Lawyers, Beancounters, and Springfield 03

[Multigunner]

Information I found long ago and posted on another site. I figured 'd repost it here for anyone thats interested.

ROYALTIES FOR THE USE AND MANUFACTURE OF PATENTED ARTICLES.

The payment by the United States of a royalty for the right to manufacture and use patented articles after the expiration of the term of the patent is not authorized.

The War Department is not authorized to enter into a contract for the payment by the United States of a royalty for the prior use and manufacture of patented devices, such prior use being in the nature of a tort for which the United States is not liable.

(Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of War, February 28,

1905.)

By your reference, dated February 21, 1905, of a .communication of the Chief or Ordnance dated February- 17, 1905, you request my decision of the questions therein presented. Omitting paragraphs 5 and 6, the communication is as follows:

"1. I have the honor to inclose herewith proposed articles of agreement between the United States and Messrs. VonLengerke & Detmold, of New York, providing for procuring from them the right to manufacture and use a breech-loading magazine arm, certain features of which are covered by United States letters patent owned by them, on the payment of a license fee therefor.

"2. The appropriations which it is believed authorize the proposed contract are as follows:

Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the

national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 32, p. 942) $1,700,000

Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 275) 1,700,000

"These appropriations are available until exhausted, not exceeding two years. (Stats, at Large, vol. 25, p. 833.)

" ' Hereafter all moneys arising from disposition authorized by law and regulation of serviceable ordnance and ordnance stores shall constitute one fund on the books of the Treasury Department, which shall bo available to replace ordnance and ordnance stores throughout the fiscal year in which the disposition was effected and throughout the following year.' (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 276.)

"3. The letters patent enumerated and referred to in the proposed contract were originally taken out by Mr. Paul Mauser, but articles of assignment have been furnished by the Patent Office showing that Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold are the owners and are also entitled to all rights and claims which may have arisen under them prior to the transfer to them.

"4. The contract provides for a license fee of $200,000, payable at the rate of 50 cents per arm manufactured, but it is provided in the contract that in case the Government shall manufacture a less number of arms than 400,000 the license fee will be correspondingly reduced, but that for all arms manufactured in excess of 400,000 no license fee will be paid. It is possible, but not probable, that payments of the license fee might extend beyond the date of expiration of the patents. *******

"7. The contract also provides that in case all the arms for which the license fee will be paid can not be manufactured under the present appropriations, the United States shall have the right to renew the agreement under the same terms and conditions.

"8. The contract also provides that the contracting parties shall pay all judgments against the United States on account of any suits or claims which may be made by any persons for infringement of their patents in the manufacture and use of the breech-loading arm and cartridge clip, as covered by the letters patent recited in the contract.

"9. A bond will be required from the contracting parties in the sum of $50,000 to insure the pa3rment of such judgments should any arise.

*' 10. A decision is requested as to whether or not this Department can enter into such a contract to bind the United States. If there are any features in the contract which are not lawful. it is requested that the decision cover such modifications as may be necessary, so that this Department may be enabled to manufacture the magazine arm under the letters patent enumerated and referred to."

From this communication it appears that your Department contemplates manufacturing for the use of the United States, under authority of the appropriations specified therein, breech- loading magazine arms containing certain improved devices for which letters patent have been granted and are still in force, and are now owned by Messrs. Von Lengerke & Det- mold, and that you propose to enter into a contract with them by which, in consideration of a license to the United States to manufacture and'use said improved devices, the United States will agree to pay the said owners of said letters" patent as compensation for said license a royalty of 50 cents on each arm manufactured, not to exceed in the aggregate $200,000.

If the said owners of the said letters patent have thereunder the exclusive right to manufacture, use, and sell the improved devices to be used in the arms to be manufactured and used by the United States, I am of opinion that, under the appropriations specified, you are authorized to enter into a contract with them for the purpose specified, and to provide therein for the payment of reasonable compensation for said license.

