Doughboys Weapon of Choice

[shippingsteel]

I am interested in finding out more about the weapons used by the American infantrymen in France. I understand there was quite a large variety of rifles used from a number of sources to equip the vast numbers of fresh troops that made the trip over from the US. Many people would automatically think that these troops would have been sent into the frontline equipped with their native designed Springfield Model 1903 rifle. Why was this not the case and what percentage of the rifles in use would actually have been Springfields.?

Apart from the ubiquitous SMLE and the P14 and perhaps a few French weapons, what other rifles were used and was there any preference towards any certain weapon later in the war.?

Thanks in Advance, S>S

[Dave G]

In his book U.S. Infantry Weapons of WWI, author Bruce Canfield states that at the declaration of war the U.S. had 600,000 M1917 "U.S. Enfield" rifles on hand, making it the most widely issued American service rifle in the war. The Springfield '03 was the second most issued rifle. As you mentioned previously, Canfield lists the M1891 Mosin-Nagant, French Lebel and Berthier, and British SMLE as being situationally used on a very limited basis.

Dave

[4thGordons]

The reason most usually cited for the situation Dave G. indicates is speed of production. I.E. that the M1917 could be produced far faster than the M1903, and with the ending of the Pattern 14 contract there were three production lines (Remington, Winchester and "Eddystone") which could switch over to the M1917 immediately. The massive increase in the size of the US army (with the draft etc) meant that huge numbers of rifles were needed in very short order - far beyond pre war stocks.

In terms of the other rifle types Dave mentions - these were far more limited than the M1917 in use:

M1891 Nagants (some also produced in the US by Remington and Westinghouse) were issued to the North Russia force (and also used for training in the US - as were 1905 Ross Rifles, and earlier Krag-Jorgensons)

Berthiers (some of these too produced earlier by Remington) and Lebels were (to my knowledge) only used in any numbers by African-American units under French command and equipped entirely by the French (although after April of 1917 the AFS volunteer drivers who drove trucks in the "camion sections" for the French were also armed with Berthier carbines)

SMLEs were issued to US units fighting with the British and Australians in early 1918 (eg the units of the 33rd Div who fought at Hamel alongside the Australians) - there are a couple of pictures of these troops in Charles Messenger's book "The Day We Won the War"

Chris

[TonyE]

In his book U.S. Infantry Weapons of WWI, author Bruce Canfield states that at the declaration of war the U.S. had 600,000 M1917 "U.S. Enfield" rifles on hand, making it the most widely issued American service rifle in the war. The Springfield '03 was the second most issued rifle. As you mentioned previously, Canfield lists the M1891 Mosin-Nagant, French Lebel and Berthier, and British SMLE as being situationally used on a very limited basis.

Dave

I think Mr.Canfield (who is normally pretty good) needs to check his facts.

The last British contract Pattern 14 rifles were accepted at Winchester week commencing 7th July, at Remington Illion w/c 11th August and at Remington Eddystone w/c 23 June 1917.

The US declared war in April 1917, but production of the Model 1917 did not start at Winchester until 10th August 1917 and at the two Remington plants until late Setember/early October 1917. By the end of 1917 287,203 Model 1917 rifles had been produced.

Because Winchester started production before the exact specification of the Model 1917 had been finalised by Springfield Arsenal, their early production was non interchangeable with the Remington rifles. The result was that the US Army in France requested that no more Winchesters be sent for combat use.

Regards

TonyE

[Dave G]

I think Mr.Canfield (who is normally pretty good) needs to check his facts.

The last British contract Pattern 14 rifles were accepted at Winchester week commencing 7th July, at Remington Illion w/c 11th August and at Remington Eddystone w/c 23 June 1917.

The US declared war in April 1917, but production of the Model 1917 did not start at Winchester until 10th August 1917 and at the two Remington plants until late Setember/early October 1917. By the end of 1917 287,203 Model 1917 rifles had been produced.

