Earliest possible invention of assault rifles and effect?

not really,
the 3 main criteria that are used to define an assault rifle are

  1. select fire
  2. intermediate cartridge
  3. detachable box magazine
all of that is available in concept by 1900, but it wasn't put together until the 40's
I'd also add:
4. Large numbers of inexpensive, reliable and fully interchangeable magazines are avaliable.
 
A quick search of the internet offer this the Cei-Rigotti

Capable of single shot or full automatic. It's mass is comparable to the FN FAL, firing a full power cartridge but loading via stripper clip.

The technology was around and if there had ben the will to develop it an semi/fully automatic rifle could have been developed in time for the first world war.

The question perhaps should be what P.O.D would serve as a driver for such a weapon to be adopted with an intermediate cartridge?

Massacres?

Even after ww2 N.A.T.O initially went for the Battle Rifle such as FN FAL or G3.

The bolt action was cheap, simple and reliable and if you're looking at purchasing millions of them any extra cost will soon add up.

Agreed.
If you're army is swelled by reservists who were initially trained some byears before then a straightforward rifle that has changed little is a bonus.

Levee en masse logic makes conservativism in tech and tactics not only understandable but necessary.
Maybe the British post Zulu and Boer and seeing the size of European armies look for a force multiplier to give the B.E.F greater fire power. (Unlikely given the relatively few machine guns initially equipping them)

The British army is small and professional. They can afford some "risks".
Maybe someone examines the engagement ranges for the U.S.civil war and the Russio Japanese war and thinks that more shots are preferable to greater range.

Mobile warfare maybe, but when one gets into the trenches, aimed defensive fires become more important. Mister Machine Gun becomes the baseline for volume directed bullet sprays.

Politics, Economics and Doctrine seem to be bigger obstacles than technology to the early mass introduction of the Assault Rifle.

The cure for Mister Machine Gun + field expedient engineered obstacles is the primary reason. Politics is a function of perceived reality. Getting Joe Infantry moving with a fair chance of surviving to close to 200 meters for a bullet sprayer is the problem.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The question perhaps should be what P.O.D would serve as a driver for such a weapon to be adopted with an intermediate cartridge?

Oh I* can think of an army that might be interested in a reliable self loading auto rifle of intermediate cartridge (Say Colt .45? circa 1876?)

maxresdefault.jpg



Way too fragile.
 
Last edited:
BTW....


That was a FRENCH CONTRACT rifle.

Now about WW I...


Why did the French do what they did? It seems that conservative was the mindset. With the possibility of losing the war because of unreliable gizmo mindsets, there was good reason to be "conservative".

Only "war losers" risk fundamental change.
 
Last edited:

Ever hear of "Not ready for prime time?" Things happen for very good reason. Assault rifles are mobile warfare very kind of close combat infantry arms. WW I was a very immobile affair on the Western front. Bolt action rifles and heavy machine guns are the right weapons for the war they fought.

The French contracted Winchester rifle was intended for their COLONIAL service. The French wanted a self-loader which sprayed a lot of bullets to stop charging mobs of indigenous people who objected (rightfully) to French colonial rule of their lands.

Here... try this for what I mean about right tool for the time and the situation.


Pay attention to what is said about American shotguns for WW I. Useless. The Pattern 1914 British designed rifle (Model 1917 in US nomenclature) was the standard US WW I long arm. It fitted the conditions the Americans found. Somewhat better than the Springfield 1903...
 

Deleted member 1487

Ever hear of "Not ready for prime time?" Things happen for very good reason. Assault rifles are mobile warfare very kind of close combat infantry arms. WW I was a very immobile affair on the Western front. Bolt action rifles and heavy machine guns are the right weapons for the war they fought.
Why were they ordered for WW1?

