Why Did the U.S. Navy Adopt the 6mm Lee Rifle?

[Timthinker]

I have wondered for some time why the U.S. Navy adopted the Lee rifle in the 1890s. By doing so, the Navy seems to have violated a standardization principle which would have required them to adopt the Krag rifle selected by the American army at that time. Indeed, the Lee even fired a different caliber cartridge from the .30-40 round of the Krag. From the perspective of the 21st century, this practice seems difficult for me to understand. No doubt, I am "reading history backwards" here, but I thought some of our military historians might shed some light on this situation.


Timthinker

 

[Clipper]

Standardization between the services was not pushed all that hard until McNamara made an issue of it in the early '60s with the M-16 and the F-4.

 

[Roswell 1847]

I don't think they had a small arms standardization policy till much later.
The Navy had used the Lee bolt action in 45/70 while the Army was still using the trapdoor Springfield. The Navy also used the .38 while the Army used the .45. The Navy used some really oddball guns as well, like single shot Rolling Block .50 caliber pistols.

The 6mm Lee Straightpull action offered some advantages when fired while in a crowded long boat. Rate of fire was higher than with a turnbolt but the operator tired faster in extended use of the Straightpull action vs the Bolt action.

The Navy also tried the Lee Remington turnbolt in 7mm Mauser it had four locking lugs, two foreward and two aft.

I'd expect that Cartridge Standardiztion came along about the time the 30/06 Springfield was adopted. Even the US Army had more than one caliber handgun and both .45/70 and 30/40 Krag rifles in use at the time.

 

[Ash]

The US had more than one handgun caliber into WWII, with many air crews carrying the 38 Special revolvers.

Remember, the M16 came about with the Airforce choosing a non-standard caliber (everyone else was using 30-06 (National Guard) 308 or 30 carbine).

Ash

 

[Timthinker]

Guys, thanks for the answers so far. Let me explain why I asked this question in more detail. After the Civil War, the American army began to standardize equipment, remembering the logistical nightmare that characterized that conflict. Uniforms and weapons were standardized for both logistical and economical reasons. This is why I failed to understand why the Navy was not forced to follow suit in the area of small arms (read rifles).

During the Spanish-American War, both the Krag and single-shot Springfields were used. This situation occured because the army lacked the time and resources to equip all the regular troops and volunteers with the Krag. The issue of handguns is another matter since they were not considered primary weapons then or later. I hope this clearifies my position somewhat.


Timthinker

 

[sixgunner455]

Why would the Navy be forced to standardize with the Army? They purchase their own stuff. It's not the same thing as one company of soldiers having one kind of standard weapon, and the neighboring one having another, and then trying to supply both companies. The Marines and Navy used and still use their own purchasing procedures, and set their own priorities in what they buy, not the Army's.

 

[Jim K]

The Navy seems to have adopted different weapons primarily to show its independence from the Army. There was some rationale for a lighter caliber arm since the Navy (even the Marines as their duty was at that time) would be unlikely to engage in heavy fighting. Also, Navy weapons would probably not have to be used to kill cavalry horses, a primary consideration of army rifles and handguns. (Contrary to Hollywood, a cavalryman didn't always shoot the horseman, he often shot the horse, which was not only a bigger target but whose fall would injure or kill the rider, and a wounded horse would terrorize the other horses.) Long range firing against distant troop concentrations was also not envisioned by Navy and Marine planners.

The Navy and Marines saw their primary land fighting to be in cases of evacuating American citizens, or acting as punitive expeditions to eliminate small groups of irregular forces, not fighting pitched battles against a foreign army.

Jim

 

[Timthinker]

Jim, your reply shows great insights. I had forgotten that the primary role of the Marines was different then than it is today. As I said earlier, I was reading history backwards.

