The M1895 Lee Navy was a straight-pull magazine rifle adopted in limited numbers by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps in 1895 as a first-line infantry rifle.Walter, John, The Rifle Story: An Illustrated History from 1776 to the Present Day, MBI Publishing Company, , 9781853676901 (2006), pp. 133–135Sampson, W.T., The Annual Reports of the Navy Department: Report of Chief of Bureau of Ordnance, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1895), pp. 215–218 The Navy's official designation for the Lee Straight-Pull rifle was the "Lee Rifle, Model of 1895, caliber 6-mm" but the weapon is also largely known by other names, such as the "Winchester-Lee rifle", "Lee Model 1895", "6mm Lee Navy", and "Lee Rifle, Model of 1895".
It fired a 6mm (0.236-in. caliber) cartridge, which used an early smokeless powder,Reports of Companies, The Chemical Trade Journal and Oil, Paint, and Colour Review, Vol. 18, June 20, 1896, p. 401: The Smokeless Powder Co., Ltd. originally developed Rifleite for the British .303 cartridge.Walke, Willoughby (Lt.), Lectures on Explosives: A Course of Lectures Prepared Especially as a Manual and Guide in the Laboratory of the U.S. Artillery School, J. Wiley & Sons (1897) p. 343: Rifleite was a flake smokeless powder composed of soluble and insoluble nitrocellulose, phenyl amidazobense, and volatiles similar to French smokeless powders; unlike cordite, Rifleite contained no nitroglycerine. was semi-rimless, and fired a 135-grain (later 112-grain) jacketed bullet. The 6mm U.S.N. or Lee Navy Cartridge was also used in the navy version of the Colt–Browning Model 1895 machinegun.The New York World, The World Almanac and Encyclopedia: Rifles Used by the Principal Powers of the World, Vol. 1 No. 4, New York: Press Publishing Co. (January 1894), p. 309: The Naval Small Arms Board reported that in adopting the 6mm cartridge specification, "due consideration has been given to the desirability of using the same cartridge for machine guns as for the small arm, and the Board deems that no difficulty in the manufacture or manipulation of machine guns will be caused by their use of 6mm ammunition."
Production history and development By 1894, the U.S. Navy desired to adopt a modern small-bore, smokeless powder rifle in keeping with other first-line naval powers. Originally, a rimmed 6mm round was envisioned, but after problems encountered with cartridge feeding, naval authorities decided that the new cartridge should be semi-rimless or rimless to facilitate optimum functioning in both clip-fed rifles and machine guns. As the military forces began adopting smaller and smaller caliber rifles with higher velocity cartridges, U.S. naval authorities decided to leapfrog developments by adopting a semi-rimless cartridge in 6-mm caliber, with a case capable of holding a heavy charge of smokeless powder.
On August 1, 1894, a naval test board was convened at the Naval Torpedo Station in Newport, Rhode Island, to test submitted magazine rifles in the new 6mm Navy government chambering.Sampson, W.T., Annual Reports of the Navy Department: Report of Chief of Bureau of Ordnance, Notice to Inventors and Others, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1894), pp. 272–274, 385–388 Per the terms of the Notice to Inventors, the new government-designed 6mm U.S.N a.k.a. Ball Cartridge, 6mm was the only cartridge permitted for rifles tested before the Naval Small Arms Board. Both the ammunition and rifle barrels were supplied by the government; the barrels, made of 4.5 per cent nickel steel, used Lee-Metford-pattern rifling with a rifling twist of one turn in 6.5 inches, and were supplied unchambered with the receiver thread uncut. The rifle action was required to withstand the firing of five overpressure (proof) cartridges with a chamber pressure of .
Service trials In the first set of service trials, the naval small arms board tested several submissions, including the Van Patten, Daudeteau, Briggs-Kneeland, Miles, the Russell-Livermore Magazine Rifle, five Remington turnbolt designs (all with side-mounted magazines), and the Lee straight-pull.The Annual Reports of the Navy Department: Report of the Secretary of the Navy – Report of Naval Small Arms Board, October 22, 1894, November 22, 1894, and May 15, 1895, Washington, D.C.: United States Navy Dept. (1895), pp. 301–310 In a second set of trials the Model 1893/94 Luger 6-mm RifleWalter, John, Rifles of the World (3d ed.), Krause Publications, , (2006), p. 568: The Model 1893/94 Luger Rifle was an experimental design derived from the German Gewehr 88 service rifle, and was equipped with a magazine that would accept stripper clips, Mannlicher clips, or Luger clips. and the Durst rifle were also considered, along with a Lee turning-bolt design.
The Durst prototype fractured the receiver in firing and was withdrawn from the test, while the Luger Rifle performed excellently. Luger's submission had only one major disadvantage: it failed to meet government specifications, having been chambered in a non-standard rimless 6mm cartridge. The Lee turning bolt design was considered to be a good one, but marred by its magazine system, which the Small Arms Board found to be problematic. The Board thought so highly of the Luger Rifle that it recommended purchase of either a prototype or an option to purchase the rights to manufacture. Apparently this never came to pass, as Luger not only declined to submit its design in the Navy's government 6mm chambering, but withdrew from the third round of the service trials.
