British army adopts Pedersen rifle and cartridge in the 1930s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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.
During the Garand testing before WWII, accuracy was better than the Springfield(less recoil able to keep both hands on the rifle at all times),and the increased RoF was a bonus.
 
The Pedersen has in my opinion three hurdles to overcome for it to be adopted by the British other than having to change rifle calibre and a lack of funds.
First, due to the extremely tight tolerances required to make the action work it would be expensive and difficult to mass produce.
Second. While Pedersen's method was very good there is a natural suspicion of lubricated ammunition picking up dirt and grit.
Third. It uses a method of loading that the British had never adopted in the past and were thus unfamiliar with and suspicious of.

Each on its own is not a deal breaker, but taken together in one go make adopting such a rifle unlikely.
 

Deleted member 1487

The Pedersen has in my opinion three hurdles to overcome for it to be adopted by the British other than having to change rifle calibre and a lack of funds.
First, due to the extremely tight tolerances required to make the action work it would be expensive and difficult to mass produce.
Vickers modified it to be easier to disassemble and manufacture.

Second. While Pedersen's method was very good there is a natural suspicion of lubricated ammunition picking up dirt and grit.
True, but not insurmountable, as the Brits didn't find it to be an issue in testing AFAIK.

Third. It uses a method of loading that the British had never adopted in the past and were thus unfamiliar with and suspicious of.

Each on its own is not a deal breaker, but taken together in one go make adopting such a rifle unlikely.
That's not something I've seen mentioned as a concern.
 
The Pedersen has in my opinion three hurdles to overcome for it to be adopted by the British other than having to change rifle calibre and a lack of funds.
First, due to the extremely tight tolerances required to make the action work it would be expensive and difficult to mass produce.
Second. While Pedersen's method was very good there is a natural suspicion of lubricated ammunition picking up dirt and grit.
Third. It uses a method of loading that the British had never adopted in the past and were thus unfamiliar with and suspicious of.

Each on its own is not a deal breaker, but taken together in one go make adopting such a rifle unlikely.

Pederen's method for lubricating ammuntition was, if memory is correct, a hard wax coating that avoided this issue as shown in the following links:
Bloke on the Range
Forgotten Weapons
That said, there may have been enough development time for them to discover the technique of fluting the chamber to aid extraction of the cartridge case.

As for the loading method, the enbloc clip was specified by the US trials. If the British had desired another method, such as a detachable box magazine, possibly even the same magazine that the Bren gun took (chambered of course in .276 Pedersen), I don't really see that as being any kind of stumbling block. If anything modifying the design to take detachable magazines, preferably ones with a built in stripper clip guide, would simplify construction of the rifle, thus saving money. Especially as detachable magazines were something the British had got very good at doing.
 
As I said, none on their own is a deal breaker, but taken in combination make it less likely that the rifle would be adopted. Anything that means the rifle will need some redesigning will count against it in trials. As for my point about the en bloc loading being problematic, the issue would be that you can't top up the clip in the rifle with individual rounds. It's very likely that had the Pedersen been adopted it would have been redesigned with a detachable magazine and charger guide.

The problem any early SLR has in getting adopted in British service is that the well trained British professional infantryman with his No 1 Mk 3 can nearly match its rate of fire. It's only when they move from stripper clips to multiple 20 or 30 round box magazines to load the rifle that the Lee Enfield falls badly behind.
 
Bren and Vickers Pederson SLR in .276! That should work. Would give a rifle section more firepower but the Bren would still form the core of the sections firepower with the ammo load carrying equipment of the section designed around the Bren gun magazines. To quote Bloke on the Range if the section was down to its last 30 rounds they would be in a Bren gun mag on the LMG with the rest of the lads having fixed bayonets (and hoping that they would not have to use them). This would still be the case if the SMLE/No4 were replaced by the Pederson. As for a name how about the VIP ‘Vickers Improved Pederson’
 
As I said, none on their own is a deal breaker, but taken in combination make it less likely that the rifle would be adopted. Anything that means the rifle will need some redesigning will count against it in trials. As for my point about the en bloc loading being problematic, the issue would be that you can't top up the clip in the rifle with individual rounds. It's very likely that had the Pedersen been adopted it would have been redesigned with a detachable magazine and charger guide.

