British army adopts Pedersen rifle and cartridge in the 1930s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

IOTL the British tested the Pedersen rifle in 1932 and Vickers even manufactured it and improved upon it for the trials. I can't find a reason why they didn't adopt it or any other sort of semi-auto rifle they tested, though being in the worst part of the Great Depression was probably a factor. Let's say that for whatever reason the British opt to adopt the rifle and cartridge and later a lighter Bren variant in .276 Pedersen and a 30 round magazine. 8mm Mauser is still used for HMGs/vehicle MGs. The .303 is phased out except for older rifles for reserve units and even the RAF uses it for their modified Vickers MGs.

How does this change the way the British army fights in WW2, as they'd effectively had a round only slightly more powerful than their post-war .280 cartridge? It would also give them a pretty solid advantage over their opponents in a firefight even without a belt fed MG or SMG (though the latter would help at closer ranges).
 
I can't find a reason why they didn't adopt it or any other sort of semi-auto rifle they tested, though being in the worst part of the Great Depression was probably a factor.
The British Army was at the back of the que for defence funding, the current rifle worked well enough and there were mountains of .303 in storage left over from WWI. The only way a self loading rifle could have been adopted would be if it had used standard .303, which means a rifle like the Soviet SVT 38 or 40. Probably with cut down Bren mags.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The British Army was at the back of the que for defence funding, the current rifle worked well enough and there were mountains of .303 in storage left over from WWI. The only way a self loading rifle could have been adopted would be if it had used standard .303, which means a rifle like the Soviet SVT 38 or 40. Probably with cut down Bren mags.
I am aware of the funding issue, I'm just asking what would happen if that was hand-waved away.
 
It is hard to get around .303, since there are huge amounts of it around the Empire, so it is almost impossible to see British going for a different cartridge. Add to that the financial woes of the Interwar period, wherethe entire British military either stagnated or decreased, as well as the fact that generally Army is second after the RN, and RAF is also going to be fighting for ever increased amount of funds.

However, a semi-automatic rifle in .303 is a possibility, perhaps if the British have some cooperation with the French? The French did play quite extensively with the concept of semi auto rifle, both during and after WW1, and maybe some of that experience and know-how rubs off on the British? French did issue (in very small numbers TBH) a semi-auto rifles during the very late stages of WW1, chambered in 8x50mm Lebel rimmed cartridge, so it is one option at least.
 
I'm not sure it would be a good thing for the British Army to adopt the Pedersen. The British Soldier spent a lot of time in the dryer and dustier parts of the world. That grit is going to get into the very carefully machined working parts potentially causing jamming issues, and may also cause problems with the waxed cartridges. It's probably a fine rifle for Europe but for the North West Frontier or the Middle East I have my doubts.
 
The RAF might well keep .303 for aircraft guns as they would want the higher penetration and payload possible with a heavier bullet.

The Dry Wax coating has held up well and never did attract dirt or dust with recent tests of various Pedersens using original production ammo had no ammo related issues although as the locking system relied on such precision fitting of parts to function prolonged use may have been a problem after several years. The Pedersen rifle was made to very high tolerances which might be difficult to maintain during wartime and may well have been a problem. The main issue the US Army had was that they didn't want to pay Pedersen the licencing fee on the rifle whereas the Garand would be produced in house and as Garand was employed by the Army at Springfield armoury they only had to pay him wages.
 
The .276 Pedersen's severe case taper is going to be a problem for magazines with more than 10 rounds. The Garand or Pederson rifles wouldn't have had a problem but any LMG with a 20 or 30 round box magazine would have needed a significant curve, at least as bad as an AK magazine. These would have been difficult to handle and could have caused reliability issues if they weren't made correctly. The 8mm Mauser cartridge was frankly superior and it also had a smaller rim so magazines would have been smaller in addition to being straight. Bren guns were made in Canada in 8mm Mauser for the Chinese.
 

