Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1

fair enough
browning and pederson are probably the only designers with the kind of clout needed to get a new production the thumbs up. ok that came out wrong. anyways, i understand going for the easy win as long as it works

actually, yes,
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/early-remington-30-mauser-box/27620
c932713710bd3ed6aa05cf2dc9984c8147e0bd40.jpg

loaded in 1912

https://www.legacy-collectibles.com/30-mauser-ammo-062320.html
20200622_180203.jpg



apparently there was a prototype for the Mosin–Nagant, likely the idea was to convert the leftover rifles New England Westinghouse and Remington weren't able to ship
Excellent! So perhaps a Pedersen analogue using older/surplus rifles firing the Mauser round? A conceptual 'machine carbine' for the classic 'marching fire' doctrine of the US Army. It probably still won't actually work as hoped but it's better than previous attempts.
 
No.
But could have redone the 32 Winchester Self Loading, that was used as the basis for the M1 Carbine of WWII in .30
It was a 165 gr bullet at 1392 fps, 960J, so much more powerful than 30 Mauser, at 550J, that itself was more powerful than the 30 Pederson at 300J
1. It appears that the .30 Mauser round was in US production pre-war.
2. Attempting to use the .32SL cartridge defeats the propose of a Pedersen analogue as there is simply no way to fire an 8.2mm bullet out of a 7.6mm barrel.
 
Last edited:
Excellent! So perhaps a Pedersen analogue using older/surplus rifles firing the Mauser round? A conceptual 'machine carbine' for the classic 'marching fire' doctrine of the US Army. It probably still won't actually work as hoped but it's better than previous attempts.
Walking fire gets one killed to no purpose. That was one of those Pershing wrong lessons learned idiocies based on his Spanish American War stupidity that bedeviled the American army in WWI and which no sane American officer actually believed.
 
1. It appears that the .30 Mauser round was in US production pre-war.
2. Attempting to use the .32SL cartridge defeats the propose of a Pedersen analogue as there is simply no way to fire an 8.2mm bullet out of a 7.6mm barrel.
but would not have been hard to make it in .308 rather than .321, as was done in changing 32SL to M1 Carbine.
Main difference between the two is he Bullet, and loaded to higher pressure
 
but would not have been hard to make it in .308 rather than .321, as was done in changing 32SL to M1 Carbine.
Main difference between the two is he Bullet, and loaded to higher pressure
Sigh. Then you lose the ability to re-purpose older, and less needed, weapons. You are building a completely new design and will find it a fast harder sell .
The "main difference" between .32 or .351 rounds and .30 is they won't fit down a .30 barrel.
 
Those set-ups would have done precisely fuck-all against rifle and machinegun fire
Most weren't meant to. The ones that could actually be carried by a person in active combat would defend against shrapnel at best. This isn't necessarily a bad idea as that tended to create more casualties than bullets anyway. A Germans had one that would defend against pistol fire and was issued to sentries and machine gunners that did not need to move around as much.

I'm getting a 13th-century vibe from those get-ups...
The guy who designed it, Bashford Dean, was the curator of arms and armor at the Met. It was, likewise, designed to stop pistol ammo and shrapnel, rather than rifle or machine gun.

EDIT: The other American contender was this:

3277159-757x1024.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top