OT - GI's shoulda been issued .270's !

[JohndeFresno]

Logistics is a big problem with large armies. But wouldn't the GI would have fared much better in WWII and Korea with a semi-auto .270 Winchester or similar rifle?

In his landmark book, General Hatcher stated that Army tests led to the conclusion that the .256 caliber (6.5mm) was the “worst killer” due to keyholing of the all-metal bullets. Viet Nam vets – doesn’t that claim sound familiar, from when the .223 was touted as being the deadly solution?

Hatcher went on to claim that the .276 caliber was close behind, and a better overall choice. Remember that the .270 Winchester and its descendents (like the 7mm Magnum) is a .277 caliber round!

Pg 43-44 of the “Firearms Classics Library of the National Rifle Association” edition, © 1996 by Odysseus Editions, Inc., “Hatcher’s Notebook” by Julian S. Hatcher says on ppg. 43-44 (52-53 of the pdf book in the link below):
http://www.box.net/shared/u9evzkxtge
((Warning - Above document is huge and takes a while to download))

Chapter 4. Automatic Gun Mechanisms
Pedersen Semiautomatic Rifle

“Up to that time, all the semi-automatic rifles submitted for test had been required to be of .30 caliber, adapted to use the service cartridge. Mr. Pedersen presented very convincing arguments to the effect that the .30 caliber cartridge was more powerful than was required for the shoulder rifle, and that to reduce the caliber to the ballistically ideal 7 mm or .276 would result in a number of advantages, to wit; saving in weight; saving in material, reduction of heating in rapid fire; ability of the soldier to have a larger number of cartridges available; etc.

“The Army made an extended study of this question, including a series of firings at live animals with .256, .276, and .30 caliber bullets. It was found that the .256 was apparently the worst killer, on account of the fact that the bullet had less diameter, hence less gyrostatic stability, and would yaw badly upon impact, and make very lethal wounds. The .276 was found to be about as effective, and as it had certain advantages over the .256, its adoption was decided on for the new semi-automatic rifle that it was hoped would soon be adopted.”

In a succeeding paragraph, Hatcher explains that “a high command decision was made not to change the caliber of the service cartridge, and the final action to adopt this gun [the Pederson gun] was never taken.”

[Otto]

That is strange. No ballistics expertise here, but I would have thought that, given an fmj bullet, keyholing or tumbling would actually increase wounding capacity.

EDIT
I am confused.

The Army made an extended study of this question, including a series of firings at live animals with .256, .276, and .30 caliber bullets. It was found that the .256 was apparently the worst killer, on account of the fact that the bullet had less diameter, hence less gyrostatic stability, and would yaw badly upon impact, and make very lethal wounds. The .276 was found to be about as effective, and as it had certain advantages over the .256, its adoption was decided on for the new semi-automatic rifle that it was hoped would soon be adopted.”

It is a poor performer because it produces more severe wounds?

[JohndeFresno]

Otto,

That is what he is saying - "worst" meaning "most damaging to the enemy."

[Otto]

Otto,

That is what he is saying - "worst" meaning "most damaging to the enemy."

I get it now.

EDIT
Maybe someone should try to come up with something like a new cartridge which fires a .277-caliber projectile, but which can fit into an AR-15 magazine. Then the M-16/M-4 family guns could be upgraded by replacing the upper half.

I bet the Army would never go for it.

Something about history being repititious...

[wm]

Or you could go all the way back to WWI and say that wouldn't the doughboys been better off if the '03 Springfield had been adopted as a 7X57mm or 6.5X55mm. Those were the original Mauser cartridges of the mid 1890s.....you know the ones we have been trying to reinvent with the 7mm-08, 7-30 Waters, 260 Rem, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel etc.

Had the depression not ruined the ecconmies of Great Britain and the US there is a chance that both nations would have attempted to down size their military caliber rifles to .27 caliber cartridges. Both were actively investigating it.

The only issue I can see is that the performance of Browning 30 caliber machine guns used by air craft and against them might have been negatively impacted by move from a heavy 30 caliber bullet to a lighter bullet.

Wm

[TedH]

Maybe someone should try to come up with something like a new cartridge which fires a .277-caliber projectile, but which can fit into an AR-15 magazine. Then the M-16/M-4 family guns could be upgraded by replacing the upper half.