Deleted member 1487

The .276 Pedersen's severe case taper is going to be a problem for magazines with more than 10 rounds. The Garand or Pederson rifles wouldn't have had a problem but any LMG with a 20 or 30 round box magazine would have needed a significant curve, at least as bad as an AK magazine. These would have been difficult to handle and could have caused reliability issues if they weren't made correctly. The 8mm Mauser cartridge was frankly superior and it also had a smaller rim so magazines would have been smaller in addition to being straight. Bren guns were made in Canada in 8mm Mauser for the Chinese.
I'm not aware of any issues with the curve of the AKs magazine. On top of that, what sort of curve do you think was necessary with the 25 round .303 magazine to accommodate the rim? They were still plenty reliable.
Bren mag:
thumb.jpg


Plus it looks like there was more taper with the .303 than the Pedersen due to the rim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British
Base diameter:13.72
Neck diameter:8.64
Difference:5.08

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.276_Pedersen
Base diameter:11.4
Neck diameter:8
Difference:3.4

And just a little more than the 7.62x39:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×39mm
Base diameter:11.35
Neck diameter:8.6
Difference:2.75

It was in fact better than the .280 British, which had no taper related issues AFAIK:
Base diameter:11.9
Neck diameter:8
Difference:3.9

EM-2 Magazine in 30x .280 British, less taper than the Bren:
1702220864.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

So how much lighter could a .276 Pedersen Bren have been? Or another potential automatic rifle/LMG? Plus any idea how much more ammo could be carried with the lighter magazines and cartridges?
 
I am aware of the funding issue, I'm just asking what would happen if that was hand-waved away.

If interwar funding issues are handwaved away, a different rifle will be the least of the changes. And even there, there isn't going to be much motivation to "fix" something that isn't considered broken (the .303 cartridge). If the Pedersen rifles are adopted at all, they'll probably be there as a niche weapon.
 

Deleted member 1487

If interwar funding issues are handwaved away, a different rifle will be the least of the changes. And even there, there isn't going to be much motivation to "fix" something that isn't considered broken (the .303 cartridge). If the Pedersen rifles are adopted at all, they'll probably be there as a niche weapon.
There was, the British wanted to get away from the rimmed cartridge and wanted a semi-auto rifle, which is why they started phasing in the 8mm Mauser right before WW2 (literally put the Besa into production in 1939):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun
The British had intended to move from rimmed to rimless ammunition but with war imminent, wholesale change was not possible. It was considered by BSA and the Ministry of Supply that the industrial, technical and supply difficulty of converting the design to the .303 round would be more onerous than retaining the original calibre, especially given that the chain of supply for the Royal Armoured Corps was already separate from the other fighting arms of the British Army and the round was not changed for British production.

https://www.historicalfirearms.info...rs-armstrong-pedersen-rifle-in-1919-the/embed
Vickers-Armstrong hoped that the new semi-automatic rifle would be adopted by the British Army to replace the Lee-Enfield as even before the First World War there had been attempts to replace the ageing rimmed .303 round with a smaller rimless cartridge - Vickers believed that Pedersen’s .276 calibre round would be attractive. In 1930 the British Army held trials of new self-loading rifles with the Danish Bang-Gevaer (which was found to overheat to easily and was too complex), the White - another rifle using a toggle lock, and the Vickers-Armstrong Pedersen. Trials continued until 1933 but no new rifle was adopted as the inter-war British establishment lacked the funding. The American decision to retain the larger .30-06 round also diminished British interest in the rifle. However, the British made rifles were used in the later American trials against Garand’s rifles as well as test rifles for Chinese and Portuguese trials. Possibly as many as 200 rifles in various configurations including a rifle and a cavalry carbine version were made.

For a pic of the Vickers-Pedersen rifle:
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C315462

Based on what I've been able to find about the 1930s semi-auto rifle trials the Brits were intending the replace their entire bolt action rifle stock with SA rifles, but lacked the funding; later when the Bren was adopted it was seen as the cheap, easy 'fix' (much like the Germans in their adopting of a GPMG and sticking with a simplified BA rifle) based on their budget constraints.
 
I think the semi automatic rifle was thought of as a nice thing to have but not essential. I bet the Army given a choice between a new rifle and round or more Mortars, Artillery or Tanks would go for anything other than a new rifle. I think that's the right decision casualty rates against rifle fire were usually fairly low, mgs, mines and mortars were the biggest casualty causes in infantry battles.
 

