I will take this time to remind people of a story from our Pedersen Device episode. The following was found in notes taken on a confidential meeting with Browning, Colt, and the Ordnance Dept, January 1917. John Browning offered a carbine chambered for a .32 caliber, spitzer bullet moving at 1,000fps. It would take either 100 or 200 round magazines. The gun was to be automatic, blowback, and have adequate penetration at 700 yards. Weight was said to be 10-11lbs. It is theorized at least one prototype was made, as this was Browning's method and because the carbine's rate of fire and handling were described as being.. “Played like a stream from a water hose” There was also apparent mention of possibly building it in 45ACP. Ordnance declined and put him onto an automatic rifle path instead. Browning never wrote anything down until time to patent. Since no one wanted the gun he just kept it. If there was a prototype it was likely recycled into other projects or otherwise lost as it remains unknown. There IS one maybe related 1921 patent but to my knowledge no one has positively made the link.

the pin of shame. Well deserved.

Pin of shame

If you also payed attention to Ian's video on it, he also concluded it was cool in concept, but totally useless, and btw, they tested them after the war. And they were all junk. They didn't work, they were under-powered, and the Ordnance department later determined that issuing the infantry 1911s as backups instead of this thing would've been a far better allocation of resources. And that's why you would see the adoption of the Thompson later on. And the M1 Carbine. Oh and alot of US troops got pistols too, whether they bought them and brought them with them, or managed to bribe an armorer, they got one somehow. Literally anything at this time would've been better than the Pedersen device. Hell, a stocked 1911 would've been better. I would've taken a Borschardt with a stock over this, even if I only had 8 round mags.

Oh also, Ian and Othias here did a Q&A a while ago, and the question of the Pedersen device came up. And Ian agree with Othias and Mae. So uh, check your facts before you ask one guy to save you, because that person you idolize might also think you're wrong.

That’s like 3x the amount of fame it should receive!

@@alanhelton Oh yeah, enlisted has it.

Battlefield1 also has it. Its called the m1903 experimental there but its the same gun

I have the impression that every minute with a Pederson device is a mad minute.

@@hamletksquid2702 madly trying to unjam it

only known footage

The full episode on the Pedersen device, has more footage, but Lordy, it was a Kluge.

Listen carefully to Mae. She said they even had some consecutive shots. But I saw no more than 2 in a row.

fail montage kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g5xjaq6hqraVj3k.html

And they had to fiddle with it too get that much

That's an accurate & concise description. Whomever came up with it gets kudos for their work.

@@nunyabidniz2868 Gut feeling tells me it might have been someone named Pedersen. That's just me though.

Now imagine that Soviets had came up with a rattling peashooter of an SMG designed to fit inside the Maxim gun's bolt and you'll get a rough idea of how the first prototype of the Blüm M1930 machine gun performed.

@@strichtarn3228 that Pedersen is actually the one behind the future rifle of the same name (Pedersen Rifle) that would later be copied by the Japanese in the 20s.

I think it was designed more as an emergency backup incase a soldier ran out of ammo, since most soldiers didnt carry handguns during the time, if they ran out of ammo, it was close quarters, so it would make sense to have something like this, but obviously there were better alternatives at the time

The fact that BF1's assult class did not carry a beyonetted bolt action with the pederson device as a gadget to give better close range effect. Is a MASSIVE missed opertunity IMO.

I’ve actually learned quite a bit about odd ww1 era weapons from BF1. They really did their homework. Truly one of the best games made.

Still an obscure prototype that basically never serverd tho.

@@FartBiter Try Insurgency Sandstorm, we have QTS-11 and got MR-73 just a few weeks BEFORE Baretta decide to bring em back ! :D (MR-73 is considered the best revolver, Made in France) images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_608/gi_101522489/Manurhin-MR73-with-8inch-Barrel_101522489_608_55CE73E13F65E919.JPG

@@LocoMe4u had the war gone on into 1919 the US had plans both to field them and to utilize the first airborne assault 20 years before the Germans. Thankfully the madness stopped before then.

