World War I Light Rifle?

Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

One thing I been thinking about is a WWI Light Rifle using the Pedersen device. As designed OTL its an awkward that really threw the balance of the M1903 off.

However, what if you built the Pedersen device into a modified M1903 at the factor instead of having it being issued and swapped with a bolt in the field as needed? Basically you cut the barrel down to 14 inches instead of the 24 of the M1903. Instead of the mag being side mounted and throwing the balance of the rifle off badly it bottom feed like most mags are. Mag are modified a bit so they are closed instead of the peep holes to let you see how much ammo you have.

This also lighten the load of your infantryman by removing the need to carry a bolt and the pedersen device along with ammo for both. Its also a hell of a lot more mobile in the trenches. Plus most of the parts can be pulled from normal M1903 production.

Thoughts?
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
It was just too soon for the Army to think that way.
The rifle still had a magazine cutoff, that makes it into a single shot. Don't want to be wasting ammo
And that ammo had to be capable of penetrating 50 pine boards close and killing a horse at 1000 yards.

Now one way would be to recall the early Springfields that had poor heat treatment, and permanently modify them to fire less powerful ammo.
That Pederson device had to leave the magazine well alone, so it could remain loaded with 30-06.
Here, these would never see a 30-03 or 30-06 ever again, so they wouldn't blow up- so you can modify the mag well for the new magazine.
chop the barrel down, and you have an early M1 Carbine for secondary/rear area troops rather than 1911 pistols.

You sell this as a cheaper fix for the existing rifles rather than making new pistols and either re-heat treating or scrapping the old rifles
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Would giving the .45 1911 Colt a longer barrel and some form of stock serve a similar purpose? Kinda like the carbine versions of the Luger?
 

TonyA

marathag said:
It was just too soon for the Army to think that way.
The rifle still had a magazine cutoff, that makes it into a single shot. Don't want to be wasting ammo
And that ammo had to be capable of penetrating 50 pine boards close and killing a horse at 1000 yards.

Now one way would be to recall the early Springfields that had poor heat treatment, and permanently modify them to fire less powerful ammo.
That Pederson device had to leave the magazine well alone, so it could remain loaded with 30-06.
Here, these would never see a 30-03 or 30-06 ever again, so they wouldn't blow up- so you can modify the mag well for the new magazine.
chop the barrel down, and you have an early M1 Carbine for secondary/rear area troops rather than 1911 pistols.

You sell this as a cheaper fix for the existing rifles rather than making new pistols and either re-heat treating or scrapping the old rifles
Click to expand...
Hell of an idea! Bet some of those would still be on hand when WW2 broke out...
 

Peg Leg Pom

Driftless said:
Would giving the .45 1911 Colt a longer barrel and some form of stock serve a similar purpose? Kinda like the carbine versions of the Luger?
Click to expand...
Something the Germans very quickly abandoned. What you need is the Thompson developed earlier, perhaps as a result of the US campaigns in Mexico.
 

Oldbill

I bought one of those suspect M1903's some years ago. I've never been convinced they were all as bad, or as poorly heat treated as suspected. Never shot it, don't know if I will, it's a safe queen. But it's been re-barreled at least once, if not more, as the barrel on it now is from 1944.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
Peg Leg Pom said:
Something the Germans very quickly abandoned. What you need is the Thompson developed earlier, perhaps as a result of the US campaigns in Mexico.
Click to expand...

I think that could come about through larger scale field experience by the Army - like an earlier Villa Expedition or from the Philippine American War. In large part, you would need to overcome that old conservative commander's view of not giving foot soldiers the opportunity to waste too much ammunition. Whether it's the OP's light rifle or an earlier SMG; you would need to get top level commanders on board, especially Gen Crozier - Chief of Ordnance. He approved several small arms technology upgrades (M1903, M1911, BAR & others) but passed on the Lewis gun in 1911.
 

sonofpegasus

In 1915 during WWI around 100 .35 Remington chambered Model 8s were shipped to France these could have been used as the bases for a light rifle. Further in 1917 the French created the 8 mm Ribeyrolles by modifying the .351 SL Winchester cartridge by necking it down to accept an 8 mm rifle bullet, when tested in July 1918 and found to be effective out to 400 m. WW1 ended before this weapon could be fully developed and deployed. This cartridge with an effective range of 400 meters did not fit the then perceived doctrine of aimed long range rifle fire and this could explain why it was not rapidly adopted. In his article on the development the Assault rifle Antony Williams considers the 8 mm Ribeyrolles to be a contender as to being the first purpose built intermediate round. Finding a Pod to bring the development of this cartridge earlier in the war might be possible.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
sonofpegasus said:
In 1915 during WWI around 100 .35 Remington chambered Model 8s were shipped to France these could have been used as the bases for a light rifle.
Click to expand...