But there is one feature of the proposed contract that is not free from doubt. If the contract provided for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of improved devices for which one letters patent only had been granted, I do not think you would be authorized to provide therein for the payment of the royalty for the manufacture and use of the devices after the expiration of the term of the patent. In the case presented seven distinct letters patent are specified, which were granted on six different dates. It is presumed that each letters patent was granted for a term of the same length, beginning on the date when granted. The terms of six of the letters patent 'frill therefore expire at different times. The improved devices for which the several letters patent were granted may also have different values. If. under this state of facts, the royalty which it is proposed to pay is the aggregate value of all the improved devices for which the seven letters patent were granted, I do not think the terms of the contract submitted would authorize the payment of the full amount of the royalty after the expiration of the term of one or more of the letters patent, and in such case the terms of the contract do not provide what amount of royalty should then be paid.

It may be, however, that in fixing the amount of the royalty allowance was made for the differences in the time of expiration of the terms of the letters patent and for the difference in the value of the improved devices, and that the amount agreed upon is deemed appropriate compensation to be paid for the manufacture and use of the improved devices during the varying terms of the several patents until the expiration of the term of the patent of latest date. If,so, I think this intention should be made clear in the terms of the contract.

There is another feature of the proposed contract which requires particular consideration. In paragraph 5 of the communication of the Chief of Ordnance he says:

" 5. The contract also provides for making payment of the license fee for all arms manufactured subsequent to March l*i. 1904. The reason for the insertion of this date in the contract is that on that date this Department addressed a letter to the AVaffenfabrik Mauser, the owners of the letters patent described and referred to before the transfer was made to Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold, in which letter reference was made to the making of an agreement providing for the payment of royalties in case any of the features of the magazine arm no*v being manufactured by the Government was covered by any of the letters patent owned by the Wafl'enfabrik Mauser."

The letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, to which he refers, is as follows:

"1. As an examination would seem to indicate that some of the features of the cartridge slip recently adopted for the United States Armv mav be covered bv vour United States letters patent Nos. -402605, 482376, and 547932. it is requested that your attorney in this country call at this office for the purpose of determining what, if any. of its features are eovered by your patents, and if .so, to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor."

In paragraph 6 the Chief of Ordnance further says:

"6. It is the understanding of this Department that the writing of this letter constitutes an implied contract under which a license fee may he paid the owners of the letters patent enumerated and referred to, and the proposed contract accordingly makes provision for this payment. A copy of the letter referred to is inclosed."

I do not concur with the Chief of Ordnance in the opinion that the letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, referred to by him, constitutes an implied contract for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of the improved devices for which the letters patent mentioned therein were granted. This letter suggests that some of the features of the "cartridge clip" which had been " recently adopted" for the Army ''may be covered" by those patents. It does not indicate whether any of the cartridge slips had been manufactured or not. It then requests that an attorney of the Waffenfabrik Mauser call for the purpose of investigating the question of infringement, and, if it should be 'found that there was, ''to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor.'1'

The letter and the facts presented leave in doubt the question whether the proposed agreement for compensation had reference to cartridge clips which had been manufactured or were to be manufactured. In the former case no compensation would be authorized, for the infringement would be in the uuture of a tort, for which the Government would not be liable. In the case of Rwsell v. United States (182 U. S., 535), which was a case of the infringement of a patent by the manufacture and use by the United States of the Krag- Jorgensen rifle, the Supreme Court said:

"If petitioners have suffered injury it has l>een through the infringement of their patent, not by a breach of contract, and for the redress of an infringement the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. This doctrine may be technical. If the United States was a person, on the facts of this record, * * * it could be sued as on an implied contract, but it is the prerogative of a sovereign not to be sued at all without its consent or upon such causes of action as it chooses. It has not chosen to be sued in an action sounding in tort. * * *"

Until an agreement has been entered into for compensating an owner of a patent for the manufacture and use of any device for which such patent has been granted the manufacture and use thereof is an infringement, and if the infringement is by the United States compensation can not be recovered for the injury.

I am therefore of opinion that you are not authorized to to enter into a contract to pay royalty for the prior manufacture and use by the United States of any of the devices referred to.




Heres one of the Patents which seems to superceed the others.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=IqtAAA ... t&resnum=2

These appear to involve only the Stripper Clips and guides.

PS
Heres the Case of Russell v. United States.
Russell claimed the Krag Rifle incorporated an element of one of the design features he held a patent on.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y38YAA ... t&resnum=1



Quote:
The Model 88 bolt was designed by Senior Gunsmith Schlegelmilch of Spandau. It incorporates a number of Mauser designs including the firing mechanism, safety, removable, non-rotating bolt head, ejector, extractor and trigger. The great leap forward in design was locating dual-opposed locking lugs at the front of the uncluttered bolt body, giving the bolt a thoroughly modern look. It is also a cock-on-opening bolt.



