# Warfare from the 1850s to the 1950s and the late adoption of high rate of fire rifles

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [August 3, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355 "2012-08-03T23:39:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\
**Post date:** [August 14, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355/41 "2012-08-14T20:25:09Z")

</div>

> [@Martini\_Enfield](#):
>
> As I understand it, effective commercial semi- and full-auto rifles weren’t developed until after the turn of the century (or WWI, in the case of full-auto models) but machine-guns (which were around from the 1880s) have been mentioned.
> 
> I know Mannlicher had a semi-auto rifle in the late 1880s but I don’t know how far beyond “commercially produced prototype” the design was.

I still maintain that practical machine guns were dependent on smokeless powder.

[EMAIL=“[Poudre B - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poudre_B)”][Poudre B - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poudre_B)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim\_machine\_gun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_machine_gun)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\
**Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355/42 "2012-08-16T00:55:12Z")

</div>

Another reason for the slow adoption would have been logistics. There’s no point in having a fast-firing rifle if the existing supply system can’t keep up with manufacturing and moving the additional amounts of ammunition required.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\
**Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355/43 "2012-08-16T08:17:07Z")

</div>

> [@JoelUpchurch](#):
>
> I still maintain that practical machine guns were dependent on smokeless powder.

Broadly, I agree with you, but there were successful black powder cartridge based “Mechanical Guns” (ie the Gatling and the Nordenfelt) which were more or less the same thing as a machine gun, but operated manually (by a crank or similar contrivance) rather than simply holding a trigger.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/warfare-from-the-1850s-to-the-1950s-and-the-late-adoption-of-high-rate-of-fire-rifles/630355.md?page=2)