazine will need at most 0.046 inches (under 1.2 mm). So, why the drop to eight cartridges?

    I do agree the change to an automatic rifle in the early 1930's drives other nations to focus more quickly on getting their autoloader projects on a faster track. I can think of at least nine European nations working on autoloaders before WW2.

    I do not see the BAR as a belt fed light MG. The US Army had shown no interest in this mechanism. It would take a different input to change that mindset. A Marine interest maybe? An acknowledgement of the various European improvements?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2019
    wtw likes this.
  13. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    John Garand and his Rifle Prototype , the M1920
    [​IMG] modified BAR magazine, Rotating Bolt, and Primer actuated

    What's that?
    Let Gun Jesus explain
     
    wtw likes this.
  14. tomo pauk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Thank you. Everyday is a learning day.
     
  15. Questerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio
    Congress wasn’t going to approve the expense in the 1930’s. By the time 1940 rolls around and more funding for the Army is available, they aren’t going to adopt a new round because they need to churn out existing weapons as fast as they can.
     
  16. Questerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio
    Doctrinally it would be pretty ridiculous to have a squad’s rifles and their LMG/Automatic Rifle in two different calibers.
     
    wtw likes this.
  17. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    You mean like how NATO had both 5.56 and 7.62, and Pact forces had 7.62x39 and 7.62x54R?

    Yeah, thats crazy talk.
     
    wtw likes this.
  18. marathag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    But the Army foisted off all their M1 Ball ammo to the Navy, as the Army thought it too powerful for existing shooting ranges, and it did not work well in the production series Garand Rifles anyway.

    Any Garand would have not used existing stocks of ammo, stocks that were mostly stored in belted or M1903 Strippers.
    MacArthur was the one who killed the 276 program, not Congress.
     
    wtw likes this.
  19. Questerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio
    The Pact LMG (the RPK) fired the same 7.62x39 round as the AK.

    Various NATO LMGs fired the same 7.62 round as their rifles, and when time came to change to 5.56, the LMGs were changed too.
     
    wtw likes this.
  20. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    BTW the US army did end up testing a 6.35x48mm cartridge in 1959:
    http://www.municion.org/Win/25Fat.htm
    http://www.ammo-one.com/6-35x48mmFA59.html
    https://www.gunauction.com/buy/7417078
    [​IMG]