So Schlegelmilch of Spandau actually incorporated the twin lugs into the Gew 88 design rather than Mauser.
The Germans apparently got the first example of the Lebel bolt action by way of a French traitor.

Quote:
Soon after the Lebel reached the French troops in early 1887, a French deserter with the name of Schnabele hopped across the border with a new Lebel and a handful of smokeless ammunition. Arriving in Germany, Schnabele set a price of 20,000 Marks for the purloined booty, but there was little official commitment until Reich Chancellor, Prince Bismarck, himself saw the significance of Schnabele's loot. Communicating the fact Germany was now armed with inferior weapons to the Prussian War Minister, Bismarck got things moving. War Minister von Schellendorf promptly referred the problem to the Rifle Testing Commission at the Spandau arsenal and within a year, the Commission produced both a new rifle and a new smokeless cartridge.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n20512666/

Found this on another forum

Quote:
467180 , Shell Extractor 20 cents per arm

477671, Shell Extractor & Collar 5cents per each arm.

482376, Clips, (called cartridge holder for magazine guns) 50 cents per thousand clips

527869, Oct, 1894 , Magazine 25 Cents per each arm.

547932, Clip (called cartridge pack) 50 cents per thousand clips.

547933, Safety, covered by 590271

590271, Sept, 1897 25 cents per each arm


Heres 467180
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ycVoAA ... t&resnum=2

Heres 527869
http://www.google.com/patents?id=apRGAA ... t&resnum=2

this site
http://ep.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP
might have further information on the European Patents.



I have no particular interest in the Springfields, but the history is interesting.

[spqrzilla]

The key is that there is a long-standing legal principle in patent law that a contract for a royalty of a patent license whose term extends beyond the term of the patent itself is an illegal misuse of the patent.

In patent licensing practice, one even has to be careful to make sure that if the license fee is expressed in a single flat sum but amortized over time, that the payment schedule does not extend beyond the patent term or it may be found invalid.

[Multigunner]

The Stripper Clip itself, in a more primitive form, existed long before Mauser ever thought about using it to load the box magazine of a rifle.
The Earliest Stripper Clip I've seen images of is one used to feed cartridges directly into the feedway of a crank operated manual machine gun, a competitor of the Gatling Gun. Some rather odd WW2 MGs used by Japan used standard rifle stripper clips in the much the same manner though with a complex mechanical assist.
There were several American designed stripper clips being tested, but the construction and simplicity of the Mauser patent clips made it the more desirable.

I haven't found any source that could quote a case number for any actual judgement or even a document of intent to sue. So I'm wondering just how much is fact and how much is fiction when it comes to this long accepted claim.
I've seen it said that there was confusion with the DWM claims about the Spitzer bullet. Captain Hardcastle, the designer of the "Swift Bullet" wrote that US Marksmen had used a similar pointed bullet in a match in England in the 1870's, and pretty much cleaned the clocks of the British marksmen.
The only thing unique, if it actual was, about the Spitzer was its ogive and proportions. A pointed bullet was not any great inovation, it just hadn't been used for a modern (for then) military rifle cartridge before and for the purpose of allowing increased velocity of the infantry ball.
I've often seen Colonel duard ubin credited with invention of the Rimless cartridge case, but though he took out patents in Germany at about the same time that the GEW 88 was designed, I haven't been able to find the descriptions of what these patents covered, or whether DWM bought the rights to his designs.
Uncle Sugar always seemed to ready to spend the taxpayers money so it seemed odd that they'd stiff a foreign inventor when they already paid to use so many less useful devices, and had adopted a European designed bolt rifle only a short time before.

a side note

I owned a Krag Carbine many years ago, but it had a badly corroded bore and no gunsmiths around here would touch a Krag, replacement barrels were non existent as far as anyone could tell me. I traded it to a collector on condition he never try to fire it unless he found a good barrel. I hope he finally found one. Other than bore condition it was in pretty good shape and probably correct.
New replacement barrels showed up on the market about twenty years later, and off course I now regret not holding onto it.

