Doughboys Weapon of Choice

[shippingsteel]

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

John

That's a really great photo John - it just seems to capture something special, thanks I love it.!!

[coppertales]

Nice rifles and bayonets guys....I was shooting my 1917 and P14 yesterday, along with a Springfield 1903A3. All three rifles were putting the holes in the targets with authority. I was trying out some handloads for the P14 and some Greek 3006 I had a couple cases of. That Greek 3006 from the Civilian Marksmanship Program is really accurate ammo.

I try to equip all my rifles with the proper sling and bayonet but that long Springfield 1903 bayonet is way out of my price range. Now, if my M1D would show up.......chris3

[shippingsteel]

Nice rifles and bayonets guys....I was shooting my 1917 and P14 yesterday, along with a Springfield 1903A3. All three rifles were putting the holes in the targets with authority.

That would make for a very current comparison - how did you find them shooting, what ranges do they seem most comfortable at, etc.?

I can't say that I'm up to speed with the M1D, I assume thats a variation of the WW2 Garand, does that take the shortened M1905 bayonets as standard.?

Thanks for your comments, S>S

[4thGordons]

Just for Mr Shipping Steel (with pointy bits):

One day I will rent a lorry and get them all to the range at the same time and write up the comparative article!

(obvious missing: M1910 Ross, Belgian Mauser, Greek Mannlicher etc) and a bayonet for the 1903! incase yours is lonesome

Forgot to put the LE No1 out...

From left to right

Steyr, Turkish 1893 Mauser, Kar 98a, Gew 98, Gew 88, Carcano M91, Arisaka, M91 Nagant, Lebel, Berthier, P14, SMLE, M1903, M1917

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Just for Mr Shipping Steel (with pointy bits):

One day I will rent a lorry and get them all to the range at the same time and write up the comparative article!

Chris

See I knew "extensive" was the right word to use - but perhaps now its an understatement.!! I'll have to go get my dictionary to look for another adjective - make that "superlative".!!

Be careful not to take an eye out with all that hardware, I'd really hate to be the cause of an unnecessary accident.

Do you have to employ a system of library index cards to keep track of all that gear - you may just need the Librarian as well.!!!

Gee it must have been really wet and miserable at your place lately or have you plain run out of other chores to do.!!

Anyway I think I may have just about run out of comeback lines - now I'm just speechless .!! (and BTW slightly in awe)

(Been wondering where you got too, now I know - very busy digging around in your deep, dark storage dungeons, no doubt.)

Seriously thats one hell of an "arsenal rack" - and between you and me I never thought I'd be saying that to anyone but a woman.!!!

I look forward to your upcoming article.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Regarding the original question: I knew I had some figures somewhere.

"Begining with less than 600,000 Springfields at the outbreak of war (1917 ed), the total at the end of the war had increased to nearly 900,000. The Enfields (M1917 ed) first came into production in August 1917. After their manufacture had actually begun the output increased rapidly until it totaled at the end of the war in November, 1918, nearly 2,300,000."

Ayres, Leonard P. 1919 (2nd Ed with revised data). "The War With Germany A Statistical Summary" Washington. Government Printing Office.

[shippingsteel]

"Begining with less than 600,000 Springfields at the outbreak of war (1917 ed), the total at the end of the war had increased to nearly 900,000. The Enfields (M1917 ed) first came into production in August 1917. After their manufacture had actually begun the output increased rapidly until it totaled at the end of the war in November, 1918, nearly 2,300,000."

Thanks for that extra info Chris, appreciate it. It is quite surprising just how much in the minority the Springfields were. From those figures, it would appear the percentage of them used as front-line service rifles was roughly around 25%, however I guess its hard to know exactly how many of those rifles went over to France and how many may have not been issued and were in storage at the end of the war. The same goes for the huge numbers of M1917 rifles which were made, many of which would have surely gone straight into stores and surplus.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Now that we have established that the M1917 rifle was the most common weapon used by the American infantryman in the Great War, I thought it might be interesting to find out a bit more about why the Americans were so poorly prepared for their late entry to the war - its not as though they didn't have a few years of forewarning of what was going to happen.??

I am still amazed that they didn't have enough rifles on hand to arm themselves properly when they finally entered the conflict. If it wasn't for the British P14 rifle contract that had their factories already up and running producing service rifles - who knows how long it would have taken for them to gear up their new armies for war. When the declaration was made they promptly took steps to requisition those factories British production and order the re-tooling for the 30-06 round. My question is why didn't they already have some contracts in place for rifle production as some kind of insurance policy - just in case...???

I have attached a photo of a bayonet ricasso below which shows evidence of what happened with the requisition of previous British production. In this case it is a P1913 bayonet (for the P14 rifle) dated September 1917, with the original British inspection marks having been hatched out and restamped with the U.S. government mark. These bayonets were then made available for use with the newly manufactured and converted M1917 rifles for frontline service in France.

Cheers, S>S

[sabine72]

Chris

Nice collection that you have , my collection is not that big , i have SMLE , P14,Mousqeton 1892,Berthier1907/15

M1889carbine, CLLE , Gewehr 88 , Kar 98 , Gewehr 98 and a Springfield and then two Webley's .