Lol. I suggest watching the vid where these teaser clips are from. It's allot longer than a minute. :D (they put it in the vid description, but I'll link it here too for ease of clicking) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g5xjaq6hqraVj3k.html

Nothing like a dose of 'real' to squash all the baloney.

To be fair there was a lot that went into that video. Getting a functioning Pedersen device and working cartridges was no all feat.

@@88porpoise it would have been a lot easier if the gov't hadn't foolishly destroyed all the stockpiled material. they could have easily made back the tax payer money if they had just sold it as mil surp. these things weren't full autos and there is no way to easily convert it to full auto.

@@toomanyaccounts I doubt they could have sold many as surplus. They make even less sense for civilian usage. The only real reason to buy one would be the novelty of having it. People bought surplus firearms as cheap, practical things. A weird thing firing a cartridge that one can't buy commercially that's only practical use is effectively as a sub-caliber training adapter, if you had the right version of the Springfield 1903. It was probably not in demand. Plus the whole "secret weapon" stuff still applied.

Especially when you take into account that high-capacity semi-automatic or automatic rifles was probably science-fiction for them. 🤯 Love your videos btw. Keep healthy and happy, Dustin!

Fancy seeing you here, destin

What the heck I didn’t expect to see smarter every day here

Hey, look. It's SmarterEveryDay himself.

I know right?

I only ever used K bullets with the Martini-Henry, it was a single shot breach loader so it didn't feel much different when switching ammunition.

@@Kardia_of_Rhodes nice, I also carried k bullets just to have like five more rounds.

I found this in BF1 to be extremely underpowered. Even of I hit my first shots usually I'd lose the trade. But I usually play assault class shotgun with OHK capabilities so what do I know 🤪

@@AlphaRebel yes it is a meme, arguably one of the worst guns in the game

We made it look way more pleasant

Gun Jesus? Is that you?

She got to shoot a gun that maybe a handful of other people on the planet will ever shoot. It's like winning the lottery in terms of a shooting experience. Astonishingly rare and valuable. It's a shame to use the ammo really. It'd be like eating the last ever dodo bird for dinner.

“Is this some sort of setup or something? I’m just on my way to the trenches”

@@awkward_tendencies This is criminally underliked 😂😂😂

"You know what i don't want this device i just want to get to the trenches"

don't you mean a unic unique-orn?

The only front view cooler than this, is the front view of the AN-94 assault rifle. Really. You got to check it out.

@@whoelsebutmeofcoursei it's the canted mag, isn't it? There's something so cool about it

No Bango?

...?

@@ScumfuckMcDoucheface she demonstrated a safety on a bolt action saying "no bango" ,I thought it was pretty funny .lol!

@@user-gp5wu6hk2c In another video ,she demonstrated the safety on a bolt action rifle saying "No bango ",and I thought it was pretty funny ,.lol

Hahaha.

If you want a great example of "my paper research beats your field testing", just look at all the medieval armor/weapon myths. Specially those around armor. People don't realize that if a military used (or didn't use) a certain technology, then there's a goddamn reason for that.

Yeah there is also a reason why rifles got shorter and shorter and calibres shrank and shrank in WW1 and WW2 too, big bullets made no sense if the soldier did not wear armour, but ironically in modern warfare we are having the opposite problem, soldiers are in fact wearing armour and because our shit keeps getting smaller and more compact its having trouble dealing with armour so we are returning to the battle rifle era. This is why, even you have bias, you have modern outlook on this, even 22LR is deadly, makes sense for combat? Of course not, but that 32 was good enough for its intended purposes, it makes sense as a STOP GAP for real automatic weapons, you are saving a lot of material with this thing. And most of the time for the military they just want idiot proof, they aint give a fuck about what its ballistics are over 500 metre.

Or the Reds.

Production began 1918, and it meant you didn't have to make entirely new weapons. It made sense in a way.

That seems obvious in hindsight, but remember this was developed in 1917. There were no SMGs at the time. The MP18 wouldn't enter production in Germany until the next year and the first prototype Thompsons didn't exist until later in 1918. This also had an, on paper, benefit in that your rifleman still had the full capabilities of his rifle. Unlike a dedicated SMG.

