Quote:
Originally Posted by brndirt1
Actually the Springfield Armory paid royalties to the Mauser firm as many parts of the receiver were direct license built copies of the Mauser designs. I'll have to do some searching, but I have the list and the amounts saved in some file somewhere.
It was in 1900 with the US government owned Springfield armory which was tasked with building a new rifle for the infantry. This was to replace the Krag-Jorgensen design which had been shown inferior to the Mausers in the Spanish/American war. So, based on the battle-proven Mauser design, Springfield entered into negotiations with the Mauser company and finally acquired the rights for the excellent Mauser bolt action for a license payment of USD $200,000 which was quite a sum at the time, and royalties on each unit produced.
They also had to pay for the reloading system which was as revolutionary as the action itself. The five-round stripper clip charger made reloading the magazine something that was done in about the same time as one could load just one round at a time. The US government continued to pay these royalties up until the outbreak of WW1.
|
I didn't know this. Thanks for the info
The British, on the other hand, made the Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle just in time for the Boer war, and British troops hated it. The British were about to design another mauser-inspired rifle before WWI broke out. So they had no choice but to issue the troops the Lee Enfield.
I've wondered: why did the British soldiers love the Enfield in WWI, but hate it in the Boer War? Was it because of the climate?