Semi-automatics for British army WW2

does Britain adopt an existing or retool/invent something domestic?
I don't picture the B.A. accepting anything commercial. If they like the ballistics of the .303 rimmed, I'd expect a .303 rimless to be very close in performance, unless it's influenced by other factors (like a desire to reduce ammo power or felt recoil or something). That's really a separate issue--unless that is why you get a semi-auto in B.A. service in the first place...
 
I don't picture the B.A. accepting anything commercial. If they like the ballistics of the .303 rimmed, I'd expect a .303 rimless to be very close in performance, unless it's influenced by other factors (like a desire to reduce ammo power or felt recoil or something). That's really a separate issue--unless that is why you get a semi-auto in B.A. service in the first place...

My own opinion is that if they were intending to change calibre in the 30s then it would highly likely be 7.92 Mauser.

If it had been decided in the mid 30s then the Bren would have been easier and the No4 rifle would instead be something like the FN SLR design

The only weapon that might pose a problem would be the Vickers - but there are 7.92 Mauser versions - and as I understand it - its as simple as a barrel and breech change with the advantage that the Vickers can use the metal belts (MG34 and BESA)
 
What wedded the British to .303" was not the ballistics but the production and existing stock. 7.92mm would have been an easy choice. Well known and popular with other armies already it would allow purchase of arms designs off the shelf and it would bring 7.92mm almost into a NATO 7.62mm level of universality. The French were also using it in their German WW1 captures and reperations weapons like the MG08 so perhaps they could be persuaded to rechamber and rebarrel their 7.5mm to 7.92mm too? Were that to happen when the US is looking for their semi automatic rifle it could tip them to 7.92mm for the M1 instead of .30-06?

Whilst I personally think it overpowered I can see how it would seem attractive at the necessary early 1930's decision time. British makers were already making the stuff so changing production would not be that hard. Changing Vickers MMGs to it was a simple job to keep them in service to use up existing stocks and the BESA was easier to make and could slip into service as the new MMG gradually. Existing stocks of .303" in hand could maintain the reserve stock of current .303" weapons that would be called into use in the event of major war until production of the newer 7.92mm expands to meet the far larger wartime demand. India would keep .303" for the time being as they made much of their own small arms at home in .303".

When the situation is seen in an ammunition led choice not a weapon design led choice, it makes sense to streamline the ammunition supply to a single SA rifle/LMG/MMG package and in 7.92mm off the shelf the ZB30 and ZB58 are obvious choices. The SA has a range of possibilities but less than you might think in circa 1930. In 1939 you are knee deep in them but that is far too late.

What can the world offer in actual semi automatic rifle designs which can be acquired in trials numbers in 1930? Not cunning plans and 3 or 4 off but actual 'you can order 200 to arrive by August 1930 sir' standard?
 
Why 7.92? I would expect a new cartridge altogether. If we're going to an existing one, the obvious choice is 7.65x53 Mauser. This is the same .303 diameter bullet in a case with same case head diameter as 7.92 and therefore easily chambered in any weapon developed for it.
 
7.92mm Mauser has the advantage of being one already in use for a variety of guns so it saves capital by letting you buy existing designs off the shelf, Also saves the time that would have been spent converting them to Imperial sizes. There is more to it that redrawing the chamber and bore to .303". It needs the drawings re dimensioned into convenient Imperial sizes and reworking the specifications into those suited to Imperial metal and small parts supplies, pins, screws and so forth. Far easier to simply buy metric gauges etc and you have the clout to tell your metal suppliers etc. to deliver metric standard stock. The BESA illustrates the savings in time and cost. The 7.92mm ZB30 took 3 years to become the .303" ZB33. The Indian Army went for the Vickers Berthier as it came in .303" already.

I make no claim that the 7.92mm Mauser has any special quality over it's peers. It is a perfectly sound rimless battle rifle round and not one of my favourites but makes sense at the time. The British Army in WW2 became so enamoured of it that it was chosen in 1944 as the next standard British round post war. What made them change their mind was evaluations of experience post war and the intermediate rifle concepts.
 
My idea of the Farquhar-Hill seeing limited service in France sees the British having first hand experience that rimmed cartidges are doable in Semi Autos,
so the FHII/Farfield is introdued in the 30s with the same ammo.
 
Last edited:
For a semi-auto, isn't the .303, being rimmed, a bad call? Which suggests a need for a new ammo supply, & a whole separate supply stream:eek:...or wholesale retooling for the *.303 rimless.:eek::eek: (Which really needs renaming, too, to avoid confusion with the OTL .303 in supply depots; call it the .300 British Rimless?)

