I have assembled all the slow motion footage from my Pedersen shooting session into its own standalone video, for the folks who are interested. This does also include a malfunction that we caught on camera that was not in the full-length video.
(You can see my full video on this rifle here)
John and James Miller of Rochester New York designed and built this rifle, which is an example of an intermediate revolving firearm. It comes after the flintlock Collier guns, but before Sam Colt’s Paterson demonstrated […]
In the mid/late 1960s, Colt was manufacturing AR-15 rifles and wanted to supply light machine guns to go with them – so they developed the CMG-2 (“Colt’s Machine Gun”). The CMG-2 competed against the Stoner […]
The Merwin & Hulbert company was a short-lived firearms manufacturing partnership between designer Joseph Merwin and the Hulbert brothers as financiers. Merwin wanted to design a particularly strong and high-quality revolver, and he succeeded – […]
© 2024 Forgotten Weapons.
Site developed by Cardinal Acres Web Development.
Just wanted to let you know that you do a great job. Thanks for your sharing your passion.
Thanks for the video, I had never heard of a Pederson rifle before. As a true lover of the M-1 Garand, I found it very interesting. Thanks.
The toggle bolt locked open, and the enbloc clip didn’t quite pop out of the action; doesn’t seem like much of a malfunction.
Saves the shooter from picking it up off the ground!
Does anybody consider putting Pedersen rifle into civilian market? If not: why?
.276 Pedersen looks feasible as a hunting cartridge, might be cost of manufacture prohibitive?
It’s dimensions appear similar to the .308 Winchester as relevant i.e. Apart from the bullet diameter:
.276
Base diameter .450 in (11.4 mm)
Rim diameter .450 in (11.4 mm)
Case length 2.023 in (51.4 mm)
Overall length 2.855 in (72.5 mm)
2,400 ft/s 150grn
.308
Base diameter 0.4709 in (11.96 mm)
Rim diameter 0.4728 in (12.01 mm)
Case length 2.015 (51.18 mm)
Overall length 2.800 (71.12 mm)
2,820 ft/s 150grn
Which is notable if the .308 Winchester was supposed to be a more handy version of the 30-06, given the earlier date of it’s development. Although it gave 2,910 ft/s from a 150grn bullet apparently, as oppose 2,400 from the.276 calibre but it was more .308 Winchester sized, than the 06 which has an overall length of 3.34 in (85 mm)
.280 British seems more of an intermediate round, size wise.
Base diameter .470 in (11.9 mm)
Rim diameter .473 in (12.0 mm)
Case length 1.71 in (43 mm)
Overall length 2.54 in (65 mm)
2,549 ft/s 140grn
.276 might well be a more pleasant shooting round than .308 I suppose, for hunting.
Wikipedia.
.308 Winchester has child which fire .284 bullet (276 in .276 Pedersen is for bore-diameter-lands), it is called 7mm-08 Remington and throw 150 grain projectile at 2650ft/s. The cartridges which could be inspiration for Pedersen in choice of bore diameter were: 7×57 Spanish, 7×64 Brenneke both known for their accuracy.
Other question: could be Pedersen rifle adopted for different cartridge than .276 Pedersen? We know that it couldn’t be reworked 30-06, which is not surprising considering than 30-06 is much longer than .276 Pedersen. But what about other cartridge available on 1930s market? Say for example .250-3000 Savage (which is even shorter – length is 2.515″ to 2.855″ of Pedersen round) or .300 Savage (2.6″ long) or .257 Roberts (2.775″ long)?
Bonnie rifle though isn’t it, and folk like Lugers… The Pedersen is a novel, version of a toggle action- Might have appeal, thus. Perhaps it could be simplified somehow, made cheaper via modern manufacturing methods.
Well I am not saying it’s graceful as such, rather it has a certain pleasing industrial aesthetic.