Adoption With the absence of the Luger rifle, the Board found Lee's straight-pull design superior to the Miles and Russell-Livermore entries, and particularly noted the superiority of the Lee clip-feed mechanism. In their Report, the Board stated that the Lee rifle "is strong, simple, composed of few parts, and is susceptible of very rapid manipulation without great experience or aptitude on the part of the operator." The Lee straight-pull rifle with its clip-loaded magazine was duly chosen as the winner after the completion of the small arms trials, and was selected for adoption by the U.S. Navy in 1895 as the Lee Rifle, Model of 1895, caliber 6-mm, a.k.a. the M1895 Lee Navy.
First contract The first naval contract for the M1895 was let to Winchester for 10,000 rifles in January 1896 (serials 1–9999).Henshaw, Thomas, The History of Winchester Firearms 1866–1992 (6th ed.), Academic Learning Company LLC, , (1993), pp. 47–48 However, deliveries of the initial shipment of 10,000 rifles were not completed until 1897, owing to delays caused by manufacturing issues, as well as contract changes imposed by the navy.Dept. of the Navy, The Annual Reports of the Navy Department: Report of the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C.: United States Navy Dept. (1897), pp. 321–323 The latter included a significant change in ammunition specification, which required extensive test firings followed by recalibration of the sights.
Of the 10,000 rifles produced under the first contract, 1,800 were issued to the U.S. Marine Corps.Flayderman, Norm, Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms and Their Values (9th ed.), F + W Media, Inc., , 9780896894556 (2007), pp. 319–320 Marine battalions scheduled to be equipped with the 6 mm Lee rifle did not begin to receive their new rifles and ammunition until 1897, two years after adoption of the cartridge and rifle.Heywood, Charles (Col. Commandant), Annual Reports of the Navy, Report of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1897) pp. 558–559
Colonel-Commandant Charles Heywood of the Marine Corps reportedly refused small initial allotments of the 6 mm Lee rifle to the Corps until he was given assurances that the Corps would be immediately issued at least 3,000 Lee rifles, improved target ranges, and most importantly, enough ammunition for Marine units to continue their existing marksmanship program.Hearn, Chester G., Illustrated Directory of the United States Marine Corps, Zenith Imprint Press, , (2003), pp. 74, 78–79
Despite this threat, the September 1897 report of the Marine Corps Quartermaster to the Secretary of the Navy urgently requested a minimum additional $10,000 in funding to purchase sufficient 6 mm ammunition to allow Marines to conduct live fire and target practice with the Lee rifle.Denny, F.L., The Annual Reports of the Navy Department, Report of the Secretary of the Navy, U.S. Marine Corps Quartermaster Estimates, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1897), pp. 572–573 The report warned that, except for drill practice, enlisted Marines were "entirely unfamiliar with the use of this arm", since all target practice still had to be conducted using the old single-shot Springfield and .45-70 black-powder ammunition.
Rifles with a serial number below 13390 (approx.) were made prior to December 31, 1898. Additional smaller purchases were subsequently made to replace lost weapons, mostly in response to a fire at the New York Navy Yard which damaged or destroyed about 2,500 rifles; around 230 rifles were condemned as unrestorable.
The additional small quantity purchases by the Navy as well as all sporting models fall into the 10000–15000 serial range, purchased between the two major contracts. Some confusion arises as to production dates for the sporting rifles as many of the commercially manufactured and numbered receivers (not USN marked) were not made into complete rifles until 1902, and sales continued until 1916.
Military rifles have 28-inch (71-cm) barrels and navy anchor stamp, while rifles made for civilian sale have 24-inch (61-cm) barrels and no anchor.Schreier, Philip, American Rifleman (May 2008) p. 104
Second contract While serial numbers 13391 through 15000 were made after December 1, 1898, and are not categorized as antiques by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), a second contract was let on February 7, 1898, for an additional 5,000 rifles at $18.75 each. This second contract (serials 15001 to 20000) began delivery in August 1898 and was completed in December 1898.
Reliability in the field Overall, the Lee had a reputation for reliability in the field, though some issues were never overcome during the rifle's relatively short service life. Beginning in 1898, during the Marine expeditionary campaign in Cuba, reports emerged from the field criticizing the floating extractor design.Reid, George C. (Maj.), The Annual Reports of the Navy Department, Report of the Secretary of the Navy, Report of Inspection of the Marine Battalion at Camp Heywood, Seaveys Island, Portsmouth, N.H., September 14, 1898: Arms, Vol. 3753, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1898), pp. 847–849: Some rifles were not yet sighted in for the new 112-grain loading, while others suffered broken extractor springs, triggers, and followers. The breechblock stop could be misplaced while cleaning, resulting in the loss of the extractor and spring. As the extractor was not pinned to the bolt, it could and did occasionally fall out and become lost when the bolt release catch was pressed and the bolt either fell out or was removed for cleaning. The floating extractor was a regular source of trouble throughout the Lee's short service life. The firing pin lock and bolt-lock actuator were relatively fragile, and would occasionally break or malfunction, while the tension in the en bloc cartridge clips proved difficult to regulate, occasionally causing failures to feed.Dept. of the Navy, The Annual Reports of the Navy Department: Report of Naval Board on Small Arms, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office (1895), pp. 308–309
Design and operation Magazine system