http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British
bear with me, please, we'll get to a direct comparison of the .276 pedersen and the .30-06 cartridges below & following, but, a little background about the acknowledged "big" infantry rounds, the .303 & the .30-06.--
though the .30-06 as now loaded commercially is a very powerful round, the version of the cartridge that was utilized in by united states as an infantry rifle round in two world wars was loaded to a far more "sedate" level. the basic infantry round was adopted in 1906, and utilized a 150 grain bullet loaded to about 2700 feet per second velocity. still a very potent round by most measures, it was loaded about 250 feet per second less than current commercial loadings using bullets of comparable weight.
the various versions of the british infantry rifle, referred to as the lee enfield in the u.s., fought world wars i & ii with the mark vii and mark viii cartridges, loaded with 174 & 175 grain bullets, to muzzle velocities of 2450 to 2500 feet per second. these cartridges were generally regarded as being a bit less potent than the .30-06, but were nonetheless potent, and quite lethal and dependable killers.
prior to wwii the .276 pedersen was developed on a parallel track with the rifle that became the m-1 garand, and was adopted along with the garand in the late 1930's, ... , for a while. story has it that the intervention of none other than general douglas maccarther determined that the m-1 would be used w/ the .30-06 cartridge, and the m-1 garand was adapted to fire the larger round. maccarther probably had legitimate logistics reasons for his decision with war looming, but it is also more than a little likely that he was wedded to the notion that the .308 bullet was necessary for combat infantry use as opposed to a smaller cartridge. as events associated with the british efforts to get the .280 british approved as a nato standard after ww ii would indicate.
the .276 pederson cartridge would become a footnote.
the same fate awaited the .280 british, although under somewhat different circumstances.
the british military also did some experimentation with infantry rifle and cartridge after wwi, and showed early evidence of fondness towards developing a .284 caliber weapon, but, the usual dithering and delay demanded for logistical reasons that britain fight wwii with the lee enfield rifle and the .303 cartridge.
and, here the story gets pretty interesting. britain did considerable design and development work on two very similar cartridges, called the .270 and .280 british. after considerable work, the british actually adopted the .280 british cartridge to be used in the fn fal rifle.
two things intervened to prevent this from occurring. the united states intervened, insisting that the n.a.t.o. standard cartridge be of .308 caliber. and, the united states had its way, principally because winston churchill thought that standardization between the allies was desirable logistically and strategically, and directed the u.s. military to adopt the 7.62x51mm cartridge, now also known as the .308 winchester in civilian circles.
the .280 british cartridge was dropped, and the fn fal was adapted to fire the larger round. both the 7.62mm nato and the fn fal rifle became standard weapons of choice in the free world. the u.s. reneged on a deal to use the fn fal, and adopted the m-14 rifle, a near clone of the m-1 garand instead. as it turned out, the 7.62x51mm nato as used was nearly as powerful as the standard .30-06 it replaced.
there was no small irony in this latter circumstance, because one of the stated goals in developing the new infantry cartridge was to make it suitable for fully automatic fire in the newer rifles developed, to increase the fire power of infantry without need for the deployment of the light machine guns the allies had used in wwii. as it turned out, neither the m-14 nor the fn fal were very suitable rifles in fully automatic fire mode, because the heavy recoil of the 7.62mm nato made them very difficult to aim and control in full auto.
well, back to square one, as they say.
these factors led to the development of the 5.56mm nato by another generation of military thinkers, a circumstances not entirely a happy one.
and, it also led to another injustice, an intellectual and factual one, not of historical or political dimension. and that is, the .276 pedersen and the .280 british are both regarded as ballistic pipsqueaks, as well have having been relegated to the dust bin of historical memory. and, this is too bad, as both were very capable rounds, and would have fulfilled the role of "intermediate" infantry and assault round weapons very well, and far better than the world standard 7.62x39mm russian, otherwise known as the m43 is soviet block nations. (i am a fan of the current 6.8mm remington spc cartridge, and it is a good cartridge, better than the russian round by any measure, yet, it must be admitted, that the 6.8mm remington is not the cartridge that either the .276 pedersen or the .280 british were, and the .280 british was a bit more capable than the pedersen, though it was by a slim margin.)