...

They already have, the 6.8mm Remington SPC.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?p ... ber=375670

[Otto]

Maybe someone should try to come up with something like a new cartridge which fires a .277-caliber projectile, but which can fit into an AR-15 magazine. Then the M-16/M-4 family guns could be upgraded by replacing the upper half.

...

They already have, the 6.8mm Remington SPC.

http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?p ... ber=375670

I know, that is what I was getting at. And predictably, the Army has reacted with a yawn, except maybe for a few HSLD types.

There is also the .264-cal 6.5mm Grendel and, I think, one other new cartridge?

[Nath]

The Boars in South Africa were whooping the British with their 7mil Mausers over our 303 big time!

Nath.

[Rusty]

I don't think it really maters. In another two years we'll just be sending greeting cards anyway. Bullets will be a thing of the past.

[Technical Director]

Logistics is a big problem with large armies. But wouldn't the GI would have fared much better in WWII and Korea with a semi-auto .270 Winchester or similar rifle?

John, I would answer both and yes and a no to your question.

I would say "yes" because of all of the reasons you listed in the entirety of your quote. Today and the future is another time when compared to WWII and the Korean conflict whereas something as a .270 cartridge of sorts now seems more applicable.

I would say "no" because of the following reasons:
* During WWII, not everyone had been provided with sufficient training and shooting time at the range.
* Not all shooting situations were necesarrily close up and personal as with the Pacific theater. There were still cause and need for a long distant cartridge as in the European theater when not addressing the urban areas.
* Not all of your intended targets were in the open and available of receiving more than one shot/hit.
* Not all of your intended targets were drug free; ie Nazi meth labs in the field, thus requiring substantial one time hit knock down power.

Sometimes it was not the ability/capability of the cartridge, but effectiveness of a particular fire arm that provided the success of a soldier. For example, the 45 ACP is a great catridge, but accuracy drops off past 50 yards (and drops like heck at 100 yards). So the Tommy Guns had their limitations due to acurate range of the 45 ACP, certainly not with their rate of fire. However, you will find that some of Merril's Marauders favored using the Japanese Nambu Light Machine gun for jungle work versus their American issued small arms weapons. Not everyone was initally able to obtain the M1 Carbine for their use.

Also another thing to consider is the size of the weapon as not everyone able built to carry and shoot the BAR in either conflict listed above. However, it provided more than adequate knock down power. So with that said the physical configuration of the weapon platform needs to be sized to fit both the soldier and terrain the soldier is being deployed.

Another thing to consider is what type of tactics will be used in deployment of your forces. This will have bearing on both the weapon platform and the cartridge you wish to utilize.

As henious as it sounds, I would want a cartridge that elinimates an opponent versus just temporarily removing them from the area of conflict. Even though WWII officially ended, has the Korean conflict really ended? You could say offically yes, however, it is still a geographical area of continual conflict. Neither side truly lost sufficient amounts of resources, ie human life, to really want to stop.

[BigSky56]

John, the 55 gr fmc bullet was devastating to the human body it went in bounced around but the round would not penetrate foliage and brush thats why the 7.62 family of rounds did/do better in jungle warfare areas. Jungle warfare separates the good/bad calibers and weapons real quick. 30 caliber battle rifles and 9mm/45 sub guns worked fine in the RVN. danny

[Gary7]

John Garand originally designed the M1 around the 276 Pedersen under the assumption that it was going to be adopted to replace the 30-06. Douglas MacArthur ultimately vetoed that and Garand had to redesign the M1 action to accept the longer 30-06 cartridge. If the 276 had been adopted it would probably still be our standard military rifle round.

[Blaine]

The Boars in South Africa were whooping the British with their 7mil Mausers over our 303 big time!

Nath.

The warthogs had guns?!?! Did the Boers hunt them anyway?

[AJMD429]

It is a poor performer because it produces more severe wounds?

You could also reason strategically that the wound just-sufficient to impair fighting-back, yet low enough in lethality to cause massive first aid and evacuation to consume enemy resources and cause distraction and imparir morale, is actually 'better' than a simply 'lethal' wound. Kind of disgusting as a line of thought, but war is not a 'nice' arena.