What interested me was the action. An excellent sporting rifle as issued, with no need for modifications.
A friend has a photo album with many photos of his mom's family on hunting trips in the 30's and 40's, every adult male in that large family was carrying a Krag Carbine and the heaps of deer and bear at their hunting camp was truly impressive.
I'd like to see a modern repro of the Krag done up like those repro 1895 Winchesters. Still a few originals around though.

[4570guy]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.

[Von Dingo]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

[Multigunner]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

Thats not the point, plenty of rifles were "inspired" by other known successful designs, the Gew 88 and practically every other turn bolt design since then being inspired by the Lebel.
What I would like to find is which design elements were truly Mauser inventions, and what design elements of the Mauser were developments of previous designs whether successful in their own right or not.

Patent protections don't last forever, when a patent protection runs out anyone can use elements of that design without paying royalties. Before the protection runs out, anyone can still use these design elements but must pay a royalty, which is what the Chief of Ordnance offered to do.

In an article I read long ago it was said that Paul Mauser had gone to great lengths to buy up every firearms patent he could find from defunct gunmakers and private inventors. His goal was to avoid possible legal hassles in the future.

I'm fairly certain that I've seen a more primitive version of the Mauser non rotating controled feed extractor and its collar used on a early BP era cartridge repeater. I can't remember where though. It may not have been part of a rifle design.

If DWM had bought exclusive rights to the rimless cartridge case, then most of europe would have infringed on it in very short order.

I've seen it claimed that DWM claimed the Spitzer bullet as its own design. As Captain Hardcastle stated in his notes on his development of the "Swift Bullet", bullets of the same general shape, though of much larger caliber, had been used by American competitive shooters in the 1870's.

Whenever these Mauser or DWM connections are brought up, gunwriters seem to stumble over each other in portraying the legitimate use of these as some sort of underhanded trickery. In doing so they ignore the fact that others came up with the ideas first and Mauser adapted pre existing elements of those designs to his own designs.

[spqrzilla]

Multigunner, it is rare that a gun writer actually understands patent law. That's why you see writers implying underhanded behavior where there isn't necessarily any.

[gew98]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

It's also pretty clear the german made examples are a far better combat rifle as they were not saddled with delicate sights and inadequate stocking of the type target shooters loved.
It took the germans to put together the type of cartridge and rifle to dominate military forces of the day...it's only equal rival the Enfield ,and both eclipsed the bastard mauser 03 in reliability and longevity of stellar service.

[Multigunner]

It took the germans to put together the type of cartridge and rifle to dominate military forces of the day.

Germany lost both World Wars, so in the end they did less dominating than they had planed to do.

The Mausers are on the whole very good weapons. The Germans stole the best features of the Lebel, just like they stole everything else that wasn't nailed down.
This was outright theft, hiring a French traitor to steal a Lebel as he defected and hand it over to Spandau for study.

Not all Mausers had particularly sturdy rear sights. The Ladder sights of some were prone to damage in the raised position, as was the ladder sight of the No.4 and P-14.


My old Persian Mauser carbine had a very well protected front sight, it looked like the sight base and ears were milled from the barrel blank. I could see no sign of a join. I've heard that these were actually sweared on, a integral band fitting flush, but perhaps that was a method used later on to speed production. Either way its about as solid as they come.

Mauser seems to have ripped off the basic nose cap bayonet mount of the SMLE for some carbines, the 94/14 Swedish Mauser has a very similar set up though in two pieces.

I've never run across any complaints about the reliability and durability of the '03
In contemporary sources, aside from the known defective receivers of a tiny fraction of the rifles built, and more than a few that praised its superior accuracy.

There was a problem with defective barrels supplied by a subcontractor, but this affected bothe the M1917 and P- 13/14 rifles at one time or another as well. The contractor bumped up the breech end of a otherwise too small barrel blank an old method that had worked fine in black powder days and with the relatively low pressures of shotguns, it didn't work out so well with high intensity cartridges.

The British wanted Remington to build a modified 1903 rifle chambered for the .303, and later ordered many standard 03 rifles to outfit allies.

Someone mentioned cost of manufacture of the 03 on another thread. According to testimony during the Canadian Ross Rifle debates when the subject of costs came up the Springfield as built by the Government Arsenals turned out to be far less costly than its competition. The cost of the rifle as then manufactured was $14 USD. The P-14 cost the British $50 , and WW2 era commercial contracted 1903 rifles also cost around $50 or probably more.
Of course Government facilities had many advantages over commercial ventures of this sort.