It’s a very good invention, with it’s self opening action being akin to the precise movement of clock in regards it keeping time so to speak. With the hard wax cartridge coating turning to liquid inside the chamber some residue might remain particularly after a lot of firing perhaps, especially if the chamber then cooled, or maybe not. The Garand just seems more practical, simpler like- This mechanism is simple, in that there’s no gas system etc but it is more complicated in my opinion. Maybe incorporating elements of the Bsw pistols system, would be of benefit. If one imagines that pistols angled delaying lever as a two piece part either side of the Pedersens mag well with corresponding ledges on the bolt i.e. The toggles forward section “making it the slide” interacting with the angled surfaces on the levers forward sections in conjunction with those on the rear… If apt it might add more of a delay thus negating the need for proprietary ammo, than that achieved by the current toggles precise balancing if you will due to the limited surface area available. This would simplify the design/manufacture of the toggle perhaps, via separating the inital requirement for rearward momentum from the resistance afforded by the mass of the bolt in conjunction with the overall movement of the toggle against gravity. I mean the levers would drop as the bolt moved back in a motion dictated by the levers angled surfaces until the bolt was free of them, then it would be the resistance offered by gravity as per in combinatiot with the mass of bolt as the toggle would already be broken. With the levers moving down into the mag well either side of the mag, the length of the engagement surfaces could be lengthened to a greater extent than practical on the pistol.It would be a similar operating principle I think, but carried out differently.
The toggle delivers a compact rear receiver, the design of the Garand also enables one with the position of it’s return spring. Found this link, with some drawings of the Pedersen: http://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/115974894709/the-vickers-armstrong-pedersen-rifle-in-1919-the
Interesting rifle.
Think I understand how it works roughly, clever that isn’t it.
“Briefly, the arrangement of the parts is such as to transmit directly to the receiver the greater portion of the rearward thrust of the cartridge being fired. Only a relatively small part of the rearward thrust of the cartridge being fired is employed to instigate and effect the opening cycle of the breech mechanism. The breech mechanism preferably employed is of a. construction somewhat similar to a toggle with one member connected to a longitudinally sliding bolt and the other member connected to the receiver. It is desirable for uniformity of action and consistency of performance in a breech mechanism of this kind that the variations of resistance in the moving parts imposed by friction on all sliding surfaces be minimized. To this en the thrust bearing surfaces of the jointed portions of the toggle through which the rearward pressure-1s transmitted are designed to partake of a rolling action upon one another as distinguished from an intersliding movement.” That’s an extract from the patent found on the previous link, hmmm! Yes quite, he he.
The front part goes down a wee bit as does the rear, as the middle rises…
https://www.google.com/patents/US1737974?dq=inassignee:”Pedersen+John+D”&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-NsmVdKcHce5Ub_2gdAP&ved=0CFQQ6AEwCDgo
But the front bit goes down at the front, but up at the back, scratch, it’s very good but somewhat complex, thats the patent link have fun.
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/autoloading-rifles/usa/self-loading-rifle-pedersen-e.html
“The Pedersen T1 self-loading rifle employed delayed (retarded) blowback action with toggle-joint, similar to that used in Auatrian Schwarzlose M1907-he Schwarzlose machine gun is a retarded-blowback operated, water cooled, belt-fed weapon that fires from a closed bolt. The method of operation requires a heavy breechblock, connected to the receiver through a pair of knee-joint struts. When the bolt is in battery, the struts are folded forward, with their joint axis lying relatively low above the barrel axis. Upon firing, the pressure of the powder gases acts on the breechblock through the base of the cartridge case. The rearward movement of the breechblock unfolds the struts, but because of a carefully arranged redirection of forces through the struts and joints, most of the initial pressure is transferred to the receiver. Upon further recoil, joint axis rises above the barrel, and thus the recoil force is re-distributed with more and more of it being used for bolt acceleration. Upon recoil, the bolt compresses a massive and powerful return spring which forces it forward and into battery once the recoil stroke is completed.” That might help anyone trying to understand it, along with this https://www.forgottenweapons.com/medium-machine-guns/schwarzlose-1907-and-0712/ it had the primary extraction problem also apparently, would fluted chambers help then with hindsight?