Because Winchester started production before the exact specification of the Model 1917 had been finalised by Springfield Arsenal, their early production was non interchangeable with the Remington rifles. The result was that the US Army in France requested that no more Winchesters be sent for combat use.

Regards

TonyE

Mr. Canfield was not at fault, it was my fault for trying to read his book and try to respond to a thread before 6am local time!

[Old Tom]

Off at a tangent I'm afraid. Was the P14 the rifle that was issued to the Home Guard in 1939/40? I have understood that large numbers of these were in store in USA at that time, presumably production in 1916-18 and were supplied to the UK under lend/lease.

Old Tom

[TonyE]

Not really a tangent, as it is all connected.

The Pattern 14 rifles were late being delivered from the US in 1916/17 and so most were simply put into store in the UK because by then there were enough Lee Enfields available. 1.2 million P.14s were delivered to the UK by the end of 1917, and after the war large numbers were supplied to the emergent Baltic states.

Consideration was given to modifying these in the late 1930s with a new more powerful cartridge to become the new British rifle, but once again war intervened and nothing became of it. There were about 650,000 P.14 rifles left in store by then and they were used to arm the new conscript armies, especially after Dunkirk. It was decided that the .303 rifles (P.'14) would go to the regular army and that the Home Guard would be armed with US .30-06 calibre weapons. Thus the HG were armed with the US version of the P.'14, the Model 1917, together with .30 Brownings and BARs.

That is a bit of a simplification but basically the story.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

and just one snippet to add to TonyE's story - Home guard issued M1917s usually had a red band painted around the muzzle and butt to indicate the calibre as exterally the M1917 and p14 are very similar, particularly after the removal of the volley sights on the Pattern 14. There was a major refurbishment program for the Pattern 14s in 39/40 referred to as the Weedon Repair Standard (WRS) this basically involved removing the volley sight (not always the front base plate) and the stock marking disk. Some Pattern 14 rifles were sent direct to India (some of which were recently imported into the US), others I think went to the Baltic states. Post WWII it would appear Pattern 14s were also supplied to Greece.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

What changes were made to the original Pattern 14 rifle, apart from the obvious change in calibre to the .30-06 round, to arrive at the US Model 1917.?

Were there any major differences in performance between the M1917 and the M1903 Springfield when used as a military service rifle, and did the Doughboys have any preference.?

On the ballistics side was the .30-06 round any more superior a military cartridge than the .303 which the Americans obviously shunned, or was their decision more about economics.?

Thanks again, S>S

[Thunderbox]

What changes were made to the original Pattern 14 rifle, apart from the obvious change in calibre to the .30-06 round, to arrive at the US Model 1917.?

Were there any major differences in performance between the M1917 and the M1903 Springfield when used as a military service rifle, and did the Doughboys have any preference.?

On the ballistics side was the .30-06 round any more superior a military cartridge than the .303 which the Americans obviously shunned, or was their decision more about economics.?

Thanks again, S>S

The two rifles are virtually identical. P14s initially had volley sights, but many were later refurbished using M17 stocks. Visually, apart from proof marks, the differences can be as little as the rearsight being slightly shorter on the M17 (flatter trajectory for 30-06). P14s restocked with M17 wood often have a small gap in the wood fit at the front of the magazine floor plate.

The US didn't "shun" .303, they just went their own way in ammunition development.

Arguably, both .303 and .30-06 are "overkill" for short-range battle rifles - viewed from a modern perspective - but at the time they made sense in that rifle fire sometimes had to be used at very long ranges (c.1000yds+).

The .303 was probably a slightly better anti-personnel round than .30-06 by accident - the nose filler in the MkVII round inadvertently increasing the wounding effect. The rimmed round also gave a significant increase in the proof strength of rifle actions, useful in extending the performance envelope of military rifles.

[Old Tom]

TonyE

Many thanks. If the Home Guard P14s were in store in UK having been delivered after sufficient SMLEs were available, I assume that War Office/Ministry of Munitions had intended to equip the BEF with two types of rifle using different ammunition. I know that there were considerable shortages of equipment of all sorts for the New Armies in1914, but had assumed orders placed in USA would have been for rifles using the UK 303 round. Perhaps it is not as simple as that, I had also assumed that P14s were all 300.

