Automatic Rifles from 1890

[Carl Schwamberger]

A very early patent for a gas operated semi automatic rifle dates from 1887.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragón_rifle

In short the Mexican army officer Manuel Mondragon began design of a gas operated automatic rifle in 1882, which he patented in 1887. Lack of funds and general interest prevented timely development & production was limited for many decades while the weapon was refined. The basic concept of its operating system was similar to the many automatic rifles developed after 1910, like the M1 Garand tested by the US Army in the 1920s, or the Browning automatic rifle.

So WI Mondragon had accquired adaquate financial backing, for developing the concept quickly? That is reliable examples in the hands of sales men by 1890 and larger scale production from 1895?

I'm thinking that despite the 'old crocks' of the worlds armys of 1900 the idea of lighter automatic rifles would have caught on in the worlds little wars from 1895 through 1914. Experience would have created a strong impetus for replacing the older hand operated bolt rifles with gas operated semi automatics, and for adding fully automatic large magazine rifles to supplement them in the rifle company.

The implications for infantry combat at the start of WWI in 1914 are enormous. Along with the ordinary rifle and SAW style examples built by General Mondragon by 1910 one would expect smaller SMG to make their appearance, along with a wide variety of similar weapons from other designers.

Any opnions from the small arms experts here?

 

[NothingNow]

They'll still be seriously expensive.
The Madsen SLR would do it at the same time, while being slightly cheaper, and a hell of a lot more reliable. Also, there was already the Madsen LMG, which is pretty much one of the best machine guns ever designed, even if it is a 20-pound iron brick with a stock. (but it also makes a handy club, unlike most modern designs.)

And a pre-WWI proliferation of automatic rifles wouldn't really change much aside from casualty figures and ammunition expenditures though. Tactics haven't gotten anywhere near catching up to the tech by this point. Giving everyone a semi-automatic rifle or automatic rifle wouldn't help that.
They'd probably be limited to elite units at first because of the cost compared to the SMLE and Mauser.

But if they're reliable, they'd probably become well loved as part of standard trench raiding kit after a year or so of war.
Give it two years of war for the first SMGs.

 

[GOU Limiting Factor]

The other thing to remember is that tactics drove the technology - short of a world war, you're unlikely to see the kind of changes in infantry combat that made semiauto and select-fire rifles attractive. Ammunition is a big expense, you don't shell out for it unless the alternative is losing. Most of the world had the ability to manufacture a semi-auto infantry rifle by 1890 - what they didn't have was the ability to supply large formations of infantry armed with semi-auto rifles.

One thing you can do, though, is drive the adoption of intermediate calibre cartridges (I have a soft spot for the .280), which are better suited to automatic fire. That gives you more options and makes select-fire conversions of semi-auto rifles more attractive.

 

[phx1138]

The other thing to remember is that tactics drove the technology - short of a world war, you're unlikely to see the kind of changes in infantry combat that made semiauto and select-fire rifles attractive. Ammunition is a big expense, you don't shell out for it unless the alternative is losing. Most of the world had the ability to manufacture a semi-auto infantry rifle by 1890 - what they didn't have was the ability to supply large formations of infantry armed with semi-auto rifles.

Agreed. Between 1865 & 1897, there's really no need for a semi-auto rifle, & after introduction of HE shells & hydraulic recoil mechanisms, artillery resumes its dominance on the battlefield, & there's no real use for it.

BTW, you don't need to wait for Mondragon. If you're willing to accept a different feeding mechanism, you could have a Colt-based *Aden in the 1860s...

One thing you can do, though, is drive the adoption of intermediate calibre cartridges (I have a soft spot for the .280), which are better suited to automatic fire. That gives you more options and makes select-fire conversions of semi-auto rifles more attractive.

Agreed. (I'm partial to a ".308 Short" or 7.62x40mm, myself,but a .276 based on the .30-'06 would be cool, too.) What you could see is the earlier development of a light-recoil round for airborne, which morphs into a compact weapon for airborne, tankers, support people, & aircrew: a bullpup .276 by 1950? Which, if it happens, butterflies out the invention of the SMG entirely. Which butterflies the Thompson. And the favorite gun of gangster movies. ("A Piece of the Action" would never been the same.)

