Combat experience during that war had made clear two general points: that the standard caliber .30-06 rifle cartridge was excessively powerful for the ranges (500 yards and less) where infantry combat was likely to take place, and that bolt-action rifles such as the M1903 Springfield were seriously lacking in firepower and second-shot hit capability.

However, all three designs were burdened with the high pressure and heat generating characteristics of the .30-06 ammunition, which looked likely to result in a weapon too heavy and too subject to overheating to be worthwhile.

At this point in time, John Douglas Pedersen made an unsolicited proposal to the Army Ordnance Bureau which would have a profound impact on the entire effort to develop a serviceable semiautomatic rifle.

Pedersen had gained a good reputation as both a firearms designer and production engineer at the Remington Arms Company.

[1] The Bureau of Ordnance was sufficiently impressed that in 1923 it granted Mr. Pedersen a contract providing office space, a project budget, an annual salary, and in compensation for his departure from Remington the right to patent his work and collect royalties from the U.S. Government if his rifle was adopted.

The drawbacks of the design were diminished tracer performance, less effective armor piercing, plus anticipated logistical complications coming from the fact the .30-06 would remain in use for machine guns.

Such an application of sound research and development made a very strong impression on Army personnel when the rifle was presented for inspection and testing.

The rifle was a solid, well-finished weapon, 44 inches (112 cm) long, weighing slightly over 8 pounds (3.6 kg).

Due to problems with primer-actuation, John Garand gave up work on a .30-06 semiautomatic rifle and also focused exclusively on caliber .276.

Unlike previous boards, this one would continue to function for three years, and would end up undertaking three series of tests.

This Board displayed a strong interest in the development of a .30-'06 semiautomatic rifle, but at the same time recognized the potential effectiveness of the .276 round at ranges up to 600 yards and that relatively light weight rifles that could be built around it; the Board remained consistent with the de facto Army policy of favoring adoption of the .276 round.

The .30-'06 Garand rifle (essentially an enlarged T3E2) was quickly built and, under the confusing designation T1E1, was tested along with the T3E2 and the Pedersen T1E3 during the remainder of 1931.

A more substantive complaint had to do with the complete exposure of the breech mechanism when held open—the Board correctly cited the vulnerability of the rifle to mud and dust while in this condition.

He developed a .30 caliber model with a conventional gas-trap piston and multi-piece operating rod system.

Most notable was the use of a spool-type Schoenauer magazine which formed a very pronounced swell in the stock just ahead of the trigger guard.

A receiver-mounted safety lever and a stripper clip guide at the front of the breech block head are also noticeable features.

John Pedersen's work in creating and improving his rifle was a coherent research and development process which significantly raised the bar for those trying to get a hearing from Army Ordnance regarding their designs.

The initial success and ultimate failure of the Pedersen rifle has sometimes been interpreted as the simple workings-out of biased or overly conservative decision-making in the face of technological innovation.

The rifle was complex, making concerns about mass production to an exacting standard of parts interchangeability quite legitimate.

Certainly the concerns expressed by the Semiautomatic Rifle Board regarding the vulnerability of the operating mechanism to sand and mud when held open were very real.

Bias is certainly visible in the negative attitude taken toward what was unquestionably the most innovative aspect of the rifle's development: the lubrication of the cartridge cases with Pedersen's dry wax process.

The implicit equation of this process with the messy and contamination-vulnerable case oiling system used in the Thompson Rifle (also a hesitation blowback design) certainly shows a degree of obstinate conservatism.

Under the handguard was a thicken section of the barrel machined with 12 spiraling grooves, the whole design evidently intended to provide both heat sink and radiant air cooling effect.

(The metal handguard was a point of criticism during Army tests due to it becoming too hot to the touch after moderate firing; the lack of uniform wood covering of the barrel was judged the cause of accuracy problems due to uneven expansion of the hot barrel).

The built-in ten-round magazine included a steel lower body that protruded below the bottom of the stock approximately one inch ahead of a conventional milled steel trigger guard; this magazine body had smooth and distinctive contours that reflected both the shapes of the feed mechanism parts and the designer's evident concern for the soldier's ease of use and safety.

From front to rear they were: The Pedersen rifle operated on the hesitation blowback principle: energy released by firing a cartridge immediately caused the breech to start moving rearward, but mechanical leverage built into the mechanism caused the actual opening of the breech to be delayed long enough so that pressure within the barrel would fall to a safe level.

As the rear surface of the body continued to exert pressure on the bearing surface on the front of the crank, the leverage exerted would cause the crank to move about 95 degrees upward from the horizontal on the fulcrum formed by it being attached to the rear of the receiver by the hinge pin.

As with all hesitation blowback weapons, the Pedersen rifle had to have some means to prevent cartridge cases from becoming stuck in the chamber due to the relatively high breech pressure and operating velocity existing at the moment of extraction.

What records the researchers at this Web site were able to find mostly appear to relate to the final period of competitive testing in 1931.