The problem any early SLR has in getting adopted in British service is that the well trained British professional infantryman with his No 1 Mk 3 can nearly match its rate of fire. It's only when they move from stripper clips to multiple 20 or 30 round box magazines to load the rifle that the Lee Enfield falls badly behind.
that’s the issue though. Well trained regular. If Britain goes to war then the majority of the soldiers are going to be TA and conscripts. So better if with an SLR. The Regular is going to be no worse off with said SLR. Except for the slight decrease in ammo weight there would be little change. I wonder if British development of the .276 system would impact US decision making regarding the development of the Garand? The SMLE needed replacing in the 30s but was not replaced until 42 with the No4. If the decision was made earlier to adopt .276 Pederson which would have to include development of the Bren then the rifle would have to be introduced at the same time as the Bren. And I do not sees a major issue with having the older SMLE and Lewis .303 system arming some commonwealth units going into WW2 as small arms ammo resupply was a small fraction of a given units daily logistical slice.
 

Deleted member 1487

Pederen's method for lubricating ammuntition was, if memory is correct, a hard wax coating that avoided this issue as shown in the following links:
That said, there may have been enough development time for them to discover the technique of fluting the chamber to aid extraction of the cartridge case.
Fluting increases complexity of manufacture, while coating cartridge casing is quite a bit easier, especially as most nations resorted to using steel cases anyway due to the cost and shortage of brass during world wars, which had to be coated anyway with some lacquer to prevent rusting and ease feeding as steel doesn't have the 'flex' of brass. Plus fluting, while preventing sticking to the walls of the chamber especially under higher pressure that delayed blowback weapons operated under during extraction, also creates some gaps which reduces performance of the cartridge, as there isn't a full seal of the chamber to ensure all the pressure is headed out the muzzle. So the hard wax coating then could make sure there isn't a loss in pressure, while simplifying construction of the weapon, and since steel casings are being coated anyway, why not a proven hard wax with high melting point instead of a lacquer coating?

Edit: there is a question of melting if a round is left in a hot chamber for a while between firing shots; that applies to lacquer as well as hard wax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SsgtC

Banned
I wonder if British development of the .276 system would impact US decision making regarding the development of the Garand?
Doubtful. IIRC, the US Army wanted the Garand chambered in .276. But McArthur, as Chief of Staff, vetoed it because of the millions of rounds of .30-06 the Army still had. Kinda the same reason the UK stuck with .303
 
Doubtful. IIRC, the US Army wanted the Garand chambered in .276. But McArthur, as Chief of Staff, vetoed it because of the millions of rounds of .30-06 the Army still had. Kinda the same reason the UK stuck with .303

And as I love pointing out, the M1 Garand did not use any of that M1928 or M1 Ball 30-06 sitting in those warehouses during WWII. The Army let the USN use most of it in machine guns, and what was left, was sold on the civilian surplus market after WWII
The Army used the new M2 Ball in the Garand

So new ammo would have been made, no matter what semi-auto rifle was picked.
 

Deleted member 1487

And as I love pointing out, the M1 Garand did not use any of that M1928 or M1 Ball 30-06 sitting in those warehouses during WWII. The Army let the USN use most of it in machine guns, and what was left, was sold on the civilian surplus market after WWII
The Army used the new M2 Ball in the Garand

So new ammo would have been made, no matter what semi-auto rifle was picked.
That only came after the fact due to the concerns about rifle ranges not being able to handle the extra penetrative power of the M1 cartridge and it's greater range.
 
That only came after the fact due to the concerns about rifle ranges not being able to handle the extra penetrative power of the M1 cartridge and it's greater range.

It was also breaking Garands.
But fact remains, none of that millions of M1928 or M1 Ball was used in Garand rifles during the War.
 