As a military arm, it would need to be be redesigned for easier take down.

While reliable and easy to clean due to it take-down nature, there are way too many fiddly bits and steps to get at them in the receiver. Simplify some of the interior parts and add a removable top cover for access.
Also for an intermediate round, you have the .25 Remington. With 75gr bullets, you get 3000fps, nice and flat shooting, a bit more powerful than .223

The .25 Remington has just a bit less case capacity vs the Savage .250-3000, that could do 3000 with an 87 gr. bullet
 

Peg Leg Pom

Driftless said:
I think that could come about through larger scale field experience by the Army - like an earlier Villa Expedition or from the Philippine American War. In large part, you would need to overcome that old conservative commander's view of not giving foot soldiers the opportunity to waste too much ammunition. Whether it's the OP's light rifle or an earlier SMG; you would need to get top level commanders on board, especially Gen Crozier - Chief of Ordnance. He approved several small arms technology upgrades (M1903, M1911, BAR & others) but passed on the Lewis gun in 1911.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if there was some well publicised disaster where the insurgents wipe out a large but isolated force due to shear numbers would prompt a change, or a prolonged bout of urban warfare?
 

Deleted member 1487

marathag said:
As a military arm, it would need to be be redesigned for easier take down.

While reliable and easy to clean due to it take-down nature, there are way too many fiddly bits and steps to get at them in the receiver. Simplify some of the interior parts and add a removable top cover for access.
Also for an intermediate round, you have the .25 Remington. With 75gr bullets, you get 3000fps, nice and flat shooting, a bit more powerful than .223

The .25 Remington has just a bit less case capacity vs the Savage .250-3000, that could do 3000 with an 87 gr. bullet
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Lee_Navy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6mm_Lee_Navy
 
Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

As to this idea of Pedersen Device Light Rifle its I trying to figure out how it would handle. Would it not be the awkward rifle like the OTL Pedersen Device.
 

Deleted member 1487

marathag said:
6mm Lee had a case capacity of 51 gr. of water, vs 42 for the .25 Rem, and 60mm case length vs 52mm

.223 Rem is 31gr. and 45mm.

Anyway, 25 Rem with the 117gr. bullets, velocity was around 2400fps and wasn't a barrel burner. Even with the 3000fps load, shouldn't be, as the 250-3000 wasn't
Click to expand...
A large part of that was the length of the bullet itself. You can create a lower pressure/load round, like the Spanish and Japanese did with the 7.62 Nato rounds. Lighter bullet, lighter powder load, perhaps shortened case even as of 1914 through development of the cartridge.

Of course 'Light' is relative compared to the .30-06 cartridge and rifle of 1914.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
What drove the idea that early 20th Century infantry battles would be fought at long range (for a rifle that is...)? Was it tied to the experience of the Boer War, Russo-Japanese War? From the US perspective, parts (not all) of the fight in Cuba and the Philippines were at short ranges in low visibility jungles and the Indian Wars were long over, so what got the US to buy into long range rifle fire being a necessity?
 

Deleted member 1487

Driftless said:
What drove the idea that early 20th Century infantry battles would be fought at long range (for a rifle that is...)? Was it tied to the experience of the Boer War, Russo-Japanese War? From the US perspective, parts (not all) of the fight in Cuba and the Philippines were at short ranges in low visibility jungles and the Indian Wars were long over, so what got the US to buy into long range rifle fire being a necessity?
Click to expand...
All the cool kids were doing it. That and standardizing on one universal caliber was the rage of the day.
 

Marquis

Meh, if I want a short rifle, I'll just go get an SMLE. Recoil's no biggie, it's rather exaggerated. Even better if you get a .308 modified one.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
wiking said:
All the cool kids were doing it. That and standardizing on one universal caliber was the rage of the day.
Click to expand...

The Army was relatively happy with the performance of the 30-40 Krag until they went up against the 7x57 Mausers in Cuba

the round nose 220gr weight at 2000fps had worse ballistics vs the 173gr roundnose at 2300 fps

The new .30-03 used a similar 200gr bullet, but more powder to match, 2300fps
So ballistics really didn't improve much, but it was rimmed and used chargers to load the magazine.

However, ballistics were still off, and it burned barrels almost as bad as the 6mm Lee

So back to the drawing board, a cooler burning powder and lighter spitzer bullets resulted in the 30-06

And way more powerful than what was needed, with a max effective range of 3300 yards.
For Machine Guns, that's an advantage for a beaten zone, but worthless for a guy with iron sights.
 

cortz#9

How about helping Winchester develop their Model 10 rifle earlier? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1910
Develop it to take a larger caliber and a detachable magazine that holds more rounds.

1920px-Winchester_.401_SL_Model_1910.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top