British army adopts Pedersen rifle and cartridge in the 1930s

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
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 Johnson's short recoil reciprocating barrel mechanism resulted in excessive vertical shot dispersion that was never fully cured during its production life"

In the tests against the Garand, troops were more accurate with the Johnson
Initial trials were held at Quantico Marine Depot, Virginia, in May of 1940. This trial was supervised command of Captain George Van Orden and the firing party consisted of four distinguished Marine Corps. marksmen and a Chief Marine Gunner as the shooting coach.

The test took place on the afternoon of May 6 and the whole day on May 7, and consisted of instruction in the operation and firing methods of both types of rifles. Courses of fire at 300 and 1000 yards both slow and rapid fire were then shot. All shooters firing both M1 Rifle and Johnson Rifle at each stage.


Results concluded from the tests found that the Johnson Rifle was more accurate with a score of 81.2% total hits to the M1's 71.3%. There were no malfunctions with the Johnson Rifles or the M1Garands, however the M1's dropped their centre of impax during the test. The M1's were found to load and reload faster than the Johnsons but rate of fire in the rapid mode was identical with both rifles.


Capt. Van Orden's Summary Opinion stated "
The Johnson Semi-Automatic Rifle, Rotary Magazine Type, is materially superior to the U.S. Rifle, cal. 30, M1 in accuracy and potential combat efficiency"
 

Deleted member 1487

In the tests against the Garand, troops were more accurate with the Johnson
Initial trials were held at Quantico Marine Depot, Virginia, in May of 1940. This trial was supervised command of Captain George Van Orden and the firing party consisted of four distinguished Marine Corps. marksmen and a Chief Marine Gunner as the shooting coach.

The test took place on the afternoon of May 6 and the whole day on May 7, and consisted of instruction in the operation and firing methods of both types of rifles. Courses of fire at 300 and 1000 yards both slow and rapid fire were then shot. All shooters firing both M1 Rifle and Johnson Rifle at each stage.


Results concluded from the tests found that the Johnson Rifle was more accurate with a score of 81.2% total hits to the M1's 71.3%. There were no malfunctions with the Johnson Rifles or the M1Garands, however the M1's dropped their centre of impax during the test. The M1's were found to load and reload faster than the Johnsons but rate of fire in the rapid mode was identical with both rifles.


Capt. Van Orden's Summary Opinion stated "
The Johnson Semi-Automatic Rifle, Rotary Magazine Type, is materially superior to the U.S. Rifle, cal. 30, M1 in accuracy and potential combat efficiency"
One test by the Marines, which was contradicted by the Army. That doesn't tell us how reliable it would have been in combat conditions, use with conscripts who weren't expert marksmen, nor how maintainable it would be in the field.
 

SsgtC

Banned
In the tests against the Garand, troops were more accurate with the Johnson
Initial trials were held at Quantico Marine Depot, Virginia, in May of 1940. This trial was supervised command of Captain George Van Orden and the firing party consisted of four distinguished Marine Corps. marksmen and a Chief Marine Gunner as the shooting coach.

The test took place on the afternoon of May 6 and the whole day on May 7, and consisted of instruction in the operation and firing methods of both types of rifles. Courses of fire at 300 and 1000 yards both slow and rapid fire were then shot. All shooters firing both M1 Rifle and Johnson Rifle at each stage.


Results concluded from the tests found that the Johnson Rifle was more accurate with a score of 81.2% total hits to the M1's 71.3%. There were no malfunctions with the Johnson Rifles or the M1Garands, however the M1's dropped their centre of impax during the test. The M1's were found to load and reload faster than the Johnsons but rate of fire in the rapid mode was identical with both rifles.


Capt. Van Orden's Summary Opinion stated "The Johnson Semi-Automatic Rifle, Rotary Magazine Type, is materially superior to the U.S. Rifle, cal. 30, M1 in accuracy and potential combat efficiency
"
I bolded important part of your citation. "Four Distinguished Marine Corps Marksman" would be the equivalent of a modern day Olympic Competitive Shooter. In other words the best marksmen in the military at that time. They would easily be sniper caliber shooters. And the Chief Gunner? He would have spent the last 20-30 years minimum studying nothing but firearms proficiency. If the four marksmen are Olympians, the Gunner would be a World Record Holder for long range accurate shooting. Those five men would be professional shooters with tens of thousands of rounds fired between them at minimum. It was a test that didn't even try to resemble real world conditions.
 