If the Springfield had not used the front locking bolt, which the Germans outright stole from the French, then what system could have been used?
Since the majority of the militaries involved in WW1 also copied this feature in one form or another why make a big deal of it?

I seem to remember Paul Mauser's brother losing an eye when one of their rifles blew up in his face during test firing, so no rifle manufacturer of the day had a perfect safety record.
During the Boer War the British found that due to the flexing of the action body during normal operation the slightly higher chamber pressures generated when ambient temperatures were much higher than in Europe caused the from the factory sights to be way off, some were modified in the field while others had to await a modified rear sight to compensate. Another reason the Boers out shot the British on many occasions.
It appears that almost all the so-called British Rifles and Machine guns were invented by non British citizens (James Paris Lee, Hiram Maxim, Lewis, etc), most were American inventors. Hiram Maxim became a British subject long after he invented his machine gun.
BSA did a great job of perfecting some of these now well known weapons.

By the time WW2 ended the U S was well supplied with autoloading rifles and carbines, the Springfield soldiered on as a top notch sniper rifle and as a shipboard sharpshooters rifle for several decades.
The British were busily engaged in losing their shirts as the pre WW2 Empire began to fall apart, and had no autoloading main battle rifle for another decade or so. Keeping the No.4 and No.5 in service was the only real option till an autoloader replacement came along.
Since the French, at least on a limited basis, still use a 7.62 NATO Sniper rifle based on the MAS 36 this rifle eased the No.4 (T) and L-42 rifles out so far as longest serving bolt action sniper rifle was concerned.
Mosin Nagant sniper rifles are still in use in some parts of the world.

The Canadian Rangers still use the No.4 rifle, their Danish counterparts use the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 for the same purposes.
Canada has been intending to replace the No.4 with a more modern all weather rifle for some time now, they don't seem to have much in the budget for such a changeover.

[spqrzilla]

But the British Boxer gave us our priming system.

[mroliver77]

"
There was a problem with defective barrels supplied by a subcontractor, but this affected bothe the M1917 and P- 13/14 rifles at one time or another as well. The contractor bumped up the breech end of a otherwise too small barrel blank an old method that had worked fine in black powder days and with the relatively low pressures of shotguns, it didn't work out so well with high intensity cartridges."

This was and is an acceptable method of barrel production. The problem came from overheating and "burning" the steel.

A good thread!
Jay

[Multigunner]

But the British Boxer gave us our priming system.

And the British used the Berdan Primer amost exclusively after a shipment of Boxer promers detonated while being loaded aboard a shipp killing numerous people on the docks.
I ran across a British law against shipping Boxer primers with anvils already installed. They would have had to ship primers with out anvils, the anvils being inserted before seating, so I guess the Berdan primer seemed more attractive.

This was and is an acceptable method of barrel production. The problem came from overheating and "burning" the steel.

A good thread!
Jay

Could be why the British NRA issued safety warnings on a Australian manufactured target rifle barrel a few years back after several barrel failures ruined actions.
A M14 clone suffered carastrophic failure when its aftermarket barrel split in the same manner.
Give a manufacturer a oportunity to screw up and it will happen again sooner or later.
The founder of Remington is said to have first come up with the idea, merely bouncing the heated end of a barrel blank on a stone floor to bump it up. I would not be suprised if the idea was much older.

[gew98]

I can't tell you how many M1A barrel failures there have been !. Too much sub par quality commercial aftermarket stuff out there.

As for the german rifles.... they did'nt whin wars , the troops & generals did. And being ( thankfully ) german politicians failed their troops and generals they lost both wars.

Where do you get that the germans 'stole' the best points of the lebel from ?. It only had one good maybe two good points... the smokeless propellant and smaller diameter jacketed bullet of the day. I have owned several Lebels , and a handfull of Berthier's , made my own brass and reloaded for them. That would be one of the last rifles I'd ever want to handle in combat had I been there then.

"Mauser seems to have ripped off the basic nose cap bayonet mount of the SMLE for some carbines, the 94/14 Swedish Mauser has a very similar set up though in two pieces. "

Waste of bandwidth there.