The French contracted Winchester rifle was intended for their COLONIAL service. The French wanted a self-loader which sprayed a lot of bullets to stop charging mobs of indigenous people who objected (rightfully) to French colonial rule of their lands.
Got a source for that? By all accounts I've seen they were for WW1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#France
The government initially ordered 300 Model 1907 rifles in October 1915 from Winchester, soon followed by an order for 2,500 more rifles. Ammunition orders for these rifles exceeded 1.5 million cartridges of .351SL before 1917. Subsequent orders in 1917 and 1918 totaled 2,200 Model 1907 rifles. According to factory records, these rifles were modified for fully automatic fire and fitted with Lee-Navy rifle bayonets.[5] These rifles were designated by the name of Winchester Model 1907/17, they used either a 15-round magazine or 20-round magazine and fired from 600 to 700 rounds per minute.

https://twitter.com/codyfirearms/status/1007013141178224640
Is the Winchester 1907 a candidate for the world's first assault rifle? The ones sold to France during WW1 were select fire had a detachable magazine and chambered something close to an intermediate cartridge in .351 WSL.
 
Why were they ordered for WW1?

I gave the reason and supplied a source did I not?

Got a source for that? By all accounts I've seen they were for WW1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#France

Relying on Wiki is not useful when some "article facts" may be inaccurate.

I can supply this:

The rifles, less than 5000 in total ordered, were mainly originally intended for colonial service as a crowd control weapon. Some later were trialed as backup guns for aerial observers in planes. Same reason the UK ordered the model, by the way.


Twitter is not really a good source either.

Here.

The 1907 was a good rifle for deer sized game in thick woods and brush; it was reasonably popular in these environments. For longer ranges and larger game, the model 1907 was not well suited. It was well suited as a defense rifle. It’s short length, optional 10 and 15 round magazines, and excellent reliability quickly established it as the” gun to have” for protection. The Model 1907 was even used in World War I; early in 1915 the British and French used the Model 1907 to arm aircraft. After machineguns became standard on airplanes, at least some Model 1907s made it to the trenches. Less well known is the Imperial Russian use of the Model 1907 and it big brother the Winchester Model 1910. Both rifles were also used to a small extent in the Second World War. In the U.S. Army, a few Model 1907s were issued to arm aircraft used in the pursuit of Poncho Villa in Mexico during 1916. In the 1920s and the 1930s the law enforcement community embraced the Model 1907, although overshadowed by the Thompson submachine gun; the Winchester had a following of its own on both sides of the law.

The Russian war on the Eastern Front was a mobile war with some close quarters infantry brawling. It made sense to see the Winchester there in small numbers. Incidentally, at the source, it states explicitly that the usual version of the Winchester was a semi-automatic.

QED.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

I told you why.
No, you said they were used for colonial warfare, I provided sourcing that said they were not used for that, something that the blog you linked below supports, rather than your claims.

Stop relying on Wiki.
There is a linked source within the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1907#cite_note-multiref1-5
  1. Houze, Herbert G. (2003) "Winchester's First Self-Loading Rifles". National Rifle Association, American Rifleman 151(5): Washington. p. 51.
You didn't provide a source that backs up your claim, so you don't get to tell anyone what they should source when all you provided is an unsourced blog that backs up my links.

The rifles, less than 5000 in total, were mainly intended for colonial service as a crowd control weapon. Some were trialed as backup guns for aerial observers in planes. Same reason the UK ordered the model, by the way.
You keep repeating that without sourcing. Below you have an unsourced blog and doesn't even support the claim it was colonial warfare. You're just embarrassing yourself.

And don't use Twitter.

Here.
It was a post by the Cody firearms museum, probably the best source of info on Winchester firearms of the period in question, you linked to a blog without sourcing. Don't use unsourced blogs and continue making unsupported claims while dodging requests for a source.

The Russian war on the Eastern Front was a mobile war with some close quarters infantry br. It made sense to see the Winchester there
K. The entire point of posting that rifle is that if fits the definition of an assault rifle well before WW1 and could have been 'militarized' if someone asked for it pre-WW1.
 
I have revised my remarks to emphasize more clarity on the topic, but I will say this in case you have missed the point:

Wiki is not first evidence or best evidence.

Twitter is not a good communications conduit, no matter about the claim of the source twitterer and that in this case IS NOT the Cody Museum, but would rather be Winchester, the actual maker of the weapon

Overreaching a conclusion based on misinterpretation of the actual evidence to hand is a classic logic fallacy.