I do recall that Generals Sherman and Crooke raised hell during the 1870s to standardize U.S. Army rifles after the supply problems of the Civil War. I assumed that they were able to force the issue of rifle standardization across service lines given their political influence at the time. This was one of the orienting assumptions that led me to question how the Navy could adopt a different rifle in the 1890s. Thanks.


Timthinker

 

[Float Pilot]

Glad you asked about the 6mm Lee Navy / USMC Rifle. I have been starting to collect data on that rifle, but don't have nearly enough yet.

In 1892 the US Army held trials on Governors Island New York for a rifle to replace the single shot 45-70 Springfield Trap Door.
Please note that some other countries had already gone over to bolt action repeating rifles, such as the Norwegians, the Danes (Krag Rifle) and the model 1891 Mauser was already being sold around the world, with the improved model 93 Mauser about ready to hit the market.
In the case of the Army, the contract went to the Krag design which started production around 1894.


While the Army was in a bind to catch up with every one else in the 1890s, the Navy and Marine Corps already had the Remington-Lee 1885 repeating rifle in caliber 45-70..

Before the times of aircraft and fast troop ships, the only way to put a hurtin' on somebody far away was the Navy and Marines.

So the Navy already had experience with Lee designed repeating rifles for almost 10 years. Furthermore, the Navy and Marine rifles were bought on a smaller scale, so the cost of huge contracts became less of an arguement compared to how much damage a few Marines could do when armed with rapid firing repeaters.

The rifle was designed by James Paris Lee and was accepted by the Navy in 1895. Manufactured by Winchester beginning in 1896, with an initial order of ten thousand , around twenty thousand were finally produced.

The 6mm Lee Navy was the first US cartridge to use a metric designator. It was also the smallest diameter round to be used up until the 5.56mm.

The action was a camming action which appears to be a straight pull at first glance. The bolt has to be pulled up and then back. During that time period, Ross of Canada, Steyr of Austria and Schmidt Rubin of Swizterland were all trying to push straight pull or camming actyion rifle designs.

When Winchester developed the 6mm Lee Navy round, it had to buy extra property to extend the test firing range to 1,000 yards.

Another feature that made to Lee Navy more advanced was the fact that it could use Charger (stripper) Clips to rapidly load the magazine. The New Army rifle (the Krag) had a side loading box magazine that did not accept charger clips.
The Army treated to Krag as a single shot rifle, with the fully loaded side magazine being held in reserve. The Krag and later the 1903 Springfield had a magazine cut-off which kept the bolt from going all the way to the rear. thus the rounds in the magazine were not picked up until the switch was changed.

The Marines and Navy had a different point of view. They figured (just like the new Mausers) that the ability to rapidly load the magazine with charger clips meant that the extra cut-off feature was not needed.
They needed to kill lots of folks in a short period of time, in some far off land...

The USMC basic issue ammo belt for the 6mm Lee Navy Rifle was 180 rounds of ammunition in 5 round clips. During the Cuban war the US Army went to troops carrying 100 rounds of 30-40 ammo in looped belts. That was a LOT of ammo for a basic personal issue compared to most other forces on the planet at that time. They also had Colt machine guns in the same 6mm Lee Navy caiber.

The cartridge had more velocity, a flatter trajectory and better penetration against steel plating than the 30-40 Krag round adopted by the Army.

The 6mm Lee was a 112 grain bullet at 2,500fps to 2,600fps depending on the ammo types, while the original 30-40 Krag loads were a 220 grain bullet at 2,000 to 2,100 fps.

The ammuntion was also lighter and allowed the rifleman to carry more rounds.
The rate of fire was fairly fast in the hands of Marines and Navy Landing Party members. During the Cuban action (Spanish American War), one captured Spanish General complained about the American machine gun forced which had forced his surrender. It turned out that there were no machine guns in that area, just US Marines which Lee Rifles.

The Lee Navy did have some problems. It was not as soldier proof as the Krag. The metalurgy at the time was not up to the job and bore errossion was a problem.