"Not all Mausers had particularly sturdy rear sights. The Ladder sights of some were prone to damage in the raised position, as was the ladder sight of the No.4 and P-14."

Oh man.... you show me a german military mauser with as delicate front and rear sights as the 03 and I'll eat my hat. I have seen more 03's with rear sights peened to keep the loose play in check...have had one where every shot I had to check the windage knob as the rear sight walked consistantly. I have yet to come across a gew98 or 98k with a damaged rear sight or one sloppy floppy loose unless it had been used by the turks... plus never had one fall off like an 03 either.
The Patt'14 , M'17 and the No1 and yessir No4 had considerably more strudy and pracxtical sights. I have yet to have encounter any of these with a damaged rear sight. Most I have encountered is a broken leaf spring and or an older windage rear sight pinned to take out the play and grunt factor.

"The British wanted Remington to build a modified 1903 rifle chambered for the .303, and later ordered many standard 03 rifles to outfit allies."

Poppycock. Those modified mausers..not springyfields to .303 were for export...the brits were not so silly to make such a mistake. You obviously refer to the "Bannerman" rifle which was a mauser actio with a US made barrel in 303 caliber that he donated a "large" number to the English government. These were not very functional and homeguard use was what they got slated for to free up Enfields for the front. And during the secnd war the US supplied in lend lease mainly M17 rifles , some M1's and some 03's....all of which went to the homeguard to free up Enfields for front line use.



"I seem to remember Paul Mauser's brother losing an eye when one of their rifles blew up in his face during test firing, so no rifle manufacturer of the day had a perfect safety record.
During the Boer War the British found that due to the flexing of the action body during normal operation the slightly higher chamber pressures generated when ambient temperatures were much higher than in Europe caused the from the factory sights to be way off, some were modified in the field while others had to await a modified rear sight to compensate. Another reason the Boers out shot the British on many occasions.
It appears that almost all the so-called British Rifles and Machine guns were invented by non British citizens (James Paris Lee, Hiram Maxim, Lewis, etc), most were American inventors."

When you pioneer new technology you may get hurt indeed. That's funny about the enfield as the brits overcame such and it soldiered on . The boers simply out shot the brits as they even when armed with captured enfields were hunters and understood rifle accuracy where the even professional british army at that time had not such marksmanship standards and training for such in place. The brits learned , adapted and corrected that too.
Ah , whom really cares where one comes from as the inventor... if it's better go with it. Don't do like the french for example and have the "not invented here mentality" which have saddled them to this day with very deficant rifles.

"By the time WW2 ended the U S was well supplied with autoloading rifles and carbines, the Springfield soldiered on as a top notch sniper rifle and as a shipboard sharpshooters rifle for several decades."

You surely jest. The 03 was one of the worst sniping rifles ever issued...mainly due to the hideously poor attempts to scope it out. Just like that US 45th division Sniper at Anzio found out when he tossed his O3A4 away in favor of the superior german sniping rifle he got. Read up on the considerable problems US sniping rifles of the 03 color had all the way , and it was never rectified. Hence rifles like the Win mod70 and the Rem700 took the ball and ran with it during vietnam , oh and much worked on M14's to make them suitable for sniping. Never heard nor read of a single account of an 03A4 in vietnam in use - if you have I'd like to hear of it.

Since we have known the canuck rangers still use the No4 , and so do pakis and indians and nobody uses the 03 ,What's the point ...and the rant about british colonialism ?.

[Von Dingo]

Since the industrial revolution, rifles, like most things have evolved. Not by leaps and bounds, but at a pace, which has slowed to about a snail's pace for the last 50 years. The Mauser may not have been all original idea's, but everything was simplified, and made to be as rugged as possible, and ergonomic for the right handed populace, in the same amount of space with minimal moving parts. The '03 was copied from a Mauser 93, not a French rifle.

I'm a lover of Enfield's, '03's, and Mauser's, none are perfect, and in their own way, they are all great rifles.

[Multigunner]

Heres a site with good basic information on the 03A4 and 03A1 Sniper rifles, and some of the scope sights used for each.

http://www.snipercentral.com/m1903a4.htm

With a .58 MOA capability when M1 Ball was used the 03A1 would remain competitive even today. When M2 Ball was used accuracy was still decent for the day at 1.25 MOA.
The 1903A4 was not quite as accurate but gave good service in WW2, Korea, and the early days of the War in Vietnam, serving till more sophisticated Sniper rifles were introduced.