Kind regards

Pat

[4thGordons]

Hi Pat,

Thanks. I also just obtained a decent M1910 Ross - after a long time looking for one I could afford...I am waiting for delivery as I type.

Over the summer I am going to photograph them all carefully (using standard views, comprisons and a scale, as per member suggestions) and put together an "I-Spy WWI infantry rifles" section for the photo booklet.

I don't have any carbines (concentrated on rifles) apart from the Kar 98a, and (sorry!) do not have a Belgian Mauser - all those I have seen are way out of my price range. The other most obvious omissions are the 07-15 Berthier (3-shot without the magazine extension) and perhaps a Greek Mannlicher. I should be able to get the former without too much problem but I have never seen a complete Greek Mannlicher. Then of course there are all the secondary arms (older single shot mausers, Verletti etc) to keep me busy .

Chris

[sabine72]

Chris

My belgian Long Mauser is on hold , the only ones that i then would want to obtain is a Ross, Lebel and a M 1917,

but I want to congratulate you with the Ross. I do own some other thingies but I dont advertise with them.

Kind regards

Pat

[shippingsteel]

There is another service rifle which no-one has mentioned yet - I wonder if any of you have come across it - it would be the rifle to which the bayonet shown below would attach too.??

This is probably one of the more obscure hook quillon bayonets of the Great War. It was put into service quite early in the war by a country in great need, to free up other arms and make them available for the troops at the frontline. To give you a subtle clue - it's participation here is not that far "off-topic" as you would imagine.!!

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

I'm away at the moment so I can't check but.....

At first I thought it looked like perhaps a (US made?) Belgian Mauser bayonet.....probably not because we have mentioned Belgian Mausers. Then possibly a 1909 Argentinian Mauser bayonet - but not sure who would have used those... so I am going for one of the variants of bayonets issued with a version of the Remington Rolling Block rifles....used in a second line capacity by several nations I think, but most obviously by France, (in 7mm? as well as 8mm Lebel IIRC?) and as a US rifle originally that fits with your clue. I see them from time to time but I have not seen one that I could clearly identify as a WWI used weapon.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

At first I thought it looked like perhaps a (US made?) Belgian Mauser bayonet.....probably not because we have mentioned Belgian Mausers. Then possibly a 1909 Argentinian Mauser bayonet - but not sure who would have used those... so I am going for one of the variants of bayonets issued with a version of the Remington Rolling Block rifles....

Chris

Darn it, Chris - you're just too dam good - on the ball even whilst holidaying.!!!?

I did have a few more clues to provide but they won't be needed now will they.

Yes your "lucky guess" was spot on the money. Ordered by the French in 1914 from Remington's "mail-order catalogue" to supply their rear echelon troops with rifles thereby freeing up other rifles which were badly needed at the frontline. Perhaps you could explain some of the more interesting features of the Remington Rolling Block rifle for us ....

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Unfortunately - what I know about Remington Rolling blocks could probably be expressed in fewer words than this post contains!

I think the Danes had them (perhaps also the Spanish?), also the Mexicans and they are available in a bewildering range of cartridges and calibres both military and civilian. Somewhere at the back of my mind I recall reading that they were issued to trawlers in WWII to detonate mines caught in the nets but after that, and that the French used them and I can apparently identify the bayonet, I'm done.

Chris

[shippingsteel]

It is interesting just how many otherwise non-descript rifles managed to find their way into use when countries were hard-pressed in times of war. While they were mostly used in second line capacities and training roles etc it does raise some questions about how prepared some of these countries were for the war. I guess they just weren't prepared at all for the scale and extent of the conflict and how it grew in such a way that they would never have imagined possible in earlier times.

The Ross rifles, which have been mentioned previously, were much maligned in the frontline role but did go on to serve in other useful roles. The Americans did purchase quite a number of the Ross rifles (M1905 I believe) for use in the training capacity and other secondary roles. The British also used the Arisaka rifles early in the war to help free up more Enfields for frontline use. I even have a modified Ross bayonet (photo below) for the M1910 rifle which appears to have seen some service from its markings, and which later ended up in use with the Michigan State Permanent Force, which was an American militia-style constabulary that was created in 1917. So it seems in times of need even the lowliest of weapons can find a suitable niche for use where it is most suited.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

I am still amazed that they didn't have enough rifles on hand to arm themselves properly when they finally entered the conflict. If it wasn't for the British P14 rifle contract that had their factories already up and running producing service rifles - who knows how long it would have taken for them to gear up their new armies for war. When the declaration was made they promptly took steps to requisition those factories British production and order the re-tooling for the 30-06 round. My question is why didn't they already have some contracts in place for rifle production as some kind of insurance policy - just in case...???

Cheers, S>S

Just to clarify a couple of points.

