Gun Porn Thread

[Moose242]

No. I would make the argument that the Pedersen is simpler from a functional standpoint. The toggle delayed blowback action is extremely simple as the mechanism is a primitive built in mechanical disadvantage. There is no gas port or gas system at all to speak of, no rotating bolt, very few moving parts, etc.

Obviously from a production standpoint it is a different story (speaking within the context of the rifle's day) but that is not pertinent to a discussion about the rifle's reliability.

The only moving parts on the Pedersen are the crank, conrod, and bolt head (which moves on a set of guide rails):

[YALE]

That looks pig simple.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

it has a mechanical device that operates on multiple axis of motion, with a portion of the device protruding past the confines of the receiver. That action creates opening for foreign material to easily enter and interfere with the more delicate operations of the autoloading and fire system. So when this mechanical action is utilized in an environment where the gun maybe shot from nontraditional positions and stances in less than ideal environmental conditions there is a much greater chance of malfunction.

Additionally The mechanism also creates a pinch hazard for the shooter if it is fired from a nontraditional position and stance. As an example: http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...-position.html

[Moose242]

it has a mechanical device that operates on multiple axis of motion, with a portion of the device protruding past the confines of the receiver. That action creates opening for foreign material to easily enter and interfere with the more delicate operations of the autoloading and fire system. So when this mechanical action is utilized in an environment where the gun maybe shot from nontraditional positions and stances in less than ideal environmental conditions there is a much freater chance of malfunction.

Additionally The mechanism also creates a pinch hazard for the shooter if it is fired from a nontraditional position and stance as an example: http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...-position.html

Well, yeah. A great many semi automatic rifles do. Throw in a rotating bolt and you get all kinds of silly.

But the action is open for such a fraction of a second, that is it not visible to the naked eye. We required a $6,000 slow motion camera to glimpse it and capture that footage. But the gun is sealed nearly as tight as an AG42 or Hakim rifle. The tolerances are air-tight and it is as well sealed as a MAS49 going by exposed internal area. But yes, all firearm actions open and you could say "when open, it is susceptible to foreign material" .

And lol at the pinch hazard. I have been pinched by every gun known to man and this one is no more or less likely to get you. In fact, the slide that fits over the crank is designed specifically to prevent harm to the user and seal the action against dirt. The only issue I have read about (and confirmed via an experiment) is that if you are wearing a brodie helmet and bring the gun in too far to your face, it will ping the brim (not a problem with a modern helmet beginning with the M1).

It is also worth noting that this rifle has no other moving parts whereas the Garand has an exposed rotating bolt, an exposed piston under the barrel, and an exposed operating rod on the side of the gun. That is, by my judgement at least, a series of design flaws (that even Pedersen tried to rectify with his GX and GY rifles by concealing the piston).

[AnthonyS]

Correct, but the Garand won because he had a rifle that could use 30-06. He made a single rifle in 30-06 (.276 was the original Garand caliber) that he demonstrated to Ordnance and it won out.

Fun fact: John Browning called Pederden the greatest gun designer in the world.

I will take John Browning's word over the locals here on DFWMustangs.

The only thing I don't like about the Pedersen action is that it blocks the sight for a very short time each cycle. I wonder if you'd notice it or it would just be a blur during the recoil part of the cycle. It'd be interesting to shoot one for sure, but I will probably never get the chance.

[AnthonyS]

And I will state as a Garand and M1A lover I have issues with the action myself. Cycling one manually when it starts to get dirty (just from powder and drying out the lube say after 100+ rds) gets to be a real pain and hard as hell on the hands. I absolutely love the accuracy of the design though. They are both beautiful shooting but the action is frustrating and feels clunky to the hands. Operating an AR or M16 on the other hand is infinitely easier and smoother.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

Air tight tolerances also means its easier to seize in place, and suffer from mechanical defects in production or use.

