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

[3006guns]

First of all, I've collected, shot, studied rifles for over sixty years now.......but I can't seem to find the answer to a simple question.

We all know the 1903 Springfield is a Mauser influenced rifle. The U.S. government paid the Mauser brothers something like $200,000 back in 1901 in order to use many of the Mauser patented designs for a new rifle to replace the aging Krag. That's good........the '98 Mauser is a wonderfully strong, simple design......but why on earth did we adopt a two piece striker, connected by a link??

This, to me, is a major "oops" as it complicates and otherwise straightforward design. Was it to avoid paying more money? Someone's idea of an "improvement"?

[skeet1]

I don't know the answer to your question however I believe that this design is a holdover from the Krag.

[TNsailorman]

I've read and heard it said that the 2 piece firing pin was a mistake and a weakness of the rifle. But I have yet to see or hear any evidence of 2 piece failures. I would rather have a one piece firing pin on my rifles but that is more because of tradition and preference than design knowledge. I have spares for each of my 1903 and 1903A3 rifles "just in case". my experience anyway, james

[bob208]

I have owned shot and handled around 200 plus 03, 03-a1 and 03-a3. both in matches and hunting. in full military trim and sporterized some good some very bubba. never have I seen a broken firing pin. I have seen one broken firing pin from a krag and that one was dropped on the floor.

[Eldon]

There were several changes in the 03 from the KAR98. None were an improvement. That said, the rifle works fine through WW I, II and Nam'. A 2 piece pin does allow field fixes w/o pulling the striker.

[3006guns]

Well, okay.......Eldon's reply does make some sense I guess. It's just that the one piece Mauser striker simply makes more sense to me engineering wise and has to be a little less expensive to machine.

The "funnel breeching" is another quirk.....leaves about 1/10 inch of unsupported case, yet the Mauser feeds reliably with its flat face breech. Again, seems to work okay and any reported blown case heads are usually traced to soft brass (Hatcher's Notebook).

Nevertheless the 1903 is still a fine, accurate rifle and will always be one of my favorites!

[lefty o]

im sure it was some brain childs idea that it would make broken pins easier to fix in the field. having said that, just about anyone with 2 hands can change one in a mauser in a minute or two. never hear of many broken pins in a mauser though......

[Scharfschuetze]

There were several changes in the 03 from the KAR98. None were an improvement. That said, the rifle works fine through WW I, II and Nam'. A 2 piece pin does allow field fixes w/o pulling the striker.

Very true. In years past, I read that various units would have half of their 1903 butstocks cary the tubular cleaning kit in the hole provided and the other half carry a spare striker. I've only seen that in print once so it's hard to verify.

In the end, that two piece firing pin seems like someone in ordnance was listening to the Good Idea Fairy.



im sure it was some brain childs idea that it would make broken pins easier to fix in the field. having said that, just about anyone with 2 hands can change one in a mauser in a minute or two. never hear of many broken pins in a mauser though......

Most of the Mausers used by the Wehrmacht in WWI and WWII had a plug or hole in the but stock to facilitate taking the FP apart and putting it back together. Doesn't get any easier than that! That was probably just for cleaning though as most firing pins should be measured for depth of strike by an armorer to avoid misfires or punctured primers. On the other hand, the parts for Mausers all had to pass extensive gauging from the acceptance office (Waffenamt) located at each factory.

[Eldon]

The Winchester Ms 54 & 70 both had coned breeches and "everyone" knows the M70 is the "greatest" action ever made.

Obviously "experts" who never owned a commercial Mauser Werke or FN sporting rifle.

[Texas by God]

The Winchester Ms 54 & 70 both had coned breeches and "everyone" knows the M70 is the "greatest" action ever made.

Obviously "experts" who never owned a commercial Mauser Werke or FN sporting rifle.What he said^^^^^^^

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[3006guns]

Very true. In years past, I read that various units would have half of their 1903 butstocks cary the tubular cleaning kit in the hole provided and the other half carry a spare striker. I've only seen that in print once so it's hard to verify.

In the end, that two piece firing pin seems like someone in ordnance was listening to the Good Idea Fairy.




Most of the Mausers used by the Wehrmacht in WWI and WWII had a plug or hole in the but stock to facilitate taking the FP apart and putting it back together. Doesn't get any easier than that! That was probably just for cleaning though as most firing pins should be measured for depth of strike by an armorer to avoid misfires or punctured primers. On the other hand, the parts for Mausers all had to pass extensive gauging from the acceptance office (Waffenamt) located at each factory.

