Q&A - Part 1

Great and fun q&a. Kind of a follow up to the question of would a different WW1 rifle be better suited for a pederson device. Would using a similar device chambered in the French 8mm revolver cartridge be a better choice being that the barrels were made from the same tooling as the main infantry rifles and use the device in those rifles?

Old infantry trick - pee on your feet.. I’ve never had any issues with athletes foot or anything during my career.. and we lived in the field a lot. Also, should a mention “panty hose” during those cold, damp mornings while patrolling in Germany during training……….. that’s about all the “secrets” I can mention at the moment

Naps are highly underrated!!

John Moses Browning did not reach his full potential….come on. That’s like saying God should not have rested on the 7th day.

to keep all my mil surp forever, bolt action I handload very light lead bullet loads, side note I shoot every week some of these and worked out very accurate loads 6.5mm to .329 mannlicher everything in between.

On the "why not inline stock?" question: The inline prototypes that were competing before the M14 adoption ran into opposition from the Army because a soldier would need to stick their head up out of a foxhole about 2 inches extra to get the barrel above cover compared to traditional stocks. It was a whole thing even in the 1950's. They recognized the recoil advantage, but they were balancing against other factors as well.

Only 30 minutes in and it's great!

The FN 1900 was mentioned a couple of times which made me recall that C&Rsenal had previously not found any evidence of that gun being used in a ground role during WW1. Just yesterday I found an example of the FN 1900 being used in ground combat during WW1. The Imperial War Museum has an example of an FN 1900 captured by British forces in the fighting in Dublin during the 1916 Easter Rising. Granted it is Irish vs British rather than German vs British, but it is a clear example of the FN 1900 being used in ground combat during WW1.

Gewehr 88/05: That thing wasn't in reserve. Ok, the Landwehr was a reserve force compared to the regular army but one meant, trained and equipped for frontline service and called up for active duty at the same time as the regular army. So more of a "not just as good" version of the regular army. And historically the Landwehr was the territorial defense force activated whenever "war were declared".

If you want more 35 Remington cartridge fired guns, don’t forget the pump actions. On top of them being in 35, at least one, the Remington 14 I think, was developed by Pederson.

Do you guys have White Castle in South Carolina? After 6 hours in the late evening/early morning, you two should just stack up the little boxes on the table as you keep answering questions.

Really really like this Q&A Regarding the question about unsung influential engineers, The one that immediately sprung to my mind is Edwin Pugsley. I never heard of him prior to your BAR issue, but imagine how things would be if not for him. It's people like that who make the world a better place just by being there and doing what they do the best that they can. Cartridges I'd like to see come back.. 357 Maximum, but as a sporting rifle / lever gun, perhaps Marlin or Henry?

Excellent stuff lads, Love it!!

Six hours? The gods are generous today.

you know this Q&A has made me realize how fucking long we've been circling around 7mm for an optimal full-power rifle cartridge. 7mm Mauser, then 280 Ross, then 276 Pederson, then 280 British, and sure, I'll throw in 8mm CETME cause it had about the same power. But none of these ever really took off in the mainstream (except 7mm Mauser) cause politics.

On the "out-there, weird features on martial weapons": the coffee grinder Sharps carbine! Pritchard bayonets for Webleys! Bottle openers on some Israeli rifles!

Awww yiss!

Yes! Best episode of the year!