Speckin begins with a look at the design intent of the Winchester Self-Loader, which is perhaps one of the most important elements of the gun if one wishes to understand them. A gun cannot be appreciated properly without understanding how well it meets its design intent, and this is a large part of why so few people know much about the 1907 today. It is generally seen as being hopelessly underpowered today, and that view has been around for many decades. In fact, as Speckin explains, the whole series of Winchester Self-Loaders were designed as smokeless semiautomatic analogs for the saddle carbine role. The .351 WSL cartridge is a up-powered stand-in for the .44-40 or .45 Colt, throwing a 180 grain bullet (softpoint or FMJ) at 1900 fps. The 1907 is designed with a short barrel, and completely flat sides to allow easy scabbard carry (that’s why the bolt is operated by a plunger under the barrel; to keep the sides of the gun smooth and unencumbered). It has some weight to it, but that weight is well distributed, and the gun balances well and swings easily. This was not a semiauto replacement for a .30-06 Springfield, it was the gun that filled the space between the Winchester 1892 lever action and the M1 Carbine.

The misconceptions and near total disdain on the part of profession gun writers for the Winchester 1907 are the subject of the next section of Speckin’s book. He references an extensive library of vintage hunting and shooting books and magazines to see what the historical view of the gun has been (and the results are not flattering). Why did all those writers overlook or unfairly disregard the 1907? Well, you’ll have to read the book to see.

IOW, it is quite apparent that the gun/rifle in question is one in a series, that Winchester intended as a "rancher's carbine" and never designed or intended for "combat", so we can stop pretending it was some sort of nascent "assault rifle".

I think I am more on point and accurate in describing the weapon as a semi-automatic varmint eliminator than as a war weapon and thus refute entirely the notion that it could substitute as a war long arm; except as an expedient.
 
that was semi auto, not select fire,
2 out of 3 is still 1 short here
I'd also add:
4. Large numbers of inexpensive, reliable and fully interchangeable magazines are available.
that's a logistics thing, not a tech thing, i'm going to go with an exact words defence

available in concept by 1900

Why were they ordered for WW1?
for use in airplanes by the observers
and then when enough suitable mgs were available to replace them they were moved to the observation balloons
 

Deleted member 1487

that was semi auto, not select fire,
2 out of 3 is still 1 short here
From the link:
According to factory records, these rifles were modified for fully automatic fire and fitted with Lee-Navy rifle bayonets.[5] These rifles were designated by the name of Winchester Model 1907/17, they used either a 15-round magazine or 20-round magazine and fired from 600 to 700 rounds per minute.

So since they were able to be converted to automatic there is no reason they couldn't have been select fire, it was simply a matter of asking for that feature. Effectively the parts were all there even before this conversion, as other prototypes around this time did basically have all these features (other than reliability):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti
The Cei-Rigotti was from 1900!

Arguably the ENT B1 could qualify as an assault rifle, it just used small caliber, high velocity cartridge and was select fire, though the role was supposed to be exactly the same as the BAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT

for use in airplanes by the observers
and then when enough suitable mgs were available to replace them they were moved to the observation balloons
Initially sure, they were used for the ground as well later.

Seriously, quit while you're behind. The book, which was actually linked in the twitter account you disdained, doesn't do anything to help your case. It started as a civilian weapon and was bought and modified by the European militaries to fight in WW1. It doesn't matter how it started life, it was how it evolved and was used. Since the entire point of posting it was to point out that it basically had the necessary features Stephen listed for an assault rifle and was in use in WW1 by European militaries and still continued to evolve after that, it still showed that the technology was there if someone wanted it. Since we are talking about the state of technology for a what if, that's relevant to the discussion. Your semantic obsession is irrelevant.

Also please stop sending me harassing PMs over the fact you can't handle being incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the link:

So since they were able to be converted to automatic there is no reason they couldn't have been select fire, it was simply a matter of asking for that feature. Effectively the parts were all there even before this conversion, as other prototypes around this time did basically have all these features (other than reliability):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti
The Cei-Rigotti was from 1900!

Development was 1900-1910 a full decade.
Arguably the ENT B1 could qualify as an assault rifle, it just used small caliber, high velocity cartridge and was select fire, though the role was supposed to be exactly the same as the BAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT

No comment. I leave it to those who are better informed about the weapon.

Initially sure, they were used for the ground as well later.
Sparsely and not in numbers that mattered.

