More Widespread Adoption of Mannlicher's Innovations?

Delta Force

Banned
I thought it might be reaching too far to think about how the 6.5mm might inspire a shift towards what we now regard as modern "intermediate" rounds since it looks rather like the proposed .270 or .280 concepts with the right hindsight. Frankly I assume the logistical bias towards commonality between MG and Rifle ammunition derails the idea but the Austrians might not have the same concerns as they seek a qualitative advance in their battle rifle. My notion would be a late Twenties to mid-thirties development towards semi-automatic rifle for the infantry as parallel to the Garand as I can conjure out of plausible "what-if" giving the Wehrmacht this advance earlier than the troublesome Mauser that seems to never quite have filled the role. But might this have butterflied the Sturmgewehr? But then I think most might agree that a good semi-auto rifle available around 1940-ish is better than a full-auto in 1944/1945.

I forgot to put this in the original post, but Mannlicher also seems to have pioneered one of the first intermediate rifle cartridges as well in the 1890s. The conventional bolt action Mannlicher M1893 and Dutch Mannlicher M1895 (also conventional bolt action) were produced to use the 6.5 x 53 mm R Mannlicher cartridge. Countries had been moving towards cartridges firing smaller and lighter bullets traveling at higher velocities since smokeless powder was invented, and a few countries (the Romanians and Dutch, also the United States Navy and Marines with the M1895 Lee Navy rifle chambered in 6 mm Lee Navy, an attempt at an even greater leapfrog) actually did adopt intermediate cartridges.

The United States Navy and Marines switched back to full power cartridges in the 1900s for commonality with the Army (although the Navy and Marines even had machine guns firing 6 mm Lee Navy, so they did have a common small arms caliber) while the Romanians and Dutch switched to a full power cartridge just before/during World War II.
 

Delta Force

Banned
It's quite possible that intermediate cartridges were simply a bit beyond the technology of the times though. The Lee Navy rifles didn't have a very long barrel life, and the intermediate cartridges seem to have used more advanced powders, so the ammunition might have been more difficult and expensive to produce as well.
 
It's quite possible that intermediate cartridges were simply a bit beyond the technology of the times though. The Lee Navy rifles didn't have a very long barrel life, and the intermediate cartridges seem to have used more advanced powders, so the ammunition might have been more difficult and expensive to produce as well.

DuPont came out with the cooler burning, more consistent IMR powders after WWI, but there were a few others making doublebase powders that would have made life easier for the 6mm Lee.

Even without barrel burning, it would be likely the USN/Marines would be forced to 30-06 by WWI
 
It's quite possible that intermediate cartridges were simply a bit beyond the technology of the times though. The Lee Navy rifles didn't have a very long barrel life, and the intermediate cartridges seem to have used more advanced powders, so the ammunition might have been more difficult and expensive to produce as well.

Since I am not any sort of expert on the subject I can only observe what seemed to have succeeded or worked and assume the dead ends were for good reasons, when I ponder this time period I usually default to the Kurz round as the success in stepping down from the "full powered" rounds (or "over powered" if you prefer). Thus my hesitation in pushing something like the .280 British forward to the 1930s. The USSR made their 7.62x39 a standard for years, I assume very much profiting from the Kurz round, thus I think it is safe to connect dots in that same direction. But might we reach with the seemingly proven 6.5mm to perhaps push where even the Garand was aiming before conservative worries stepped in? And might something like the FG42 using such a lighter round presage the SAW in concept? It forces changes to German doctrines but then again maybe not so much?
 
Interesting thing is that the Lee Navy and the Lee Enfield were introduced in the same year
designed by the same person (James Paris Lee). However, the Enfield was an improvement
of an earlier Lee design. The Lee Navy on the other hand, was a straight pull action.
Even more interestingly is that Lee and Mannlicher developmed several designs concurrently
and Lee even sued Mannlicher for patent infringment in 1891 but lost the case.
 
Last edited:
Top