U.S. Army Secret Weapon of WWI: Evaluation and Opinion, Part 2        by John Justice

I said that I collect experiences, and it is my great pleasure to tell you the story of actually getting to fire a Mark I modified Springfield 1903 fitted with a Pedersen Device.  A Springfield ’03 is heavy but well balanced and accurate.  However, with the Pederson Device attached the balance is affected and it is difficult to aim.  The special double sear trigger in the Mark 1 Model makes squeezing off a round a bit difficult and can cause the shooter to flinch.  The mechanism itself is fairly complicated and contains several very small parts, thus making field stripping and maintenance difficult.  The magazines are sturdy but the locking device is flimsy and may cause the magazine to fall out with only moderate jostling.

 Because of the small caliber, a bit smaller than a .380 acp, it has little power re. range, power or terminal   effectiveness.  It’s like shooting a gallery gun with a gritty ten-pound trigger pull.  Ejection was clean but threw the casing so close to my left eye that I felt it go past.  There is negligible recoil.  We were much better off in WWI with the BAR and the M1917A1.  While the intent of the inventor is understandable and commendable, it is also no mystery as to why the Pederson Device was not a success.  The War Department understood this and was quick to destroy nearly all of the devices, of which there were few.  No attempt was made to “improve” the Pederson Device.

 

UPCOMING TMCA MEETINGS:  Meetings are held the second Tuesday of each month at the Piccadilly Cafeteria on Murfreesboro Rd. in Nashville at 6 pm.  December 14,     January 11, February 8, March 8,and April 12.  Come join the fun!