Seriously, quit while you're behind. The book, which was actually linked in the twitter account you disdained, doesn't do anything to help your case. It started as a civilian weapon and was bought and modified by the European militaries to fight in WW1. It doesn't matter how it started life, it was how it evolved and was used. Since the entire point of posting it was to point out that it basically had the necessary features Stephen listed for an assault rifle and was in use in WW1 by European militaries and still continued to evolve after that, it still showed that the technology was there if someone wanted it. Since we are talking about the state of technology for a what if, that's relevant to the discussion. Your semantic obsession is irrelevant.

The author is an expert, moreso than you or I, he is first source and he plainly states the history of the gun. I have already shown that the gun was an expedient and NOT a war weapon.

Also please stop sending me harassing PMs over the fact you can't handle being incorrect.

I have sent you e-mails to state in private that you are overreaching the evidence. This is what the PM is for and not to derail public discussions. I have no intention to make anything "Personal" so let's keep things strictly to the evidence here.

As in the case of the Pe-8 discussion I had with you; I will disagree about your conclusions about the Model 1907, because;

Overreaching a conclusion based on misinterpretation of the actual evidence to hand is a classic logic fallacy.

And THAT is about the only thing I will write about how evidence has been handled in this thread. If one can prove that the Model 1907 was actually used to the extent claimed, that it is a nascent example of an assault rifle in WW I, then I will concede some of the argument; but obviously this has not happened yet.

The evidence, so far presented, leads me to the conclusion that some misinterpret what the weapon was historically (again.). I have checked and double checked the evidence and the description of contrary case as hypoithesized is not accurate, nor is it fair to claim that I have not engaged in the necessary refutation exercise to prove the negation of it.

The Model 1907 does not get to genuinely support the claim for auto-rifle prototype (~5000 examples (France) (~2200 Britain) (~500 Russia) in WW I, overall) until modified in the 1930s. It pops up as this iteration in reputation in some quantity during the American gangster wars. THAT is the history.
 
Last edited:
Initially sure, they were used for the ground as well later.
So since they were able to be converted to automatic there is no reason they couldn't have been select fire,

Othais from C&Rsenal examined these claims, and found no evidence to back it up
Othais was unable to confirm that they ever were used on the battlefield, and was unable to confirm that they were modified in any way from the factory standard, with the first 1907 he could find with bayonet lug being added to the catalog in 1934,
it's entirely probable that the 2003 article that you base your claim on was mistaken,
if you have another source that can definitively pin that down i'm willing to take a look, but until you can provide that i will consider the claim as in doubt, and as such not being enough to override my statement
also the low # of units ordered (2500-3000)would suggest that if any of the 1907's did end up on the ground, it was likely in the rear ranks or in the hands of air field guards


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeyrolles_1918_automatic_carbine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cei-Rigotti
The Cei-Rigotti was from 1900!

Arguably the ENT B1 could qualify as an assault rifle, it just used small caliber, high velocity cartridge and was select fire, though the role was supposed to be exactly the same as the BAR:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT
cei rigotti used full power rifle cartridge, the other 2 are vaporware, as is the burton lmr,

i know that i sometime have a hard time getting to the meat of my arguments, but here's what i was going for:
the tech was available by 1900, at the latest, but by and large the militaries of the day where not interested in the concept until the 1940's and ww2
 
I'm going to stay away from the technical issues, since I can't claim expertise there--once a gun gets smaller than a 20 mm Oikerlon and similar light AA, I'm lost.
There needs to be a good reason for assault rifles, Would the existence of an elite force that simply needed more firepower with a longer range than a submachine gun, encourage its development?
 

Deleted member 1487

i know that i sometime have a hard time getting to the meat of my arguments, but here's what i was going for:
the tech was available by 1900, at the latest, but by and large the militaries of the day where not interested in the concept until the 1940's and ww2
Ok, then that is the crux of our disconnect, I was arguing the technological side rather than the doctrinal. The earliest desire for something in the assault rifle class that I've seen was the 1918 German study on combat ranges and the role of the infantry rifle that arguably provided the basis that kicked off the work into producing a weapon that eventually became the Sturmgewehr. Certainly there were arguably the demands for it from the infantry in WW1, but given the way militaries worked as did procurement at the time, that it just didn't get done until WW2.
 
Top