as a matter of fact, a fairly cogent argument can be made that as designed for use in an infantry semi-automatic weapon, designed for mobility and firepower without overpowering the user in semi automatic fire, that both the .276 pedersen and the .280 british were superior to the .30-06 and the .308 winchester as they were designed and as their use in the infantry rifles dictated.
i believe that our friend major general julian s. hatcher made such an argument in his wonderful book, "hatchers notebook."
the following is taken from chapter xvii of "hatcher's notebook", "random notes on various subjects," subpart 16, ballistic data, page 401 of the national rifle association edition, odysseus editions, inc., 1966--
pedersen rifle, caliber .276 [.284] (0.276-a-2)
125 grain bullet -- p.c. 48, (a.p.g.
instrumental velocity at 78 feet = [2690 f/s][muzzle velocity] (august 25, 1927
b.c. for j (v) = 0.2469 when v is greater than velocity of sound
= 0.4260 when v is less than velocity of sound
range, yards angle of departure time of flight/s remaining velocity maximum ordinate
min. of angle in time feet/s ft./lbs in feet
100 2.3 .115 2514 1758 .07
200 5.0 .239 2345 1529 .23
300 8.0 .371 2180 1322 .57
400 11.2 .514 2020 1135 1.09
500 14.6 .669 1864 966 1.82
600 18.7 .837 1711 814 2.84
700 23.1 1.021 1562 679 4.21
800 28.1 1.222 1419 560 6.00
900 33.9 1.444 1284 450 8.27
1000 40.5 1.691 1160 374 11.54
[end chart for .276 pedersen. note, "angle of departure" in minutes refers to the elevation of the bore above horizontal, to give the bullet sufficient "arc" to travel the required distance of the bullet's horizontal path in yards. think of it as the "elevation of a cannon barrel." but note, a degree of angle is comprised of 60 minutes: so to shoot a bullet even at moderate velocity 1,000 yards, the rifle barrel is not elevated even one degree, ... , about 2/3's of a degree in this case. that's not very much, is it.]
.....................
[begin chart for .30-06 springfield cartridge. please keep in mind, that the .30-06 is generally regarded as the most powerful infantry round adopted in modern times, and probably more powerful than the 7.92x57mm german mauser. it was easily more powerful than the .303 british, comfortably so.]
caliber .30 [.308] bullet, 1906 service ammunition, (a.p.g., md.
m.v. [muzzle velocity] 2700 fps c variable, starting w/ 0.410 (april, 1926
(h-1-0.30/.28
range, yards angle of departure time of flight/s remaining velocity maximum ordinate
min. of angle in time feet/s ft./lbs in feet
100 2.5 0.12 2481 2051 0.06
200 5.2 0.25 2267 1712 0.27
300 8.2 0.38 2059 1412 0.62
400 11.6 0.53 1858 1150 1.1
500 15.6 0.70 1664 923 2.0
600 20.4 0.89 1481 731 3.3
700 25.9 1.11 1315 576 5.0
800 32.5 1.35 1174 459 7.4
900 40.3 1.62 1065 378 10.8
1000 49.4 1.91 989 326 15.2
[end chart for ballistics of the .30-06 government round adopted in 1906, and called the 1906. i want to emphasize something here. these are ballistics tables prepared by the united states government, probably army ordnance, and such as were published by a retired major general officer who worked in ballistics and production of military small arms, supervising various functions of the springfield armory when it was a united states armory, and supervising the production of ammunition for the army at the frankford ammunition plant, a u.s. govt. plant.]
[and, i would bring your attention to the initials "a.p.g." & "a.p.g., md." at the top of the separate charts. that stands for "aberdeen proving grounds, maryland" where these ballistics test were performed and tabulated, or i will eat my hat. these statistics are not cooked. period.]
let's look at a couple things in these charts.--
first, let us look to the comparative weights of the bullets, the .276 pedersen being a bullet of .284" in diameter, and weighing 125 grains, the .30-06 model 1906 cartridge having a bullet of .308" in diameter, and weight 150 grains.
both leaving the muzzle of their respective arms at similar velocity, at 2690 fps for the .276 pedersen, and 2700 fps for the 1906 .30-06 bullet.
look at the striking energies and velocities of the two bullets at 400 yards, a fairly convenient yardstick for the effectiveness of an infantry round. at 400 yards, the .276 pedersen bullet is traveling at 2020 feet per second, and carrying 1135 foot pounds of energy. at 400 yards, the model 1906 .30-06 bullet is traveling at 1858 feet per second, and carrying 1150 foot pounds of energy. the .308" caliber bullet has yielded a clear velocity edge to the .284" caliber bullet, but still retains a slight edge in foot pounds because of its greater weight of 25 grains.
