Regarding what you guys are calling "spritzers", that's what you squirt out of a bottle. A Spitzer is what is shot out of a gun barrel.
The USA did have to pay Germany for Patent infrigement for our use of their spitzer design.
Frank
Printable View
Regarding what you guys are calling "spritzers", that's what you squirt out of a bottle. A Spitzer is what is shot out of a gun barrel.
The USA did have to pay Germany for Patent infrigement for our use of their spitzer design.
Frank
[QUOTE=frnkeore;2517456
The USA did have to pay Germany for Patent infrigement for our use of their spitzer design.
Frank[/QUOTE]
I though it was the stripper clip that the US had to pay pattend royalties on.
It was a long mixed up story.
The Chief of Ordnance had authorized a royalty payment to Mauser to cover use of his stripper clip among other things.
The major design feature of the Mauser has always been the forward mounted opposed locking lugs, but these were reverse engineered by Spandau from a stolen Lebel rifle, so this feature does not appear to have been an issue.
The U S already had several stripper clip designs but the Mauser clips were superior.
The Comptroller of the Treasury then made a stink about the Chief of Ordnance making these negotiations on his on and held up payment.
Those patents would have run out in a short time any way.
Negotiations had been through Mauser's U S representatives.
The Spitzer bullet design was an entirely different matter.
DWM did file suit but the First World War started before the case went to court. The U S government then seized the patent and refused to pay a German firm while we were at war with Germany.
Actually DWM did not have a strong case because American long range target shooters had been using similar spire point bullets since around 1870.
Also an American officer had made similar bullets for experimentation, possibly before DWM received their patents.
Regardless the courts decided that seizing the patent was not legal and in 1928 awarded DWM back pay and interest for use of the design up till the time the patent protection ceased.
I never heard of the British having to pay DWM royalties for the MkVII bullet or the "Swift" bullet before it.
A British publication of the era quotes one of those involved in designing the MkVII bullet as bringing up the use of spirepoint bullets by U S marksmen at target matches in England around 1870 as proof that DWM had no real right to claim the design.
Mulitgunner,
Thanks for the clarification. Great History lession!
That makes a lot of sense. It was the MkVII 174gr 303 spitzer that in the endeavour to lengthen the bullet for stability and range, created the meanest bullet of its day. The penetration of the 174gr 7mm bullet is legendary. As I've said, it's reported to fully penetrate and exit an elephants head, exiting at the hump. By comparison, the 215gr 303 RN could reach the brain but not exit the skull.Quote:
The 7mm 174 gr FMJ was accurate and had greater penetration on obstacles, but was so stable bullets that didn't hit bone passed straight through with little disruption of tissue.
While the 174gr 7mm soft nose bullet would no doubt have good penetration and killing power in larger game, a 140gr bullet would be right up there with velocity and range.
P.S. Multigunner, your research and knowledge is greatly appreciated, thank you. :drinks:
'
They also had to pay Mauser for the action design (too close to the 98) until we entered WWI.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...1903sprfld.htm
Though the M1903 was a composite consisting of the best elements from several prior weapons, it remained similar enough to the Mauser that the US Government was forced to pay royalties to Mauserwerke.
Gentlemen;
Here is a thread I got started awhile back about my M1908 for your consideration;
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/show...ian-M98-Mauser
Good morning,
Forrest