US Army and/or Marine Corps adopts Remington Model 8 in 1910

[M79]

For fun let's say the US Army and/or Marine Corps look at the Remington Model 8 in 1910 with its .35 Remington and 15-round special magazine (standard is 5-round box magazine) and decides they like it. The cartridge has a power roughly 90% of a modern 7.62x39/AK-47 round, but in this case they can fire in true semi-automatic fashion. What effects, if any, does this have?

 

[M79]

Anyone interested?

 

[Life In Black]

Not sure of the affects, but I take it the .35 round would be roughly like a 9mm rifle round? Conversion works out to 8.89mm.

 

[EWHM]

US army possibly has a little more firepower per platoon than OTL in WWI? It might result in a few less US casualties I suppose and perhaps a few more German ones.

 

[Life In Black]

Problem is, the 15 round magazine was custom made for Frank Hamer, by a sporting goods store in Austin, Texas. If I'm reading the Wiki article correctly, it was modified by the police.

 

[Mad Missouri]

For fun let's say the US Army and/or Marine Corps look at the Remington Model 8 in 1910 with its .35 Remington and 15-round special magazine (standard is 5-round box magazine) and decides they like it. The cartridge has a power roughly 90% of a modern 7.62x39/AK-47 round, but in this case they can fire in true semi-automatic fashion. What effects, if any, does this have?

The effect would be chaos. Congressional investigations, in fighting between high ranking Officers in both services. Massive negative PR campaigns by the, Springfield Armory, the NG, NRA, Winchester, Colt. Officers will be retired, and reduced for this.

Adopting that rifle would require a complete change in the views of military marksmanship held by both the USA/USMC, the National Guard, NRA and other civilian rifle clubs.

Somehow you would have to get rid of the importance of national matches at Camp Perry, because that was the main "event" most US service rifles were really designed for. Also the USA would have to draw the opposite lesson from its experience going against the Spanish Mausers in the Spanish American War. Finally then you would have to think of a way to get the military to give up on the 1903 Springfield rifle, the 30-06 round and all the machinery at the government armory and ammunition arsenals that make other items.

How would you convince them to give up on the modern spitzer bullet design for the round nose of the .35 Remington.

Also you would have to redesign the rifle to take the detachable magazine as the Model 8 use a fixed 5 round magazine fed by chargers.

 

[Mad Missouri]

Not sure of the affects, but I take it the .35 round would be roughly like a 9mm rifle round? Conversion works out to 8.89mm.

Think a rimless 30-30 necked up .35 caliber good to about 100 yards. It's chambered in level actions these days.

 

[AdA]

35 cal

The main problens would be:
1. The people buying rifles for armies in 1910 were obssessed with long range accuracy. In Britain there was a strong faction urging the excelent Lee Enfield SMLE to be replaced by a more Mauser like rifle because the Mauser was a better long range target rifle. The reaction from Infantary officers to a caliber as low powered as the .35 would be very much like the southpark kids shouting "totally gay" Remember that the US adopted the .30.06 after feeling underpowered by spanish mausers in cuba.
2. The same rounds that fed the rifles fed the Machine Guns, and the infantry love affair with machine guns was spreading. Nobody had dreamed of a SAW in 1910, and .35 would make a poor machine gun round.

The countries using less powerfull rifle rounds in WW1, Japan and Italy, both tried to change into more powerfull rounds in the late 30s so the trend for powerful long range ammo was very much dominant up to 1943 and the 7,92mmKurtz. Even then NATO still retained the 7,62x51 (.308mm Winchester) for ages, and in some countries still does...

Would the Remington Model 8 work well in the mud of the trenches?

 

[tallwingedgoat]

Would the Remington Model 8 work well in the mud of the trenches?

Not as well as a bolt gun for certain. The Model 8 has a short recoil operation. The entire barrel moved with the bolt. There's a reason no infantry rifles are designed that way.

 

[bsmart111]

Not as well as a bolt gun for certain. The Model 8 has a short recoil operation. The entire barrel moved with the bolt. There's a reason no infantry rifles are designed that way.

How well would a bayonet work with a barrel that moves? Would having a bayonet attached upset the working of the reloading system (Heavier moving mass)? These are concerns that would work against adopting such a different rifle for mass military use

 

[tallwingedgoat]

How well would a bayonet work with a barrel that moves?

Not very well. The whole design would be more fragile. Soldiers tend to beat up their equipment pretty bad.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

From my POV its more likely that model 8 rifles would come into action in WW1 in sort of the unofficial manner. Much like the sawed off shotguns that were a rude shock to the Germans when the US Army arrived in force in 1918.

An infantryman in trench warfare could see the advantage of getting off 15 shots quick and in a battle where distances are measured in feet not yards the stopping power of a .35 caliber bullet would be another advantage.

The best consequence would be if this resulted in less resistance to the first self loading rifles a decade or so later. Its my personal opinion that the M1 Garand in .276 Pedersen represents an opportunity lost by the US military but that's another TL.

 

[Mad Missouri]

From my POV its more likely that model 8 rifles would come into action in WW1 in sort of the unofficial manner. Much like the sawed off shotguns that were a rude shock to the Germans when the US Army arrived in force in 1918.

What was "unofficial" about the M1897 and M1912 tench guns? From what I have read they were standard arms purchased by the US government.

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

What was "unofficial" about the M1897 and M1912 tench guns? From what I have read they were standard arms purchased by the US government.

The sawed-off part?

 

[Mad Missouri]

The sawed-off part?

You mean the the factory supplied 20 inch barrels with heat shields and bayonet lugs?

 

[Magniac]

Not as well as a bolt gun for certain. The Model 8 has a short recoil operation. The entire barrel moved with the bolt. There's a reason no infantry rifles are designed that way.

This would probably be as problematic as the (blow-forward?) Gewehr 41 rifle the Nazis adopted in WWII.

Slightly off-topic: The Remington .351 round is lot like a .357 Magnum +P, while the .30 carbine round used in the M1 Carbine is more like a .30 Mauser +P. There are obvious benefits in having the .351 adopted for the US short rifle during WWII.

 

[CDurham]

Not very well. The whole design would be more fragile. Soldiers tend to beat up their equipment pretty bad.

At any rate, during WW1, veterans told newbies to forget bayonets in the trenches because combat was too CQ. When asked what to do the newbies were told to sharpen their entrenching tools

 

[Byzer Bob]

Also the Brits and French and Germans had all developed trench raid weapons, the Brits were using shotguns for trench raids from 1915 onwards. US tactics in WW1 were not amazingly innovative more copied from their more experienced allies and learned on the hoof.

 

[phx1138]

Remington .351 round is lot like a .357 Magnum +P, while the .30 carbine round used in the M1 Carbine is more like a .30 Mauser +P. There are obvious benefits in having the .351 adopted for the US short rifle during WWII.

Except, if WP is right, the Model 8 was a .358, not the .351SL.