[Blaine]

It is a poor performer because it produces more severe wounds?

You could also reason strategically that the wound just-sufficient to impair fighting-back, yet low enough in lethality to cause massive first aid and evacuation to consume enemy resources and cause distraction and imparir morale, is actually 'better' than a simply 'lethal' wound. Kind of disgusting as a line of thought, but war is not a 'nice' arena.

Didn't work with the Cong, or currently with the Rags.....Only works with civilized humans.

[gak]

While I am a big fan of the .270, I think the bigger question or issue is/would have been the PLATFORM (and its cartridge),...that 3/4 of our troops would have been better served with a smaller, lighter, higher capacity (20 rd box mag) firearm somwhere between the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine (also a fan) in size/weight/range,...such as something with a spitzered, rimless .30-30 or 7-30 Waters...essentially a Mini 30 in 7.62x39 or, as has been mentioned, the 6.8 SPC (but the basic foundation was already there with the .30-30). Now THAT would have been a big deal, would have relegated the Carbine to it's original design intended role--or perhaps even negated its need--at least as.a primary duty weapon (though the little-bugger-that-could actually performed more yeoman's duty than given credit for, especially in the Pacific Theatre). THEN, something along the lines of the Garand--in .277 of course --would have been for mostly sniping and specific long range missions, rather than also being called upon for short-to-mid range trench warfare and clearing duty.

[RSY]

...a 7X57mm or 6.5X55mm. Those were the original Mauser cartridges of the mid 1890s...

The true original was the 7.92x57mm in 1888. And, the 0.473" case head is still going strong.

[Otto]

I was going to reply to JohnDeFresno's post, but it vanished?

[765x53]

The Pattern 14 Enfield would have been a .276 if WWI hadn't gotten in the way.

[765x53]

...a 7X57mm or 6.5X55mm. Those were the original Mauser cartridges of the mid 1890s...

The true original was the 7.92x57mm in 1888. And, the 0.473" case head is still going strong.

The original smokeless Mauser cartridge was the 7.65x53 in the 1889 Belgian rifle.
Mauser had nothing to do with the 7.92x57 cartridge or the 1888 Commission rifle.

[Kansas Ed]

Personally, If you look at the two major World Wars, larger calibers in general won out over smaller. The Germans favored 9mm vs our .45's. The Germans favored the 7mm vs ours and Britain's and the Russian's 30's. So the track record IMO leans toward bigger. The wars we consider as draw's were .30 caliber against .30 (Korea)...or in the case of Vietnam...30 against .22.

The major exception was when we were fighting Britain's Brown Bess Muskets..

I've never owned a 30-06...nor a .270.. but in times of dire stress I'll take the '06.

Ed

[JohndeFresno]

Great posts! Now, my replies supporting my opinion that the Army royally screwed up when they rejected the Pedersen:

Platform -
Although the loaded magazine stuck out of the top, the Pedersen was not as cumbersome as the M1.
1) Weight of M1 Garand - over 11 pounds; Pederson - 8 pounds, 2 ounces
2) Same approximate lengths, it appears by looking at them side by side
3) Action - toggle bolt on the Pederson; troublesome gas port necessary for the heavier, larger caliber
4) Recoil - field tests confirmed a noticeably lighter recoil for the .270 round in the Pedersen

Downrange Accuracy -
1) The .270 is an acknowledged flat shooting game cartridge
2) The .30-06 does better at 1,000 yards, but stats show that very few soldiers ever took a shot past a couple of hundred yards! Aiming at those distances without a scope was too challenging under combat conditions. This is one of the main reasons that justified moving away from the .30-06 in combat.

Comparison with Sub-guns, etc.
1) This is about the Army's perceived mistake in their selection of their main battle rifle; not about their secondary weapons.
2) A good argument is presented about shooting through jungle brush, I suppose. But how about the many battles in the European and African theaters of conflict? And did we see combat in any heavy brush in Korea?

Lethality
I think that one or two of us, like me, got stuck on the wording used by General Hatcher. If you re-read it, you will see that he is saying that the smaller calibers provided the more lethal and/or fatal shots on the test animals.

