UK adopts the 7.5mm French rifle round.

[tomo pauk]

Rimmed rounds are not ideal for repeating rifles and automatic weapons. Britain had been trying to replace the .303 since the Boer War so why not share development costs with the French? No 1 basic design dates back to the late 1870's and needs replacing with something stronger. Otl this was the No 4 Mk1 that sat on the shelf for 10 years before entering mass production.

Rimmed cartridges work very well with repeating rifles and automatic weapons, as repeatedly proven by, not only, British, Soviets and Japanese.
Want to improve life for Johnny, the average infantryman, by improving his weapon? Introduce a reliable self-loading rifle, if not assault rifle by 1930s, all together with intermediate cartridge (whether something along the lines of .280 British, 6.5mm Arisaka, or perhaps a rimless '.303 Kurz').

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Rimmed cartridges work very well with repeating rifles and automatic weapons, as repeatedly proven by, not only, British, Soviets and Japanese.
Want to improve life for Johnny, the average infantryman, by improving his weapon? Introduce a reliable self-loading rifle, if not assault rifle by 1930s, all together with intermediate cartridge (whether something along the lines of .280 British, 6.5mm Arisaka, or perhaps a rimless '.303 Kurz').

Can work well. It usually takes special attention to making a design rim capable and was apparently somewhat of a challenge. The Soviets were able to get around the issue by working the rim into the design for their MG feed system. Rimmless is easier to work with and get to feed properly. Semi-rimmed, like the Arisaka, is also less of a challenge to work with than the rimmed.

The French did have the MAS38/9/40. Perhaps a joint Franco-British development could have gotten the MAS40 into service in 1938/39 or earlier; actually I don't know why the French hadn't gotten it into service sooner given that they had developed the DI system pre-WW1 and have the 7.5mm cartridge in the 1920s and they were in fact testing SLRs with it since 1924.

 

[tomo pauk]

Can work well. It usually takes special attention to making a design rim capable and was apparently somewhat of a challenge. The Soviets were able to get around the issue by working the rim into the design for their MG feed system. Rimmless is easier to work with and get to feed properly. Semi-rimmed, like the Arisaka, is also less of a challenge to work with than the rimmed.

However we cut it, rimmed cartridges worked in ground and airborne applications, whether carried by a man or installed in vehicles, from arctic circle to Sahara and SWP jungles, automatic or not.

The French did have the MAS38/9/40. Perhaps a joint Franco-British development could have gotten the MAS40 into service in 1938/39 or earlier; actually I don't know why the French hadn't gotten it into service sooner given that they had developed the DI system pre-WW1 and have the 7.5mm cartridge in the 1920s and they were in fact testing SLRs with it since 1924.

In the case that British army is dead set on SLRs by the end of ww1 and the .303 is tested and proven it cannot work in that 'environment', then yes, adopt the new cartridge.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

However we cut it, rimmed cartridges worked in ground and airborne applications, whether carried by a man or installed in vehicles, from arctic circle to Sahara and SWP jungles, automatic or not.

Sure.

In the case that British army is dead set on SLRs by the end of ww1 and the .303 is tested and proven it cannot work in that 'environment', then yes, adopt the new cartridge.

They did adopt the 7.92 and planned to make the Bren in that caliber, but the start of the war ended those plans. Perhaps they could make their own 7.92 Kurz though.

 

[yulzari]

All the .303" weapons can be converted to 7.5x54mm if you want to. How much gets changed varies but the same weapons saw conversions to 7.92x57mm and 7.62x51mm. The removed parts can go off to India to be reused. Or Canada or Australia. New production is simply in 7.5x54mm. No need to change the weapon types. In the background it early determines the future round and makes a drive to a replacement rifle in semi automatic form easier. SLEM-1 or MAS 40, or in developed form FN49 or MAS49. Sticking with a common round post war means no search for an intermediate system so the Bren continues as the LMG. The Vickers as the MMG. Ultimately both may be replaced by a belt fed GPMG AA52 or FN GPMG in the 1960's. With Britain and France using 7.5x54mm it may well be the de facto NATO round once the Belgians and Canadians join in. The USA might be mollified by it being close to their 7.62x54mm and make the M14 and M60 in this NATO standard.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
They did adopt the 7.92 and planned to make the Bren in that caliber, but the start of the war ended those plans. Perhaps they could make their own 7.92 Kurz though.

Besa was adopted, with it the 7.92 mm, for armored units, that have had separate supply chain vs. infantry units.
I'd go with something along the lines of 7.62x40 as the '.303 Kurz'.

 

[Blue cat]

Besa was adopted, with it the 7.92 mm, for armored units, that have had separate supply chain vs. infantry units.
I'd go with something along the lines of 7.62x40 as the '.303 Kurz'.

Or just adopt 7.92x57 as the standard rife round as well. IMHO there are probably going to be more proven off the shelf fire arm designs available in that caliber than in other similar calibers.

 

[marathag]

The design has to be completely reworked to change from metric to imperial measurements unless you want to throw away every tool and gauge in the British armaments industry.

Going to a single measurement would be a huge advantage, rather than the mish-mash of British Standard Whitworth, British Standard Fine, British Standard Cycle, British Standard Pipe and British Association thread.