 

[amphibulous]

The implications for infantry combat at the start of WWI in 1914 are enormous.

Hardly.

Automatic rifles are almost pointless even for modern forces. Even if you use a lightweight bullet like the 5.56 full auto is still hopeless inaccurate at anything other than short range. Effective full auto weapons need to be mounted and to have cooling systems and/or fast change barrels.

If you're a calibre like 7.62 - which you really need to at WW1 combat ranges - then a full auto rifle capability is just stupid. In the Falklands the Argentines and British both used FN FALs, but only the Argentine version had full auto - because having it was a dumb idea. Modern M16s have lost full auto capability for a similar reason, and there constant complaints that 5.56 isn't a good enough combat round.

 

[amphibulous]

which morphs into a compact weapon for airborne, tankers, support people, & aircrew: a bullpup .276 by 1950? Which, if it happens, butterflies out the invention of the SMG entirely.:

Bullpups are hard enough to get right even with modern technology. And no round with the ballistics needed for use at rifle ranges would be controllable at 8-12 rounds per minute full auto, which is the point of SMGs.

 

[Kongzilla]

Maybe they're used as a Squad support weapon, like a BAR.

 

[amphibulous]

Maybe they're used as a Squad support weapon, like a BAR.

It makes more sense to put your money into full size machine guns. They're more reliable, much more cost effective, and you're not fighting in diffuse enough formations to make squad weapons useful. Plus the BAR is a pretty poor squad weapon - it's not really worth having them until you get the tech level for something like a Bren gun - you need quick change barrels and a decent capacity magazine.

 

[wietze]

short thread that discussed this too : https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=215966

 

[NothingNow]

It makes more sense to put your money into full size machine guns. They're more reliable, much more cost effective, and you're not fighting in diffuse enough formations to make squad weapons useful. Plus the BAR is a pretty poor squad weapon - it's not really worth having them until you get the tech level for something like a Bren gun - you need quick change barrels and a decent capacity magazine.

All the Madsen gun was missing was a quick-change barrel (a simple modification given the action,) and it had 25, 30 and 40 round magazines. You could also make a larger (~100 round) drum or Pan magazine for it fairly easily.

 

[FleetMac]

Hardly.

Automatic rifles are almost pointless even for modern forces. Even if you use a lightweight bullet like the 5.56 full auto is still hopeless inaccurate at anything other than short range. Effective full auto weapons need to be mounted and to have cooling systems and/or fast change barrels.

If you're a calibre like 7.62 - which you really need to at WW1 combat ranges - then a full auto rifle capability is just stupid. In the Falklands the Argentines and British both used FN FALs, but only the Argentine version had full auto - because having it was a dumb idea. Modern M16s have lost full auto capability for a similar reason, and there constant complaints that 5.56 isn't a good enough combat round.

Emphasis mine; isn't that the POINT? I agree that even at ~150 meters full auto on a rifle isn't good for anything but throwing away bullets, but it sure as hell is at <30 meters, where most street and CQB fighting takes place. The whole premise of an assault rifle is a compromise between the firepower of a SMG with the range and killing ability of a rifle. It's both and neither at the same time and IMNSHO shouldn't be judged by most rifle standards.

And I heartily disagree on the reason the M-16 dropped full auto. The reason was 1) grunts weren't using automatic properly and just spraying into the Vietnamese jungles hoping to hit ANYTHING, and 2) paying for the ammo expenditure was considered too expensive. Having fired a 5.56x45mm rifle on full-auto and semi-auto, it's not THAT bad on one's accuracy; sure you won't be able to pick off headshots or anything like that, but in the range I specified above you WILL hit the target.

I do agree, though, that the 5.56mm isn't a terribly effective caliber, and would prefer a semi-automatic 7.62mm any day of the week.

 

[amphibulous]

Emphasis mine; isn't that the POINT? I agree that even at ~150 meters full auto on a rifle isn't good for anything but throwing away bullets, but it sure as hell is at <30 meters, where most street and CQB fighting takes place.