In other words, "worst killer" means "best killer," I believe - because the smaller bullet tumbled upon impact and produced very lethal wounds. And the context of the chapter is that the Army testers thought the rifle and round to be superior, but the brass at a higher level (and apparently not those who actually attended the trials) nixed it for the existing .30 caliber, in so many words.

[madman4570]

coulda/woulda/shoulda? (At that paticular time in History)

I will say, Nope! GI's shoulda been issued exactly what they got!
Thank God nothing was changed! The 30-06(M1 garand)greatest weapon/rd of all time. why?
cause thats why we kicked Germanys behind and have our freedom.

It was God's plan for John C. Garand to develope that exact gun at that exact time.(Cant see even thinking any different)

[JohndeFresno]

Personally, If you look at the two major World Wars, larger calibers in general won out over smaller. The Germans favored 9mm vs our .45's. The Germans favored the 7mm vs ours and Britain's and the Russian's 30's. So the track record IMO leans toward bigger. The wars we consider as draw's were .30 caliber against .30 (Korea)...or in the case of Vietnam...30 against .22.

The major exception was when we were fighting Britain's Brown Bess Muskets..

I've never owned a 30-06...nor a .270.. but in times of dire stress I'll take the '06.

Ed

Ed,

I hate to say it, but I believe that Germany's innovations, with the exception of our outstanding Garand rifle, were far better than ours. They invented the spitzer bullet when we were still using the .45-70 and other rainbow trajectory rounds; thus our adoption of the .303 and then the .308 family of ammunition. Then with WWII they produced the V-2, the Schmeisser, their heavy armament, tanks that shot through our Shermans like Swiss cheese, jet planes, and so on. Given the opportunity, they were prepared to send long range bombers and paratroopers to our soil, but for that that nut case Hitler.

Had he not listened to his wizards and seers and horoscope people, he could have used the inventions much more effectively and decisively. Instead, he pulled back, again and again, based upon witchcraft and nonsense - and his manic ego. And, history records, we out-produced Germany, Japan, and all of the bad guys; many say that is why we could not be beaten, and why Europe attained victory against the Axis powers. And just perhaps God was really on our side, as well.

As for Viet Nam, I believe that the media, causing us to lose our will, and politics were the reasons for our defeat. But to go further there would put this thread into the Politics forum.

I don't think it was about calibers. But I suspect that less of our boys might have died, had they been better armed with a lighter recoiling and more lethal rifle round.

[Kansas Ed]

You may be right..of course I was just speaking in gross generalizations to offer another side of the argument.
If it came to brass tacks...I'd take the .300 WM over either.

Ed

[Cliff]

The .276 mentioned for the Pederson rifle and the Garand were actually 7mm calibers, The bores were measured excluding the depth of the grooves. The Pederson rifle had a different action very similar to a Luger togle action and required the cartridges to be lubricated in order for the rifle to fire and eject them. They had a brush or felt wiper with oil which had to be kept wet with light weight oil for them to function. The British were seriously in favor of the Pederson Rifle and were planning to adopt it. One of the main reason we retained the 30 M1 cartridge was we had millions of rounds in storage from WWI, the country was financially hurting from the Great Depression and money wasn't that easy even for the military. McCarthur didn't want to try and change over to another caliber due to economic reasons. Read about
the Phillipines when Japan invaded them. All the American and Phillipino ammo on hand was left over from WWI. The handgerades were ten second fused and painted yellow for safety reasons. Hatcher covers some of the reasons without bringing up economics as the probable cause for continued use of the 30-06. We had bunches on hand, we were tooled up to produce it and it did perform very well. Would the .270 Winchester have been better as a military cartridge I don't think so. The U.S. had experimented and developed match ammo and various other types of war ammunition in the era after WWI and it was ready to go. That is my take on the subject. Good Luck

[Technical Director]

If it were tomarrow, I take a Federation hand phaser.

[madman4570]

But---------------------------------we had Robert Oppenheimer - (the Manhattan Project )
Wonder if the Japs thought the same back then?

