Demise of The Pedersen Device

A

alan

New member
The following is mainly an exercise in historical curiousity, but do not knock history, it does have things to say to us today.

I assume that most readers know what The Pedersen Device was. Virtually all of them were destroyed by the governmment in the early 1920's. Now and then, one used to see Springfield Actions from The DCM Exchange Program that had been modified for the Pedersen Device, an ejection port in the left side of the receiver ring, the receivers were stamped Mark 1 as I recall.

In any case, if they have been retained, Pedersen Decive Springfields might have obviated the M-1 Carbine, and perhaps even given the Garand a run for it's money, since the capability to fire full power service rounds was retained, with additional capability of firing a reduced power round from LARGE CAPACITY MAZAZINES (VOLUME FIRE).

One realizes that actions of "the government" or "the military" sometimes seem beyond reason, and The Pedersen Device was on the scene a long time before I appeared, still one is curious. Anyone have any information, theories or "tea leaves" to read?
 
From what I understand, the Pederson device fired a round that was similar to .380 in power. As far as it obviating the M1 Carbine, I disagree. The purpose of the M1 Carbine was originally a replacement for the pistol. That is, for troops who weren't front-line troops (e.g., cooks, clerks, etc.), to give them something which was more accurate and easier to hit with than a pistol, but lighter and handier than an M1 Garand.

The Pederson device does nothing to make an M1903 lighter or handier. Instead, it makes a large rifle into something which is only useful at close range. But you've still got a rifle which is large and unwieldy. For close quarter battle, you want something short and handy (a subgun of some sort). With the Pederson device, the gun is neither fish nor fowl (and fires an inferior cartridge to boot).

Jared
 
M1911:

Yes, it would still be a "large rifle", but in a short range situation, the greatly increased firepower might have been handy. Magazine capacity was a great deal larger than that of the M-1 Carbine.

Seems like, in it's day, it might have been handy to have, thought not without problems.
 
Brophy reported the existence of three: Springfield Armory, West Point and Remington (Ilion, NY). The one at Springfield and Remington were on displayed when I visited there (as was the one at West Point). There was a forth one at the Presidio Army Museum (San Francisco) but since that's been closed, I don't know where the Army placed it. I've been told by my instructor that he came across one in a gun shop in Montana. It didn't have a magazine so he didn't buy it (arrrgghhh!).
 
4v50Gary:

Years ago, wheh I lived in Oakland, CA., we used to shoot 200 yard matches at Chabot Park, in the hills, above Oakland. Ran into a gentleman there who had a Mark 1 Springfield. The receiver was so stamped. Ejection port in the front ring. He said that he had gotten the receiver via the DCM Exchange Program, turn in an old, low number receiver, and get a "better one". He got the Mark 1, price was about $17.00, including shipping. It might have been a "double heat-treat receiver, don't recall. It certainly did look odd, till explained.
 
Some ten or 15 years back, you could pick up a Mark 1 for not much more than any other '03. I saw a Pederson Device advertised in The Shotgun News for some $3,450...

FWIW, Art
 
The cartridge fired by the device was a bit more akin to the .32 ACP than the .380, given the powders and bullet designs of the era. Here's the official word from the DCM:
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/pipsqueak_pistol.htm

The main reason it was not adopted: The concept of "walking fire", in which the advancing troops fired from the hip, was French in origin and in direct conflict of the age-old US doctrine of "aimed fire". Let's just say that walking fire was just another disastrous French idea foisted on the American fighting man, rather like the Chauchat machine gun.

In the past few years, ominious word has leaked out of the services that "aimed fire" is no longer the official doctrine - even of the Marines. Another consequence of having a draft dodger in the White House.

As Union General John Sedgwick could attest, aimed fire is what counts.

Regards,
Ken Strayhorn
Hillsborough NC
 
The Pedersen device (U.S. Pistol, Cal. 30, Model 1918 was the cover name) was one of those ideas that sounded good when someone said it fast. Jared explains well why it would never have really worked. Can you imagine being a German machinegunner and having whole bunches of Americans walking toward your gun firing what seem like popguns because they make no noise that you can hear? I doubt that the machinegunner would have even noticed the little, noiseless bullets as he went about wiping out the stupid Americans.

The cartridge is a souped up (and rimless) .32 ACP, and is identical to the 7.5 French cartridge used in their model 1935 pistols.

Firing one is sort of interesting, because the little "slide" on the top is close to the eye and slow enough to see, so it looks like something is about to hit you in the eye.

There are a few around outside museums. One estimate is a dozen or so and maybe a few copies.

Jim
 
Notwithstanding the fact that the French make some wonderful wine, as well as some that isn't at all fancy, just nice with a meal, their idea of "walking fire" was likely a pretty poor one.

For close range fighting, if there was enough room to swing a Springfield, the firepower of a Pedersen Device would have been impressive and perhaps valuable. How many "burp guns" were available during World War 1 anyhow.

Out to 300-400 yards, again volume fire could have served a purpose, and due to the low recoil of the round in semi-automatic fire, it could have been aimed fire too.

As for the lack of noise, I don't think that trained troops would be effected that much, and even a bullet that didn't make a great deal of noise, can still make holes in a body.

At this time, it's all history and conjecture.
 
I think in the real world that long magazine would have gotten in the way when one tried to "swing a Springfield" The mag attachment is pretty fragile, too.

As to the ammo, I grant that even small bullets can (and do) produce fatal wounds, but there is no noise and crack to induce entrenched troops to keep their heads down. With the usual background noise of a battlefield, they would not even know they were being shot at.

Having tried "hip shooting" a few times, I don't believe anyone would have been in much danger from shots fired while marching, although it probably would have given the attackers some psychological comfort.

Maybe I am just jealous because I cannot buy one, but I still think the U.S. Pistol, Model 1918, was an idea whose time never was.

Jim
 
another bad feature of the Penderson Device was, what to do with the '03 bolt while not in the '03 ?

also the fact that 2/3 of the US Forces were not carring the '03 but the M-1917.
 
Nestor:

As I recall, the Springfield bolt was to be carried in a pouch furnished for that purpose.

Re the 1917 U.S. Enfield Rifle, issued, as you noted, in greater numbers than was The Springfield, I believe there were plans underway to adapt them to a Pederesen Device also. Why Pedersen didn't go that route from the beginning, who knows except perhaps that The Springfield was "the service rifle" where the Enfield was used as a matter of expediency.
 
It would have been intresting to see the outcome when such a device would be used in trench warfare. keep in mind the length of the rifle did not matter cause' they had to pack the bolt rifle any way!

I would have been happy to employ this rifle. With half of my army...mix them in with the regulars and you have a more effective shock force. Too bad the Kaiser's army did not have this device!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top