US military adopts 7mm Mauser in 1903

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by wiking, Dec 1, 2019.

  1. stephen the barbarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    so, basically .270 win,

    oh god, so much misinformation here,

    no, the us wasn't sued over patent infringements for the rifle, the us had already gone to mauser and worked out a deal that allowed them to use the mauser rifle patents
    they were sued for infringing on the patent for the spitzer round
    they had proof that they had done experiments on spitzer's in the 1900's, the case was suspended in ww1, and after the war the court found that the us had not infringed on the spitzer patent,
    but they had seized the patent during the war in an illegal manner and had to pay damages for that,


     
  2. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    No. It wouldn't be a 64mm length case, but something approximating the 7mm Mauser's case capacity. That or a rimless .30-40 necked down to 7mm.


    My source was the Osprey book on the Model 1903 which said this:
    And they list quite a few more sources than C&R Arsenal.

    The issue with patent infringement is complicated and appears to be Treasury refusing to pay out on a contract the Ordnance Department made.
    https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...pay-royalties-to-mauser-or-didnt-they.678849/
    https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846&p=84040&viewfull=1#post84040


    Also the Spitzer patent issue was with DWM not Mauser:
    https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=15846
     
    tomo pauk likes this.
  3. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    So getting beyond working out the OTL details, what about the 'what if' parts:
     
  4. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    I'd agree, except the Department of the Navy had already adopted a 6mm Lee.
     
  5. Carnivorous Vegetarian Unknown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    I do admit, it wasn't meant wholly serious.
     
  6. stephen the barbarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    you gave it as an option,

    this means a 12mm rim, and a 64mm case length

    does not prove that tressury got it's way,doesn't refute my point
    mentioned in the video and i never said any different, not sure why you made this a point
    so?
     
  7. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    I know what I meant when I wrote ".30-03 type", which meant same base diameter, not length, as I was talking about approximating the case capacity of the 7mm Mauser, not necessarily the exact dimensions. I wrote that to point out the difference with an adapted .30-40 case in a rimless version, as it had a different base (not rim) diameter from the .30-03, which was wider.

    If you meant DWM you didn't say that and implied it was a Mauser patent.
     
  8. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    But the Army would reply 'That's the Navy for you'

    Navy had been the real enemy to the Army for awhile, since the Navy got more stuff predating the 'Great White Fleet' and its attendant PR bonuses, while only real extra funding the Army got was for some fortifications , not nearly as sexy
     
  9. stephen the barbarian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    i thought that a reasonable person would be able to tell that by posting a source that clearly says that the spitzer patents were held by dwm would conclude the rifle and spitzer patents were separate, if they had watched the video

    cool,
    you called it ".30-03 type", to me that is a clear indication that you were being exactly that specific
    the difference between a 7x57mm load and a .270 load is low as 3 grains of gunpowder using the same weight bullet and powder
    https://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/rifle
    {130gn bullet, imr 4895}

    given how the us went with a relatively light load in the 1906 and m2 ball while europe tended towards hotter loads in their rifles, i think that this is a reasonable and realistic comparison
     
  10. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    It certainly would be interesting to have a modernized 6mm Lee Navy getting the nod for production due to higher naval spending. A lighter spitzer bullet would have fixed the perceived range issue and time to tune the metallurgy and powder load would have made it viable by probably 1906 at the latest. Plus with the straight pull rifle it would have been pretty dangerous for it's time.
     
  11. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    The other thing brought up on the 6mm Lee Navy being more expensive to make, that's correct.

    The Frankford Arsenal that make the 30-40 Krag, thise were of balloon head construction, while the Lee used modern solid head construction, had a few more drawing and stamping steps.
    Should be noted, 30-40 was later updated to solid head construction just before the Spanish-American War, so the price then was not much different than the Lee.
     
  12. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Good to know. More reason that the deck was stacked against the 6mm L-N.

    Personally I'd like to see how something like the 108 grain BIB bullet in the Lee Navy case would perform, as it has a ballistic coefficient of .52 (in comparison the M2 Ball was ~.390). It is used in the 6mm Creedmoor today for shooting competitions, a more powerful cartridge, but for the L-N it could probably achieve a muzzle velocity around 780-800 m/s .
    [​IMG]

    Per this calculator it would still be supersonic past 1000 yards with an 800m/s muzzle velocity and enough retained energy to kill a horse:
    http://www.shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?pl=[Preset+Name]&presets=30-06+Springfield~30-06+180gr+Sierra+Matchking~G1~0.475~180~2750~100~1.5~0~10~90~~0~59~29.92~50~1~1000~25&df=G1&bc=0.52&bw=108&vi=2600&zr=100&sh=1.5&sa=0&ws=10&wa=90&ssb=on&cr=1000&ss=25&chartColumns=Range~yd;Elevation~in;Elevation~MOA~FBFFF5;Elevation~MIL;Windage~in;Windage~MOA~FBFFF5;Windage~MIL;Time~s;Energy~ft.lbf;Vel[x+y]~ft/s&lbl=[Chart+Label]&submitst=+Create+Chart+

    Awesome round for the Garand....
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019