Actually, that hole in the buttstock served two purposes. It's main job was when the rifles were shipped, ten to a case, and a steel shipping rod was passed through the stocks (and case sides) to keep them secure.........talked to a man who actually helped remove them from original crates back in the mid fifties.

Of course, it made a dandy striker removal tool for the soldier in the field too............

[samari46]

My win 54 has a flat breech as it is in 30-30wcf. However they did copy the two piece firing pin assembly off the 1903 springfield. In fact if the springfield firing pin striker can be used as a replacement in the 54. Frank

[azrednek]

My guess and its only a guess. Have to keep in mind the govt was involved in the design and some bureaucrat or high ranking military officer decided he liked the two piece better.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

It might be that it was thought to be desirable for the two parts of the firing-pin to be of different steels, or in a different state of hardness. In some rifles a firing-pin tip harder than the bolt allows the firing-pin protrusion to lengthen. I don't say "was desirable", but "was thought to be."

I don't see any danger in the funnel breech, if the brass is sound and the funnel is made to normal arsenal standards, as most were. But it is equally hard to see any point, when I don't believe any part of the cartridge touches anything but the edge of the chamber. I would be warier of a barrel fitted by an unknown person, of unknown neurological qualities. Inserting a case thinly coated in wax would show how far up the steel comes.

I don't believe any feature of the M1903 derives specifically from the 98 Mauser. Everything can be attributed to earlier models. One it seems a pity to miss out was the internal stop-ring on which the rear face of the 98 Mauser barrel, not its shoulder, screws up tight in assembly. A lot of people have manufactured Mausers in a state of desperation, with inferior materials, heat treatment and ammunition. I don't think there is much doubt about that internal stop-ring conferring extra strength against the gases from a blown case-head.

Possibly it was omitted for ease of machining. A comparison lies in different Mausers. They started out "C-ring", with the right bolt-lug way broached all the way through that stop-ring, as it must be to accommodate the extractor. Some later Mausers, sometimes good ones, had the left bolt lug way broached all the way through, making them "H-ring", although I would sooner have called them "bracket-ring", (). It sacrifices strength for ease of manufacture, though strength that doesn't matter as long as the case-head holds.

[cuzinbruce]

A lot of stuff on the 1903 is a holdover from the Krag. You mention the firing pin, also the magazine cutoff. I think people have even modified 1903 stocks to fit Krags.

[bob208]

the nra sold krag carbines made up with 03 barrels. they are easy to tell because they have the 03 front sight.

then we have bannerman 03's made up from krag parts and early 03 parts. in the movie sergeant York they are using 03's with krag rear sights.

[Bigslug]

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.

[Larry Gibson]

I believe Brophy answers the question in his book.

[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.

Recently seeing a rare but original 03 Springfield, chambered in the obsolete 30/03 cartridge with the ridiculous rod bayonet. I believe you're right on with "knuckle-dragging, bureaucratic stupidity".

[Bigslug]

Recently seeing a rare but original 03 Springfield, chambered in the obsolete 30/03 cartridge with the ridiculous rod bayonet. I believe you're right on with "knuckle-dragging, bureaucratic stupidity".

If you've been following the Beretta replacement pistol trial. . .the haze of corruption and/or incompetence currently surrounding the P320 is certainly one thing, but what really gets me flaming is that they've spent about twice as much just trying to SELECT a pistol as they plan to spend on the pistols themselves.

It's pretty well known that John Browning sold Ordnance on what became the M1917 watercooled machinegun when he stitched a bunch of belts together and held the trigger down for over 45 minutes. What's NOT so widely known is that he had the basic concept ready to go a decade early, but the U.S. military couldn't be bothered to seriously consider machineguns until they were a couple months away from looking down the barrels of a few hundred thousand German M.G.'s. You have to think that at our 1917 declaration of war, the Germans had to be chuckling into their sleeves and quoting Hilarie Belloc's The Modern Traveller:

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim Gun, and they have not.

The Springfield at least ended up being a pretty decent rifle. Ordnance was still clinging to the notion of "Give a trooper a magazine rifle, and he'll burn more ammo than we can provide him with", so it's something of a minor miracle that it actually got made to accept stripper clips. The magazine cutoff was added by those same holdouts, which, if you think about how a Mauser/Springfield extractor feeds. . .you just want to build a time machine for the sole purpose of going back to slap people.

I'm not sure if I can forgive them the skinny, hard-to-see sights or not. In 1903, our notion of war was lots of white smoke from black powder, marching in ranks, or Indian fighting, and you had the concept of graduating your sights out to 2000 yards for raining nearly indirect fire down on massed bodies of troops or their camps. Aside from the front being flimsy, those sights wouldn't be awful for that. Certainly nobody expected anything like WWI - during which we largely deployed with peep-sighted M1917 Enfields.