The United States did NOT requisition the factories producing the Pattern '14 rifles. Britain cancelled their contracts with Winchester and the two Remington companies on 23 August 1916, long before the US entered the war. There were acrimonius negotiations between the companies and the British government about exactly when the contracts should terminate and the last Britush P.14s were made in mid 1917. By then the US had entered the war and decided to make a .30-06 version of the P.'14, Springfield Armoury having been sent sample P.14s from each of the three factories on May 10th 1917. When P.14 production finally terminated Britain sold the US government all machinery, equipment, tools, dies and jigs at the three factories for $900,000 (it had cost us $20,000,000) together with all materials on hand and work in progress. This included a considerable stock of Pattern '13 bayonets which had already been accepted by British insectors which is why it is possible to find US maked bayonets with cancelled British markings.

Winchester and Remington continued to make the Model 1917 for the US government on a commercial basis, making some 2.3 million rifles before the contracts finished in early 1919.

Perhaps one of the reasons that the US had not placed contracts for rifles (or any other munitions) at an earlier date was the reluctance of the government to enter the war given the feelings of the electorate that this was a purely European affair. Only the continuance of German submarine warfare and the loss of American shipping and lives changed this attitude.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

When P.14 production finally terminated Britain sold the US government all machinery, equipment, tools, dies and jigs at the three factories for $900,000 (it had cost us $20,000,000) together with all materials on hand and work in progress. This included a considerable stock of Pattern '13 bayonets which had already been accepted by British inspectors which is why it is possible to find US marked bayonets with cancelled British markings.

Regards

TonyE

Thanks for that TonyE, your knowledge and clarification is most appreciated.

Without having this pre-existing production base for weapons already on hand I think the US may have struggled to equip its army for quite a while - definitely delaying its impact on the war. It is always touted as such a great industrial achievement that Remington and Co. were able to produce the million or so M1917 in such a short time and so equip the Doughboys to march off to war fully equipped. It is sometimes overlooked that much of this production capability was already up and running and pre-tested in order to allow it to happen so quickly.

The manufacture date that is stamped on the example bayonet ricasso was done by Remington in September 1917 so this would point towards there being little break in actual manufacture between when the British work finished and when the US technically took over control of the factories production - even though the end of the British contract may have been formally agreed way back in 1916.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

The United States did NOT requisition the factories producing the Pattern '14 rifles. When P.14 production finally terminated Britain sold the US government all machinery, equipment, tools, dies and jigs at the three factories for $900,000 (it had cost us $20,000,000) together with all materials on hand and work in progress. This included a considerable stock of Pattern '13 bayonets which had already been accepted by British insectors which is why it is possible to find US maked bayonets with cancelled British markings.

Regards

TonyE

TonyE, just re-reading what you wrote again and while what took place may NOT have BEEN a Requisition, as with many political dealings what takes place and what it is actually described as can often be two totally different things. From what you say the US government took over all the machinery and production equipment plus existing stock in hand for just 4.5 cents in the dollar of what it cost the British to setup originally. While it may not have been a Requisition as such, from where I stand the end result sure looks a lot like one to me.

PS. I never actually said the US requisitioned the factories producing the P14 rifles, what I did say is that they "took steps to requisition those factories British production", which also may not be technically correct, but at the end of the day that is pretty much how it ended up - in my opinion.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

I do not want to argue semantics with you and you are of course free to place any interpretation you wish on the facts. However, to my mind the word "requisition" means to sieze into government ownership and this was not the case.

Britain technically owned the machinery at the termination of the Pattern '14 contracts, but as part of the negotiations with the three compnies regarding the cancelled 2 million rifles agreed to sell the plant to the US government at a low price in order that the companies could continue in production with the Model '17 and hopefully recoup their losses. Winchester and the two Remington companies sold the Model '17 to the US government for $42 each, a higher price than they had been receiving for the P.'14.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

I do not want to argue semantics with you and you are of course free to place any interpretation you wish on the facts. However, to my mind the word "requisition" means to sieze into government ownership and this was not the case.

Regards

TonyE

You're absolutely right TonyE, I don't want to argue with you either because I definitely think its an argument that you are going to win (eventually).!!

Your background knowledge on these matters is so much more developed than mine that I think it would be wise to humbly defer to your greater experience.!!

Much of the time here we are searching for a few simple words to describe a course of events that in many cases would require a whole chapter to document in a book, so I'll take your point here and say no more.

Cheers, S>S

[TonyE]

OK by me.

Cheers

tonyE

[4thGordons]

New Acquisition, M1910 Ross mentioned above just arrived.

Bit off topic but the US used 1905 Ross rifles as secondary/training arms so...

Off to examine,

Chris

[TonyE]

Nice rifle Chris!

I am trying to chase down a similar Canadian M1910. It seems even here in the UK it is almost impossible to find a British contract Mark IIIB.

REgards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Thanks Tony

There are some interesting but difficult to read markings and stampings on this which I am probably going to require assistance to interpret....including (interestingly) a couple of "N" stamps on the buttstock behind the action.

I have an "idiot's guide to the Ross" on its way to me which I hope will help because I am not sure my general firearms guides will be sufficient.

It has taken me a long time to run across one that I could even think about looking at.

Chris