[JohndeFresno]

The .276 mentioned for the Pederson rifle and the Garand were actually 7mm calibers, The bores were measured excluding the depth of the grooves. The Pederson rifle had a different action very similar to a Luger togle action and required the cartridges to be lubricated in order for the rifle to fire and eject them. They had a brush or felt wiper with oil which had to be kept wet with light weight oil for them to function. The British were seriously in favor of the Pederson Rifle and were planning to adopt it. One of the main reason we retained the 30 M1 cartridge was we had millions of rounds in storage from WWI, the country was financially hurting from the Great Depression and money wasn't that easy even for the military. McCarthur didn't want to try and change over to another caliber due to economic reasons. Read about
the Phillipines when Japan invaded them. All the American and Phillipino ammo on hand was left over from WWI. The handgerades were ten second fused and painted yellow for safety reasons. Hatcher covers some of the reasons without bringing up economics as the probable cause for continued use of the 30-06. We had bunches on hand, we were tooled up to produce it and it did perform very well. Would the .270 Winchester have been better as a military cartridge I don't think so. The U.S. had experimented and developed match ammo and various other types of war ammunition in the era after WWI and it was ready to go. That is my take on the subject. Good Luck

Thank you, Cliff.

Now, THAT makes a whole lot of sense. Given the .30-06 caliber, the Garand is certainly the king. And I don't recall ever hearing about the need for oiling the rounds for the toggle bolt action on the Pedersen. That is not the best situation for dusty or sandy regions, or for combat conditions, for that matter.

So - Technical Director has the answer. I'm working on the next thread: "OT - GI's shoulda had Phasers!"

[JohndeFresno]

But---------------------------------we had Robert Oppenheimer - (the Manhattan Project )
Wonder if the Japs thought the same back then?

Interestingly enough, Germany and Japan were both independently working on the A-Bomb in WWII.

The History Channel or the Military Channel (one of them) covered the Japanese project, not too long ago. We had an Allied task force scouring various islands in an effort to discover and destroy their factory(ies). Their research stopped when we unloosed our super weapons, first, on their two cities. There is something at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_n ... on_program

[Cliff]

Several things John Garand did in the course of developing his rifle. In the first model he made the operation dependant on the set back of the primer upon firing, Then the people in charge found a problem with the set back when used in machineguns. He then went to a gas operated system which tapped the gas pressure at the muzzle after it left the barrel, this worked but was vulnerable to carbon build up and dirt. The adopted version tapped the gas pressure as it exsists today. He started with the 30-06, went to the 276 Pederson as he had to compete with the Pederson design and then back to the 30-06 caliber when the short comings of the Pederson became known. So he was a busy man even if he would take a break, go home and ice skate to relax, then back to work. He was initially hired at Springfield Arsenal to further develope an idea he had come up with for a machinegun. They liked his thinking. He also designed the various machinery needed to manufacture the M1-Garand. Elmer Keith did not like the Garand rifle saying if he had left the mechanisim tapping the gas pressure after the bullet left the barrel, it would have been more accurate at long (1000) yards. He claimed with the improved gas system where the gas was tapped off in the barrel caused parts of the rifle to start moving before the bullet could exit the barrel, throwing off the aim. The history of the M1 is a good study. ATB

[firefuzz]

Personally, If you look at the two major World Wars, larger calibers in general won out over smaller. ..... The Germans favored the 7mm vs ours and Britain's and the Russian's 30's. So the track record IMO leans toward bigger.
I've never owned a 30-06...nor a .270.. but in times of dire stress I'll take the '06.
Ed

Although I totally agree with your post on the '06 it should be noted that the Germans 7.92 x 57 (8mm Mauser) fired a larger bullet in diameter than any of the Allies .30 calibers.

Rob

[stanforth]

The Pattern 14 Enfield would have been a .276 if WWI hadn't gotten in the way.

The .276 was given the number P13

When it was abandoned because we were at war it was altered to .303 (P14) ands made in the US.

It was then made in 30-06 and issued to US forces as p17. Later the P17 was sent to the UK to arm the Home Guard..

[madman4570]

But---------------------------------we had Robert Oppenheimer - (the Manhattan Project )
Wonder if the Japs thought the same back then?

Interestingly enough, Germany and Japan were both independently working on the A-Bomb in WWII.

