the story on irwin pederson m1's

Status
Not open for further replies.

mypps

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
60
hello all,
i was wondering if anyone could tell me why irwin pederson m1 carbines were rejected. i did some googling and found nothing. i have yet to pick up my own copy of "war baby", which probably has the answer, but it was cheaper to ask here than buy the book. thanks.
 
Mostly for non delivery to the specification of their contract, and also because rifles submitted for testing broke - their receivers cracked, or their headspacing increased too quickly, or their breech bore eroded excessively for the standards. It was the first time any carbine had broken during procurement approval testing and the rifles submitted would not operate under mud conditions, froze within a few rounds in rain conditions, and would not operate under severe dust conditions, although, it was noted, they could be operated manually.

In short, they could not meet their contract and it was teminated so that the rifles needed could be built by another contractor. It was a gradual termination of operations to allow General Motors (Saginaw) to gear up (oh fun, a pun) to do the additional work, and there aparently was a lumpsum payment to I-P to compensate them for their efforts.

It was a long sad story, and they were given every chance to succeed. The recommendations include a complete change of management before any further contracting was considered.

"Pedersen" was Jon Pedersen of the Pedersen device, and the Pedersen rifle that nearly was our infantry rifle in the place awarded the Garand rifle.

(I tried to make this short and because of that I've been a little loose with details but this is the gist of "Why".)
 
thank you for that info, KRS. i am assuming that this was written in a book, which one was it if you don't mind me asking?
 
As it happens I paraphrased from Larry Ruth's "M1 Carbine, Design, Development, and Production".

It was the first book to come to my hand when I turned my chair toward the bookcase behind me, but the information is available in several other books as well.
 
They were rejected for 2 distinct reasons...when field testing, the military guys liked the Garand better. 2. The Pederson rifles had to use ammo that had to have special coating on them, without the coating it would not operate properly if at all. The military saw the problems with this right away...originally both rifles were in .273 caliber, but McCarther wanted it in 30/06....an got his way...kinda makes since, the Garands an BAR's an .30 cal. machine guns all used the same ammo.

Ooops...sorry, you were asking about the carbines, this is probably different than reason for the rifles....I'm slow in the head today...
 
Last edited:
yeah, i have read the history of the garand. we had so much .30-06 stuckpiled that it seemed ridiculous to switch to a new caliber. its the m1 carbine that i never see talked about. only that less than 4000 were made and they go for big money. a shop near my work has one listed for $3800. :what:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top