Re: XM-8 Rifle

From: Ken Marsh (kmarsh_at_fellspt.charm.net)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:54:29 GMT

Hi,

Tony Williams <Tony.Williams@quarry.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
#Another reason given was the relative lack of long-range performance
#of the .276 compared with the .30-06. The US Army had an obsession
#with being able to deliver small-arms fire at well over 1,000 yards,
#which flew in the face of all battle experience.

I've heard this critique, but it flies in the face of the facts of
the 1930's US Army, like:

1. Adoption of the shorter-ranged M2 ball ammo,

   -and-

2. MacArthur had a limited depression-era budget, and when he heard
that the Garand could be made in .30-06, it made good budgetary sense
to order it redesigned for .30-06 instead of pushing through all the
changes needed to move to .276 Pederson. Which is what he did, and
the memos between his office and Ordnance are quite clear about it.

  -and-

3. The .276Pederson was no slouch in long range performance, especially
given it could be loaded to a higher operating pressure in a Garand than
in a Pederson rifle.

Ken. 

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net      |  CIA linked to Iraqi POW mistreatment
 WWW:  http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh |  and national shame-no one surprised
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantcast