Re the destruction of The Pedersen Device

Mike Irwin,and others:

Respecting "military leaders" who had their heads stuck up .., Ordinance folk included,I was always curious as to the following.The '98 Mauser functioned quite well WITHOUT a magazine cut-off. How come our Springfield had to have one?

Additionally, our current Service Rifle Cartridge is the 5.56 x 45 MM, rather smaller in caliber, and I suspect less powerful than the .276 round would have been. Looks like we learn, eventually.

And by the way, "rocking the boast"is a dangerous pastime.
 
Given some of the "lessons learned" in Afghanistan, are we sure going to the 5.56 was the "right direction." The gun and cartridge were sold to the mililtary on hype, lies and bullhockey. Colt and Cooper-Mcdonald lied and exaggerated the capabililty of the cartridge from day one; a repeated claim was that one hit anywhere on the body, even a finger, would kill instantly from shock. No knowledgeable person accepted such drivel, and Army Ordnance knew better, but Congress didn't, and promoted what became the M16, as did JFK.

The fact is that the 5.56 is a pretty good varmint cartridge, and can be very accurate out of a good rifle, but it has been outclassed by the 7.62x39 and outranged by the old 7.62x54R. But at the time, the AR-15/M16 was the only thing we had readily available that was controllable in full auto fire, so it was that or make do with the M14 and semi-auto.

As for the .276 Pedersen, there is no doubt that it would have been lethal against personnel in the open, but the enemy was rarely so co-operative, and action in WWII often required a round that could penetrate cover and, as important, outrange the enemy cartridges.

Maybe the average GI was not a long range sniper, but he would have been a fool not to realize that German machineguns could reach him while his .276 bullets were dropping short of the enemy position. Maybe today's theorists can't see any problem with that, but I bet a GI at "the Bulge" would have.

Jim
 
Mike Irwin:

If memory serves, and if what I read was correct, re "walking fire and the BAR", there was a special fixture to be used. The butt of the BAR would fit into a cup like device, suspended from a shoulder harness. The BAR would be held horizontal, the infantrymen so armed would "walk while firing".

How this would work against emplaced machine guns, I have no idea, but I believe that that was the theory. There is, of course, sometimes a large difference between theory and practice.
 
The fact is that the 5.56 is a pretty good varmint cartridge, and can be very accurate out of a good rifle, but it has been outclassed by the 7.62x39 and outranged by the old 7.62x54R.
Click to expand...
Ironically, the country who fielded both the cartridges you mention as being superior to the 5.56 has abandoned them and is now using a cartridge which is very similar to the 5.56.

It's always been amusing to me that at the same time we in the U.S. were badmouthing the 5.56, those on the receiving end gained so much respect for it that they paid it the sincerest complement possible. They copied it.
 
Having used the 5.56 in combat, I for one , did not find it wanting. I found that when a person is shot with a 5.56, they pretty well stayed shot. Just my experience and HO.
 
I, for one,l think the Brits were on the right track with their .280 cartridge. Too bad the mule-heads of our own ordnance boards didn't see that.
 
Hi, guys,

"There is, of course, sometimes a large difference between theory and practice."

My point on the Pedersen device.

"... when a person is shot with a 5.56, they pretty well stayed shot."

I have no combat experience (my service was in peacetime), but I agree that the 5.56 is perfectly adequate against personnel in the open. Still, IIRC there were many complaints from Iraq and Afghanistan that the 7.62x39 would penetrate cover that the 5.56 could not. And of course, the U.S. did field a lot of M14's to provide range and penetration that the 5.56 didn't.

Long-range snipers used other cartridges in that specialized role where the M16/M4 would have been totally inadequate and the 7.62 NATO marginal at best.

Jim
 
The 5.56 is a quite decent cartridge within the 400 or so yard "modern combat" range that came out of the studies of World War I and II.

Within that envelop the round does well.

Outside, not so much, which is why the military has started employing designated markesmen armed with 7.62x51 rifles.

The simple truth is... No one personal weapon employed by infantry can be all things at all times in all situations.

The military thought that they had that in the 5.56. They figured they could replace the main battle rifle, submachine gun, and carbine with one multipurpose weapon.

See my comments about the designated marksman.



"The gun and cartridge were sold to the mililtary on hype, lies and bullhockey."

Wait, are you talking about the M 14 and the 7.62x51? Certainly a lot of hypocrap and lies that went into the creation of that particular weapons system... only much of it came from inside the military vs. outside.