“would fluted chambers help”
French AA-52 machine gun (firing 7.5×54 French round) also is lever-delayed design.
http://world.guns.ru/machine/fr/aat-mod52-e.html
states that “has a fluted chamber”, however also “quite sensitive to head spacing”
But anyway it was used by French Army by many years, so I assume it is enough reliable (otherwise it would be replaced with different design ASAP)
If you were to make a replica Pedersen then, a fluted chamber might allow normal bullets to be used.
I accept my idea is cheating if feasible as it’s not one piece, very difficult to achieve in one piece he did very well.
Oh, and you might need a gas port forward of the chamber d’oh! Might though, I emphasize might.
“The Garand just seems more practical, simpler like-”
Remember that early Garand rifles has peculiar “gas-trap” version unlike classic “drill hole in barrel wall”. I have not clue why this system was used – US Army has earlier experience with second – namely BAR 1918 and so far I know without reliability problems.
Also, generally speaking simpler weapons are better, but weapons system can NOT be simplified to infinity without losing some parameters. Notice that Thompson AutoRifle (which also was consider for US general-issue auto-loading rifle against Garand and Pedersen designs) was rejected, despite being simplest.
“The Thompson autorifle required lubricated ammunition for proper functioning and the ejection of spent cartridge casings was so violent as to be hazardous to bystanders.” It seems they didn’t like the lubricated ammo idea, if that Wikipedia extract is correct. It also sounds dangerous, like it didn’t really work, but didn’t quite explode he he.
I think one used the percussion cap blowing out also, or something similar. When I say simpler, I mean the Pedersen has no gas system… The later Stgw 57 doesn’t either but while that is pretty simple “once they came up with it” And once you understand it. This isn’t simple even now, even if you understand it which I don’t entirely but it has lots of complicated parts to make and fit etc- So much so, it would be simpler to just use a gas system rifle like the Garand.
For simple and no gas system, the Clarke carbine was very good. It was primer activated. Being a 1940’s design it was design to make great use of screw cutting machine. It over came the main problem that previous primer activated had in the area of being sensitive to varying pressure levels.
Hopefully Ian will one day be able to track one down to show us. There was one in a private collection in Tennessee or Kentucky a few years ago.
I don’t know exactly how well a primer activated rifle would work with crimped primers and I don’t know the pressure level that crimped primers back out at. I do know that they do at less than maximum pressure.
Very interesting aren’t they, all these mechanisms.
Hmm… Pedersen’s only issue apart from lubricated ammo seems to be the expenses in machining the toggle-bolt. The machining costs killed any toggle-delayed or toggle-locked rifles (though not toggle-locked machine guns like the Maxim family).
Given a choice of “dead end” rifles, which would you grab while under siege in a desert fortress?
1. Pedersen
2. RSC M1917
3. Fedorov Avtomat
4. Scotti Model X
5. Breda PG
6. Mauser “C98” recoil-operated self-loader (I had to modify the bolt for semi-auto only, no “single shot” nonsense)
7. Type 4 Japanese Garand
8. Daudetau hunting rifle chambered for a Nitro-Express round or a Lebel-Grasset “Africain”
9. General Liu rifle with bayonet
10. Screw this! Fire the 7.5 cm IG 37 on the wall or if you’re evil, use the 40.6 cm SK C/34 “Adolf Gun!!!”
11. Or per the usual, screw the budget and get your favorite toys to this list
The bandits are scaling the walls with ladders and grappling hooks! They can’t do it if they’re DEAD!! [evil laughter]
This activity is totally voluntary. You are not required to participate if you do not wish to do so. Please keep any and all criticism of this post humane and free of foul language.
Thank you,
Cherndog
I’ve never been displeased with any Italian gun I’ve had, so on a hunch I’m going with the Scotti Model X. Plus with that 160 gr 6.5 bullet, might get two with one shot at times.
I guess it helps that 6.5mm Carcano has a really good and flat trajectory given the right barrel. Long range is a must if you need head-shots. But in this case, the baddies are right in front of you and penetration combined with rapid fire should whittle them down to size as they fall off the wall…
The very light recoil of the 6.5 x 52 would also make it excellent for the needed close range work.