The 8X Unertl scope would allow much better target identification at the extreme ranges that the 03A1 was capable of.

Another site with an article that includes comments made by the officer responsible for revamping U S sniping equipments and training.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/arti...sniper-rifles/

From what he says the Model 70 out fitted for sniping didn't come along till the fifth year of U S involvement in Vietnam, so WW2 and Korean War sniping equipment was still in common use in the early days.

Among rifles shot by those young Marines was one that was never officially adopted by the Corps, but used extensively by Marines—the U.S. Army M1903A4. The one on hand that day had a scant stock. Land says the rifles were never chosen for accuracy as were the Marine Model 1941s, although many shot well. “The ’03A4 rifles were produced with six different scopes. It started off with a Weaver 330, 2.5 power; then it went to the M73B1, which was a Weaver 330 with a military designation; then it went to the Lyman Alaskan all-weather; then they went to the M81 (crosshair) and the M82 (crosshair with post). Land said he believes that for all the hype about German optics, American wartime scopes were actually far superior.

For his remarkable live-fire hands-on demonstration, Land also provided two pristine M1 sniper rifles. The Marine Corps M1C differed from the Army version, having a much more robust Griffin & Howe side-mount rather than the standard Griffin & Howe unit. The Marine M1C, which saw extensive use in Korea as the MC-1952, also sported an uniquely USMC Stith-Kollmorgen 4X scope, according to Land, the best optic yet produced for the Corps. It saw service in Lebanon and Panama.

Comparasipn of Lyman Alaskan scope to the British No.32 scope.

"We consider Alaskan best choice. It has tapered posts with cross-wire and luminosity ahead of (No.)32. In theses tests we were able to distinguish targets 15 to 20 minutes later in the evening than with the 32."

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?...P-Sniper-Rifle

[gew98]

There you go with the 03 fanboy thing ..again. I can't take anyone seriously that states ,

"Land said he believes that for all the hype about German optics, American wartime scopes were actually far superior."

Apparently this fella has never handled nor shot A high turret or LSR 98k rig with either 4x or 6x optics.... which are considerably more superior than the itsy bitsy tube on the 03A4 .

What did brophy have to say on that : "The shortcomings of the M73B1 ( weaver 330c )telescope were the low magnification (2.20x), Delicate construction ,and lack of moisture proofing" And further from TM9-270 28 sep 1943 : " 6. At this time Weaver telescopic sight No. 330C (M73B1 ) is being mounted to the M1903A4. A Lyman "Alaskan" type telescopic sight will be used as an alternate , but as it's details are not available , it is not covered here."
The Alaskan was in short supply and used on few of those rifles , and in no way is superior to the german 4x & 6x optics used on 98k rifles used during the 2nd war , that's a simple fact.

"With a .58 MOA capability when M1 Ball was used the 03A1 would remain competitive even today"
You of course mean for target range work as taking such a Iron sighted rifle to a sniper fight would be suicide . But then again it shows the 03 for what it really was... a target rifle.

Again , I'll stick with the US sniper Alvin Mc Millan that used the 1903A4 in Anzio and ditched it in preference for the superior german scoped rifle he picked up off a german he killed .

[thxmrgarand]

I must say that I found this discussion (thus far) to be superior to at least 95% of what I read in gun magazines. Thanks for it.

[Multigunner]

Again , I'll stick with the US sniper Alvin Mc Millan that used the 1903A4 in Anzio and ditched it in preference for the superior german scoped rifle he picked up off a german he killed .

Key words there are "picked up off a German he killed".
The 03A4 was given progressively better scopes while in service, the Marine 03A1 had a much higher magnification scope than any of the competition and was proven to be the most accurate.

Not all German scopes were the same either for that matter, and some German snipers prefered captured Russian sniper rifles with the PU scopes when they could get them.

I ran across a test firing of German , Russian, British, and American sniper rifles. The 03A4 printed 6.5" groups at 300 yards, the British No.4 (T) printed 8.5" groups at the same range, the Russian and German rifles printed 7.5 inch groups. The 03A4 definitely proved to be the most accurate.

And as for a "Sniper Fight" you cite one such where the U S Sniper killed the German sniper and took his equipment. Better man? more than likely. Better equipment? who's to say, since the 03A4 was definitely up to the occasion.