Deleted member 1487

It was also breaking Garands.
But fact remains, none of that millions of M1928 or M1 Ball was used in Garand rifles during the War.
Sure, but the reason for the M2 Ball only came after the argument was made about the M1 ammo; plus until that point they had only used M1 ammo. The entire testing regime was done with M1 ball ammo, as the 1906 flat base 150 grain bullet was phased out in the mid-1920s so by 1936, when the problem was identified with the military ranges, only M1 ball ammo was left in stocks, hence why they had to develop the new M2 ball ammo instead. Since the Garand in .30-06 was the sole developmental model as of 1932, they had about 4 years to develop it with M1 ball ammo before the switch to M2 ball. There after even using M2 ball ammo the rifle wasn't perfected until 1940 after a significant redesign of the rifle.
 
Since the Garand in .30-06 was the sole developmental model as of 1932, they had about 4 years to develop it with M1 ball ammo before the switch to M2 ball. There after even using M2 ball ammo the rifle wasn't perfected until 1940 after a significant redesign of the rifle.

But still, none of those vast quantities of that old ammo was used in the new rifle, after the gas trap was removed. The new Garand rifle would need new ammunition, no matter the caliber.

The Johnson Rifle, that worked with existing ammo, from existing Springfield Rifle strippers-- so it could be done.
Just not with the Garand.

By time the Army said they didn't like the Johnson in December, 1939, just under 24,000 Garands had been manufactured, and they were all gas trap models. Didn't like the bayonet, and 'too long'

Yet Marine Paratroopers didn't have a problem with that.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Yet Marine Paratroopers didn't have a problem with that.
And the Paramarines were almost entirely composed of long service, pre-war Veterans who had years of experience handling rifles. Something that was distinctly not the case for other airborne units.
 

Deleted member 1487

But still, none of those vast quantities of that old ammo was used in the new rifle, after the gas trap was removed.
The gas trap was removed for reasons other than ammo type and the older ammo not used in the Garand because of the range issue.

The new Garand rifle would need new ammunition, no matter the caliber.
Only known in retrospect. Because of the range issue.

The Johnson Rifle, that worked with existing ammo, from existing Springfield Rifle strippers-- so it could be done.
Just not with the Garand.
You haven't proven the second sentence. The issue with the gas trap was independent of the ammo, no one ever got it to be reliable regardless of caliber and ammo. The Garand worked with M1 ammo, but that ammo was gone by the time the gas trap redesign was initiated, so I can see where you're conflating the two issues, but they weren't related.

By time the Army said they didn't like the Johnson in December, 1939, just under 24,000 Garands had been manufactured, and they were all gas trap models. Didn't like the bayonet, and 'too long'
The Johnson was more complex and expensive than the Garand, which meant more could go wrong in the field and fewer would be available as quickly. There is a reason the gas trap was ditched the Garand became the iconic rifle of WW2.
 

Deleted member 1487

First I've heard of that. Do tell us please?
Rotating internal magazine, short recoil, which meant the barrel itself recoiled, basically like the MG42 but using a rotating bolt instead of rollers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_rifle#Design
The M1941 rifle used the energy from recoil to cycle the rifle. As the bullet and propellant gases move down the barrel, they impart force on the bolthead which is locked to the barrel. The barrel, together with the bolt, moves a short distance rearward until the bullet leaves the barrel and pressure in the bore drops to safe levels. The barrel then stops against a shoulder allowing the bolt carrier to continue rearward under the momentum imparted by the initial recoil stage. The rotating bolt, with eight locking lugs, would then unlock from the chamber as cam arrangement rotates and unlocks the bolt to continue the operating cycle.[1] The Johnson rifle utilized a two-piece stock and a unique 10-round rotary magazine, designed to use the same 5-round stripper clips already in use by the M1903 Rifle.

Unfortunately, despite the several advantages the Johnson Rifle design had over the M1 Garand rifle, the existing disadvantages were too great to change US rifle production from the M1 Garand. The Johnson's short recoil reciprocating barrel mechanism resulted in excessive vertical shot dispersion that was never fully cured during its production life, and was prone to malfunction when a bayonet was attached to the reciprocating barrel. Additionally, the complex movements of the barrel required for proper operation would be subject to unacceptable stress upon a bayonet thrust into a target. The Johnson also employed a number of small parts that were easily lost during field stripping. Partially because of lack of development, the M1941 was less rugged and reliable than the M1, though this was a matter of personal preference and was not universally opined among those that had used both weapons in combat[4].

 
Top