US military adopts 7mm Mauser in 1903

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
or adopt a .30-03 type case just in .276?
so, basically .270 win,

It wasn't the cartridge that pissed off Mauser, it was the blatant rip off of the Mauser action that did it.

Yes, because the .30-03/06 was different enough that they couldn't really make a claim about it. The rifle though was just flat out patent theft.
oh god, so much misinformation here,

no, the us wasn't sued over patent infringements for the rifle, the us had already gone to mauser and worked out a deal that allowed them to use the mauser rifle patents
they were sued for infringing on the patent for the spitzer round
they had proof that they had done experiments on spitzer's in the 1900's, the case was suspended in ww1, and after the war the court found that the us had not infringed on the spitzer patent,
but they had seized the patent during the war in an illegal manner and had to pay damages for that,


 

Deleted member 1487

so, basically .270 win,
No. It wouldn't be a 64mm length case, but something approximating the 7mm Mauser's case capacity. That or a rimless .30-40 necked down to 7mm.


oh god, so much misinformation here,

no, the us wasn't sued over patent infringements for the rifle, the us had already gone to mauser and worked out a deal that allowed them to use the mauser rifle patents
they were sued for infringing on the patent for the spitzer round
they had proof that they had done experiments on spitzer's in the 1900's, the case was suspended in ww1, and after the war the court found that the us had not infringed on the spitzer patent,
but they had seized the patent during the war in an illegal manner and had to pay damages for that,


My source was the Osprey book on the Model 1903 which said this:
The M1903 would incorporate so many of these favorable attributes of the M93 that, after a successful lawsuit brought by Mauser, the US government had to pay the German company royalties on the M1903.
And they list quite a few more sources than C&R Arsenal.

The issue with patent infringement is complicated and appears to be Treasury refusing to pay out on a contract the Ordnance Department made.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...pay-royalties-to-mauser-or-didnt-they.678849/
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846&p=84040&viewfull=1#post84040


Also the Spitzer patent issue was with DWM not Mauser:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846
The court case in 1914 was brought not by Mauser, but by DWM for patent infringement on the pointed "spitzer" bullet and the loading clips, after the U.S. Army turned down a royalty proposal. The U.S. Army claimed that a pointed bullet invented by a Lt. Col. J. P. Farley in 1909 showed that development of the pointed bullet by the U.S. was not based on the German
link6.gif
invention. (The claim was silly on its face, of course, but at that time the U.S. did not wish to pay royalties to a German company.) The case never came to trial due to the intervention of WWI, when the patent was seized by the Alien Property Custodian and the Attorney General dismissed the suit.

In 1921, however, a special tribunal formed to settle German and Austrian claims decided to make an award to DWM based not on the actual infringement claim but on the issue that the patent seizure was unconstitutional. With interest accumulated during various appeals, the $300,000 award had become $412,520 and DWM received that amount in 1928.
 

Deleted member 1487

So getting beyond working out the OTL details, what about the 'what if' parts:
What impact does this have on small arms development then? France and Britain were going to adopt magnum 7mm cartridges before WW1, but that war got in the way and prevented the change over. Might this not create pressure on the Entente to switch over to 7mm earlier? If not would the British adopt the US 7mm cartridge in the 1920s as they were considering doing with the .276 Pedersen because the US was considering adopting it? Might the French not adopt the 7.5mm after WW1 to synch up with the US as well? If so how much WW2 small arms be influenced if the US cartridge sets the Allied standard on 7mm and all their ammo is compatible? Might the US adopt a 7mm 'intermediate' during the interwar period that was analogous to the OTL T2 Pedersen 7mm? How about post-WW2 when the NATO standard trials start?

In terms of small arms would the BAR be significantly different ITTL with a lighter recoiling cartridge? Or US machine guns? In terms of weight from what I've been able to find the 7mm Mauser was only about 7-8% lighter than the M2 Ball .30-06, so there isn't a substantial weight savings like there was with the Pedersen, but the recoil would be significantly less, as would the thermal load of the cartridge, while the ballistics would be quite a bit better due to muzzle velocity and sectional density of the bullet resulting in a very flat trajectory. The differences are enough that there would be room to create lighter weapons than the OTL ones.

Thoughts?
 
No. It wouldn't be a 64mm length case, but something approximating the 7mm Mauser's case capacity. That or a rimless .30-40 necked down to 7mm.
you gave it as an option,

or adopt a .30-03 type case just in .276?
this means a 12mm rim, and a 64mm case length

The issue with patent infringement is complicated and appears to be Treasury refusing to pay out on a contract the Ordnance Department made.
does not prove that tressury got it's way,doesn't refute my point
Also the Spitzer patent issue was with DWM not Mauser:
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846
mentioned in the video and i never said any different, not sure why you made this a point
And they list quite a few more sources than C&R Arsenal.
so?
 