Old Tom

[4thGordons]

TonyE

Many thanks. If the Home Guard P14s were in store in UK having been delivered after sufficient SMLEs were available, I assume that War Office/Ministry of Munitions had intended to equip the BEF with two types of rifle using different ammunition. I know that there were considerable shortages of equipment of all sorts for the New Armies in1914, but had assumed orders placed in USA would have been for rifles using the UK 303 round. Perhaps it is not as simple as that, I had also assumed that P14s were all 300.

Old Tom

Not sure I understand this: To clarify

Pattern 14 rifles (P14s) were all in .303" (rimmed) calibre (so yes all Pattern 14s ordered from the US were in .303")

US Model of 1917 (M1917) were all in the rimless .30.06 calibre (the standard US service round)

The US (30.06) rifles came to the UK in WWII and were issued to the LDV/Home Guard and it was only then that there was a concern with mixing up calibres.

Am I missing the point here?

Chris

[Thunderbox]

Not sure I understand this: To clarify

Pattern 14 rifles (P14s) were all in .303" (rimmed) calibre (so yes all Pattern 14s ordered from the US were in .303")

US Model of 1917 (M1917) were all in the rimless .30.06 calibre (the standard US service round)

The US (30.06) rifles came to the UK in WWII and were issued to the LDV/Home Guard and it was only then that there was a concern with mixing up calibres.

Am I missing the point here?

Chris

That is correct. P14s were bought and paid for in 1914-17 by the UK government and were all in .303". These rifles were not issued to front-line British Empire troops during WW1, but were mostly stored unused until WW2, when they were issued to the LDV and troops in training.

The US then used the tooled-up production lines to start producing the re-chambered M1917 in .30-06. The c.280,000 M1917s were used by front-line US troops during WW1 and WW2. Thousands of .30-06 M1917s were "lent" to Britain under Lend-Lease in 1940-2. These, and other US arms in .30-06", were marked with painted red bands to avoid confusion with British .303" arms.

[4thGordons]

I just did a bit of checking and Skennerton (British Small Arms of WWII p18) appears to indicate that the M1917s were not Lend Lease rifles but actually purchased by Britain for 250,000 pounds (50,000 of them - so a fiver apiece!) on Jan 31st 1941 (prior to the Lend-Lease Act enacted in March).

This would explain why they are not (unlike Savage No4s) marked US property.

(as an aside apparently 1280 Springfields were purchased for Fiji and Malaya at the same time)

The Weedon Repair Standard programme "converted" 677,324 Pattern 14s starting in June 1939 (290,000 being converted by Enfield in two blocks, Holland and Holland being the largest private converter doing about 179,000)

Chris

[shippingsteel]

HI Chris

Do you have any of these US rifles in your "extensive" collection of military shooters.?

I am wanting to know how they compared as far as performance went. I have read that the M1903 was used for many decades in the sniper role.

Would these have been selected "specials" that were modded up, or was the rifle "naturally" more accurate than its peer group.?

Thanks for your comments, S>S

[4thGordons]

HI Chris

Do you have any of these US rifles in your "extensive" collection of military shooters.?

I am wanting to know how they compared as far as performance went. I have read that the M1903 was used for many decades in the sniper role.

Would these have been selected "specials" that were modded up, or was the rifle "naturally" more accurate than its peer group.?

Thanks for your comments, S>S

Hi S>S, not sure my collection is really all that extensive but ....

I have three Pattern 14s: A Winchester MkI, An Eddystone MkI* and a Remington MkI* (refinished), one M1917 - a 1918 Eddystone and a Remington built 1903 dated 1918. (High number thus safe to shoot)

I would prefer not to get into an argument about inherent/natural accuracy or otherwise of rifle types....I am not really sure such a thing exists.

