The Pedersen Device in 1916

WI someone created the equivalent of the Pedersen device in 1916? At this time the nation who created it, could actually field the weapon before WWI ended. What would the effect on the inter-war arms industry be if semi-automatic rifles proved their worth?
 
That's presuming the Pedersen Device did prove it's worth. I've heard conflicting reports about this thing, some saying it was accurate and deadly others that it was easy to lose bits of in the field.

It's not as if certain sections of the military profession weren't aware of the usefullness of semi-auto rifles pre-WW1, (Meunier Rifle), it's just that the war came along before anything practical could really be done to introduce them.
 
That's presuming the Pedersen Device did prove it's worth. I've heard conflicting reports about this thing, some saying it was accurate and deadly others that it was easy to lose bits of in the field.

It's not as if certain sections of the military profession weren't aware of the usefullness of semi-auto rifles pre-WW1, (Meunier Rifle), it's just that the war came along before anything practical could really be done to introduce them.

From what I've read, mostly field tests, the Pedersen Device could be quite useful. However changing the bolt took some time, yet the manual recommended doing this up to an hour before a battle was to begin. The various pieces of the kit could be lost, but the device itself was a single unit.

Well the later statement is what I'm looking for. True more died from artillery then bullets in WWI but how people view the conflict causes certain things to be seen as more important. So if the Germans all come home with tales of the British and their rapid fire rifles, would we see the K98 phased out? Or would volume of fire be seen as wasteful as many did?
 

Highlander

Banned
I think personally the best way to get semiautomatic weapons in WWI would be to delay it - even probably a year or two would do it.
 
From what I've read, mostly field tests, the Pedersen Device could be quite useful. However changing the bolt took some time, yet the manual recommended doing this up to an hour before a battle was to begin. The various pieces of the kit could be lost, but the device itself was a single unit.

It perhaps should be bourne in mind that the Pedersen Device wasn't a true SLR as we know it. It was an adaptation of a bolt action rifle and had bits and bobs sticking out at odd angles. How that would have affected it on the battlefield is an unknown.

Well the later statement is what I'm looking for. True more died from artillery then bullets in WWI but how people view the conflict causes certain things to be seen as more important. So if the Germans all come home with tales of the British and their rapid fire rifles, would we see the K98 phased out? Or would volume of fire be seen as wasteful as many did?

There'll always be some who would argue that way, one of the first things to be deleted from the SMLE in WW1 was the magazine cutoff meant to turn the thing into a single shot rifle, but rapid fire has an addictive quality for soldiers. The idea of getting as many shots at your enemy in as short a time as possible, well it's just too good an idea to pass up.

I don't think the Germans would have been in a position to do anything about an SLR until the late 20's or early 30's. They had too little money, too many other things to spend it on and too many leftover Mausers to use up.
 
Well the clip for one was just an awful looking thing. I cannot imagine how heavy a forty round clip added to the rifle would be, but it was more of a firing from the hip kinda thing as I understand.
 
Well the clip for one was just an awful looking thing. I cannot imagine how heavy a forty round clip added to the rifle would be, but it was more of a firing from the hip kinda thing as I understand.

It also stuck out diagonally from the host weapon and it's the only magazine I can think of to use that configuration, and I'm guessing there's a reason for that.
 
It also stuck out diagonally from the host weapon and it's the only magazine I can think of to use that configuration, and I'm guessing there's a reason for that.

It was because of the sights, a lot of work went into making sure the sights did not need correction. Although I held one at a gun show one time and it felt alright, but I had a small bolt a mm from my cheek, Only used to the bolt action that could break a bone, but I don;t know the recoil on the thing, so who knows?
 

Redbeard

Banned
The Madsen LMG was in production by early 20th century (and until 1950s) and if introduced largescale before WWI it would have provided a huge offensive and defensive firepower from squad level and up. The big question of course is to what degree an army would change doctrines etc. before learning the hard way in battle. But anyway I think it would be easier to adopt to squads centered on a LMG than getting something useful out of every man having a Pedersen device.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madsen_light_machine_gun
 
Having actually held a Springfield with Perderson Device installed,I'm of the opinion that while useful in a limited capacity. At the time there were already weapon systems surpassing its performance( BAR,MP18) when deployed. Delaying the war a year or two doesn't lead to more firepower in the hands of the average grunt,As the majority of the firepower revolution has a direct link to lessons learned in trench warfare on the Western Front
 

Markus

Banned
It better works very well or the forces opposing modern firearms will have a field day! These guys were powerful enough without a big failure of a semi-auto rifle.

@Redbeard: My encyclopedia of WW2 weapons is very critical of the Madsen: It says it cooks off much sooner than similar designs, had an unstable bipod and became very inaccuret once the barrel was hot.
 

Redbeard

Banned
It better works very well or the forces opposing modern firearms will have a field day! These guys were powerful enough without a big failure of a semi-auto rifle.

@Redbeard: My encyclopedia of WW2 weapons is very critical of the Madsen: It says it cooks off much sooner than similar designs, had an unstable bipod and became very inaccuret once the barrel was hot.

That is just about the opposite I've heard of it - i.e. being a very reliable and accurate weapon although of a complicated and expensive design requiring quality ammo. My father had one issued in his army time in the 1950s and spoke highly praising of it ("Good ol' Miss Madsen" was IIRC their nickname for it).

The Germans used it with success for their Stosstruppen in WWI, and the rifle was sold some something like 40 armies all over the world, but never in quantity for a real big one.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Top