The History Channel or the Military Channel (one of them) covered the Japanese project, not too long ago. We had an Allied task force scouring various islands in an effort to discover and destroy their factory(ies). Their research stopped when we unloosed our super weapons, first, on their two cities. There is something at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_n ... on_program

Ya, working on it is one thing! Completing it is another
And we know who the completers are.
Otherwise we would be eating a lot more kraut or sushi! (Cause either one of em would have whacked us without blinking an eye!)

[JohndeFresno]

I was going to reply to JohnDeFresno's post, but it vanished?

I removed it because it sounded to me like I was being too argumentative to one poster, instead of friendly discussion.

Basically, my first hand experience at seeing hundreds of corpses of the enemy after some engagements showed me that the Army vastly exaggerated the keyhole effect of the .223. They had told us, when they took away our wonderful .308 caliber fully auto M14's and handed us the M16's, that one bullet hitting anywhere in the arm would keyhole up the bone and tear the arm off. No offense meant, but: Baloney, folks. I saw the bodies.

I wouldn't have a .223 for any purpose, except maybe shooting squirrels.

[CJM]

Yeah, you have to go back into WWI to find out why the U.S. stuck with the 30-06 cartridge. Remington tried to get rich with the British contracts, and got left holding the bag when the British canceled the contracts after Remington had already built thousands of rifles. So the U.S stepped in and bought Model 1917 - these same rifles re-barreled for 30-06 instead of 303. Remington still ended up in bankruptcy due to the cost of re-barreling all these rifles, so the U.S. left the UMC ammo contracts active instead of canceling them at the end of the war and folded UMC and Remington into one company. So the U.S. government saved Remington as a company, but was left with a bunch of rifles it didn't want, and lots and lots of ammo that wasn't needed.

But it would have been nice if none of that had happened. MacArthur could have allowed the adoption of the 276 Pederson cartridge, and the M1 Garand would have been an 8 pound 10-shot rifle as intended for WWII, instead of a 10 pound, 8 shot rifle. And after the war instead of shortening the 30-06 to make the 308, the 276 could have been shortened to something similar to the 6.8 SPC, but a little longer and a little more powerful. Then the M14 could have been fired full auto without losing control but still able to make a 400 yard aimed shot and the M16 rifle and 5.56 cartridge probably never would have been adopted at all.

[765x53]

Yeah, you have to go back into WWI to find out why the U.S. stuck with the 30-06 cartridge. Remington tried to get rich with the British contracts, and got left holding the bag when the British canceled the contracts after Remington had already built thousands of rifles. So the U.S stepped in and bought Model 1917 - these same rifles re-barreled for 30-06 instead of 303. Remington still ended up in bankruptcy due to the cost of re-barreling all these rifles, so the U.S. left the UMC ammo contracts active instead of canceling them at the end of the war and folded UMC and Remington into one company. So the U.S. government saved Remington as a company, but was left with a bunch of rifles it didn't want, and lots and lots of ammo that wasn't needed.

But it would have been nice if none of that had happened. MacArthur could have allowed the adoption of the 276 Pederson cartridge, and the M1 Garand would have been an 8 pound 10-shot rifle as intended for WWII, instead of a 10 pound, 8 shot rifle. And after the war instead of shortening the 30-06 to make the 308, the 276 could have been shortened to something similar to the 6.8 SPC, but a little longer and a little more powerful. Then the M14 could have been fired full auto without losing control but still able to make a 400 yard aimed shot and the M16 rifle and 5.56 cartridge probably never would have been adopted at all.

I believe that the contract for the P-14 Enfields was completed, the rifles shipped, and the machinery was being dismantled when the government contracted for the P-17 rifles.
Part of the deal was that the government would buy the large stock of Mosin-Nagants and ammunition that Remington was stuck with after the Bolshevik revolution.
After WWI ended, many of these rifles were used to arm the White Russian forces and the American expeditionary forces who were sent to Siberia.
During this time, a contingent of U.S. Sailors and Marines fought a skirmish with a force of Red Sailors on the docks of Vladivostok. The only time that U.S. and Soviet forces engaged each other overtly, ironically they were both armed with the same rifle.