Deleted member 1487

you gave it as an option,

this means a 12mm rim, and a 64mm case length
I know what I meant when I wrote ".30-03 type", which meant same base diameter, not length, as I was talking about approximating the case capacity of the 7mm Mauser, not necessarily the exact dimensions. I wrote that to point out the difference with an adapted .30-40 case in a rimless version, as it had a different base (not rim) diameter from the .30-03, which was wider.

mentioned in the video and i never said any different, not sure why you made this a point
no, the us wasn't sued over patent infringements for the rifle, the us had already gone to mauser and worked out a deal that allowed them to use the mauser rifle patents they were sued for infringing on the patent for the spitzer round
they had proof that they had done experiments on spitzer's in the 1900's, the case was suspended in ww1, and after the war the court found that the us had not infringed on the spitzer patent,
but they had seized the patent during the war in an illegal manner and had to pay damages for that,
If you meant DWM you didn't say that and implied it was a Mauser patent.
 

marathag

Banned
I'd agree, except the Department of the Navy had already adopted a 6mm Lee.
But the Army would reply 'That's the Navy for you'

Navy had been the real enemy to the Army for awhile, since the Navy got more stuff predating the 'Great White Fleet' and its attendant PR bonuses, while only real extra funding the Army got was for some fortifications , not nearly as sexy
 
If you meant DWM you didn't say that and implied it was a Mauser patent.
i thought that a reasonable person would be able to tell that by posting a source that clearly says that the spitzer patents were held by dwm would conclude the rifle and spitzer patents were separate, if they had watched the video

I know what I meant when I wrote ".30-03 type",
cool,
you called it ".30-03 type", to me that is a clear indication that you were being exactly that specific
which meant same base diameter, not length, as I was talking about approximating the case capacity of the 7mm Mauser, not necessarily the exact dimensions. I wrote that to point out the difference with an adapted .30-40 case in a rimless version, as it had a different base (not rim) diameter from the .30-03, which was wider.
the difference between a 7x57mm load and a .270 load is low as 3 grains of gunpowder using the same weight bullet and powder
https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle
{130gn bullet, imr 4895}

given how the us went with a relatively light load in the 1906 and m2 ball while europe tended towards hotter loads in their rifles, i think that this is a reasonable and realistic comparison
 

Deleted member 1487

But the Army would reply 'That's the Navy for you'

Navy had been the real enemy to the Army for awhile, since the Navy got more stuff predating the 'Great White Fleet' and its attendant PR bonuses, while only real extra funding the Army got was for some fortifications , not nearly as sexy
It certainly would be interesting to have a modernized 6mm Lee Navy getting the nod for production due to higher naval spending. A lighter spitzer bullet would have fixed the perceived range issue and time to tune the metallurgy and powder load would have made it viable by probably 1906 at the latest. Plus with the straight pull rifle it would have been pretty dangerous for it's time.
 

marathag

Banned
The other thing brought up on the 6mm Lee Navy being more expensive to make, that's correct.

The Frankford Arsenal that make the 30-40 Krag, thise were of balloon head construction, while the Lee used modern solid head construction, had a few more drawing and stamping steps.
Should be noted, 30-40 was later updated to solid head construction just before the Spanish-American War, so the price then was not much different than the Lee.
 

Deleted member 1487

The other thing brought up on the 6mm Lee Navy being more expensive to make, that's correct.

The Frankford Arsenal that make the 30-40 Krag, thise were of balloon head construction, while the Lee used modern solid head construction, had a few more drawing and stamping steps.
Should be noted, 30-40 was later updated to solid head construction just before the Spanish-American War, so the price then was not much different than the Lee.
Good to know. More reason that the deck was stacked against the 6mm L-N.

Personally I'd like to see how something like the 108 grain BIB bullet in the Lee Navy case would perform, as it has a ballistic coefficient of .52 (in comparison the M2 Ball was ~.390). It is used in the 6mm Creedmoor today for shooting competitions, a more powerful cartridge, but for the L-N it could probably achieve a muzzle velocity around 780-800 m/s .
bib108c.jpg


Per this calculator it would still be supersonic past 1000 yards with an 800m/s muzzle velocity and enough retained energy to kill a horse:
http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?pl=[Preset+Name]&presets=30-06+Springfield~30-06+180gr+Sierra+Matchking~G1~0.475~180~2750~100~1.5~0~10~90~~0~59~29.92~50~1~1000~25&df=G1&bc=0.52&bw=108&vi=2600&zr=100&sh=1.5&sa=0&ws=10&wa=90&ssb=on&cr=1000&ss=25&chartColumns=Range~yd;Elevation~in;Elevation~MOA~FBFFF5;Elevation~MIL;Windage~in;Windage~MOA~FBFFF5;Windage~MIL;Time~s;Energy~ft.lbf;Vel[x+y]~ft/s&lbl=[Chart+Label]&submitst=+Create+Chart+

Awesome round for the Garand....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top