Production stopped around 1902 and eventually all the Navy and Marine rifles were replaced with 1903 Springfields.


Sorry for the typos, the wife wants on the computer....

 

[Timthinker]

Float Pilot, thanks for the wealth of info on this subject. You have fleshed about what our other contributors mentioned earlier. Once again, I appreciate the information.


Timthinker

 

[Ash]

Hey Float, thanks for the info. A good friend of mine was a bush pilot in Alaska, but landed hard on a perfectly-still lake. It was not hard enough to break the plane, but hard enough to tell him judging those crystal lakes when no wind is making waves is a really tough thing. He was an airforce pilot who flew many years for Delta before retiring to fly in Alaska. After 5 years he retired again. That's some tough stuff!

It's interesting, isn't it, that the US had such a talented import like JP Lee and even issued some of his designs, but it took the Brits to come around to using it. As they were already using the Lee design at the time we were adopting the Krag, it's amazing we chose the more clumsy (if very smooth action) Krag over the very capable Lee turn-bolt. It's a shame the Navy didn't try out the other Lee.

Ash

 

[sixgunner455]

Ash -- we did adopt the Pattern 1914, as the 1917 US Rifle in .30-06. More of them served in WWI than the 1903 rifles.

 

[4v50 Gary]

A look at the Civil War will show you how different the two services were. When the Navy adopted the Spencer repeating rifle, the Army (under Curmudgeon Colonel Ripley) said that it had not demonstrated its reliability. This was after the Navy buried it in the sand overnite before firing it. The Navy was much more open to small arms development but seeing how small arms played a small role shipboard (the Rodmans and other heavy guns came first) and how they didn't worry about logistics as the Army did (easier to resupply the Navy and not as critical mid-battle), the differences are understandable.

 

[bannockburn]

Timthinker

I don't know where Float Pilot found his information, but it is extremely accurate and is in complete accordance with the material I had. If you can find copies of The Gun Digest 1972 and 1973, you will find a very comprehensive two part article entitled, The Rifles of James Paris Lee, by Larry S. Sterett. It contains a wealth of information concerning not only the various rifle configurations, but also the historical perspective in relation to the Navy adopting the Lee as well.

 

[Ash]

Just remember the P14 and 1917 are Mausers and not related to the Lee-Enfield.

Ash

 

[Float Pilot]

Here are some comparisons. You can see the Lee "look" in the 1885 NAVY Remington Lee. The first pic to the left.

The 6mm Lee Navy (The next two pics) is way out there in how the bolt works.

 

[Float Pilot]

Being a very stabilized long bullet did not help the 6mm L. N.'s reputation after the last Moro uprisings in the Phillipines.

The Islamic Moros were some very tough cutomers and were not easily put down by an over-stabilized small caliber bullet. (The 38 Colt pistols did not work so swell either)..
So it was one more point the Army could try to make about bigger is better.

Although the 30-40 caliber Krags really did not fair much better during close quarters combat, so the 12 gauge 1897 Winchester riot guns and older obsolete 45 Colt revolvers then came into serious play.
Some National Guard units deployed their obsolete 45-70 caliber Gatling guns to stop the Moro rushes.... That seems to have worked just fine.

You can see the influence of the accepted thinking in Europe regarding cartridge and bullet design

Here is the 6mm Lee next to the then-new 6.5mm Swedish Mauser with the Mauser's original 156 grain round nose bullet.



Well that did not work...

 

[Timthinker]

Gary, stories such as you have related help me to understand why Generals such as Sherman and Crooke pushed for modernization after the Civil War. That conflict demonstrated how unprepared the United States was to wage war in the industrial age. No doubt, many threads could arise from hard won lessons learned during that war.

I am also grateful to Jim Keenan for reminding me of how the role of the Marines has changed as the U.S. "rose to globalism". In the 1890s, the Marines were not expected to fight alongside the U.S. Army in major campaigns. This changed in the 20th century from World War One to the present. Owing to these changes, standardization of rifle calibers became both logical and necessary.