The seven-shot 1920s-era Bang rifle with plenty of clips…
Or, the original John Cantius Garand designed .276-cal. 10-shot Garand! [Or his light rifle design for Springfield armory with ample 50-round top-mounted magazines!)
“killed any toggle-delayed(…)rifle(…)”
For lever-delayed rifle which enter wide-spread service see FAMAS F1:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/fr/famas-e.html
“Given a choice of “dead end” rifles”
Baryshev AVB-7.62 chambered for 7.62x54R
– other forgotten delayed-blow-back fire-arm
I forgot about link to AVB-7.62:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/baryshev-ab-762-avb-762-e.html
Is that basically using a similar principle to advanced primer ignition, but with the forward momentum of the bolt carrier acting against the bolt which is kept in place by the pivoting lever engaging a notch in the receiver?:
“The Baryshev action is a delayed-blowback system which is fired from open bolt only. Bolt group consists of four parts – bolt with tilting head, inertia piece and locking lever. When gun is fired, bolt group is released and goes forward at once, stripping a fresh cartridge from magazine. At the end of loading cycle, bolt with its head is stopped at the breech, while inertia piece still moves forward, rotating the locking lever and bolt head. The pivoting locking lever strikes the firing pin, and fires the cartridge. Recoil of the shot tries to pivot the bolt head, but this movement is resisted by the mass and velocity of the inertia piece still moving forward. Once the inertia piece is stopped and its movement reversed by the blowback action of the cartridge, it turns the locking lever to disengage the bolt from receiver. Once bolt is released, entire bolt group moves back under residual pressure in the chamber. This sounds complicated as is, and the system never impressed anyone other than few high-ranking officers in Soviet army. In testing, it was found too sensitive in variations of loads, and not sufficiently reliable.”
So when you fire It’s the bolt head which moves by tilting, it tilts against the carrier which is moving against it… The Pedersen bolt head tilts similarly, or does it, if it does what does it do next I am stuck he he.
In the top illustration of the Baryshevs action on the link you provided Daweo, you have to imagine the carrier at that point has the momentum imparted on it during it’s forward travel and it fires at that point. Then on the lower illustration, the movement of the bolt head is at maximum tilt and this has sent the carrier rearward. To the point were the lever has unlocked from the receiver, the carriers independent travel from the bolt is now at and end and both move back together- With the bolt reaching the breech prior to the carrier on the return.
On the drawing of the Pedersen fig 27, piece 34… Isn’t a separate piece is it, it’s illustrating the gaps between the “camming surfaces” on the 2nd part of toggle which engage the bolt head. The bolt head does have some play in it, to move independently of the other sections of toggle- That helps me understand it. I was lost on the initial movement, the 2nd section of the toggle is held down by the third with it having to lift it.
Aye, it is going straight back but theres a slight delay before the upward motion is transferred from the bolt head to the 2nd part of the toggle by the shaped surfaces engaging with each other. Then it lifts the 3rd… With some further physical interaction of various shaped surfaces, going on inbetween as part of this motion i.e. Opening the toggle entirely.
Without the initial delay in transferring the rearward motion of the bolt carrier into a upwards motion on the 2nd part of the toggle… The Pedersen would have to rely on a force pressing down on the 3rd part of the toggle, a spring or meaning it would have to be of sufficient mass itself which would perhaps make it impractically large for use in a rifle.
Actually I am starting to see why the Swarzlose was mentioned in regards the Pedersen action, it is similar in principle’ish but highly refined to achieve a smaller scale.
It’s certainly a rifle deserving of appreciation!