But

1. This has nothing to do with "The implications for infantry combat at the start of WWI in 1914 are enormous."

2. Getting a rifle to be usable on full auto even in that limited sense means changing down to a small bullet. To be even marginally effective such bullets require advanced ballistics - tumbling, etc - and high velocity propellants. These things did not exist.

3. And, even then, such bullets are awful in a distance fight - they bleed velocity. For the type of fighting that troops had to do in this period, the M16 would have been inferior to an SMLE.

4. Auto weapons in this calibre have an appalling reliability record even with modern technology - it took years to get the M16 and the British Army's bullpup right.

The whole premise of an assault rifle is a compromise between the firepower of a SMG with the range and killing ability of a rifle. It's both and neither at the same time and IMNSHO shouldn't be judged by most rifle standards.

Actually, it should - if those are the standards applicable to the type of fighting you are doing.

And I heartily disagree on the reason the M-16 dropped full auto. The reason was 1) grunts weren't using automatic properly and just spraying into the Vietnamese jungles hoping to hit ANYTHING, and 2) paying for the ammo expenditure was considered too expensive. Having fired a 5.56x45mm rifle on full-auto and semi-auto, it's not THAT bad on one's accuracy; sure you won't be able to pick off headshots or anything like that, but in the range I specified above you WILL hit the target.

I'd suggest that everything gets much harder when other people are actually shooting at you and you are suffering from exhaustion. But the above are also sufficient reasons why early full autos would not have been useful.

 

[FleetMac]

1. This has nothing to do with "The implications for infantry combat at the start of WWI in 1914 are enormous."

Ah, on that we agree. The state of the art simply doesn't allow huge implications like that to occur.

2. Getting a rifle to be usable on full auto even in that limited sense means changing down to a small bullet. To be even marginally effective such bullets require advanced ballistics - tumbling, etc - and high velocity propellants. These things did not exist.

I'm slightly skeptical on your first example, but we agree on the propellant issue. For me, that's the real killer for automatic rifles in the turn-of-the-century era.

3. And, even then, such bullets are awful in a distance fight - they bleed velocity. For the type of fighting that troops had to do in this period, the M16 would have been inferior to an SMLE.

Well, most fighting done in the WWI period wasn't done with rifles at all, but with fixed HMGs, landmines and artillery. I can't remember the source, but I remember reading that most rifle engagements took place at that oft-quoted ~200m. range even in the First World War. At that point (provided the ballistics issues work out), an assault rifle doesn't look too shabby in terms of use.

That being said, I agree the M-16 would've gotten chewed up in a trench war compared to a SMLE.

4. Auto weapons in this calibre have an appalling reliability record even with modern technology - it took years to get the M16 and the British Army's bullpup right.

But the AK-47 and FAL both took only a handful of years to reach service from inception, and neither are weapons I'd ever remotely call unreliable. Granted the FAL fires a full-power cartridge but that was the result of inter-governmental politics, the .280 it was designed and tested with is hardly a complicated (by modern standards) or ballistically finicky round.

Actually, it should - if those are the standards applicable to the type of fighting you are doing.

In a world war scenario, that seems like a pretty big "IF" to me. If one's engagements are expected to take place in the countryside with plenty of open spaces, an assault rifle makes no sense unless one's rate of mechanized advance offsets its shortcomings (a pretty big unless, to be fair.) However, if one can expect combat in urban or jungle environments with piss-poor visibility even in daytime and limited reaction times, that lack of long-range punch doesn't really matter as much. It all depends on the context. Besides, at the end of the day, I look at assault rifles as overgrown SMGs, not puny wannabe rifles.

I'd suggest that everything gets much harder when other people are actually shooting at you and you are suffering from exhaustion. But the above are also sufficient reasons why early full autos would not have been useful.

The thing is, why wasn't this an issue with SMGs in the Second World War (where often whole BATTALIONS would be issued with nothing but submachine guns) if full auto is such a disadvantage? The only thing I can see it really holding things up in a full-out war is at the logistics level. A fight like in Vietnam, perhaps that's a different beast since there's no expectation of a "serious" fight by the beancounters.