 

[SwampTiger]

Any change need be made by 1935/36 or rearmament nixes it. Maybe have the Brits buy the license to produce the round in 1930, but adapt their rifles.

 

[Zen9]

Nothing much wrong with the Farquehar Hill Rifle as selected in 1918 that future iterations couldn't fix.
100,000 were on order....
All in standard .303

That screw in tactical foregrip could easily be replaced by a bypod.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Indian Army had its own supply set up so it's possible, perhaps even likely they keep the .303. The Dominions would lag somewhat behind the UK and probably be caught mid change when war comes. In Australia the Militia would probably have to make do with WWI surplus weapons while the A.I.F gets the 7.5mm weapons.

Given how small the peace time military establishments were in the Dominions I'd actually say that they probably finish rearming before the Brits, who have a far more massive force to rearm (including active deployments) as well as other rearmament needs which will compete for funding.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Nothing much wrong with the Farquehar Hill Rifle as selected in 1918 that future iterations couldn't fix.
100,000 were on order....
All in standard .303

Besides the size, the weird drum magazine, and weight, which was over 6.5kg. It could have been upgraded, but that means adopting it first and developing it over at least a decade.

 

[Zen9]

Besides the size, the weird drum magazine, and weight, which was over 6.5kg. It could have been upgraded, but that means adopting it first and developing it over at least a decade.

Like say from 1918 to 1938......

Magazine can be changed, as I suspect would other elements of the rifle.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Like say from 1918 to 1938......

If it were adopted and retained in service...
Of course why wasn't it developed IOTL?

Magazine can be changed, as I suspect would other elements of the rifle.

Sure...but that wasn't the only issue of the rifle. But it would certainly help.

 

[Sciox]

There were 20 round trench mags in .303 produced for the SMLE, the Farquehar Hill could probably be adapted to use the same or similar magazine.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Sticking with the .303 round currently in circulation.

And that's basically the deal. The French moved to 7.5 because they did not have a common modern rifle round. In the 1920s no one sane is going to spend on peripheral requirements like small arms ammo ( and replacement of the small arms inventory) and by the time money is available urgency prevents it.

If you are looking at a joint programme in the 20s that's funded the 7.5 works for the French but offers no advantages to the Brits so either its another round entirely and we know where that goes or they divorce and meet their own requirements.

The lack of safety is a French practice dating way back and just tradition really, with British involvement you get a safety.

 

[yulzari]

What the 7.7 offers Britain is an off the shelf rimless round which is the ammunition standard of Britain's most likely ally in any major (i.e. continental) war. It meets the needs for the Lee replacement which had been sought since the turn of the century and makes semi and full automatic feed easier. The round is not grossly different to the .303 in performance.

Re safety. That is a matter for each army. The French practice was for a conscript army where the officer controlled firepower and weapons were carried empty until the officer gave the order to load. It made sense to them. Adding a safety is a trivial matter.

If the change is to 7.5 it would make sense to use the opportunity to replace the 1880s design Enfield with a semi automatic rifle. I mentioned conversion above if money has to be saved but it would be an opportunity lost. 7.5 was introduced in service in 1924 so we would be looking at a mid/late 1920s change.

BTW the OP states the UK adopts the 7.5. That is what we must run with not point to other choices. The die is cast in the OP.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For me the low hanging fruit for Britain is to go 7.92 Mauser...uh I mean 7.92 Enfield

The No4 Mki was first built in the early 30s so if this was designed in the same calibre then the Bren Gun could be adopted without having to convert it to .303 which would likely see it being issued earlier and in greater numbers.

SLRs are all good and all but adopting a good bolt action repeater like the No4 is risk adverse while only really the M1 garand was ready for WW2 and even then not the early bit (with US troops having to fight the early battles with the 1903 Springfield and many troops actually prefering the M1 Carbine*) - other SLRs suffered issues early war (and some all of it).

The BESA could be adopted as both an AFV MMG and as an infantry weapon (tripod mounted)

The Vickers could and is adapted to fire a variety of calibres including 7.92 mauser...I mean Enfield....7.92 Enfield


*In fact if I could equip British and French troops with a single 'rifle' of WW2 that I know was reliable it would be the M1 carbine. Light handy accurate. The only short fall was the magazines which could not take any abuse and the US Armed forces got round this by litteraly spamming the supply system with plenty of spare magazines.

 

[Some Bloke]

Like say from 1918 to 1938......

Magazine can be changed, as I suspect would other elements of the rifle.

Maybe a curved magazine for extra capacity. You could be looking at 32, maybe even 36 rounds.
A Farquhing terrifying prospect.

 

[Some Bloke]

On a serious note, the F-H was designed with a 7.5 millimetre in mind. Perhaps they adopt the 7.5 instead of developing the .256" Magnum round.

The early F-Hs enter service in limited numbers in 1918, acquire a reputation for high performance, reliability, and being an absolute bitch to repair. Fast forward a decade or two with improvements and simplification in construction.

You might have a family of weapons here. The Rifle using a mag based on the Mk III .303 rifle, an LMG developing instead of the Vickers Berthier with a bottom loading mag?
Maybe the Bren is used exclusively with the Pan mag as an MMG, and the Army gets serious about the Vickers D, (air cooled .5" offshoot of the original vickers/maxim lineage).