They'd be available in large numbers at low (army surplus) cost. Provided they actually work and are reasonably accurate they'll be popular.
M1 Garand adopted in '.30 Short' cartridge, plus knock-on effects
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
The South African War solution was to buy another horse. They got through an incredible number of horses and this was reflected in future planning to seek horse alternatives/supplements. Motor transport was already being seen a cheaper and more reliable choice. My Yeomanry forebears went to war in 1914 as planned mounted on railway company draught and shunting horses subsidised as mobilisation remounts. A quick resource of known quality horses from a major ready source, to be replaced in civilian use by assorted requisition horses.
The need for so many horses in the Boer war was as much due to the complete lack of infrastructure to maintain horses in the field as to deliberate decision. This led to the creation of the Veterinary service. What’s more, those horses still had a useful service life. Had every mounted unit in South Africa been wearing armour and been expected to scout and charge at a moments notice then the horse requirements would have been more restrictive and the service life shorter. Horses are a strategic resource. No need to use them up quicker than necessary.
There is already a cartridge in the US at that time that fits the "Short 30" concept - the .300 Savage. Introduced in 1920, it was extensively tested by the US Army in the 1920's and 30's. This could get you an M1 that is shorter and lighter, since the .300 Savage is about 3/4" shorter overall than a .30-06 (2.6" vs 3.34") - but the enbloc would still only hold 8.
Why's that? The reason the M1 ended up with an 8-round enbloc instead of the 10-round enbloc of the prototype .276 rifles is the actual case diameter. The .30-06 (and .300 Savage, and 7.62mm Nato, and 7.9x57mm Mauser) all have a maximum case diameter of 0.473". The .276 cartridge has a case diameter of 0.450" - doesn't seem like a lot, but added up over ten cartridges it's going to be almost a quarter inch more girth on a rifle that is fairly portly to start with.
The shorter cartridge does lend itself to a handier detachable box magazine than either the .30-06, though. With a shorter receiver and barrel, simplified magazine group using detachable magazines, etc, you can probably get to an M1 that is fairly close to 9 lbs.
Material savings in ammo production would be huge - less brass used on each round, smaller powder load. Existing stocks of .30-06 ammo could be pulled down, the cases reformed to the new cartridge, and reloaded. Converting the existing stock of M1903 and M1917 rifles, (and light and medium MG's) would be expensive, but nowhere near impossible. It's not even an arsenal-level job. New barrels and rear sights sent out from the Ordnance Department to be fitted by Division-level armorers. The old barrels are returned to Springfield and Rock Island and either get modified (clip off about 3/4" of the barrel, cut back the shoulder to match, extend the threads to the new shoulder, ream the barrel to the new chamber) or scrapped, depending on wear.
Sorry about the SAE measurements. It's too early in the AM to convert everything to Metric.
Honestly I completely forgot about the .300 Savage! Why didn't I think of it?🤦♂️
I hereby retract my previous suggestion in favor of the .300 and ironically I happen to be probably among the few 1,000 Yards Cult of the Rifleman advocates on the site (and championing the M14 of course) but I gave a shot for the OP's requirements and kudos for bringing forth the .300 Savage @deLanglade
The .300 Savage is still a full-power cartridge, making 3000-3500 J worth of muzzle energy. That is territory of .303 British, and about 50% more than what 7.35mm Carcano was making. The 7.62 NATO was at ~3500J.
But, Americans indeed do have a ".30 Short" equivalent - the .30 Remington (per marathag's recommendation, that I agree with). It was making between 1830 and 2520 J, depending on amount of propellant and choice of bullet. That is comparable to the 7.62 x 45 (2450 J), and can be better than 7.62 x 39 (~2100J from 20 in barrel) by a good margin.
(energy values are taken from Wikipedia)
This is where the .30 Rem is again better. Rim diameter was .422 in, so at least 10 rounds will fit in nicely, without making the receiver fat.
Agreed.