[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.

[Scharfschuetze]

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

Yes, my dyslexic typing again. I meant to say: They would have gone with cock on opening.

As far as rapid fire or rate of fire for troops goes:

The Krag and the 03 had a magazine cut off device as well as the original Pre * SMLE. Sergeants controlled their squad's and platoon's rates of fire much more closely than they do today. The magazine blocks were designed to aid that when the soldiers were engaged in sustained fire although in practice, that really didn't work out too well to my knowledge.

One of the key modifications to the British Enfield rifles after the Boar Wars was the addition of a clip guide and ammunition issued in 5 round clips. This enabled the Tommys to fire rapidly after their experiences with the German Mausers of the Boars.

The 1903 was designed from the outset to have a clip guide after the US Army's experiences with the German Mausers of the Spanish Army in Cuba circa 1898. This allowed US soldiers to match the rate of fire of the Spanish Mausers. Much is made of the US Ordnance Department paying royalties to Mauser for patent infringements of the 03. While not normally mentioned, one of those infringements was the clip guide milled into the receiver's bridge.

[Multigunner]

There were several prototypes before the Springfield 03 as we know it was finalized. At least one had a single row mag like that of the 1891 Mauser.

A stripper clip designed by a US Army officer was considered but the Mauser stripper clips were more durable. IIRC the American stripper clip was much like the thruway clips used to load the M16 magazines with a clip guide adapter. A brass tab at either end holding the cartridges in place till needed.
The British used a charger rather than a stripper clip, very different in design and best suited for rimmed cartridges.

The Mauser features copied for the 1903 were the collar that secured the extractor (not the extractor itself) and the curved flat spring of the Mauser stripper clip. Also the removable magazine floor plate.
Mauser had copied the dual opposed front locking lugs from the GEW 88 designed by Spandau which itself had reverse engineered a stolen Lebel 1888.

Most features we think of as distinctly Mauser were purloined or brought from other gunmakers. Mauser bought up hundreds of patents just to avoid infringement suits, most of those patents were worthless in the long run.

[Texas by God]

But weren't the staggered feed magazine and claw&collar extractor Mauser inventions?

[Multigunner]

"But weren't the staggered feed magazine and claw&collar extractor Mauser inventions? "

Not sure but I believe James Parish Lee patented a double stack magazine first.
Non rotating Claw extractors were already in use, the Krag used one of a different design, the collar that held the extractor to the bolt body was the only Mauser innovation to the extractor.

[Multigunner]

Heres the wording of the Mauser patent of the extractor collar.

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

PAUL MAUSER, OF OBERNDORF-ON-THE-NECKAR, GERMANY, ASSIGNOR TO VAFFENFABRIK MAUSER, OF SAME PLACE.

SHELL-EXTRACTOR FOR BOLT-GUNS.

SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 477,671, dated June 28, 1892.

Application led February 29, 1892. Serial No. 423,237. (No model.)

v To all whom it may concern,.-

Be it known that I, PAUL MAUSER, a subject of the King of lVrtemberg, German Emperor, residing in Oberndorf-on-the-Neckar, Kingdom of Wrtemberg, German Empire, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Cartridge-Shell Extractors for Breech-Loading Bolt-Guns, of which the following is a specification.

This invention relates to the connection of the extractor to the bolts of bolt-guns in which the bolt has an oscillatory and also a reciprocating movement and in which the extractor consists of an elongated metallic piece adapted to rest against the side of the bolt and within a longitudinal groove in the breechcase, the extractor being connected to a ring swiveled to the bolt in such manner that the latter can be rotated independently of the extractor, while the extractor will be coinpelled to follow the longitudinal reciprocating movements of the bolt. One such construction of breech-loading bolt-gun with its extractor is illustrated in my United States patent, No. y167,180, dated January 19, 1892.


My present invention constitutes an improved connection between the ring and extractor in guns of this class, and aims to provide an improved connection, which will be cheaper and more convenient of construction and operation than is that shown in my said patent. To this end in carrying out my invention in its preferred form I construct the ring engaging the bolt with laterally-projecting shoulders, and I construct the extractor with similar shoulders adapted to engage the shoulders on the ring by the longitudinal movement of the extractor relatively to the ring, said shoulders being adapted when the parts are in the correct relative position to lock the extractor and ring together.

In the accompanying drawings, which illustrate my invention as applied to the bolt of a gun of the class shown in my said patent,