Deleted member 1487

I bolded important part of your citation. "Four Distinguished Marine Corps Marksman" would be the equivalent of a modern day Olympic Competitive Shooter. In other words the best marksmen in the military at that time. They would easily be sniper caliber shooters. And the Chief Gunner? He would have spent the last 20-30 years minimum studying nothing but firearms proficiency. If the four marksmen are Olympians, the Gunner would be a World Record Holder for long range accurate shooting. Those five men would be professional shooters with tens of thousands of rounds fired between them at minimum. It was a test that didn't even try to resemble real world conditions.
And represented everything wrong with US military rifle testing; they were running a marksman match in sterile conditions, not combat ones and not with marginal shooters, who would generally represent the average conscript. I have no doubt that the Johnson rifle would have been an excellent match rifle in the right hands, but as a combat weapon it likely would not have done nearly as well as the Garand. A .276 Garand might well have performed even better due to the softer recoil and boat-tailed bullet.
 
I bolded important part of your citation. "Four Distinguished Marine Corps Marksman" would be the equivalent of a modern day Olympic Competitive Shooter. In other words the best marksmen in the military at that time. They would easily be sniper caliber shooters. And the Chief Gunner? He would have spent the last 20-30 years minimum studying nothing but firearms proficiency. If the four marksmen are Olympians, the Gunner would be a World Record Holder for long range accurate shooting. Those five men would be professional shooters with tens of thousands of rounds fired between them at minimum. It was a test that didn't even try to resemble real world conditions.

But that test shows that the Johnson still had better inherent accuracy.
A more accurate rifle is a boon to a noob as much as a pro. Maybe more so, and as more accurate increases a chance of a hit, the reason for carrying a rifle in combat.

And in the MArine test, the Johnson worked when the Garand failed the mud and surf tests, so this wasn't just benchrest shooting. Jarheads can be stupid, but not in weapons tests.

That's the real world the Marines lived in, a rifle that worked in those conditions, and more accurate
They did note the downside, that while the barrel was stupidly easily to remove in the field, the receiver was another matter, and they did remark that could use improvement.
 

Zen9

Banned
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




And yet the Dutch chose it. Which is why crates of the rifles were sitting in US Warehouses and 'liberated' for the War.
In actual use most of those 'issues' proved to not be issues and the weapon earned some respect and affection.
 

Deleted member 1487

And yet the Dutch chose it. Which is why crates of the rifles were sitting in US Warehouses and 'liberated' for the War.
In actual use most of those 'issues' proved to not be issues and the weapon earned some respect and affection.
Do people really think of the 1930s Dutch Army when figuring what a good small arm was? Besides, they only chose it as a weapon for their colonial army, not their home army and seemed to have selected something that wasn't being used by anyone else because it was immediately available and they were desperately trying to equip before the Japanese came. It wasn't a bad rifle of course, but given the extremely limited use it is hard to say it was as good as or better in combat than the Garand.
 

SsgtC

Banned
But that test shows that the Johnson still had better inherent accuracy.
A more accurate rifle is a boon to a noob as much as a pro. Maybe more so, and as more accurate increases a chance of a hit, the reason for carrying a rifle in combat.

And in the MArine test, the Johnson worked when the Garand failed the mud and surf tests, so this wasn't just benchrest shooting. Jarheads can be stupid, but not in weapons tests.

That's the real world the Marines lived in, a rifle that worked in those conditions, and more accurate
They did note the downside, that while the barrel was stupidly easily to remove in the field, the receiver was another matter, and they did remark that could use improvement.
No, it shows what a group of superior, highly trained marksmen can accomplish. A good Marksman can make even a bad rifle look good. You're better off looking at the results when the gun is put into the hands of regular soldiers and Marines.
 