It appears to be the accepted wisdom, thus it appears why the British went looking at another round and soon found the slippery path to something completely different. I know they 8mm Mauser was likely adopted due to the haste of getting something in service, I wonder if in a leisurely setting a rimless derivative of .303 might have been designed and adopted? I think Swedish Mauser was likely the logical choice for a less than .303 cartridge already existing but issues of control are not as compelling in semi-automatic as in automatic and thus my thinking that Britain ultimately eschews the so-called intermediate cartridges for something "full" powered, i.e. rifle and machine gun suitable. If it must be rimless then does Britain adopt an existing or retool/invent something domestic?

There were experiments with a rimless .303 before WW1, during the period when the change to a .276 cartridge was being examined. The original models of the Farquhar-Hill were chambered for one such cartridge. Likewise there was an experimental .303 rimless round (thought it was actually SR) used for the 1918 rifle trials and various projects 'til around 1920, and on a much smaller scale until 1938. This one was developed from the experimental .303 Lewis cartridge.
There were others...
 
There were experiments with a rimless .303 before WW1, during the period when the change to a .276 cartridge was being examined. The original models of the Farquhar-Hill were chambered for one such cartridge. Likewise there was an experimental .303 rimless round (thought it was actually SR) used for the 1918 rifle trials and various projects 'til around 1920, and on a much smaller scale until 1938. This one was developed from the experimental .303 Lewis cartridge.
There were others...

My understanding is that the .303 rimless that was nearest adoption in 1918 as a higher powered round, the Army sought armor-piercing power and the RAF wanted it for observers, so we might say this is a MG round, it sounds like the modern Magnum, fairly moving in the opposite direction of lighter bullet, higher velocity, under 1000 yards optimized, less weight and more control. I did not find other rimless .303 looking like the various proto-"intermediate" cartridges, aka akin to the .270 et al. Was there a a purely rimless .303 or a downsized one actually developed? If so why did they not adopt it versus 8mm Mauser or chase another design entirely? At bottom what was the most logical choice in the mid-1930s for a semi-automatic if we forego existing .303?
 
At bottom what was the most logical choice in the mid-1930s for a semi-automatic if we forego existing .303?
Whilst I prefer the 6.5x50 Japanese with a better bullet, the 7.92mm aka 8mm Mauser is the most logical in the big picture of the day. Going to a brand new round carries risks in the novel round, in delay in weapon production and more extensive trials. The Mauser works right off the shelf and is in the class then required, whatever we might choose today. IMHO anything else at best would be the best driving out the good and the Mauser is good.

The plausible AH trick here is to determine what would be acceptable to the purchasers in the 1930's. Not what we now think is the best. The intermediate cartridge was not a concept that would be considered. They would want a battle rifle.
 
Whilst I prefer the 6.5x50 Japanese with a better bullet, the 7.92mm aka 8mm Mauser is the most logical in the big picture of the day. Going to a brand new round carries risks in the novel round, in delay in weapon production and more extensive trials. The Mauser works right off the shelf and is in the class then required, whatever we might choose today. IMHO anything else at best would be the best driving out the good and the Mauser is good.

The plausible AH trick here is to determine what would be acceptable to the purchasers in the 1930's. Not what we now think is the best. The intermediate cartridge was not a concept that would be considered. They would want a battle rifle.

I must agree wholeheartedly, I think it was just not yet time for the intermediate round despite how the Germans appear to have learned the utility by the 1920s trials. Look at the Garand and the Vollmer, the former stayed with .30-06 and the later just faded. I think it takes another mobile war to sink in the lessons, even then the USA fielded the M14 and 7.62 is hardly what we think of as a leap forward. And the trend was to move up from things like 6.5, the Japanese in particular show us the backwards leap to 7.7.

So without the exigency of war would Britain simply buy 8mm Mauser as it buys FN and Brno designs, importing the stuff to be tinkered and licensed produced domestically? Am I silly feeling Britain has just adopted the German standard?
 

Deleted member 1487

I must agree wholeheartedly, I think it was just not yet time for the intermediate round despite how the Germans appear to have learned the utility by the 1920s trials. Look at the Garand and the Vollmer, the former stayed with .30-06 and the later just faded. I think it takes another mobile war to sink in the lessons, even then the USA fielded the M14 and 7.62 is hardly what we think of as a leap forward. And the trend was to move up from things like 6.5, the Japanese in particular show us the backwards leap to 7.7.

So without the exigency of war would Britain simply buy 8mm Mauser as it buys FN and Brno designs, importing the stuff to be tinkered and licensed produced domestically? Am I silly feeling Britain has just adopted the German standard?
The issue with the Vollmer was the caliber shift and the issues around mass production (it was a milled weapon like the Garand and the German military wanted stamped metal, cheap weapons much like the philosophy behind the AK-47...minus the reliability to enhance cheapness); ironically the Vollmer fell victim to the German military desire to move to cheap mass production, with methods that no on else in the world thought was suitable for small arms at the time. So the Garand stayed with the .30-06 out of conservatism by the US military to use what they already had in terms of bullet stocks, while the Vollmer died due to the Germans wanting a weapon that was cheap and easy to mass produce quickly (it turns out it was much easier to make than the bullets! They proved to be the limiting factor for the introduction and fielding of the weapon). Meanwhile the Brit military was if anything the most conservative pre-war in terms of small arms and was through most of the war too. I guess the question is how do you get the British army to stop being so penny pinching and intellectually conservative?
 
