A question on the 1903 Springfield..............

[junkbug]

As Ballistics in Scotland alluded to earlier, I am pretty sure the 1903 Springfield was an improved development of the 1893 & 1895 Spanish Mauser, captured in large quantity in Cuba, not the 1898 German Mauser. The Springfield Arsenal did not seem very worried about patent infringement at that time. Perhaps stingy Springfield engineers could salvage a little of the Krag tooling going with a modification of the older design.

[texasnative46]

Bigslug,

Fwiw, I consider the Model 1917 (The so-called "American Enfield") to be SUPERIOR to the Springfield.
(Given a choice of 2 similarly-priced rifles, the 1917 is always my personal choice.)

yours, tex

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A fellow named Hallihan wrote a book called Misfire back in 1994 that investigates the cesspool of knuckle-dragging, bureaucratic stupidity of U.S. Ordnance small arms procurement. From George Washington to today, the only two on which they got the process right on were the 1911 and the Garand, so I wouldn't expect to find a lot of genius in the 1903.

I don't know the straight answer to your question, but patent dodging, unsuccessful as it was, seems a likely answer. We got the Trapdoor when we could have had the Rolling Block for reasons of misplaced frugality, so that wouldn't surprise me. Also worth considering is the relatively unproven newness of the 98 at the time, coupled with the general eagerness of gun "designers" to screw up a good idea with "improvements". Just look at how many of the 1911's features that have been placed on inferior handguns that were been designed by lawyers and accountants; they usually have a lot more parts in them and are harder to service or shoot well. Given the varying hardness and corrosive nature of primers at the time as well as metallurgical issues that would pop up, Uncle Sam might have been expecting them to break and wanted an easy and cheap field fix. If nothing else, spares would be lighter to carry and ship that way. I don't know the armorer side of those rifles, but it would certainly be possible to make those firing pins in several lengths to get protrusion correct, though that seems more like an "aim for the middle of acceptable tolerances with one size" process than a "gauge to fit" one.

It's worth noting that the world's armies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were largely outfitted with the designs of Americans who got frustrated dealing with the red tape of U.S. Ordnance and sold their patents abroad. So, whatever the actual answer is, I doubt Albert Einstein was involved in it.

I wonder how the 1911 would have been worse for a beavertail grip safety, which makes it so much more comfortable for many people to shoot? The arms industry us almost unique in the way people of different nationalities and backgrounds cross-fertilise one another. America was in the unique position of having vast capacity for industrial production and innovation, and very little likelihood of having to fight a major war again. In central Europe numerous nations had a well-founded fear of the neighbours. All sorts of blind alleys, such as really good falling-block rifles and tube-magazine bolt-actions, which the US passed by, simply had to be adopted there, in the knowledge that they might have to be replaced in only a few years. They couldn't afford not to.

Not surprisingly there was a two-way traffic in intellectual property. We all know where the Krag and Mauser-Springfield designs came from, and gas piston operation was invented by the Hungarian Baron Odkolek. The service branch of the US army bears some responsibility too. The Ordnance Department organised some large-scale and well-conceived troop trials of the turnbolt Lee. (We don't know in what year James Paris Lee took American citizenship, but if you get him, we get Sir Hiram Maxwell.) This rifle used interchangeable box-magazines in the manner of most automatic pistols. The trialsg very correctly identified its advantages, but the units involved reported back that they were nonetheless perfectly satisfied with the trapdoor Springfield. Anybody who believes that, some nine years after the Little Bighorn, will very likely believe anything. Perhaps they were told, like Yossarian in "Catch-22", "You're either for us or against your country."

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Bigslug,

Fwiw, I consider the Model 1917 (The so-called "American Enfield") to be SUPERIOR to the Springfield.
(Given a choice of 2 similarly-priced rifles, the 1917 is always my personal choice.)

yours, tex

Mine too, although it must be admitted that it is clumsier in the hand. It always surprises me that nobody thought of putting well protected aperture sights on a military rifle before the British P13, which didn't make production when some idiot started a war. But that is how they got onto American service rifles, and have stayed there till the present day.