Finally, I appreciate the wealth of information others have provided about the history and development of Lee's influence on firearm development. This sheds light on more than the 6mm Lee rifle; it sheds light on a bygone era.


Timthinker

 

[Sonic]

One of the reasons I have often heard, though I frankly I don't know whether it is true or not, about why the Navy adopted the 6mm Lee, was because of new naval technology that was introduced at that time, namely motorboats, and more specifically the new classes of small and agile gun boats and torpedo boats that many navies of the world were starting to put into service in the late 1800s. These new powered boats of course had stronger and thicker hulls than the hulls of the previous generation of small naval boats (i.e. small sail boats and row boats).

Anyway, the story I've heard is that the U.S. Navy wanted the rifles used by their naval boarding parties and marines to be able to shoot through the hulls of these new torpedo boats and gun boats (presumably so it would be possible to kill the enemy crew inside). The standard U.S. Army rifle of the time, the 30-40 Krag, couldn't do this, or at least couldn't do it reliably, so the U.S. Navy went looking for a rifle that could, and the 6mm Lee was what they settled on. There were probably other larger caliber rifles available at the time that could also pierce torpedo boat hulls, but I assume the 6mm Lee was chosen because the small caliber high velocity cartridge made for a lighter rifle with less recoil than other larger caliber rifle/cartridge combinations. Also of course, the lighter cartridge meant more ammunition could be carried.

Again though, this is just a story I've heard.

 

[BILLY D.]

I once read in one of Ludwig Olsons tomes about Mausers that the Mauser brothers once worked with the 6MM Navy during experimental work on the '98 Mauser.

From the readings they liked the cartridge, but the German wheels at the war department poo poo'd the project and wanted a bigger caliber and heavier bullet. I agree with that theory.

Bill

 

[Ash]

Sonic, your theory could be correct. The US Army did not have the Krag at that point, still the Trapdoor, and they would have even less penetration on harder targets. Still, all the same, it may be as simple as experimenting with bullet-size in the new era of smokeless powder and the realization that bullets could become smaller. I certainly don't know and your theory sounds as plausible as any at this point.

Ash

 

[Tony Williams]

I can't access the ammo pics posted earlier, so I'll try posting my own:

From left to right: 7.62x51 for scale, 6mm Lee, 5.2mm Mondragon, 5mm Sturtevant

 

[Float Pilot]

I have a photo of a 1895 Newspaper artcile concerning the rifle trials. But I can't find it in my darn computer.


Anyway,,, I remember that the Navy was making a big deal about the rounds ability to penetrate BOILER PLATE steel at a certain distance.

So Sonic hit the nail on the head...



They also made mention that they had concerns about the 6mm's wounding capacity since the bullet was so stabilized that it did not "upset" when striking a fleshy target....



Just imagine some little steam powered pirate launch on the Yangze River getting ripped up by a Colt Potato digger machine gun using 6mm Lee Navy ammo...

 

[daniel (australia)]

Anyway,,, I remember that the Navy was making a big deal about the rounds ability to penetrate BOILER PLATE steel at a certain distance.

Yes, 3/4" of boiler plate at 100'.

The Navy had actually done a fair bit of testing of ammunition. They'd trialled the then-experimental Army .30 rounds in 1891, and then a .32/70 firing a 235 gn bullet at about 1600 fps was tested in 1892 in both rimmed and rimless forms and a few different case lengths.

The Navy's Caliber Reduction Board then settled in 1894 on a .236 calibre cartridge, originally in rimmed form and with a 135gn bullet, as the official cartridge for proposed new rifles to be submitted for trials. Some tens of thousands of these .236 USN rounds were procured for testing, and it was only later that year, in December 1894, that the decision was made to go to a rimless case, as the 6mm USN Ball Cartridge. The bullet weight was reduced to 112gn a few months later, in the interests of a flatter trajectory.