[olyinaz]

Or you could go all the way back to WWI and say that wouldn't the doughboys been better off if the '03 Springfield had been adopted as a 7X57mm or 6.5X55mm. Those were the original Mauser cartridges of the mid 1890s.....you know the ones we have been trying to reinvent with the 7mm-08, 7-30 Waters, 260 Rem, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel etc.

Had the depression not ruined the ecconmies of Great Britain and the US there is a chance that both nations would have attempted to down size their military caliber rifles to .27 caliber cartridges. Both were actively investigating it.

The only issue I can see is that the performance of Browning 30 caliber machine guns used by air craft and against them might have been negatively impacted by move from a heavy 30 caliber bullet to a lighter bullet.

I agree and to the OP I'd say that a detachable box magazine was a worse shortcoming of the Garand vs. the chambering.

Oly

[olyinaz]

If it were tomarrow, I take a Federation hand phaser.

Or a phase plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

Oly

[olyinaz]

I wouldn't have a .223 for any purpose, except maybe shooting squirrels.

Honestly, the .223 makes a mighty fine coyote killer.

Cheers,
Oly

[El Chivo]

The Boars in South Africa were whooping the British with their 7mil Mausers over our 303 big time!

Nath.

The warthogs had guns?!?! Did the Boers hunt them anyway?

don't be a boor, it's such a bore.

[SFRanger7GP]

The M16/M4 series has evolved into (arguably) the greatest assault rifle of all times. There are military units that spend a lot of time and money on weapons research. They all prefer the M4 system for most tasks. Comparing the Vietnam era M16 and 5.56mm ammo to today's options is like comparing communication options of the Vietnam era with what we have today. As tactics and theaters of operations, etc. evolve, so do the weapons systems. The military men who live on the tip of the spear (not in the press and public eye) know what works and they use it.

Having said that, never forget it only takes 5 minutes and money to kit up like a pro. It's not the kit, its the man using it.

[JohndeFresno]

The M16/M4 series has evolved into (arguably) the greatest assault rifle of all times. There are military units that spend a lot of time and money on weapons research. They all prefer the M4 system for most tasks. Comparing the Vietnam era M16 and 5.56mm ammo to today's options is like comparing communication options of the Vietnam era with what we have today. As tactics and theaters of operations, etc. evolve, so do the weapons systems. The military men who live on the tip of the spear (not in the press and public eye) know what works and they use it.

Having said that, never forget it only takes 5 minutes and money to kit up like a pro. It's not the kit, its the man using it.

Really, that last sentence was non sequitir, pard. Superman behind a .223 still won't necessarily drop a fanatic at a mortar at 300 yards.

I never wore the Ranger tab, SFRanger7GP, but I monitor some conversations at Shadow Spear forum and elsewhere. The platform is a good one, largely because it allows one to change the upper to various other calibers, is lightweight, easy to maintain, and so on.

But you are no doubt aware that Special Ops folks are using other calibers with this platform, which alows switching of calibers, for various tasks. Even the gun mags are ken to that. As a close quarters assault weapon with current 3-round auto modification, it is pretty effective at clearing a room, apparently. But I note that there are other, rounds being considered even for that function. Notably, the 6.8 SPC (which is a .270 caliber round!) is the current hot topic.

In Afghanistan and Iran, I trust that you are aware of the complaints of the .223 not bringing down the enemy when one can't spray up close and only one-shot opportunities are most often presented. In fact, I have read more than one post by Spec Ops types in the zones that uses a three letter acronym starting with P and ending with S (if you will forgive me) to describe their view of the round. The .308 and other calibers are the ones, from the troops over there have posted, for taking out a determined enemy. See this one example of many as to the Marines' sniper rifle choice - the .308 (7.62):
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyweap ... antry1.htm

[madman4570]

I have a 1st cousin and a brother-in-law both of which were Army Ranger(Snipers)in Vietnam.
Each one said they used a 6mm as their Sniper weapom!
Also, each one even today is not one to mess with!

[Otto]

As a close quarters assault weapon, it is pretty effective at clearing a room, apparently. But I note that there are other, rounds being considered even for that function. Notably, the 6.8 SPC (which is a .270 caliber round!) is the current hot topic.

It has been my impression that 6.8 SPC as a general-issue round is pretty much not gonna happen.