I don't believe engineers are either stingy or in too much of a hurry. It is the people who control engineers who say "You can[t have more money, and we need it now."

[azrednek]

Bigslug,

Fwiw, I consider the Model 1917 (The so-called "American Enfield") to be SUPERIOR to the Springfield.
(Given a choice of 2 similarly-priced rifles, the 1917 is always my personal choice.)

yours, tex

FWIW, if I had to go to war with a bolt action battle rifle. I'd be confident with either one. Just curious though why you feel the 1917 to be superior.

[texasnative46]

azredneck,

I feel the Model 1917 is SUPERIOR to the Model 1903 because of:
1. a stronger action,
2. a smoother bolt action,
3. better sights,
4. a better designed stock profile
and
5. ALL of the Model 1917 rifles were HIGHLY UNLIKELY to "blow up" with ball ammo. - During WWI, any number of doughboys were seriously injured by improperly heat-treated receivers on Model 1903 Springfields.

THANKS for asking.

yours, tex

[Bigslug]

FWIW, if I had to go to war with a bolt action battle rifle. I'd be confident with either one. Just curious though why you feel the 1917 to be superior.

I would also add that the P14/1917's cock-on-close system is superior in that while working your way through the primary extraction phase to break a sticky case loose of the chamber, you aren't ALSO fighting the striker spring back onto its cocking seat. I never did like the stock design or the lack of windage on the otherwise good rear sight, but it's the action I most wish people were still making.

[Larry Gibson]

And that's why we saw so many M1917s being used in NMC competition......the M1917s are more accurate and easier to operate, especially in the rapid fire stages than M1903s..........and if you buy that I've got a bridge for sale here in Lake Havasu..........

[Eldon]

The P-17 is NOT more accurate, has a terrible stock design, has better sights.
The 1903 is more accurate, superior in rapid fire, a better stock just okay sights.

Pears like none has read the Rifleman story on WW I 03s'. Very effective in the hands of trained soldiers.
You'll also note most of the rifles traced to individuals were "low" number guns. None of which blow up. There is zero evidence of "countless Doughboys" being injured by 03's blowing up.

The SMLE was by any measure a superior battle rifle to any other hand operated one.

The P-14 was a great sniper rifle when set up with proper optics and the fine 174 gr ammo.

The SMLE sniper and the USMC 03' sniper were also fine. The Germans got a head start impressing commercial sporters but were overtaken. Sniping in France is a required read.

USA sniping rifles in WWII were too fragile or junk, ditto Korea. Finally got it right in Nam' and have continued on the right track.

[Multigunner]

While the M1917 has many good points it has a few bad ones as well. The position of the bolt knob was mentioned as a problem when the rifle was tested by Ordnance officers who cut their teeth on the Krag and 03.
The first high powered bolt action I ever fired was a M1917 and like so many other that knob cracked the knuckle of my trigger finger like a ball peen hammer.
Those used to the SMLE had no problem with it, but it takes some getting used to.
The rifle is way too heavy and a bit too long, especially for shooters no taller than the average in that era.
In the India China Burma theatre many of these rifles were shortened and made a very handy rifle for mounted troops and as a jungle rifle, predating the No.5.
Pre War efforts to shorten and lighten the P-14 produced similar handy short rifles.

The aperture sights are theoretically better but for rapid target aquistion in poor light open barrel mounted sights are superior. A Ghost ring sight is more useful than the standard aperture.

[Texas by God]

I wish I had an unissued example of each to compare side by side!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[gwpercle]

If I am remembering my long ago readings on the Springfield , it was designed two piece for ease of replacement. Broken or worn firing pin tips could be replaced easily in the field and the tip was easy to carry. In theory.....but we all about theory .
The Mauser one piece seemed to do quite well....maybe the Mauser was not designed by politicians in Washington who knew squat about battle rifles !

