How would firearms history change if the U.S had adopted the M1 in .276? would we still evolve to smaller .223 cartridges?
Also is there a modern day equivilant to .276? maybe .270 or 7mm-08?
>>29453239
>toggle locked firearm
>lubed cases
pls no, I can already taste the jam
>equivalent
6.5 grendel or 6.8 SPC.
>>29453239
>7mm-08?
Probably about that.
>>29453253
The actual M1 was originally supposed to be in .276, not just the Pederson. Also mag fed.
Mil brass actually thought .276 was a good idea, but stuck with .30 cal for a variety of economic reasons
>>29453253
the cases were waxed at the factory, they didn't pick up mud or dirt
>>29453253
You'll have to lube if you want to handle my peder, son.
I'd imagine that we'd have seen more toggle lock firearms, then transition into more modern locking mechanisms, but in a smaller diameter bullet than .30. I'd like to imagine we'd wind up with 6.5 grendel or 6.8 spc as a more common caliber instead of 5.56 for reasons.
Would have been cool to see support weapons chambered in .276 imagine a BAR but 2-3 lbs lighter and a 25 round mag or a M1919
>>29453363
7.5 sidearms and submachine guns.
Mmm.
>>29453253
>>29453337
Why the fuck are you guys assuming that there'd be more toggle locks? Sure, Pederson was trying to sell his rifle abroad, but wouldn't most militaries try to get the Garand version, which eliminated the whole "here's a big chunk of metal getting in your sight picture" problem?
Any, .276 would probably make going down to a shorter cartridge unfeasible for a while and maybe we'd get something like 6x35 KAC instead of 5.56x45.
>>29453600
first "here's a big chunk of metal getting in your sight picture" problem, was a problem by the time you are able to fire again its already down, the problem was the pederson rifles needed lubed or waxed ammo.
>>29453744
The hard wax coating on the ammo was such a nonissue that the round was going to be adopted until fucking McArthur said to make the Garand work in .30-06.
>>29453880
Yea i understand maybe at the time it was not economically feasible but look at today NATO uses 5.56 and 7.62, they could have easily left the support weapons in 30-06 and use the existing supply while creating new batches of .276
>>29453913
The idea was to use the surplus .30-06 in everything, but it turns out the m1 does not like the same round as the 03 springfield so they pretty much already wound up doing what you said.
>>29453600
>6x35 KAC
more like 7x45 FAL OR 7mm NATO
Why weren't the Pedersen and Luger rifles upside down? The ejection would have been more convenient and the sight picture would not have been obscured, it also would have counter-acted the natural rise of a rifle while shooting by having the mass of metal moving against that rise instead of with it.
Please blow me the fuck out.
>>29454238
Well, for one thing, where would you put the magazine? On the top? On the side?
Another would be the fact that putting the toggle on the bottom would A) expose it to tons of dirt and crap whenever you go prone, and B) dig a big hole under the gun, which might give their position away.
>>29454279
Yea the military does not like guns you cannot easily fire when prone, hence why the American army never formally adopted lever actions
>>29454279
You could load it from the top with a simple open magazine latched bottom, or even a removable mag fed design like the original Garand.
Really you can load it however you want, that isn't technically difficult, you could side load the clips if the mag was oriented that way.
ALL I AM SAYING is the orientation of the action does not decide how the magazine must be oriented.
The action is hardly long enough when fully "extended" to dig a little hole.
>>29454363
if your lying prone with the gun a few inches above ground that matters,
>>29454443
What about a toggle lock that goes back and down into the stock like a vector?
>>29454569
expensive, even with modern manufacturing
let alone 1930's machinery
>>29454238
>>29454279
>>29454311
>>29454363
>>29454443
>>29454569
>>29454578
Are you guys actually trying to argue the merits of a Luger-style toggle lock system in a grown up weapon that isn't as Maxim?
>>29454626
You quoted people who were against the system and were asking if a system like it could be useful.
Learn to fucking read you goddamn retard.
>>29454626
No, I just want it to work.
>>29453239
>How would firearms history change if the U.S had adopted the M1 in .276?
Our logistics would have been more fucked.
Maybe more US soldiers would have died.
>would we still evolve to smaller .223 cartridges?
Probably.
>>29453239
Didn't the .250 Savage perform even better at the Pig Board?
Imagine if it had been chosen for the M1 Carbine, which wound up being built in even larger numbers than the Garand; we could have had the first assault rifle early in the war.
>>29453337
>I'd like to imagine we'd wind up with 6.5 grendel or 6.8 spc as a more common caliber instead of 5.56 for reasons.
Nah, if anything, with a lighter full power rifle round, I bet we'd be encouraged to make the intermediate round contrast with it enough to be definitely worth existing separately, and have gone with something even less than 5.56.
>>29455025
>NEW CARTRIDGES FUCK LOGISTICS OMG!
and yet they introduced not one but two smaller rifle cartridges.
Replace all cartridges with 6mm AR or BR.