A good Marksman can make even a bad rifle look good.
And a good rifle, even better. The Marines prized marksmanship far more than the Army.
Rifle Expert, the best.
Rifle Sharpshooter is next,
Rifle Marksman is the minimum required. Don't rate for that, then more training and re-qualifying. Marines qualify at greater distances than the Army, shooting from more positions than the Army, and all Marines do this, not just the 11Bulletstoppers, and other direct infantry MOS as in the Army

So why didn't the Garand shine for the Marines? If the Garand was the better rifle, the experts should have done better with it.

Or you saying only Noobs could use a Garand to its fullest potential?
That doesn't make sense.
 
Besides, they only chose it as a weapon for their colonial army, not their home army

When did the Dutch select the Johnson. If it was after May 1940 there wasn't a Home Army. Anyways the East Indies Army was separate to the Home Army in the same way the British Indian army was as can be seen by the Indian army adopting the Vickers Berthier rather than the Bren.
 
When did the Dutch select the Johnson. If it was after May 1940 there wasn't a Home Army. Anyways the East Indies Army was separate to the Home Army in the same way the British Indian army was as can be seen by the Indian army adopting the Vickers Berthier rather than the Bren.

M1941 my be a clue here.
 

Deleted member 1487

When did the Dutch select the Johnson. If it was after May 1940 there wasn't a Home Army. Anyways the East Indies Army was separate to the Home Army in the same way the British Indian army was as can be seen by the Indian army adopting the Vickers Berthier rather than the Bren.
Some time in 1941 when it was clear things were getting really bad with Japan and the DEI. It sounds like they picked the rifle they could get the fastest and would be semi-automatic and could be sourced from a neutral with large productive capacity, i.e. the US. Since the Garand was entirely for the US military the Johnson was the only other semi-auto rifle option that wasn't being produced for anyone else.
 

SsgtC

Banned
And a good rifle, even better. The Marines prized marksmanship far more than the Army.
Rifle Expert, the best.
Rifle Sharpshooter is next,
Rifle Marksman is the minimum required. Don't rate for that, then more training and re-qualifying. Marines qualify at greater distances than the Army, shooting from more positions than the Army, and all Marines do this, not just the 11Bulletstoppers, and other direct infantry MOS as in the Army

So why didn't the Garand shine for the Marines? If the Garand was the better rifle, the experts should have done better with it.

Or you saying only Noobs could use a Garand to its fullest potential?
That doesn't make sense.
Dude, I'm a Marine. I know how we classify our Marksmen. I qualified Expert myself with both Rifle and Pistol. And no offense, but you don't really seem to understand shooting all that well. There are a million factors that go into how well you do with a particular rifle.

But the main thing you're doing, is fixating on piece of data to try and prove your point, when every other test showed the exact opposite.
 
And no offense, but you don't really seem to understand shooting all that well.

So please explain why a lower accuracy rifle that fails the surf test is the best Rifle for a a force where amphibious landings is the reason for this armed force to exist?

This was the Garand solution for D-Day
ag1040-0.jpeg

A big Condom for the Rifle.
 
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.
I’m not sure about the specific clip used in the Pedersen rifle, but the one in the Garand could certainly be loaded with individual rounds in the rifle. However people rarely bothered because it was far more convenient to pop the clip out and drop in a full one.

And I find it astonishing that people are still trotting out this thing of “nearly match the rate of fire” of a semi-auto with a bolt action when both real world events and a moments thought show it is not the case. For one weapon you have a whole sequence of movements to work the bolt which are completely absent in the other. For any deliberate rate of fire, the semi-auto gains extra time to align and aim the rifle and less likelihood of drill errors such as short stroking. As the required rate of fire speeds up, the bolt action becomes increasingly an exercise in frantic bolt work with a side order of aiming whereas the self-loader can maintain reasonable aim. When things are desperate and aiming goes out the window one can shoot a semi-auto empty in a couple of seconds which no bolt action can get anywhere near. All other things being equal a semi auto gives at least better quality of fire or better quantity of fire, but more usually it gives both.