[Eldon]

TBG, all it's takes is MONEY !

"If you are wearing a diaper, drooling on yourself and don't know who you are. It doesn't really matter if you are broke."

"Never saw an armored car following a hearse." (except in a Charles Addams cartoon.)

[Scharfschuetze]

I wish I had an unissued example of each to compare side by side!

I have virtually new examples of both. Both have their strong points and both have their foibles. Both of my examples will shoot under 2 MOA with good ammo with their issue sights. Fact is, I have a few of each and they all shoot pretty well.

Were I to compare them using various examples, I'd say:

The 1917 compared to a 1903 is a bass rod compared to a fly rod.
The 1917 compared to a 1903 is 3/4 ton pickup truck compared to an SUV.

In the end, they both get the job done, one with just a little more panache than the other.

A few personal observations of the two designs from over 40 years of collecting and shooting both:

1. How the British came up with that butstock design is beyond me. I can only guess that it was more for bayonet fighting than marksmanship. Anyone know the reason other than that was also the design of the SMLE butstock?
2. The cock on opening design is much more usable for rapid fire than the cock on closing. Given the British penchant for accurate rapid fire, I'd have thought they would have gone with cock on closing. Other than Common Wealth forces and Sweeden, most armies ended up with cock on opening rifles after 1898.
3. The aperture rear sight on the 1917 is definitely the better design for accuracy, but its lack of deflection (windage) lets it down at long range as well as its coarse elevation settings.
4. The slightly greater weight and the 2" longer barrel of the 1917 make it a little more comfortable to shoot over an extended period.
5. The one piece firing pin design of the 1917 is probably better than the two piece affair in the 1903. While I've never broken a firing pin on a 1903, I did once find a cracked collar that holds the two pieces together while cleaning one of my 1903s.
6. I think that the 5 groove (50/50 land to groove) rifling will shoot accurately longer than the finer 4 groove rifling of the Pre-WWII 1903 barrels, particularly if there is any pitting in the bore.

That's my take on it.

[Bigslug]

While the M1917 has many good points it has a few bad ones as well. The position of the bolt knob was mentioned as a problem when the rifle was tested by Ordnance officers who cut their teeth on the Krag and 03.
The first high powered bolt action I ever fired was a M1917 and like so many other that knob cracked the knuckle of my trigger finger like a ball peen hammer.

Now that I'm curious about. I ran bolt guns in NRA Highpower by lifting the handle with the top of my index finger with the joint closest to the palm, pinching it between that finger and the thumb, pulling back with the arm, but doing a large part of the rearward motion by rotating the wrist back. I find the position of the 1917 bolt knob to be darn near perfect for this technique and REALLY FAST to boot, as compared with, say, the Moisin Nagant, which puts the handle so far forward as to be ridiculous.

I never had one "crack my knuckle" but then, the one I had in GI configuration got sold pretty early on (hated the stock design). I run a sporterized one in '06 now that's the bee's knees.

[Bigslug]

1. How the British came up with that butstock design is beyond me. I can only guess that it was more for bayonet fighting than marksmanship. Anyone know the reason other than that was also the design of the SMLE butstock?

WORD! Part of why I sold off my first 1917 (other than the accuracy was horrible) was that the stock seemed designed by some sadist to magnify recoil. A mere .30-06 of that much weight should be a pussycat - it wasn't. Then again, any of the Springfield stocks before the C type with the pronounced pistol grip were no picnic either.

2. The cock on opening design is much more usable for rapid fire than the cock on closing. Given the British penchant for accurate rapid fire, I'd have thought they would have gone with cock on closing. Other than Common Wealth forces and Sweeden, most armies ended up with cock on opening rifles after 1898.

Seem like you might have some contradictory/incorrect typo going on there. Happens to me all the time. . .