I think we're talking in circles since I agree that automatic rifles aren't really possible before 1900 (and practically not until the 1920s). With that in mind, I'll just bow out before the thread gets sidetracked

 

[amphibulous]

The thing is, why wasn't this an issue with SMGs in the Second World War (where often whole BATTALIONS would be issued with nothing but submachine guns) if full auto is such a disadvantage?

Pistol calibre bullets have reasonably controllable recoil - I can't remember the figures for momentum, but 5.56 rifle typically packs 4 or 5 times as much KE as 9mm - the ROF is high enough to compensate, and you're not compromising the weapon in anyway to get close up ability - it's a dedicated tool. And accuracy for a lot of SMGs was already very low - the Sten was probably *the* WW2 design - a bullet sprayer that cost less than a pair of boots.

In a world war scenario, that seems like a pretty big "IF" to me. If one's engagements are expected to take place in the countryside with plenty of open spaces, an assault rifle makes no sense unless one's rate of mechanized advance offsets its shortcomings (a pretty big unless, to be fair.) However, if one can expect combat in urban or jungle environments with piss-poor visibility even in daytime and limited reaction times, that lack of long-range punch doesn't really matter as much.

I'd have thought so too, but no: the 5.56 is a horrible round in may of these environments. A 7.62 will travel through foliage in a straight line and kill, but a 5.56 can have its performance severely degraded. (By chance I once ended sitting opposite to one of the designers of the much hated British Army 5.56 bullpup: his main defense was that of the weapon's pronblems came from trying to meet the Army's range and lethality requirements while using such an obviously stupid choice of bullet. Apparently the smaller diameter sabot rounds once touted as the future have even sillier problems - their ballistics go crazy when it's raining!)

I think we mostly agree, but it's interesting quibbling about the small stuff: my bottom-line opinion, based on talking to people in the infantry and reading up on the ballistics, is that a 6.5 or 6.8 rifle round is about right. (Which about what the British Army wanted after WW2 anyway...)

Edited to add:
Also, doesn't the M16 have a particularly fancy system for reducing recoil? I think it fires closed bolt in single shot for accuracy, but open bolt in auto, to spread recoil? Again, I don't think you could expect this of an earlier rifle. Otoh, SMGs are usually opening bolt, spreading recoil that would otherwise be a sharp pulse.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

Firstly a welcome to Carl to this forum!

While reading through the Wikipedia link, I noticed that Japan had purchased a licence for the Mondragón. Oddly the Japanese Arisaka 6.5 x 50mm had already been used for the Fedorov Avtomat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat. Interestingly, this has a recoil rather similar to the AK 47.

One alternate history possibility is that one of the users of the Arisaka 6.5 x 50mm might have adopted it for an early assault rifle. There is an article by Anthony Williams at http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm explaining why this didn't happen.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I think that the weapon that would make sense is the semi-automatic rifle, as most powers were working on that by the turn of the 20th century.
Even a light machine gun would be more favored.

So frankly the automatic rifle is less useful than a light machine gun, so perhaps that would be the item to focus on instead of the auto-rifle like the BAR. Its more accurate, more capable of sustained fire, and more manageable than an auto-rifle. Look at the experience of the FG-42 for the problems with that. A light machine gun is far superior, as the Germans tested the Madsen during WW1 with fusilier battalions on the Eastern Front and found them unable to handle the sustained firing necessary for serious combat; instead the light machine gun was the best weapon for the role of squad automatic weapon. Which is why the Lewis Gun and MG08/15 were far superior to the Chauchat. By WW2 the BAR had lost its edge as a weapon and was a throw back, as the Bren Gun and MG42 outperformed it for the role that it was expected to fill, that of squad base of fire.

Perhaps you mean an assault rifle? That would be too early, as even the Russian Federov Avtomat was only in production in 1916 and even then only in tiny numbers (hundreds).