PS

Retired USMC Major and NRA Secretary “Jim” Land is considered the founder of the modern Marine Corps sniping program and has spent 40 years assembling what is likely the best collection of Marine sniping arms in private hands. When he made that collection available to modern day instructors and students at Quantico’s Marine Scout Sniper school, history was made all over again.

Whenever Maj. Edward J. “Jim” Land (USMC-Ret.) lectures at his former command, the Marine Weapons Training Battalion at Quantico, Va., the young Marines—Scout Sniper instructors and students alike—regard him with deference and respect. After all, Maj. Land, who today serves as Secretary of NRA, is widely recognized as the father of modern Marine Corps sniping, having created and commanded the Corps’ highly successful tactical field program in Vietnam and helped shape its formal progress over the ensuing years.

Darn good credentials I'd say.

[gew98]

Moolti ; Alvin Macmillin was using an 03A4 when at fairly close rounge he had a german drying out a blanket on a rock. He shot the guy and when he got to his kill he found the german scope 98k next to the dead german. He thought it a superior rifle all around and ditched his 03A4 and used the german rifle to murderous effect....until he got wounded at Anzio. To quote him " I crawled down to where he was and he had a snipers rifle too , a real good one , So I used it for quite a while".

From "Out Of Nowhere" by M. Pegler , page 211 ; " The marine scout snipers who landed on guadal canal in august were armed either with the Spgfld equipped with a winchester A5 or LYMAN 5A scopes , or 1903A1's with Unertls , but the Marine command still viewed these as a stop gap measure. Col Van Orden was not the only proponent of a cohesive marine sniper training program , but he had repeatedly demanded the intorduction of a dedicated scope equipped sniping rifle that was not just a modified service weapon. This was radical to the point of bordering on heresy, and Van Orden's views were regarded with deep suspicion by many senior Marine officers. However when examined in purely practical terms , his logic was hard to fault. The springfield was a good service rifle but was never designed for long range accuracy with it's comparatively short , thin walled barrel , and armorers were limited in the type of scope and mountsthey could fit without extensive reworking , which was both time consuming and expensive. As well as trting to find an ideal scope for the springfield."

Page 213 " These hand built rifles were designated M1903A1 but this combination was not to remain marins chosen weapon for long. Early field reports recieved by HQ in 1942 stated that the Unertl suffered from and 'had not proved effective in combat' ".

Further down the same page is : "Careless handling which could damage the DELICATE mounts, and sand which could enter the mounts , preventing the scope from sliding on recoil and returning to position".

And further down same page : "The lenses were prone to fogging from oisture and there were occasional problems with graticules from failing ".

On page 214 regarding lyman alaskan scopes : " mounting the scopes would also accomodate the Lyman Alaskan , although in practice almost none were ever fitted due to supply problems, as bausch & Lomb were unable to provide lenses during the war."

As well the cover of a recent book on kriegsmodell 98k sports GI on patrol carrying a turret type 98k sniping rifle. I could go on , and on.

[gew98]

Ok ; I'll give you one more from Senich's book " the complete book on US sniping".

Page 100 : " While capable of producing satisfactory results when carefully prepared by qualified unit armorers , the M1903A4 was not favored by US marksman , particularly among those possesing the knowledge to recognize it's deficiencies. A report of Sniping activities , dated 25 March 1952 , dealing with tactical employment of snipers in Korea , presented the following concensus among snipers serving wihtthe US 2ND iNF dIV ;

" A discussion of issue sniper rifles and telescopes indicated the following :

A) Present telescopes do not have sufficient magnification ( 2.5x )
B) Adjustments for elevation and windage cannot be readily made.
C) The weaver 330C telescope is easily thrown out of adjustment.
D) Telescope crosshairs are too coarse and obscure the target.
E) Stocks should be better designed to facilitate taking good firiing position.
F) Trigger pulls are neither adjustable nor crisp enough to permit a good squeeze.
G) Accuracy of the M1903A4 is questionable due to the bedding of the barrel and due tot the fact that wartime production runs of M1903A3 are believed to have been converted to the M1903A4 rifle , without screening out those rifles not suitable for such a purpose.
H) Present sniper rifles do not maintain their zero from day to day , thus requiring frequent targeting."