Hmmm, gas… If you imagine the bolt carrier of the Baryshev in the top illustration carries no momentum, but instead has a piston rod extending forward of it’s front upperside- Over the top of the barrel. Which fits inside a gas tube positioned thus, with a /| shaped cut in the lowerside of the piston over a port forward and above the chamber gas would act on it to hold the carrier forward. Therefore retarding the tilting movement of the bolt, and thus keeping the lever engaged with the receiver until the pressure in the barrel dropped allowing the bolt to tilt via blowback and so move the carrier which in turn releases the lever. In a rifle, this would enable it to be operated from the closed bolt position… Overall it would perhaps be sort of like that Nazi gas retarded rifle someone posted a picture of, with the Steyr aug type trigger guard handle.
I think it might fire just prior to the foremost part of the carrier arriving at the \ line of the \| shaped drawn lines with the: a :symbol between them, on the drawing with the carrier fully forward. The lever hits the firing pin at the moment it goes fully into battery, at this point. The bolt tilts rearward via blowback instantaneously to the \ point, but the carrier contacts it then pushing it to the | point of the above. The carriers forward momentum is stopped, and blowback tilts the bolt back- This tilting actually hits the carrier like a gas tappet on say a Vz58, a wacks it rearwards. The carrier moving rearward, allows the lever to rotate out of battery so to speak.
15 is the firing pin I think, but it’s fired by then i.e. The firing pin, is in the forward position. So the rotating levers right edge angled / on the firing pin, would be more | upon contact.
It is along those lines the Pedersen I think, apart from I may have confused it’s purpose in a manner of speaking in that the toggle needs to be broke… Like a Luger, I know how that works.
This doesn’t work thus, so to make it work without doing it that way- This is the simpler way, in regards the barrel not moving. So the Pedersen is simple but precise “The toggle is no good if it doesn’t break at all” So you have to design a breakable toggle, that doesn’t break to fast without doing it like the Luger or making it the size of the Swarzlose in essence. Well done Mr Pedersen.
I think the gas version might work you know, the trigger sear would hold the carrier back with the bolt fully forward, firing as now “the carrier would be held back enough to do this by spring pressure- Fg42 style” with the piston gas cut out being aligned with the port at the point of firing. It wouldn’t have the counter recoil capability, but the gas system would be quite simlple, compact overall unit various good points.
I am glad you showed me that Baryshev, it helped my brain 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tmp4-ErEG8
That’s a video showing the Baryshev weapons, they strip them down etc The rifle one in 7.62x54R I think has a stubby wee forward protuding piston thing “Like an Mp5” for extra mass presumably. You can see how controllable it is in full auto…
It seems to only have one spring… That must be something to do with the lever, the bolt must stop prior to the carrier on the return. Then the carrier carries on the lever swinging, facilitates this it also enables the carrier to push the bolt forward of it under the same spring tension when it goes forward due to the angle of the lever at that point it’s very clever.
“Baryshev designed an unique large handheld caliber weapon, which fired 12,7x108mm heavy machine gun of 30x25B grenade ammunition (change of caliberre quired change of barrel, magazine and bolt). Because of Baryshev recoil-reducing action, this weapon can be fired from the shoulder” Recoil reducing action, that’s possibly to do with the carrier acting as kind of counter recoil device… In that it’s moving forward upon firing, countering the recoil moving rearward. Soft recoil, to move rearward the forward momentum needs to be overcome. Which in this case also provides the method of delaying the bolt opening, very good really. If the carrier wasn’t that heavy but was moving fast, would speed provide they same amount of resistance as a heavier but slower bolt. The bolt has to reach the breech first, on the 7.62 version the receiver looks extended at the rear somewhat probably to facilitate the carrier moving back further than the bolt- So the bolt arrives forward first presumably. “It must be noted that Baryshev system allows to build lightweight fully automatic weapons in powerful rifle calibers such as 7,62x54R or 7,62x51mm” You can envisage it having that capability in larger cannon calibres, perhaps.
A Claymore! Always remember to face the side indicated towards the enemy, and allow time for them all to muster along the narrow ramparts and so be channeled into an arc of fire. Hide behind a hay bale while this takes place, have a cigarette. They may even think they’ve sneaked in due to the lack of activity and start tip toeing around in a huddle, take a peek… You’ll be able to tell if this is the case by individuals putting a finger up to their lips whilst emiting muffled ssssushing! Noises. At that point put one finger in your ear and press the other ear against your shoulder then with your free hand actuate the mine “BLAM!!!” Take another peek, slunk back behind the hay bale perhaps have another cigarette.