All nations used different designs of rifle, all were deadly. All sniper rifles were specially selected. The British used only Winchester produced P14s to make sniper rifles and SMLE snipers were carefully set up, often by the civillian gun trade. The Australians developed a heavy barreled version SMLE for target and sniper rifles. I am far less familiar with the US situation, however I am certain there was a careful setting up process.

You are correct that the US used the 1903 as a sniper rifle throughout WWII, but then again the UK used Enfield derived sniper rifles up through the 80s.

I have done a fair bit of shooting but I am not a competition shooter. I have however shot most WWI period designs and calibres.

The 1903 has a reputation for accuracy and strength in design and has a very sophisticated sight.... however it is also relatively fragile. The M1917 was ahead of its time in that it had a "peep" sight but this is a battle sight rather than a target. There are endless arguments on the shooting websites regarding the designs (the 1903, P14 and M1917 are all modified Mauser actions and their devotees argue this is an inherently stronger and more accurate design than the Lee action - something with which the British designers apparently agreed as they pursued the P13 as a modified mauser design) The Enfield is unquestionably a faster action and far easier to manipulate without breaking the sight picture (I find this hard to do with almost all Mauser actions although it is apparently possible) It is also hardy and reliable...Throw the straight-pull M1910 Ross into the picture (I do not have one although I have a 1905)....an apparently incredibly accurate target rifle with select ammunition and a sight similar to the 1903, but a unreliable as a battle rifle.... and things get even more complex

In my experience, 100 years after their issue, there is significant variability among surviving examples however most of them shoot better than I do! I am also not a reloader nor a gunsmith. At 100 or 200 yards I can hit the target with good reliability with all of my rifles (I have not yet shot my Steyr or Carcano). I infrequently shoot beyond that range but when I have it has almost always been with .303 rifles and I find the SMLE my favourite. I am not a big bloke and I find the SMLE much more comfortable.... I am happy to admit this is likely a built in bias! My Winchester P14 is very accurate indeed....my M1917 is accurate too but I don't find it as comfortable. If I had to take a bolt action rifle into action it would be a No4 (simply based on the peep sight and SMLE action)

So......inherent accuracy, perfection of design or ease of production coupled with reliablity and suitablity as a battle rifle in the hands of tens of thousands of conscripts - which wins wars?

Sorry for the ramble...

hope this make some sense

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Sorry for the ramble....hope this make some sense

Chris

Don't be sorry, thats great - exactly the sort of personal opinion that I was after. I guess that I have a bit of a penchant for "super-accurate" military shooters myself. I just wasn't sure how they fitted into the scheme of things that went on in the frontline service. The main priority for the guy in the trench would probably be survivability - just make sure you can take down enough of the enemy before they get close enough to lob that bag of bombs over - that kind of thing. For anything else, apart from the true sniping role, accuracy would only be for the show-offs who wanted to settle a bet or something similar. The men on the ground mostly just wanted something that worked - hence the popularity of the SMLE and the avid distaste for the likes of the Ross rifle.!! I was just wondering where on that scale the US rifles would have fitted in.

Interesting your comments regarding the Mauser actions. I cut my teeth as a young guy shooting a lightly sporterised Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55 - that thing features the M96 action and is quite amazing. Manufactured by Carl Gustavson in 1908 believe it or not, it could handle just about any custom loads you wanted to put near it, and always gave fantastic results. I once used it in a semi-professional game harvesting capacity and put many rounds through it. The barrel could be glowing hot but it would still shoot a useful group to get the job done. With the numbers we were doing, handloading was a daily occurence and fine-tuning the loads was the closest thing to a hobby we had. The beauty of military actions is their inherent strength.

Anyway, to get back on topic ... slightly - have you got your "extensive" collection of US rifles fitted out with all the correct and matching "pointy bits" yet.!!?

You know it IS safe to tell me - although you may not want to get me started.!!! (BTW there are quite a lot of interesting variations ....)

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Anyway, to get back on topic ... slightly - have you got your "extensive" collection of US rifles fitted out with all the correct and matching "pointy bits" yet.!!?

You know it IS safe to tell me - although you may not want to get me started.!!! (BTW there are quite a lot of interesting variations ....)