They actually were developing the first Thomson for use in WW1. In fact some early prototypes were actually on a ship ready to go as the war ended. Which is probably why there was such a surplus of them on the open market in the 20s.

It sounds like nature documentary music. Like something you'd hear while a British narrator talked about colorful fish onscreen.

Testify my man testify

I also have a 1093 MK I restored by CMP Custom Shop. I wish I could find a reproduction of the Pedersen Devise for it.

Better do it fast before the ATF figures out

@@SaladofStones ATF sucks ass, here we have talk of legalizing opiods but hardworking gunowners are too much of a threat apparently

It was very much a stopgap measure, like the M3 Lee to the Sherman

They thought they were gonna need them for a massive offensive in 1919 but then their counterattacks after the Kaiserschlacht started making good gains

There's no easy way to hold it in like the Springfield has with the bolt cut off. You'd have to have a thin "bolt" that goes around the device, necessitating a two piece main body. That's a lot of machining, and that's a lot of $$$$. But you're right, it would be cool, particularly if select fire.

@@schaferhundschmidt1798 Actually Pederson made a couple prototypes for the Mosin www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/fp8kmb/this_photo_popped_up_in_a_facebook_group_i_follow/ Photo by William B. Edwards he was owner of the only Pedersen Device for the Mosin Nagant and M1917, Sadly, this rifle and its device were Stolen shortly after this the rifle itself (The Mosin) appeared again some time after, but not the device .

Why?

If only the technical documents had never been thrown out... Although some people say the loss of the technical documents was the catalyst for one of the most awesome blogs ever...

I believe it was loaned to them by the author of one of the books they used as a source for the full episode. I think the current estimate is that there are about 100 of them left.

One was sold by RIA auction not to long ago my Father-in-law has one of the Springfield 03 with the cut out that is original which I'm told is harder to find than the device

@@wadeproctor1214 The Mark I rifles are far more common than the devices. Most of them just have the ejection port cutout and lack the correct sear & magazine cutoff, though.

@@jabaier2 ok didn't know that have had several 03 and A3s love those old guns but have only seen two in my life time not sure of the sear on my father inlaws rifle but does have the magazine cutoff he's been trying to get the Pendersen device for years an was at that auction but was out bid

I believe they said this was actually Bruce Canfield's, a prolific arms writer.

The number of people with Mark 1s that still have the correct sear and magazine cutoff is tiny. It's not enough to just have the ejection port cut. After they destroyed most of the devices, there was a standing order to swap those Mk 1 parts back for standard 1903 parts.

@@jabaier2 well I would still say even though it would increase cost to make a trigger group and magazine part in addition to the device, as long as it was made in a caliber that's avaliable, even if it doesn't look exactly like the original, I'd buy it.

@@Terran994 Not sure if you could get it in an available caliber either. There aren't really any good options for pistol rounds that match the .308 bore diameter. .30 Carbine would, but that's probably too much for the blowback action.

@@jabaier2 and see 30 carbine is what I was thinking, and using M1 Carbine mags, but I'd have to look at my Mark 1 as I think the carbine case is longer than the ejection port in the receiver, so you would have to redesign the device in a way that it wouldn't look anything like the original.

@@jabaier2 actually starline now makes the brass for the cart and this brass works in semiautos wheras the cut down brass certain handload companies were making didn't function. the cart is better known as 7.65 French Longue since they adopted the cart for use in several of their guns.

whoa bro

Nah, it sucks, at least they got that right in the game.

😅

@@JohnnyLouisXIX It only sucks when one doesn't know how to use it.

@@gnranger I have two service stars with it and i can tell you it's still a very bad weapon.

@@JohnnyLouisXIX I have 2 stars with it as well and I say it's not. But then again we're both going to stick to our opinions.

If you had one, you'd end up shooting 1k per day of .32 ACP....you can guess who this is by my avatar, though the username is different. 😏

CMMG has a conversion bolt to fire .22LR through. Are those anything like the .22 adapters you trained with in the 80s?

I have a Mark One