That is true of virtually every new weapons system ever employed by any military anywhere around the world.

When "smokeless" powder first came out, everyone was told that it was 100% smokeless and would allow troops to be invisible on the battlefield if they were in good cover.

Oops... Nope.

When the British adopted the .380 revolver cartridge they reasoned that its performance was just as good as the .455 Webley it was replacing.

Oops... Nope.

And so forth and so on.


"a repeated claim was that one hit anywhere on the body, even a finger, would kill instantly from shock."

Wait, are you talking about the .45 ACP?

The hyperblasterific American Icon Combination of Godliness + Thor's Hammer that GUARANTEES absolute and instant incapacitation with a hit anywhere on the body?

Yeah, no hype at all has ever been spun up about the mystical and mythical capabilities of the .45 ACP.



Alan, yes. The Walking Fire belt for the BAR.

How would it have worked against emplaced machine guns?

About as well as any small arm would have worked against emplaced machine guns.

It wouldn't have.

Everyone needs to remember the climate in 1914-1918. This was warfare of a type that had never ever been seen before, and they were desperately casting around for ideas of how to break the stalemate.

It took technological advances fueled by the war itself in the form of tanks, air craft, improved communications, improved artillery targeting, etc., to provide even the glimmer of a workable solution against emplaced machine guns and entrenched enemies.

But all of that was in its infancy, the tactical manuals were literally being written as they went along, and by the latter half of the war, just about everyone was willing to try just about anything, no matter how absurd it sounds today, to break the stalemate.
 
"I, for one,l think the Brits were on the right track with their .280 cartridge. Too bad the mule-heads of our own ordnance boards didn't see that."

Which, when you look at the military loadings, gave power levels only slightly less than the (at that time) more than 50-year-old 7x57 Mauser cartridge.

The .280/30 British used a lighter bullet, thought, so it had better short range trajectory, but that decayed more quickly and it shed power faster.
 
Last edited:
"Maybe the average GI was not a long range sniper, but he would have been a fool not to realize that German machineguns could reach him while his .276 bullets were dropping short of the enemy position. Maybe today's theorists can't see any problem with that, but I bet a GI at "the Bulge" would have."


Yeah...

If only the US had adopted their own machine guns and automatic weapons, and employed them in combat, like those smart, smart, Krauts did.

And everyone knows that the .276 Pedersen only had an effective range of 40 yards, and an absolute range of 40.01 yards.

And that a sauerkraut ball had better range....

Fact:

The German 7.92x57 had a longer absolute range than the .30-06. The 7.92 bullet was heavier, had a better ballistic coefficient, and was loaded to a similar velocity, but with a boat-tailed bullet.

Fact:

About 99.9999995% of the time, absolute range doesn't mean Richard.

At the vast majority of combat ranges encountered in Europe, the .276 would have been more than ballistically adequate because it would have also been inside the ballistic envelope of both the 7.92 and the .30-06.

Fact:

Did the .276 have the same penetrating power as the .30-06? That's actually questionable. I've never seen any penetration numbers for the .276, but its ultimate ability to penetrate barriers and the like would have been affected by jacket thickness, bullet weight (when the .276 project was dropped, the final bullet weight still hadn't been set in stone), and velocity.

I suspect, however, that penetration numbers would have been so similar as to be virtually indistinguishable, so I'm calling non starter on this particular aspect.

And final fact:

At the Battle of the Bulge, given the fluid nature of combat, the topography, and the development of the land (buildings, trees, etc.), combat distances didn't come even remotely close to breaking through the effective range of any of these cartriges, much less the absolute range.


Sigh.
 
Last edited:
"The '98 Mauser functioned quite well WITHOUT a magazine cut-off. How come our Springfield had to have one?"

Because some of our Ordnance people were left overs from the Civil War, and believed that only aimed fire commanded and directed by an officer was appropriate.

Have you ever heard the saying that the American Civil War was the first 20th century war fought with 18th century tactics?

In a lot of ways, it's a true statement.
 
"The .276 Pedersen is a non-starter. Unless you have primary source verification that Pedersen had the same ideas in mind as the designers of the 7.92mm Kurz later did, I'm going to have to go with this being a retcon.

The articles I have read point towards the light cartridge, along with lubricated cases, being more about trying to get his rifle to work reasonably well without beating itself to death."

Wow. Where did you come up with that.

