Neat (and short) read on the Garand. I learned some things- wasn't aware for example, that we nearly had a G3 in 276 Peterson instead of the M1 that we all know and love. (10 rounds would have been neat though) Also, didn't even know that a primer actuated rifle was ever a thing, but indeed it was!

http://peashooter85.tumblr.com/post/137 ... r-actuated

Part 2
http://coffeeandspentbrass.tumblr.com/p ... art-ii-the

Neat! Good reads.

Short, but accurate. It's neat to have a Garand.

I'm starting to think the LGC might want to come up with an article about what the Compleat Liberal Gun Owner should own. An M1 Garand would be on the list.

CDFingers

The .276 pedersen round is interesting. I wonder if the .223 would have been developed had the Garand and the 30 carbine both been chambered in 30 Remington.

The .276 Pederson is fairly similar to the 6.5 Grendel of today. I'd agree that if it had been adopted, the need for developing the 223 may have not been there. Perhaps the AR-15 would never have been developed, or if it was, in a very different form...

Don't forget that the AR10 predates the AR15 by 10 years. The AR15 would still have happened, but maybe earlier if the Army already had the cartridge of the future...back in the 1930s.

I love these what-if scenarios. =)

I happen to to think that JCG was on the right track with his 276 Pedersen round. But the army had 80 gazillion rounds of 30-06 so that was the reason they insisted on that chambering. 10 rounds of a smaller, but highly lethal caliber (and probably more accurate), in my opinion, beats 8 rounds of a grossly overpowered round.
But we are talking about the army, after all. Nonetheless, I own and cherish two M1s.

We probably used all those rounds in machine guns.

At least a few million rounds wound up at CMP. But, yeah, BARs and whatnot will chew through that stuff in no time. Especially when Uncle is paying the bill.

inomaha wrote:The .276 pedersen round is interesting. I wonder if the .223 would have been developed had the Garand and the 30 carbine both been chambered in 30 Remington.

Great articles!

I've had this same thought. There is such a big jump from .30-06/.308 down to .223 An intermediate cartridge like .276 might have hit the sweet spot and become the U.S. military standard for decades, maybe up to the present.

The .30 Remington is just a rimless 30-30. I think something like that would have been big enough for the .308's role and been small enough to serve the extra capacity role of the .223.

The M1 Garand could have held 10 or 12 rounds of that and been smaller/lighter. The .30 carbine in a 30-30 level round would have been much more powerful and I'd own one. Smaller but with a big enough round to hunt.

Use up all surplus 30-06 in light machine guns and sniper rifles and/or sell it through the CMP with the old bolt actions.

It always interests me why there are so many different, yet similar cartridges. Mostly it's due to politics instead of function.

Ah, so it's Garand rather than Garand.

Stiff wrote:Ah, so it's Garand rather than Garand.

Don't you love/hate that shit? It's John C. Garand and we shoot the Garand.

I love America.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:

Stiff wrote:Ah, so it's Garand rather than Garand.

Don't you love/hate that shit? It's John C. Garand and we shoot the Garand.

I love America.

CDFingers

Potayto potahto.

J.C. (Mr. garand) said it's pronounced like "errand". but he's dead, so who cares?
mr. pederson was a creditable gunmaker in his own right.

lurker wrote:J.C. (Mr. garand) said it's pronounced like "errand". but he's dead, so who cares?
mr. pederson was a creditable gunmaker in his own right.

But is it PEE-derson or PEH-derson?

Also, too, I learned from the articles that Pederson's design required rounds to be lubed before they were chambered, which sounds kinky.

Elmo wrote:Also, too, I learned from the articles that Pederson's design required rounds to be lubed before they were chambered, which sounds kinky.

Yeah, that was the first time I've heard of needing to lube the whole round for a rifle. That by itself would have been grounds enough for it to not pass muster in my book. One extra step in the manufacturing process, and what happens when the lube rubs off when it's been in a pouch for a month or two?

As for the nomenclature, I insist on M1, and never, ever a Garand.