Original caliber M1 Garand
- Thread starter tshadow6
- Start date
The original was in .276 caliber
Sometimes referred to as the .276 Pedersen, but this may not be accurate. It was not the same as the .270 Winchester. The case was smaller, and the gun was intended to have a 10 rnd capacity. Primarily at the insistance of Gen MacAurthur, (with the backing of ordnance) it was demanded the gun be made in .30-06.
Along with losing the detachable magazine (govt brass didn't want it) the rifle capacity was reduced to 8 rnds of larger .30-06 ammo.
There are many fine books on the subject, the make some interesting reading.
Also be aware that at one time, Springfield Armory was producing their M1A rifle in .243 Winchester. Good luck finding one though.
Sometimes referred to as the .276 Pedersen, but this may not be accurate. It was not the same as the .270 Winchester. The case was smaller, and the gun was intended to have a 10 rnd capacity. Primarily at the insistance of Gen MacAurthur, (with the backing of ordnance) it was demanded the gun be made in .30-06.
Along with losing the detachable magazine (govt brass didn't want it) the rifle capacity was reduced to 8 rnds of larger .30-06 ammo.
There are many fine books on the subject, the make some interesting reading.
Also be aware that at one time, Springfield Armory was producing their M1A rifle in .243 Winchester. Good luck finding one though.
Classic example of all the High Ranking Goblin Hunters being stuck in the past. A 276 Garand with a detachable magazine probably could have served well for a few decades longer than the M1 Garand. The M14 was basically the fix for the magazine mistake.
Of course, an intermediate caliber M14 or AR10 or 280 FAL (that is, something capable of controllable full auto bursts) would have still been serving today.
And lets not even talk about the decisions to change the powder in the 5.56, to remove the chromed chambers and not issue cleaning kits.
The now dismanded ordnance heirarchy were responsible for the deaths of thousands dead soldiers due to their stubborn ignorance and incompetence. Frankly, they probably should have been jailed at least for their actions.
Last edited:
.276 had problems that could have been worked out. But the brass did want 30-06 for many many other reasons. Some include the fact that not every service man would have an M1 Garand for some time as were were comming out of the great depression. The 1903, P17, M1919 and BAR also use the 30-06. Now WHY would anyone adopt the .276 peterson? They wanted a new rifle not a new cartrige.
Last edited:
I’m sorry fellas but 25 rifles and carbines were requested by and made for the Cavalry and Infantry in 1926. In 1928 a “Board of Officers to Recommend a Specific Caliber for the Future Development of the Semiautomatic Shoulder Rifle” met again and again recommended the .276 caliber. At this time the .30 caliber Garand was still experimental and ‘primer actuated’.
“On February 21, 1929, the Ordnance Department was ordered to discontinue development of a caliber .30 Garand because the .276 caliber had been approved.”
The Pederson and the Garand were running neck and neck.
In late 1929 resumption of the .30 caliber Garand was requested and a pilot model was authorized. Things were looking up for the Pederson and because it looked as if it would be adopted, Pederson went to England in 1930 to help tool up Vickers, Limited for his rifle.
By 1931 20 more .276 Garand rifles had been made and sent to the Infantry and Cavalry to be familiarize the troops with a field test. By April 1931 18 .276 Garands had been sent to Fort Benning as well.
The Board again recommended the .276 Garand over the .30 caliber after the field tests by the Infantry and the Cavalry.
In 1932 the .276 Garand, the .30 Garand and the .276 Pederson were again tested side-by-side. The Board recommended that the .276 caliber be the cartridge for the service rifle and that 125 Garands be manufactured in this caliber.
In February 1932 John B Shuman (Adjutant General) put in writing that the cartridge would be .30 caliber. Consequently, 80 semi-production .30 caliber Garands were produced. They were designated the T1E2 but by August the designation was changed to “U.S. Semiautomatic Rifle, Caliber .30, M1”.
Garand, himself, had had to change the semiautomatic system from ‘primer actuated’ to gas actuated due to the decision to crimp in the primers.
It looks as if no more than 70 or 75 .276 caliber Garands were made but you never know for sure. There might have been some additional .276 caliber Garands made up by special request.
I wonder how much the .276 caliber Garands are worth. Pederson, for all his influence didn’t get the contract but did succeed with his ‘Device’.
One further note: There is some question about the Garand being able to handle M1 ammunition. On April 2, 1940, the Chief of Infantry wrote to the Chief of Ordnance emphatically and at length denying that the change in ammunition had any relation to its use in the Garand rifle. The Garand was developed with the M1 ammunition but had no trouble at all with the M2 ammunition... according to the Chief of Staff.
