Talk:.276 Pedersen

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

I've downloaded the Pedersen patent for the en-Block clip and dressed it up for insertion here. I've also moved the technical jargon to the bottom of the article and removed the technical tag. Sure, it's technical. You don't go to this page unless you want that kind of stuff. Any comments? --Asams10 01:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great job and great graphic! I didn't think WWII was exactly looming in 1932, so I made a few edits in the timeline portion. HangFire 02:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asam, the .280/30 is not actually a necked down 7.62x51 NATO. The .280/30 was created independantly from the T65/7.62 NATO cartridge and the only similarity is in its base, as the .280/30 was designed to have the same rim diameter as the .30-06 (which is the same diameter as the .308). It is not a 7.62 case necked down to accept a 7mm round - that would be the 7mm Compromise. The 7mm Compromise was a last ditch attempt to convince the Americans to adopt a 7mm cartridge by the British/Canadian/Beligians and is also known as the t65/7mm. It closely resembles the 7mm-08 with a MV of about 2700-2800 FPS, whereas the .280/30 only has a MV of about 2500 FPS. It is a minor point though - great article, I learned a lot! JamesL85 08:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asam, I see where you're going and it's a good start. But again the .280/30 does not replicate the ballistics of the 7mm-08. If we are going to mention the 7mm-08, ot would probably be best to mention the 7mm project in general perhaps like so:

Interestingly, British studies on various 7mm cartridges during the 1940s (in particular the .280 British) culminated in the 7mm "Compromise" cartridge which was the 7.62x51 mm NATO case necked down to fire a 7 mm bullet essentially duplicating the modern 7 mm-08 sporting round.

However, the Pedersen and the .280/30 are very similar and perhaps the 7mm-08 reference may not be needed at all. (.280/30 fires a 140 grain bullet at around 2500fps, whereas the .276 Pedersen fires a 140/150 grain bullet at 2400 FPS, versus the 150 grain 7mm-08 fired at 2800 fps which is the same as the 7mm compromise cartridge.) Perhaps we can write it like this:

Interestingly, the British studies on various cartridges culminated in the .280 British cartridge, which shared many similarities to the .276 Pedersen, i.e. the 7mm caliber and similar velocities .

Tell me what you think - thanks! JamesL85 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made a slight change to the last sentence and removed the 7mm-08 reference as the .276 Pedersen and .280 make better comparisons to each other than the .280 and the 7mm-08 which are quite different ballistically. JamesL85 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone who access to the "numerous magazine articles" listed under references please flesh that out a bit? It'd be a big help. I'll try to find some basic cartridge and reloading info. Arthurrh 00:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Cartridges of the World" by Barnes. It's the only one I'm aware of with reloading information (maybe?)--Asams10 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got that. I'm still hoping that someone can point us to the correct articles more specifically than just "various articles" for better verification, further info, etc. Arthurrh 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Waxed" is the more proper term. That is the term used by Julian Hatcher as well as John Pedersen in his patent for 'waxed' cartridges. Read the patent here: U.S. patent 1,780,566 The term 'lubricate' is imprecise as there was more than one reason for the coating. It served four purposes: 1) lubricate the case and ease extraction 2) protect the brass, primer, and bullet from corrosion 3) seal the bullet to prevent moisture ruining the powder 4) seal the primer to prevent it becoming inert due to oils, water, sweat, etc. In its day, wax coating was derided as 'attracting dirt' however this was not true in practice. The real reason for not desiring waxed cartridges was an unreasonable prejudice born from ignorance. I'd cite Hatcher on this one, but it's in 'Book of the Garand' and I left that copy back in the states. I did bring Hatcher's notebook, though, and I'll have to gander at it and find out what he said.--Asams10 11:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article reassessed and graded as start class dashiellx (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

јел може то мало на Српском —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.210.131 (talk) 09:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rare, yeah, but "unique?" Don't think so. Anmccaff (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]