People that are interested in firearms will not have problems with that
Last edited:
A bit more of my hobby horse
A 'Garand lite' would mean that carabine (say, barrel of 15 in instead of 20 in) is a viable thing, even without the muzzle brake and/or pistol grip. The LMG version (25-30 rd magazine, heavier barrel and a bipod) is also a possibility. Folding stock version?
Than we have the possible European developments, very likely capable for full auto: EM series, FN FAL, G3 (and the earlier developments, possibly even with the excellent light and long bullet). Should give the AK-47 a good run for his money
Then, someone might neck down the cartridge to 6.5, 6.35, 6, or even 5.56mm for the 1960s...
A 'Garand lite' would mean that carabine (say, barrel of 15 in instead of 20 in) is a viable thing, even without the muzzle brake and/or pistol grip. The LMG version (25-30 rd magazine, heavier barrel and a bipod) is also a possibility. Folding stock version?
Than we have the possible European developments, very likely capable for full auto: EM series, FN FAL, G3 (and the earlier developments, possibly even with the excellent light and long bullet). Should give the AK-47 a good run for his money
Then, someone might neck down the cartridge to 6.5, 6.35, 6, or even 5.56mm for the 1960s...
The UK has historically been very interested in a 7mm round. I don't see why that would change.Then, someone might neck down the cartridge to 6.5, 6.35, 6, or even 5.56mm for the 1960s...
What is truly interesting is the Garand action lends itself to use in a fully automatic firearm. THis is not my opinion but the opinion of several who compared the Garand action to the AK-47 and found them to be essentially the same. Obviously some changes would be needed but an intermediate Battle Rifle with 600m instead of 1,000m effectiveness would make a very big change. The 2lb of weight difference could translate to more ammunition per soldier or a more mobile soldier. Maybe it means the BAR gunner has extra rounds being carried by other soldiers. On a seperate note could an automatic version of the Garand in .300 etc be given a heavier barrel to replace the BAR and become the squad automatic weapon.
I am insufficently educated in these topics to offer more than questions for other more firearm savvy board members to answer.
I am insufficently educated in these topics to offer more than questions for other more firearm savvy board members to answer.
marathag
Banned
Remington to the rescue, againThen, someone might neck down the cartridge to 6.5, 6.35, 6, or even 5.56mm for the 1960s...
From the wiki
.25 Remington between .223 and .308
1500-1600J in power
Introduced with the Model 8, along with the .30, .32 and .35 versions, all to compete with the wide variety of Winchester rimmed rounds in lever actions.
the .25 was to go against the Winchester .25-35 WCF, but was of lower power than the Winchester(1600-2000J), but more powerful than the far older and weaker Winchester .25-20 of 800J
the .25 Remington wasn't popular due to the lower power.
But the Model 8 action is strong enough for .300 Savage pressures, 53,000psi, so unsure why Remington went with such weak loadings, like 35,000 for the .25 and 38,000 for the .30 version
The most popular round for the Model 8 was the very effective .35 Remington, 40,000psi for 1800-2200J
anyway, the .25 Remington is about 95% of the capacity of the Savage 250-3000, so that could be what to look at for that kind of power when loaded to 45000psi, 2400J
marathag
Banned
the AK safety and trigger group is VERY close the the John Browning designed Model 8, and the M1 was also inspired by that
Too weak
The .30 Rem necked-down to .25 will still be doing close to 2500 J, ie. something along the lines of 6.5mm Grendel or the .25-45 Sharps.
marathag
Banned
More on the .30 Short for hunting postwar
OTL the .30 Remington was outshined by the 35 Remington in popularity and later 300 Savage for hunting in N.A, and then the newer derivatives of the .308, like the .243 in the '60s, along with that .30-30, that hit the sweet spot of low recoil, acceptable ballistics and enough gun to drop a Deer at 150 yards
Now as an adopted Military version of this 30 Short might be slightly more powerful than the civilian .30 Remington it could be based on, much in the same way the .308 Winchester was slightly more powerful than the .300 Savage it was based on, or the Remington 222 to the .223, just by increasing the round's operating pressure
So lets call it a 700m/s 2300-2600J power cartridge, an easy 200 yard Deer Cartridge.