“On February 21, 1929, the Ordnance Department was ordered to discontinue development of a caliber .30 Garand because the .276 caliber had been approved.”
The Pederson and the Garand were running neck and neck.
In late 1929 resumption of the .30 caliber Garand was requested and a pilot model was authorized. Things were looking up for the Pederson and because it looked as if it would be adopted, Pederson went to England in 1930 to help tool up Vickers, Limited for his rifle.
By 1931 20 more .276 Garand rifles had been made and sent to the Infantry and Cavalry to be familiarize the troops with a field test. By April 1931 18 .276 Garands had been sent to Fort Benning as well.
The Board again recommended the .276 Garand over the .30 caliber after the field tests by the Infantry and the Cavalry.
In 1932 the .276 Garand, the .30 Garand and the .276 Pederson were again tested side-by-side. The Board recommended that the .276 caliber be the cartridge for the service rifle and that 125 Garands be manufactured in this caliber.
In February 1932 John B Shuman (Adjutant General) put in writing that the cartridge would be .30 caliber. Consequently, 80 semi-production .30 caliber Garands were produced. They were designated the T1E2 but by August the designation was changed to “U.S. Semiautomatic Rifle, Caliber .30, M1”.
Garand, himself, had had to change the semiautomatic system from ‘primer actuated’ to gas actuated due to the decision to crimp in the primers.
It looks as if no more than 70 or 75 .276 caliber Garands were made but you never know for sure. There might have been some additional .276 caliber Garands made up by special request.
I wonder how much the .276 caliber Garands are worth. Pederson, for all his influence didn’t get the contract but did succeed with his ‘Device’.
One further note: There is some question about the Garand being able to handle M1 ammunition. On April 2, 1940, the Chief of Infantry wrote to the Chief of Ordnance emphatically and at length denying that the change in ammunition had any relation to its use in the Garand rifle. The Garand was developed with the M1 ammunition but had no trouble at all with the M2 ammunition... according to the Chief of Staff.
not a smith but...
I'm not a gunsmith but I think you could buy a rack grade garand and a .270 or .280 Rem barrel, add a adjustable gas port system and have a machinist put together a rifle.
The cases are close enough to use in the magazine and bolt face is identical.
The only reason I can think of is their is not that much to gain and the american shooter is brainwashed over the .30 caliber.
I'm not a gunsmith but I think you could buy a rack grade garand and a .270 or .280 Rem barrel, add a adjustable gas port system and have a machinist put together a rifle.
The cases are close enough to use in the magazine and bolt face is identical.
The only reason I can think of is their is not that much to gain and the american shooter is brainwashed over the .30 caliber.
Stevie-Ray
New member
Wouldn't a cheap one of those be a find?
Mike Irwin
Staff
The primary reason for retention of the .30-06 caliber was simple -- billions of rounds of .30-06 in Government stores.
Japan and Italy both tried to roll out new rifle calibers in the middle of the depression. There was never enough money to do so. In the case of the Japanese it was a logistical nightmare to supply ammo in both 6.5 and 7.7.
The Italians finally recalled all of the 7.35 rifles and converted many of them to 6.5.
Japan and Italy both tried to roll out new rifle calibers in the middle of the depression. There was never enough money to do so. In the case of the Japanese it was a logistical nightmare to supply ammo in both 6.5 and 7.7.
The Italians finally recalled all of the 7.35 rifles and converted many of them to 6.5.
Jim Watson
New member
The first Garand illustrated in Hatcher is the 1920 primer actuated .30-06 with 20 round box magazine. As I recall, the primer actuation became unreliable when they went from the WW I Pryo powder to the more progressive IMR series.
Mr Garand shifted to gas operation in 1928; also to the .276 Pedersen round and the packet loading system then in favor.
Mr Garand shifted to gas operation in 1928; also to the .276 Pedersen round and the packet loading system then in favor.
15AcreWoods
New member
I can not remember who, but if I am not having a "Senior Moment" I remember back in the 1970s - 1980s someone was making Garands or Garand barrels in 25-06 and and 270 Win. I was foaming at the mouth for one but couldn't come up with the money.
Jim Watson
New member
Interesting, Voyageur. Is that in Hatcher's Book of the Garand? I do not see mention of primer pocket crimps in Hatcher's Notebook.
Any road, I think primer actuation would be something a gun designer should look back into. There was one design based on dedicated ammunition with a very recessed primer that had a substantial stroke distance back against the firing pin. Seems like that would give it a chance to work with progressive burning powders.
Any road, I think primer actuation would be something a gun designer should look back into. There was one design based on dedicated ammunition with a very recessed primer that had a substantial stroke distance back against the firing pin. Seems like that would give it a chance to work with progressive burning powders.