So I think you would be better off talking about a light machine gun in 1890 than anything else, which IMHO is too early. By 1910 its much more possible than even in 1900. The first self-powered machine gun was only invented in 1885, which is 5 years too early for an autorifle or really a light machine gun.

1910 makes much more sense for a light machine gun. As it was IOTL the BAR was probably invented in 1916, while the light machine gun was barely around in 1914. Sure the Madsen was in 1905, but it was very difficult to make at the time and was not well liked in combat in WW1 in the muddy trench conditions.

 

[NothingNow]

Sure the Madsen was in 1902, but it was very difficult to make at the time

Fixed, and the Madsen is somewhat intricate, but actually wasn't that hard to make compared to a Benet-Mercie or Lewis Gun. They're just heavy and, because of that, and the complexity of the action, comparatively expensive.

and was not well liked in combat in WW1 in the muddy trench conditions.

You're thinking of the Mondragon. The Madsen isn't half as temperamental as a Mondragon, which would start jamming as soon as water got in the action. The Madsen OTOH was over-built and exceptionally reliable.

 

[phx1138]

no round with the ballistics needed for use at rifle ranges

300m? Really? I'm not suggesting using full-power .30-'06 for this, y'know.

 

[amphibulous]

300m? Really? I'm not suggesting using full-power .30-'06 for this, y'know.

Then I don't get the point. Why not just use an SMG if you don't want the range rifles give? Why use a bullpup with all their many problems? They're notorious problematic weapons to manufacture even with modern technology - getting the trigger linkage right is surely going to be harder in 1950? And you'll probably have to supply modified versions for left handed use, and that trigger linkage will be a pain to maintain. It seems like a lot of fuss for no clear advantage.

Speaking as a semi-engineer and sort of risk analyst: it seems a common pattern for military firearms to be over optimized for some particular trait and then to perform disastrously, especially in terms of reliability. The M16 took years to get semi-hemi right, and the British bullpup was worse.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

And I heartily disagree on the reason the M-16 dropped full auto. The reason was 1) grunts weren't using automatic properly and just spraying into the Vietnamese jungles hoping to hit ANYTHING, and 2) paying for the ammo expenditure was considered too expensive. Having fired a 5.56x45mm rifle on full-auto and semi-auto, it's not THAT bad on one's accuracy; sure you won't be able to pick off headshots or anything like that, but in the range I specified above you WILL hit the target.

I drew a blank there Which versions of the M16 do not have a full automatic setting?

....
Also, doesn't the M16 have a particularly fancy system for reducing recoil? I think it fires closed bolt in single shot for accuracy, but open bolt in auto, to spread recoil? Again, I don't think you could expect this of an earlier rifle. Otoh, SMGs are usually opening bolt, spreading recoil that would otherwise be a sharp pulse.

Not as I was taught in two different schools. But, I dont call myself a expert on this. If I am remembering correctly the M16 firing pin wont contact the cartridge primer until the bolt is rotated into the locked position. Recoil is asorbed by a metal & nylon buffer riding on a long spring in the stock. The recoiling bolt contacts the buffer and the two compress the spring. Simpler to disassemble clean and sort than the few other recoil systems I trained with. Basically two parts in the recoil assembly, with no pins, catches, or other anoying parts to distract me, and no trick alignment steps to reassembly. Complexity in the M16 lay elsewhere.

... As it was IOTL the BAR was probably invented in 1916, ....

About then. Reliable examples of Brownings belt fed machine gun and magazine fed rifle were demonstrated for US Army observers in early 1917. It was contracted for production nearly imeadiatly without further trials Unless Browning was copying from someone else gun it is unlikely he designed and debugged the BAR in a year or less. He had been constructing a variety of prototypes, many using his brothers machine shop in Ogden Utah as far back as 1912 & perhaps earlier.

Both Mannlicher & Mondragon had produced gas operated rifles before 1900 & both had tested prototypes of gas operated full auto weapons similar to the BAR by 1910, so Browning may have been drawing on those examples for avoiding mistakes. Maybe someone has read one of the several books on Browning & can shed some further light on this.