That gets it better performing than the old .30-30, and there is cheaper ammo, both from Army surplus itself, and it being popularized as an Army cartridge itself- since most every Hunter in the '50-60s probably had spent time in the armed services during WWII, using that cartridge, and would want hunting rifles in that cartridge.
For hunting, you would get surplus sporterized M1, followed by Winchester, Remington and Savage all making their popular hunting rifles in that cartridge, in Bolt Action, Lever and even pump action, like Remington's pump with a spiral tubular magazine, the Model 14/141/760.
that allowed Spitzer ammo to be used in tube magazines
The Model 14 was designed by Pedersen
Now despite OTL M1 Garands being used by all the guys in the Military, semi-autos were not all that popular for Hunting back then, from the difficulty in putting a scope on the M1, from what I recall those guys saying when I was out hunting in the '70s with those guys were still active Deer hunters
OTL the .30 Remington was outshined by the 35 Remington in popularity and later 300 Savage for hunting in N.A, and then the newer derivatives of the .308, like the .243 in the '60s, along with that .30-30, that hit the sweet spot of low recoil, acceptable ballistics and enough gun to drop a Deer at 150 yards
Now as an adopted Military version of this 30 Short might be slightly more powerful than the civilian .30 Remington it could be based on, much in the same way the .308 Winchester was slightly more powerful than the .300 Savage it was based on, or the Remington 222 to the .223, just by increasing the round's operating pressure
So lets call it a 700m/s 2300-2600J power cartridge, an easy 200 yard Deer Cartridge.
That gets it better performing than the old .30-30, and there is cheaper ammo, both from Army surplus itself, and it being popularized as an Army cartridge itself- since most every Hunter in the '50-60s probably had spent time in the armed services during WWII, using that cartridge, and would want hunting rifles in that cartridge.
For hunting, you would get surplus sporterized M1, followed by Winchester, Remington and Savage all making their popular hunting rifles in that cartridge, in Bolt Action, Lever and even pump action, like Remington's pump with a spiral tubular magazine, the Model 14/141/760.
that allowed Spitzer ammo to be used in tube magazines
The Model 14 was designed by Pedersen
Now despite OTL M1 Garands being used by all the guys in the Military, semi-autos were not all that popular for Hunting back then, from the difficulty in putting a scope on the M1, from what I recall those guys saying when I was out hunting in the '70s with those guys were still active Deer hunters
Questions:
1. Does anyone know what the development costs were for the Garland? And as importantly who paid them (government vs armory)?
2. Would Springfield Armory been legally allowed by the US government to take a foreign contract to develop the rifle in a different calibre? So as an example could Springfield have been able to accept a contract from Romania in 1937 to develop a version in 7.92mm Mauser? Or was the project considered a restricted technology and unavailable for foreign export?
1. Does anyone know what the development costs were for the Garland? And as importantly who paid them (government vs armory)?
2. Would Springfield Armory been legally allowed by the US government to take a foreign contract to develop the rifle in a different calibre? So as an example could Springfield have been able to accept a contract from Romania in 1937 to develop a version in 7.92mm Mauser? Or was the project considered a restricted technology and unavailable for foreign export?
Springfield Armoury (the first one, not the copy cat modern company one using the name for marketing) is part of the US government, it would do what ever it was told to do?
And as a Government, arsenal would I think be very unlikely to sell weapons in 30s as it would not be allowed to? (both for tech reasons and diplomatic & neutrality, none engagement in European wars)
Last edited:
Technically there was a Garand chambered for a short .30 cartridge. (At least short compared to 30-06)
en.wikipedia.org
(Unlike the Americans with the M14 the Italians managed to avoid a complete redesign of the Garand and a host of teething troubles)
Beretta BM 59 - Wikipedia
(Unlike the Americans with the M14 the Italians managed to avoid a complete redesign of the Garand and a host of teething troubles)