“You win! BY DEMOLITION!!!!” Just remember that such a trap needs cleaning and maintenance. If the other team got past the mine what defense would you utilize next, trapdoors of doom?
Hurray! Oh yes, utilize the trap doors of doom. Just listen for the creaking noise emanating from the wooden planks being stepped on, from behind the hay bale and kick the lever “Aiiieee!!!”
“Kids! Don’t look!” [Ugly mess from gunfire, exploding Claymore mines, and people falling down trapdoors of doom] “Ludicrous GIBS!”
Hurrah!!
So if we describe the lever as being fully in battery when it is fully vertical, it’s already fired. Which I think tallys with positions outlined above, because the lever acts as the hammer. The lower picture shows the lever rotated far enough to give it clearance from it’s “notch” in the receiver, thus if you take the left hand edge of the levers notch engagement “circle” and imagine it is now aligned with the left handside of the notch (sort of shown on the upper picture as 18) then the foremost point of the carrier would be about halfway between were it is now and the tilted bolts upper rear, thats the position it moves into the notch from being inline with it from above as aforementioned, then when the foremost point of the carrier is at that position of the tilted bolt the lever contacts the firing pin as described.
ooops, that should have been a reply to my last utterance about number part number 15 on the Baryshev. Anyway I’m finished now, I am confident I understand it cheers he he.
Reasonably confident! It doesn’t seem to have much forward “fluid” so to speak, momentum to overcome, less than say with API. In some ways it’s more of a very brief whack that way, which is returned by a very brief wack the other way… Kind of like those clacker ball things on desks, were you swing the last ball, and it hits the pack, then the front one moves and repeats perhaps. If the bolt is fully forward see, it’s only the tiling of the bolt which could absorb the movement of the carrier and that appears to happen upon firing. When it happens to return the carrier, I imagine it being a pretty abrupt kinda- Gas tappet style. Therefore it would be like that when the carrier hit it… Unlike on the return though, the carrier isn’t resting on it. Ah, yes that’s it- The tilting of the bolt is arrested by the design of the bolt it cant go any further back so it’s strike is limited. Aye, so the bolt has struck to it’s max upon firing when it is smacked by the carrier. The bolt is held by the lever engaging the notch in the receiver, this being fully in battery when the carrier reaches maximum travel in the bolt- Neither can pass the breech, this takes the sting out the carrier and thus the bolt now in contact with the carrier strikes again as it were firing the case trying to blow out the chamber, now the carrier is whacked back.
It’s that, or something very similar. The carrier controlls the lever which prevents the bolt from moving rearward freely once it’s head has tilted via pressure from the case when the bolts in it’s fully forward position, but the bolt head tilting initially doesn’t do anything to the bolt because the carrier is not moving rearward in a manner to change the position of lever there’s nothing to make it move rearward, it’s only when it tilts to move the carrier “after it stops” does the lever disengage from the receiver allowing the bolt to move. Well I agree with some of his Soviet General fans I think that’s the best thing since sliced bread personally.
It fires first, so the recoil is generated, but almost instantaneously the counter recoil force via the carrier hitting the fully tilted or nearly fully tilted bolt head is applied then when the carrier stops the untilted bolt head tilts again because the resistance from the carrier is now insufficient to resist blowback- Sending the carrier back, moving the lever.
Genius, quite precise timings but still.
Cross it with the belt feed of the Darne, lose the gas system so tube as much as possible to still enable the feeding mechanism to work stick a bipod on the remaining stubb. Attach the bolt/bolt head to said feed mechanism, bring the Darnes pistol grip forward under said feed tray. Then pop the bolt carriers spring in a M60 style stock, attached to the Darnes rear. Pecheneg barrel giving raised sights, and cooling- Resulting in a compact, light, sleek, air cooled, counter recoil Lmg.