I NEVER claimed that Pedersen was the conceptual genius at the forefront of the revolution that would bring us cartridges like the 5.56.

I said his development was a step in the right direction, but people were too stupid to recognize it, so please quit cooking up things on your own that you THINK I said, when in fact I didn't say them at all.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and Joe?

"Cool! Then you should be able to tell me who some of these visionaries were and what new intermediate cartridge weapons systems they proposed following on their WWI battlefield experiences."

I didn't give you the name of one of those visionaries who saw the uselessness of the full-sized battle rifle in trench warfare...

Well, uselessness is too strong a word... how about lack of utility....

Thompson-and-his-gun.jpg
 
Why are you acting like I ****** in your Life®, Mikey?
I've known you on line at several boards for a lot of years, and while I never tire of your historical scholarship, your Paul Lynde imitation got old a while back.;)

Yes, I recognize Thompson. What's your point by bringing him up? The .45acp smg of such fame? The failed Thompson auto rifle that was contemporary with the Pedersen rifle? The smg variant that used a longer, more powerful .45 cartridge and never got much past prototype?

Maybe you'll be less dyspeptic if we clarify the discussion. I have been talking exclusively about intermediate rifle cartridges. Are you talking about that, too, or are you including anything less powerful than a .30-06 class cartridge as "visionary?"
 
I've been MORE than clear in my statements, yet you're looking at them inventing things that you' THINK I've said.

Don't know why you're doing that, but I hope you're having fun.


"Yes, I recognize Thompson. What's your point by bringing him up?"

Facepalm.

Really? This VERY clear statement didn't make that clear?

"I didn't give you the name of one of those visionaries who saw the uselessness of the full-sized battle rifle in trench warfare..."

But even I admitted that uselessness is probably much to strong a word (did you miss that, too?)

Yes, Thompson was working on a battle rifle version (what would eventually become the Colt Monitor) in direct competition to John Browning.

But, as I said, he also saw the problems inherent with a full-size battlerifle being used in trench warfare.

Hell, even the Army saw that, which is one of the reasons why they issued the Model 1897 trench gun.


"I've known you on line at several boards for a lot of years"

OK, to be 100% honest, I have no clue who you are, and I'll take your word for it that we've crossed paths before. My apologies for not remembering you.
 
You know, Mike, we're done here. Finding out what you know and what your opinions are isn't worth putting up with your bullsh*t.
 
"You know, Mike, we're done here. Finding out what you know and what your opinions are isn't worth putting up with your bullsh*t."

How can you do that when you claim that I'm saying things that I've never said?
 
I'm done with Mike Irwin, but for those unfamiliar with the Thompson Autorifle, Wikipedia has a decent summary on it. Posting from a phone here and am not smart enough to embed a link. That autorifle was a dead end and did not become the Colt Monitor. The Monitor was a BAR variant, again, the Wikipedia article on the BAR gives an OK description.
 
From what I have read and understand, folks seem to have the Pedersen rifle situation reversed. Pedersen did not set out to design an advanced cartridge and then build a rifle to use it. He designed the rifle first, working with his idea that a delayed blowback rifle could be built, and that it would be much simpler and easier to make than a gas operated or recoil operated system.*

But he found that his idea would not work with a cartridge as powerful as the .30-'06, so he scaled down the cartridge in power until he got it to a level that would work in the rifle. The idea was not to advance the state of the art in cartridges, it was to get the maximum power that would not tear the rifle apart.

When the COS decided to retain the .30-'06, Pedersen withdrew his rifle from competition because he knew it couldn't handle the more powerful round.

*Some writers have compared Pedersen's toggle link system with the Luger pistol, but the Luger is short-recoil operated. The Pedersen uses a system operating at a mechanical disadvantage; there is no mechanical lock holding the breechblock closed and the barrel is fixed.

Jim
 
"From what I have read and understand, folks seem to have the Pedersen rifle situation reversed. Pedersen did not set out to design an advanced cartridge and then build a rifle to use it."

At no time did I ever say that Pedersen either set out to develop an advanced cartridge, or did he develop an advanced cartridge.

I said the concept was a step in the right direction.

Forward progress can be as much happenstance as it can be deliberate design.

Further development of the cartridge came about as John Garand began to develop what would become the M 1.



"The Monitor was a BAR variant..."

Oops. So it was.


"I'm done with Mike Irwin..."

Awwww..... :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top