by 500 yards the .308" caliber bullet has yielded its advantage in foot pounds of energy, as well as in velocity. the .276" bullet is traveling 1864 feet per second carrying 966 pounds feet of energy, while the .308" bullet has slowed to 1664 feet per second carrying 923 pounds feet of energy.
in the united states it is generally held that in order for a rifle cartridge to be a humane killer of deer, it must pack around 1,000 pounds feet of energy to assure sufficient penetration to vital organs and vascular structures, and to assure destruction of them when it hits them. and, you may reasonably be assured that if a round has enough "oomph" to humanely kill a deer, a very sturdy animal indeed, it may be counted upon as quite lethal against a human adversary.
these charts assure that being possessed of an adequately designed bullet, that the .276 pedersen would have been a very lethal device upon a modern battlefield involving a conflict between rival groups of infantry. this is more or less assured, because the .30-06 and the .303 british sure as hell were.
whatever we may say of the .276 pedersen we may also say of the .280 british, as it too was a .284" diameter bullet of slightly greater weight and slightly greater velocity.
simply put, the .276 pedersen and the .280 british are two of the finest intermediate to full power infantry rounds never to see the battlefield. used in the semi-automatic battlefield rifle format, such as a suitably scaled fn fal or scaled m-14 type rifle, they would have been indeed formidable in terms of lethality, and far superior to the rounds and rifles adopted in their stead in terms of weight, mobility, and quite likely accuracy being far easier for the average infantryman to shoot comfortably, & without being punished by the heavier recoil of the rounds that kept them from the battlefield, that being the .30-06, the 7.62x51mm nato, and the .303 british. (i have always liked the johnson semi-automatic rifle, model of 1941, and i can only believe that the rifle properly scaled to the .276 pedersen or the .280 british, or, even in this day to the 6.8mm remington spc, would be just about ideal for an infantryman. i won't live long enough to find out, i am afraid.)
i don't know if they would have been flexible enough to have carried out the full automatic fire requirements of the modern infantry squad, .e.g, whether in full auto they would have been competent squad automatic weapons. i do know that the weapons using the above rounds in the main battle rifles were not.
these charts speak eloquently that politics and logistics and production needs kept these rounds from being adopted by the u.s. and british military, because in terms of ballistics they were superior to the intended task of arming the modern infantryman, than to the rifles and cartridges which did.
it is a pity.
and, you are going to have to argue to you are blue in the face, to convince me that these cartridges were pipsqueaks, and not suitable for the modern battlefield.
john jay @ 12.24.2011
p.s. i want to point out something to you that you have glossed over, in all probability. and that is the little column, "angle of departure in minutes." my guess is, you said "huh," or "so what?", and skipped looking at these values entirely.
there is a reason the u.s. army and major general julian hatcher derived the values, and also why they published them. and, it goes to this. this value is intimately related to the task of the infantryman in aiming his rifle at an enemy soldier at extended distance, because it relates directly to how much he has to adjust his rifle sights to zero in on that enemy soldier.
the greater the value, or number, of minutes, the higher the rear sight of the infantry weapon must be raised in order for that soldier to correctly aim his rifle at him. and, the greater the number, the higher the arc the bullet must describe in order to reach a target, and the steeper the angle of descent a bullet makes at the end of the "arc," (actually, i think a trajectory is more like an ellipse, but, i am tired, and i am not gonna check on that. you get the point, i think, even if inexactly drawn. pun intended.)
what this means precisely is this. the less sight correction that is needed, the more tolerant of slight errors in aim is the flight of the bullet. the steeper the angle of descent, the less tolerant is the trajectory to sighting errors.
it may seem a small matter in these charts, but the fact is, the .276 pedersen was easier to aim and hit with by an infantryman, as a matter of mathematical determination, than a weapon firing the 1906 version of the .30-06 cartridge.
that is just simple irrefutable truth.
the .276 pedersen was hardly an underpowered pipsqueak of a round. it was superior to, and more powerful in some respects, than the .30-06 springfield 1906 round. and that round equipped itself nobly on battlefields in two world wars.
Comments