US adopts a Lee rifle over the Krag-Jorgensen in the 1890-92 Trials

I've been reading the 2nd volume of Garavaglia and Worman's Firearms of the American West which covers the 1890-92 rifle trials among many other things. It says that the four models of rifle to make it to the final trials were a Belgian Mauser, the Lee #3, Lee-Speed (British Lee-Metford) and the Krag-Jorgansen which won the trials based on its ability to be used as a single shot weapons the best. What would have happened if the Army had been willing to ignore that requirement and had chosen a Lee bolt action over the Krag as America's first smokeless powder repeater?
 
Well for starters you've just averted one of the most idiotic military purchases in the US Army's history...The Krag would've been a decent weapon had they adopted it early on, but in the 1890's it was ridiculous. Of course in TTL the US Army occupying the Philippines won't be able to shout "Civilize 'em with a Krag"..."Learn 'em with a Lee" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

They'll also do considerably better in the battles of the Spanish American War, where potentially the superior rate of fire of the Lee should become apparent if the American troops are trained well enough. Wouldn't it be interesting if this leads to the US Army shifting it's emphasis away from "aimed shots" and towards a more "rate of fire" approach decades ahead of time?

Assuming the Army does go with a Lee design they've got one of the best bolt-action designs and thusly have less of an impetus to develop and adopt a semi-automatic rifle in the 1920's. Perhaps this leads to the development of a better LMG, like a BAR with a larger magazine?
 
Well for starters you've just averted one of the most idiotic military purchases in the US Army's history...The Krag would've been a decent weapon had they adopted it early on, but in the 1890's it was ridiculous. Of course in TTL the US Army occupying the Philippines won't be able to shout "Civilize 'em with a Krag"..."Learn 'em with a Lee" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

They'll also do considerably better in the battles of the Spanish American War, where potentially the superior rate of fire of the Lee should become apparent if the American troops are trained well enough. Wouldn't it be interesting if this leads to the US Army shifting it's emphasis away from "aimed shots" and towards a more "rate of fire" approach decades ahead of time?

Assuming the Army does go with a Lee design they've got one of the best bolt-action designs and thusly have less of an impetus to develop and adopt a semi-automatic rifle in the 1920's. Perhaps this leads to the development of a better LMG, like a BAR with a larger magazine?

Not sure if it would slow the adoption of the Garand or some similar semi-auto in the 1930s. Every army in the '30s was trying to get a semi-auto in service but the US got very lucky in adopting a design with fewer teething problems than anyone else. Also I think ammo choice would matter more, the Brits tried to get a semi-auto rifle in the '30s but the rimmed .303 round is really awkward to use in automatic weapons, the bend in the Bren guns magazine is an attempt to deal with that. Assuming the early US Lees are chambered to something with .30-40 Krag power thats rimmed and is than replaced with a more powerful .30-06 rimless type round and Garand is still around the US is still probably going to avoid many teething problems with the alt-Garand.
 
With some more research which Lee is chosen could have it's own butterflies since the Lee #3 seems to be a version of the straight pull Lee the Navy and Marines were using at the time.
 
Top