No other moving parts? how did the trigger work electronics?

you keep trying to argue the virtues of a gun that never saw combat, and by your own words never made it part field testing with only 13 made. Was Pedersen so butt hurt by losing to the garand that he never made another one? I mean my complaints can be easily rectified by a some simple design changes. Why wasnt the gun able to be modified to shoot .308? What was the production cost compared to the garand? With such fine tolerances could a grunt have been able to perform field maintenance on it?

[YALE]

Air tight tolerances also means its easier to seize in place, and suffer from mechanical defects in production or use.

No other moving parts? how did the trigger work electronics?

you keep trying to argue the virtues of a gun that never saw combat, and by your own words never made it part field testing with only 13 made. Was Pedersen so butt hurt by losing to the garand that he never made another one? I mean my complaints can be easily rectified by a some simple design changes. Why wasnt the gun able to be modified to shoot .308? What was the production cost compared to the garand? With such fine tolerances could a grunt have been able to perform field maintenance on it?

He never made any more because he went on to the next thing after he didn't get the contract. He had no need to keep trying to take it to market. That rifle was FAR from his only design. He was a prolific designer that had many designs go to market in the first half of the century. If this is the first you're hearing of him, you're in for a real treat. Read up on the man.

Additionally The mechanism also creates a pinch hazard for the shooter if it is fired from a nontraditional position and stance. As an example: http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/...-position.html

I fucking dare you to practice shooting from that idiotic position with a rolling block Sharps.

[Moose242]

I shot it quite a lot this weekend and the toggle impedes your sight plane no longer than a luger. You cannot see the action working.

[Moose242]

Air tight tolerances also means its easier to seize in place, and suffer from mechanical defects in production or use.

No other moving parts? how did the trigger work electronics?

you keep trying to argue the virtues of a gun that never saw combat, and by your own words never made it part field testing with only 13 made. Was Pedersen so butt hurt by losing to the garand that he never made another one? I mean my complaints can be easily rectified by a some simple design changes. Why wasnt the gun able to be modified to shoot .308? What was the production cost compared to the garand? With such fine tolerances could a grunt have been able to perform field maintenance on it?

Dude, you are making grandiose statements about a gun that you have probably never seen, shot, or heard of until very recently.

The tolerances are tight as necessitated in any delayed blowback action be it toggle, lever, roller, gas, etc. as these tolerances are essential in acting as a mechanical disadvantage.

But yes, I am arguing the virtues of this gun as a reliable, viable early semiautomatic rifle. Arguably it was among the very first if not the first truly viable semiautomatic military rifle. And they made 13 model Pb rifles at Vickers-Armstrong, a number of PA rifles, and 20 in the USA. About 250 total Pedersen autoloaders were made, and the Pb is the least common.

The United States tested the gun into the ground and we were going to adopt it, which made the British decide to do the same so that they could share a common small arm with America. Douglas MacArthur who was in charge of making the final call decided to stick with 30-06 as we had lots in stock from WWI and we had been schizophrenic with cartridge options before then (30-03, 30-40, 6mm Lee Navy).

But no, Pedersen was not butthurt. he went on to be one of the most successful arms designers of the 20th century with many, many classics that made him a very wealthy man. Hell, Springfield Armory paid him to just live nearby.

Also, the gun was not modified to shoot 308 because 308 did not exist
.276 had an incredible trajectory for its day in the low recoil was a desirable feature. Rifles chambered in it could also carry 10 rounds instead of eight. Also, tests on animal corpses show that the 276 cartridge was just as if not more devastating than 30-06.

[petyweestraw]

So I see you read the brochure

[Moose242]

I wish I had one
The only thing I can find is a manual for the wrong model. Information about these is extremely scarce.

[Moose242]

Also picked up this gun I have been chasing for a while:




Beautiful Krag made by the Springfield Armory in 1894 (first year). Serial 11## making it one of the first to come from the Armory (no FFL required too because it is an antique).

This particular rifle has an immaculate bore and came from the Evergreen Aviation Museum as they have decided to part with firearms and focus more on aerospace stuff. Very handsome and smooth rifle.

[dee]

That and the Pedersen are awesome collection pieces.

[YALE]

Alex, your C&R rack is nuts.