In which of the three videos which were originally cited, did anybody dissamble the Madsen?The M1910 used the SAME COCKING SYSTEM as the shotgun. When it jammed, Joe Infantry had the tendency to try to clear the jam the same way Rupert Redondo, the civilian, did: stick the buttplate on the ground, grab the barrel and shove down on the barrel. Head blown off was the result.
Explanation: As I watched Othais take this turkey apart, I thought about its design in 1900 and I was horrified. The gun uses a single stack magazine with gravity feed into a hopper and then indexes shells sideways into the feed path that then rams into the breech. That is a complex feed geometry that even in 1905 is NTG.
The latching of the magazine into the tray is very weak connection-wise with a tendency for human body parts to bump into it and knock the magazine out of the tray. There was another gun that had that kind of magazine into feeder tray lip.
View attachment 535368
Sideways, that was, and see how aggressively large the feed tray lip is? Also note the line of travel in the function path? There is no 90 degree turn as in the Madsen. The cutoffs for both the Johnson LMG and the Madsen are built into the single stack magazines (Which is the reason they are single stack magazines.), which makes the magazines long awkward extrusions, another mechanical fail point and adds a further undesirable military field fail. These setups are EXPENSIVE to make and require an indexer to pull the individual bullets through from cutoff to final position to ram into the chamber. COMPLEXITY means fail to function heaven in an automatic weapon. The more complex the operating action, the more ways a machine can fail. This is why the Johnson rifle and machine gun were ultimately rejected, what the US found wrong with the Madsen, what the Danes markedly improved in the 1920s through tweaks and quality control and why I frankly hate the 1905 gun. I see too many ways in the modern field range demos under ideal conditions that it failed.
You are introducing "facts" from different sources other than the ones originally cited. I am well aware of the "fiddly" nature of the Madsen. However, it worked by all accounts. Which is more than can be said for many other comparable LMGs. I understand that Madsens also had a long service, being retired from Brazilian service only in the late 1980s. Not bad going for a "fiddly" weapon.