So without the exigency of war would Britain simply buy 8mm Mauser as it buys FN and Brno designs, importing the stuff to be tinkered and licensed produced domestically? Am I silly feeling Britain has just adopted the German standard?
Unless it has some unique feature (which it doesn't) it is not subject to patent laws and can simply be copied. Britain had no problem with a German standard. After all they put it in production as the BESA IOTL. They had bought in the US Snider action to convert Enfield muzzle loaders to breech loaders, the US Peabody in Swiss Martini internal striker form as the Martini Henry and the US Lee magazine in the Lee Enfield. Later they used the Belgian FAL as the L1A1 SLR and FN Browning Hi-Power P35 as the L9A1 pistol . They had wanted to replace the Lee Enfield with the German Mauser type Pattern 1913. What they wanted was the production to be in the UK like the ZB33.
 
I must agree wholeheartedly, I think it was just not yet time for the intermediate round despite how the Germans appear to have learned the utility by the 1920s trials. Look at the Garand and the Vollmer, the former stayed with .30-06 and the later just faded. I think it takes another mobile war to sink in the lessons, even then the USA fielded the M14 and 7.62 is hardly what we think of as a leap forward. And the trend was to move up from things like 6.5, the Japanese in particular show us the backwards leap to 7.7.

So without the exigency of war would Britain simply buy 8mm Mauser as it buys FN and Brno designs, importing the stuff to be tinkered and licensed produced domestically? Am I silly feeling Britain has just adopted the German standard?

German standard? Nah they would rename it 8mm Empire or 8mm Enfield :p

And after all on a more serious note they did adopt the Mauser rifle round for the BESA and also the 9mm Para or Luger round for its SMGs and Pistols - did they still call it 9mm Para or Luger?
 
So for me it is settled by the consensus here, the British Army adopts the FN Model 1937 as its semi-automatic, the BREN for LMG and BESA as the HMG, all in 8mm Empire (aka 7.92x57mm), purchases to commence for the 5 Infantry Divisions at home plus 1st Armoured, later equipping the Middle East funds as available. Territorials retain .303 weaponry, thank you Treasury, and Army of India stays with .303 also, getting surplus weaponry from UK to "modernize" its stocks. Dominions encouraged to buy new weaponry or retool, pretty please.
 
German standard? Nah they would rename it 8mm Empire or 8mm Enfield :p
IF we look at the precedent of 7x57 aka .275 Rigby they would probably just redesignate in imperial. It’s maybe also worth pointing out that according to the dreaded Wikipedia:
Recommended bullet diameter for standard .303 British cartridges is .312-inch (7.92 mm).
vs about 8.02mm for the German round, so with a couple of drinks you could make an argument for 7.92x57 already being rimless .303, just fractionally out of spec.

3 line/7.62 Russian, .303, 8mm are all hair-splittingly close to one another, I’m not sure anyone would notice if you loaded .303 bullets into the x57 case.
 
I am surprised the British Army after experiencing the efficency of the Mauser 7mm x 57mm in South Africa went to all the bother of trying to improve it with the Enfield .276 x 60mm. The .276 was a bit too powerful for the powder technology of the day and suffered from muzzle blast, flash and burning out the rifling. Simply taking the 7mm in the mid 1900s renaming and building the new SMLE rifle and Vickers MG in the new .275 would have solved a few problems with subsequent adoptions.

The British Army has never had any problem with adopting an overseas weapon or round.
 

Deleted member 1487

I am surprised the British Army after experiencing the efficency of the Mauser 7mm x 57mm in South Africa went to all the bother of trying to improve it with the Enfield .276 x 60mm. The .276 was a bit too powerful for the powder technology of the day and suffered from muzzle blast, flash and burning out the rifling. Simply taking the 7mm in the mid 1900s renaming and building the new SMLE rifle and Vickers MG in the new .275 would have solved a few problems with subsequent adoptions.

The British Army has never had any problem with adopting an overseas weapon or round.
Its not that surprising given that they wanted to be able to outshoot the 7x57 with their version, having learned the less on of the Boer war: range and bullet speed überalles
 
.303" was banned in India other than as a military round so rifle makers simply made their rifles for India chambered and barrelled for the Mannlicher service 8x50R and called it the .315" so a British 7.92mm Mauser would be 'Cartridge S.A . Ball.315 inch Mark 1'. Although the OTL BESA was named 'Cartridge S.A. Ball 7.92mm Mark I'.
 
Top