Cock on open IME is a slower way to go. Not that it IS slow, but it's slower. Cock on close eliminates resistance of compressing the striker spring from a standing start. You're moving the bolt forward full speed by the time the cocking piece engages on the sear, so compressing the striker has a full head of steam behind it.

Though now that I think about it. . .

All I can figure is that maybe, for people who use their palm to lift the bolt handle (see my last post on how I do it), cock on open is a quicker way to fight through the resistance of compressing the spring. I'm faster with either action type with the forefinger and thumb technique described above, but admit I probably wouldn't like shoving a C-O-C design forward using the palm-lift/palm-up method.

I find it interesting: The first Mauser box repeaters prior to the 1898 were all cock on close; the 98 and 1903 Springfield was cock on open; the Brits had a decade and more of peacetime to study ALL of those before coming up with the cock on close uber-Mauser P13/P14/M1917.

It's well established fact that U.S. Ordnance was all about NOT giving the soldier a rifle that could fire quickly, so who can say where their heads were when tweaking the 1903 system. What I am curious about was why cock on open became the de facto standard for sporting arms - even going so far as to convert Enfields to that format. Maybe more of that palm-lift technique I'm not using?

[texasnative46]

Bigslug,

That's what makes horseraces. = My 1917, which was rebuilt at SAAD in the interwar period, stock fits me well & oddly is the most accurate of all my rifles.
(It's quite possible that my rifle is an exception & simply works great by "the luck of the draw".)

I'm looking for another Model 1917 & likely won't buy another 1903.

yours, tex

[azrednek]

Bigslug,

I'm looking for another Model 1917 & likely won't buy another 1903. yours, tex

Tex depending on how much you really want a 1917. J&G has them but last time I looked they were running 750 to 1,000+.

If Backpage is active and legal in your area watch it for a 1917. About a year and a half ago. I got a straight across trade for a Eddystone for a well used and worn S&W SD. The spare mag, plastic generic carry case, $10 and some smooth talking got me the bayonet without a sheath. He was supposed to give me the rotted into two pieces leather sheath but he quit responding to my texts. The young guys just have to have a plastic 9MM to be cool and earn bragging rights on how fast they can empty the mag.

My 03 of 1909 vintage and low serial number is the most accurate iron sighted rifle I've ever shot. I've had it about 40 years now and have put hundreds if not thousands through it and it still hasn't blown up. With my mid 20's eyesight, bench rested, shooting 100 yards. I could easily print half dollar sized groups with US GI surplus ammo.

My 03 despite having the original 1909 dated barrel appears to be a WW 2 re-furb. From a serial number search it was originally issued to the Navy. It has a WW2 era handguard and a machined, not stamped mag box according to some hard core collectors is early or pre WW2 production. The collectors told me the stock is 1930's vintage.

I have four 1917's but only two are in original condition. The others are incomplete sporter projects I got to dirt cheap to walk away from.

I really feel if had to carry either an 03 or 1917 into combat. Today I'd select the 1917 based on the superior sights because of my failing eyesight. I do feel my Eddystone 1917 shooter could do nearly as well if not as good as my 03.

[azrednek]

A fellow named Hallihan wrote a book called Misfire back in 1994 that investigates the cesspool of knuckle-dragging, bureaucratic stupidity of U.S. Ordnance small arms procurement. From George Washington to today, the only two on which they got the process right on were the 1911 and the Garand, so I wouldn't expect to find a lot of genius in the 1903.

If what I recall reading is correct. The M-1 was originally made with an inferior gas block despite objections by John Garand. At first the bureaucracy was reluctant but eventually wised up, recalled and converted the very early M-1's using Garand's gas block design.

I'm recalling something I heard or read years ago. If somebody is aware of the facts, please chime in here.

[Eldon]

It was not a gas block, it was a gas trap and was Garand's design. As it proved a bad choice it was changed.