[dont_tread_on_me]

Isn't it funny how history has a way of being ironic? Infact it seems at times to play jokes on us.I know I'm going to piss off a whole bunch of people with my next statement.At the time ww2 began the 30-06 was an obsolete MILITARY cartridge.I believe common sense will show this to be true.
I'm going to go out on another limb with this next one as well.If the 276. Pederson had been adopted at the time the Garand was about to go into service,The 7.62x51 may never have been developed,as well the 5.56x45 may never have been conceived either.Think about this a second.The 7.62x51 is without question a good service round,except for controllability in full auto.I'm not going to beat the dead horse about wether full auto is necessary,thats not the point.It a perceived need by the military,and as such is a requirement.I would venture to say green recruits are less intimidated by milder recoiling weapons,and as such may have a shorter learning curve with them.
It's ironic that we continue to search for the "best" service round,by looking into medium calibers like the 6.8 spc or the 6.5 Grendel,while if 70 years ago we would've adopted the 276,the need for replacing the 5.56 may not even exist.
I think most of us know the germans were probably the first to experiment with what we would call an assault rifle cartridge today,the 7.92x33 kurz(for "short" in German)It was basically an 7.92x57(8mm) Mauser case shortened.That to me is what defines an assault rifle from a submachinegun(fires pistol rounds) from a machinegun,automatic rifle or battle rifle(fires full size rifle rounds).
It might be obvious to us today but the Germans figured out that they didn't engage the enemy that often at 800 meters and decide they didn't need a cartridge for general use powerful enough to do it.I believe our own army engineers figured out pretty much the same thing but less forward thinking minds,plus the fact we had an assload of the ole' 30 government in surplus meant they weren't changing the standard service round.
Given the fact we were about to enter the greatest conflict the world has ever known,it might not have been a bad choice especially considering the logistics hassle of different rounds for the main battle rifle and the machine guns.
I guess back to my main thought,is that it would be interesting how things would have turned out if the 276. had been adopted,The ballistics are somewhat similar to the 6.5 Grendel.With modern powders it could be very interesting.
In the end the ideal cartridge for an assault rifle should have perfect balance of range,penetration,terminal performance,and low recoil/full auto controllability.Sounds easy enough right?

 

[roughneck2zero]

I've never heard of .276. What are it's ballistic attributes?
BTW: I think the difference is a machine gun is belt fed, while a sub-machine gun is magazine fed. Those phrases came out of WW1 and I think their definition has changed. Your correct that the NAZI's coined the phrase Assault-Rifle in WW2.

 

[thadbme]

I googled the round... If I'm not mistaken wasn't this the round that required it to be lubricated to be used in the garand? I did see something about wax and non wax...

If I'm wrong then whoops... but I can remember seeing something about this on the history channel or something

 

[gunner69]

There were up to 10 different versions of this cartridge. One version, the T2 had the same rim and head dimensions as the 30-06. The 276 was tested with bullets weighing from 120 grains at 2,550fps up to 150 grains at 2,360 fps. (credit Cartridges of the World) WWI+ technology. :2cents:

 

[DSM]

Read about the 6mm SAW while you're at it. Or the 280 British round they wanted their post WWII rifle (a bullpup) chambered in. The US pushed 7.62 onto NATO and then went to 5.56. The story behind the FAL and the M14 is pretty interesting reading at how frustrating the "system" can be.

The Wehrmacht had different doctrine in that the infantry supported the MG teams. In western thought it's basically the other way around.

The commonality of cartridges has some bearing on a global logistics chain, just as it did back then. It's never ideal though and is only part of the debate. We delinked a can of M80 ball back in training so we could have dope for shooting it through our M24's if it ever came to it. It actually didn't shoot too bad and compared to some of the lots of old M118 Special Ball, sometimes shot better!

 

[dont_tread_on_me]

The 280 British round IS a very interesting story.I would go as far to say the same about it,in that if the U.S hadn't forced the 7.62x51 on Nato then we could very possibly still be using it today.

 

[DSM]

The Biritish EM2 bullpup was a neat concept. Personally speaking the larger sized rounds have their drawbacks though. If they had been adopted I think they still would have been phased out or replaced since the doctrine had changed. If someone ever markets that 6.8 SPC cartridge necked down to 6mm I think that would be a pretty BA round. :2cents:

 

[dont_tread_on_me]

Personally I like the 257. diameter a little better than the 243.It can use a little heavier bullet and will retain energy farther without adding much recoil.
I still maintain that the best diameter for military application just might be the 264.(6.5mm)The great balance of ballistic coefficient and penetration on hard target,vs light cartridges makes for a descent balance without excessive recoil.You could use it to snipe at medium range,and would be good in a saw as well.