Maybe upgrade the connection to high speed? Save a decade or two?
Better US Army Weapons/Equipment in WW1
- Thread starter Father Maryland
- Start date
Maybe upgrade the connection to high speed? Save a decade or two?
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 used
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
actually, yes,
https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/early-remington-30-mauser-box/27620
loaded in 1912
https://www.legacy-collectibles.com/30-mauser-ammo-062320.html
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.
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:
McPherson
Banned
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.
Indeed, but it might get a 'machine carbine' adopted, rather than the fits-no-niche BAR.
marathag
Banned
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
Indeed. Occasionally the answer to the wrong question in the right answer for a different question.
McPherson
Banned
Except the Americans were not THAT stupid. They adopted the Chauchat and French tactics RTL.
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.
McPherson
Banned
Which is why the American army rejected that claptrap. It added no real protection and it seriously hindered movement.
Those set-ups would have done precisely fuck-all against rifle and machinegun fire
There was a similar get-up in the Civil War; had a close resemblance to WWI German infantry armor
McPherson
Banned
Was needed. Along with spall curtains,. British tank armor tended to flake off splinters from their inside face from German machine gun fire striking the outer plate face. Can't fight if one is blind or slashed to ribbons.
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.
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:
Last edited: