i think that's where we're going here. it's more or less the same case dimensions. i was just showing that the ammo was available prewar, and that means that it's possible that the tooling is still there and able to be usedMaybe upgrade the connection to high speed? Save a decade or two?
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.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
loaded in 1912
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
1. It appears that the .30 Mauser round was in US production pre-war.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
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.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.
Indeed, but it might get a 'machine carbine' adopted, rather than the fits-no-niche BAR.
but would not have been hard to make it in .308 rather than .321, as was done in changing 32SL to M1 Carbine.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.
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 .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
I'm getting a 13th-century vibe from those get-ups...Manganese alloy Steel body armor, unleash Bashford Dean in 1914
View attachment 646535
Armor with full kit and No. 5 Helmet
View attachment 646536 armor with Brit Brodie Helmet
Armor was under 15 pounds, and allowed full mobility. Proof from most fragments and pistol bullets, and rifle and MG fire at a distance
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.Those set-ups would have done precisely fuck-all against rifle and machinegun fire
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.I'm getting a 13th-century vibe from those get-ups...