Deleted member 1487

I think the semi automatic rifle was thought of as a nice thing to have but not essential. I bet the Army given a choice between a new rifle and round or more Mortars, Artillery or Tanks would go for anything other than a new rifle. I think that's the right decision casualty rates against rifle fire were usually fairly low, mgs, mines and mortars were the biggest casualty causes in infantry battles.
IOTL the British army of 1940 didn't really lack in terms of mortars, artillery, or tanks until after they were driven from the continent. Plus after WW2 when the funding situation was just as bad as in the early 1930s and there were even bigger stocks of existing rifles and ammo everyone developed a new cartridge and infantry rifle, so the lesson wasn't small arms don't matter, if anything they matter so much that getting the best ones possible was worth the expense despite huge inventory surpluses.
 
The difference is that after WWII the most likely opponent was adopting self loading rifles and Britain couldn't fall behind. The stocks of .303 weren't wasted though, they and the Lee Enfield were retained as war emergency supplies, and for training cadets.
 

Deleted member 1487

The difference is that after WWII the most likely opponent was adopting self loading rifles and Britain couldn't fall behind.
Same deal as before WW2. The Germans were adopting the Gewehr 41 (though it was a bust). The French were adopting an SLR, the US was too, even in 1932 the Reichswehr was clandestinely rearming, and the Soviets were a threat and adopting the SVT-38/40.

If smalls arms really didn't matter then after WW2 having an SLR or battle rifle wouldn't have mattered much, especially with the horrible budget crunch that was worse than after WW1 that saw Britain remain on some form of rationing into the 1950s.

The stocks of .303 weren't wasted though, they and the Lee Enfield were retained as war emergency supplies, and for training cadets.
As was possible after WW1 as well.
 

Deleted member 1487

No one went into WWII solely armed with an SLR, not even the US who had an extra 3 years to re arm.
Ok, and? That just means there is bigger value to having and SLR against a bolt action enemy, especially if the ammo weight significantly less than the enemy's allowing soldiers to carry more ammo (the Pedersen cartridge was 25% lighter than the .303 from what I can find, not to mention cheaper due to the lower material cost).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IOTL the British army of 1940 didn't really lack in terms of mortars, artillery, or tanks until after they were driven from the continent.
Was a lot of it not what went to France old and substitutes? Ie light tanks for mediums and old WWI arty?
 
Before WWII an SLR was strictly a "it would be nice to have" weapon, there was no pressing need for one so while countries worked on them there was no great urgency about it. After WWII when all countries involved had seen first hand how much extra firepower SLRs and SMG's add to an infantry section it became a must have.
 

Deleted member 1487

Was a lot of it not what went to France old and substitutes? Ie light tanks for mediums and old WWI arty?
Not AFAIK. They were using as modern of tanks as the British army had and the artillery was largely modern. That was the problem when that equipment was largely lost, as there was mostly only the older stuff left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expeditionary_Force_(World_War_II)#Rearmament

Before WWII an SLR was strictly a "it would be nice to have" weapon, there was no pressing need for one so while countries worked on them there was no great urgency about it. After WWII when all countries involved had seen first hand how much extra firepower SLRs and SMG's add to an infantry section it became a must have.
Given the budget yes (the army got the least of all the services), but had the budget allowed for it it would have been acquired as they wanted to outmatch any enemy threat, as the British Army was so small.

It wasn't as if they didn't realize in WW1 how important SLRs were to become, as they and the French had some, but budget cuts meant they couldn't adopted wholesale what they were planning on in 1918 (they were going to acquire over 100k units for use in 1919). They got interested again in the 1920s, which got them to the 1930-33 SA rifle trials, but the worsening economic situation prevented their plans for modernizing all the rifles in the military. Later they compromised by modernizing their LMGs by acquiring the Bren and then later their vehicle MGs with the Besa with plans to adopt the 8mm Mauser cartridge, but as that happened in 1939, it was far too late to go further. It was entirely a budget issue, not a lack of desire for the weapon; it was just judged too expensive relative to what they had, while when the budget was increased the US stuck with the .30-06 and adopted the Garand, which deterred interest in the Vickers-Pedersen rifle/cartridge, so they adopted a cheaper, modernized version of the Lee-Enfield.
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/White.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top