Cheers, S>S

Yes I have bayonets for all of them.... except the M1903 Springfield ironically - they are so expensive! I can't justify

paying the price of a super rare P1907 (or more than a cheap SMLE rifle!) for a bog-standard Springfield bayonet.

Chris

[Paul Hederer]

HI Chris

Do you have any of these US rifles in your "extensive" collection of military shooters.?

I am wanting to know how they compared as far as performance went. I have read that the M1903 was used for many decades in the sniper role.

Would these have been selected "specials" that were modded up, or was the rifle "naturally" more accurate than its peer group.?

Thanks for your comments, S>S

My father had a 1917 "Eddystone," that he bought for 5$ in mint condition out of a barrel of grease in the early 60's. It was a nice rifle to shoot. The recoil was a bit less than other 30-06's. My brother and I, being used to sport rifles, got a hoot out of the rear sites.

Paul

[Old Tom]

TonyE

Thanks for explanation. I was being a bit thick! Pleased to see that the No 4 is considered agood one. I recall, years ago, a NATO rifle meeting when as a member of a British minor unit team armed with No 4s we wiped the board at the falling plate shoot against teams with FNs and the like.

Old Tom

[4thGordons]

Wet afternoon so the garden shed project is on hold!

Here are examples of the rifles for a visual comparison

From top to bottom:

Eddystone Pattern 14 (this example has the "Fatso" stock, without grasping grooves - it is also a WRS rifle)

SMLE (this is actually a 1909 dated example - a bit battered)

M1903 Springfield (1918)

M1917 (Eddystone 1918 built)

[johnreed]

Here is a photograph of me taken in 1943/44 with my fathers rifle I wish I had it now.

John

[4thGordons]

"Infantry"?

[shippingsteel]

Here are examples of the rifles for a visual comparison

From top to bottom:

Eddystone Pattern 14 (this example has the "Fatso" stock, without grasping grooves - it is also a WRS rifle)

SMLE (this is actually a 1909 dated example - a bit battered)

M1903 Springfield (1918)

M1917 (Eddystone 1918 built)

Thats a very nice selection of rifles Chris - you should be justifiably proud - and thanks for sharing so we can all compare the differences.

I simply couldn't resist taking up the "challenge" to fit-out those rifles with some matching bayonets - its the least I can do.!!!

From top to bottom:

P1913 Winchester 12 1916 (Eddystone didn't make bayonets for the P14)

P1907 Sanderson 12 1909 (Matching date - note the bright finish blade)

M1905 Rock Island Arsenal 1917 (Don't yet have the Springfield - oh well)

P1913 Remington 9 1917 (Requisitioned for the M1917 - hatched out British marks, added US mark)

I know they're not quite "exact" matches but thats the best I could come up with for the moment.

P.S. I don't collect the M1917 bayonets because they were never dated - only marked with the Pattern.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Yes I have bayonets for all of them.... except the M1903 Springfield ironically - they are so expensive! I can't justify

paying the price of a super rare P1907 (or more than a cheap SMLE rifle!) for a bog-standard Springfield bayonet.

This could be something like what your looking for perhaps.!? (Model 1905) I was extremely fortunate to pick this one up quite reasonably late last year.

When the US entered the war in 1917 they restarted the Rock Island Arsenal production of these bayonets. This appears to be one of the very early wartime ones.

Very interesting story behind this one. I managed to acquire it from a deceased estate buyer who had no idea about militaria or the like (they're the best.!)

You just wouldn't believe the town that this lady worked out of - Rock Island, Illinois - just down the street from the arsenal, whats the chances of that.!

Who knows what the exact provenance of this article is - but it sure does raise some interesting possibilities (employees "lunchbox" souvenir perhaps.?)

Anyway production of the RIA version of this bayonet was supposed to only number in the hundreds during 1917 for some reason, making them quite hard to find.

If anyone has one in their collection or has seen one someplace, I would really like to know about it, and maybe get the serial number off to help with some research.

Cheers, S>S