[JohndeFresno]

It has been my impression that 6.8 SPC as a general-issue round is pretty much not gonna happen.

The logistics / backlogged ammo thing again, right??

[junkbug]

Just in reference to the original post/topic, is the .270Win really superior to the US cal 30 Govt (30-06) cartridge? Certainly the .270 has some specific advantages to 30-06 in scoped, bolt action rifles, but that is not even half the story.

By 1925, there were already hundreds of tousands of automatic weapons already in existance in the US military inventory in 30 cal. Work was being done at that time to maximize the range of the cartridge out of the heavy machine gun (Browning 1917) as was being done all over Europe, and probably in Japan also. That is why the effective range at thousands of yards was important. Worldwide, at that time, until the end of the Korean War, it was considered basically essential to have the infantry shouler arm and the squad automatic weapon chambered for interchangeable ammo.

Don't forget, that both the Japanese and Italians had found their 6.5mm cartridges to be wanting in long range combat terain, and were replacing them as WWII started. Just like our military is dis-satisfied with the 5.56mm in Afganistan, but much less so in Iraq.

The advent of the assult rifle changed the equation, but those changes took decades after WWII to really come to completion.

The service grade M-1 Garand just doesn't have the accuracy to make use of the .270Win flatter trajectory. And usage in machine guns is different, trajectory connot be discounted no mater what the cartridge. Just look at the history of the 7.92X57mm. Short range trajectory of the latest sS load was more curved, but at extreme ranges is better.

[JohndeFresno]

Great post, Junkbug.

[madman4570]

Just in reference to the original post/topic, is the .270Win really superior to the US cal 30 Govt (30-06) cartridge? Certainly the .270 has some specific advantages to 30-06 in scoped, bolt action rifles, but that is not even half the story.

By 1925, there were already hundreds of tousands of automatic weapons already in existance in the US military inventory in 30 cal. Work was being done at that time to maximize the range of the cartridge out of the heavy machine gun (Browning 1917) as was being done all over Europe, and probably in Japan also. That is why the effective range at thousands of yards was important. Worldwide, at that time, until the end of the Korean War, it was considered basically essential to have the infantry shouler arm and the squad automatic weapon chambered for interchangeable ammo.

Don't forget, that both the Japanese and Italians had found their 6.5mm cartridges to be wanting in long range combat terain, and were replacing them as WWII started. Just like our military is dis-satisfied with the 5.56mm in Afganistan, but much less so in Iraq.

The advent of the assult rifle changed the equation, but those changes took decades after WWII to really come to completion.

The service grade M-1 Garand just doesn't have the accuracy to make use of the .270Win flatter trajectory. And usage in machine guns is different, trajectory connot be discounted no mater what the cartridge. Just look at the history of the 7.92X57mm. Short range trajectory of the latest sS load was more curved, but at extreme ranges is better.

I dont know about that long range trajectory deal pitting the .270 against the 30-06 ????
I shoot a factory load 150gr Hornady 3100 fps and at 400yds shes doing 2219 fps
the Muzzle energy is 3200 ft-lbs and at 400 yds its 1624 ft-lbs
The trajectory drop at 400 yds when sighted in at 200 yds is a mere 19"

What factory load beats that with the .270 win ?

If the M1 is considered for both then the .270 win would also have to be downloaded some?(pressure wise)

Also dont know about the service grade M1's----My CMP garrand shoots groups around 1 to 1.5" all day long?

Dont get me wrong I love the .270(I have several 7mm mags also)but really dont see much where the .270 out does a 30-06!

[JohndeFresno]

I dont know about that long range trajectory deal pitting the .270 against the 30-06 ????

I read it to mean super accuracy at fairly long ranges, given the same amount of powder.

Sam Fadala wrote an article comparing the .270 with the .30-06 and similar calibers in 2005 in Guns Magazine. He stated that the .270 is a tad flatter shooting, but also stated,
"Ah, but when all of the romance is removed and bare ballistic facts stand naked before us, the .30-06 wins the prize from ranges three feet past a hunter's boots to 300-yards and farther. That's the unvarnished truth, like or not."

You can still see the link - for now - along with his various tests at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n15402279/