This was the Garand solution for D-Day

A big Condom for the Rifle.
As I understand it the choice of rifle would have played no role in that. The expectation was that there would be little rifle work on the beaches and without larger PODs the covers to protect against salt and sand would have gone on Garands, Johnsons, 1903s, SVT40s, M16s or whatever other rifle the GIs had been issued with.
 

Deleted member 1487

And I find it astonishing that people are still trotting out this thing of “nearly match the rate of fire” of a semi-auto with a bolt action when both real world events and a moments thought show it is not the case. For one weapon you have a whole sequence of movements to work the bolt which are completely absent in the other. For any deliberate rate of fire, the semi-auto gains extra time to align and aim the rifle and less likelihood of drill errors such as short stroking. As the required rate of fire speeds up, the bolt action becomes increasingly an exercise in frantic bolt work with a side order of aiming whereas the self-loader can maintain reasonable aim. When things are desperate and aiming goes out the window one can shoot a semi-auto empty in a couple of seconds which no bolt action can get anywhere near. All other things being equal a semi auto gives at least better quality of fire or better quantity of fire, but more usually it gives both.
There is a popular gun youtuber who rapid fired the Garand and got all 8 out off less than 2 seconds. Good luck trying that with a bolt action. I can post the vid if you want.
 
There are a lot of videos like that. What I find even more interesting are the many videos of people doing comparative “mad minute” or competition shooting, which generally show just how frantic and complicated it is to get a high rate of fire out of a bolt action while a Garand not only delivers more rounds but with less fuss.

Given the need to train literally millions of draftees to shoot adequately while hungry, tired and under enemy fire it’s a no-brainer which is the superior rifle platform, although juggling the priorities of SMG, machine guns, grenades etc muddies the waters considerably.
 

Deleted member 1487

There are a lot of videos like that. What I find even more interesting are the many videos of people doing comparative “mad minute” or competition shooting, which generally show just how frantic and complicated it is to get a high rate of fire out of a bolt action while a Garand not only delivers more rounds but with less fuss.

Given the need to train literally millions of draftees to shoot adequately while hungry, tired and under enemy fire it’s a no-brainer which is the superior rifle platform, although juggling the priorities of SMG, machine guns, grenades etc muddies the waters considerably.
Which is why the intermediate caliber assault rifle and later SCHV weapons took over. All in one but for platoon MGs.
 
And I find it astonishing that people are still trotting out this thing of “nearly match the rate of fire” of a semi-auto with a bolt action when both real world events and a moments thought show it is not the case. For one weapon you have a whole sequence of movements to work the bolt which are completely absent in the other. For any deliberate rate of fire, the semi-auto gains extra time to align and aim the rifle and less likelihood of drill errors such as short stroking. As the required rate of fire speeds up, the bolt action becomes increasingly an exercise in frantic bolt work with a side order of aiming whereas the self-loader can maintain reasonable aim.
November 12, 1940 competitive tests were held in San Diego, California. The tests were completed on December 12, 1940.

Aimed fire from a variety of shooting positions

Garand – 12 shots per minute, 4.23 hits per minute, efficiency percentage 0.352.

Johnson – 10.25 shots per minute, 4.30 hits per minute, efficiency percentage 0.419.

Springfield – 8.8 shots per minute, 3.85 hits per minute, efficiency percentage 0.437.


As I understand it the choice of rifle would have played no role in that. The expectation was that there would be little rifle work on the beaches and without larger PODs the covers to protect against salt and sand would have gone on Garands, Johnsons, 1903s, SVT40s, M16s or whatever other rifle the GIs had been issued with.

Marines got no covers for their Johnsons, Springfields and Reisings.

Of the three, only the Reising had issues in 1942
 
Marines got no covers for their Johnsons, Springfields and Reisings.
Of the three, only the Reising had issues in 1942

And that was mainly due to the Reising SMG being designed for the civilian (i.e. police, prison and security/bank guard) market. It only entered service with the US Marine Corps because it was available. The Thompson production being entirely swallowed up by the US Army.
 
Top