Doughboys Weapon of Choice

[TonyE]

Hi S>S

Rather than "nit-picking", I prefer academic rigour, but since your knowledge is surpassed only by your wit, let's agree to differ and remain friends.

Cheers

Tony

[MartH]

Here we have a example of why this forum is so special.

A learned member who has spent years in libraries (many not accessible to the public) and the pattern office has given an answer of fact detailing: the numbers, dates and disposals, in an area where many collectors base their thoughts on seeing a few hundred (at best) from hundreds of thousand. - Like a fossil collector in the Victorian age trying to build evolution lines versus a man today with doing it with all the technology of modern science, years apart, and the Victorian still argues his method is better.

But the best thing is that TonyE (as many others on the forum) I know will continue answer all the munitions questions in threads with the same good humour and careful explanation to the uneducated, full of facts you can understand and wonder at - Priceless.

[TonyE]

Thank you. We can all argue, but the important thing is to respect each others views.

Cheers

tonyE

[17107BM]

Here we have a example of why this forum is so special.

A learned member who has spent years in libraries (many not accessible to the public) and the pattern office has given an answer of fact detailing: the numbers, dates and disposals, in an area where many collectors base their thoughts on seeing a few hundred (at best) from hundreds of thousand. - Like a fossil collector in the Victorian age trying to build evolution lines versus a man today with doing it with all the technology of modern science, years apart, and the Victorian still argues his method is better.

But the best thing is that TonyE (as many others on the forum) I know will continue answer all the munitions questions in threads with the same good humour and careful explanation to the uneducated, full of facts you can understand and wonder at - Priceless.

Yes! Priceless! Many thanks Gents and most appreciated. TonyE and 4th Gordons for setting the record straight.

[shippingsteel]

Here we have a example of why this forum is so special.

A learned member who has spent years in libraries (many not accessible to the public) and the pattern office has given an answer of fact detailing: the numbers, dates and disposals, in an area where many collectors base their thoughts on seeing a few hundred (at best) from hundreds of thousand. - Like a fossil collector in the Victorian age trying to build evolution lines versus a man today with doing it with all the technology of modern science, years apart, and the Victorian still argues his method is better.

But the best thing is that TonyE (as many others on the forum) I know will continue answer all the munitions questions in threads with the same good humour and careful explanation to the uneducated, full of facts you can understand and wonder at - Priceless.

Very well said and I agree totally. Despite rumours to the contrary I do value and appreciate TonyE's contribution to the forum immensely. However I do reserve the right to argue the toss occasionally, even if its from a defensive position in a losing battle. Perhaps its my digger spirit coming through.??

What you said above is so very true, we are both looking at the same topic from exact opposite ends of the spectrum. This clash of viewpoints inevitably lends itself to antagonism - there is nothing personal in it at all. In my opinion TonyE's viewpoint is from the top down, there it is written therefore it must be so, as opposed to my viewpoint which I believe to be from the bottom up, here is the article how did it get to be here. Where our knowledge overlaps is where we will get different opinions emerging. There's no hard feelings involved.

Cheers, S>S

[Pete1052]

In regard to the original question about how many M1903 Springfields were used in the war, I don't have documentary proof but I wouldn't be surprised if 40 to 60 percent of the prewar inventory saw wartime service overseas. Many would have remained in the U.S. in prewar regular Army units at various posts, camps and stations. The M1917 didn't replace the M1903, it supplemented it. I imagine that the M1917 was used mainly to arm new battalions raised for the war.

I heard that the Medal of Honor winner Sgt. Alvin York once had an M1903 he had to exchange for an M1917, so some cross-leveling between units apparently took place, probably so entire battalions would have the same model of rifle. The advantage of the M1917 over the M1903 was that it could be manufactured more quickly and in greater quantity--again I don't have hard data, but neither the design of the M1903 nor the manufacturing facilities at Springfield Armory were suited for surge production.

I've owned guns and been an occasional shooter for most of my life and I know more than most people when it comes to weapons. However, if there's one thing I know about small arms, it's that there's a lot I don't know. Therefore I'm reluctant to jump into these gun threads if I don't have anything to offer, and I hesitate to quibble if I'm not sure of my facts.

[4thGordons]

The advantage of the M1917 over the M1903 was that it could be manufactured more quickly and in greater quantity--again I don't have hard data, but neither the design of the M1903 nor the manufacturing facilities at Springfield Armory were suited for surge production.

Pete: Post #31 contains the official post war line (aka data) on this from the USG. I think it was primarily the nature of the design rather than the facility at Springfield (03s were also produced at Rock Island etc) - By WWII substituting a large number of stamped parts (trigger-guards, bands etc) and modifying the complex sight with a receiver mounted version apparently went some way to speeding production up with the 03-a3 etc

FWIW I agree with you regarding increasingly realising how little I know, this is why my posts tend to be full of contingencies and caveats.

Chris

[4thGordons]

And thanks to Pete's redirect...back on track!

Here are examples of the types of rifles that initiated S>S's initial question and an excuse for me to try a new background.

Note these are NOT to scale - the 1903 is 1098mm (43.21") whilst the M1917 is 1172mm (46.15")

Chris

[Pete1052]

The taper in the handguard of the M1903--the way it is thicker on the end just in front of the rear sight--was there so the rifle would slide in and out of a cavalryman's saddle scabbard without hanging up on the rear sight.

The sling keepers in the photos are in the wrong places. The one in front goes around both lengths of the sling right behind the front sling swivel. The rear one goes around the top two lengths of sling right in front of metal loop or ring on the rear piece of the sling. There are online photos and diagrams that show it better than I can put it into words.

[4thGordons]

The sling keepers in the photos are in the wrong places. The one in front goes around both lengths of the sling right behind the front sling swivel. The rear one goes around the top two lengths of sling right in front of metal loop or ring on the rear piece of the sling. There are online photos and diagrams that show it better than I can put it into words.

HAHAHA I was waiting for that from someone... yes indeed mea culpa. I slipped them on for the photos and made a hash of it!

Fixed now.

Chris

EDIT: Here are the instructions I usually refer to. I can't tighten this one too much as it is a bit fragile

Edited 17 April , 2010 by 4thGordons

[4thGordons]

What is even more interesting from my point of view is that two of them are armed with 7mm Chilean M1912 Steyr made Mausers that the RN had siezed from the two Chilean battleships building in Britain in 1914.

Regards,

TonyE

TonyE,

Wandering off-topic again here (apologies S>S.)

Were all the Chilean M1912 Mausers made by Steyr? And do you happen to know - were the ones taken into UK service marked with the Chilean Naval "crest" or the standard national one (or any at all as they had not been delivered?)

I just ran across an example of a M1912 in 7mm at a show and got to have a look at it. No indication that it had been anywhere other than Chile but it was in reasonable shape.

Chris

[truthergw]

In regard to the original question about how many M1903 Springfields were used in the war,.................................................

I've owned guns and been an occasional shooter for most of my life and I know more than most people when it comes to weapons. However, if there's one thing I know about small arms, it's that there's a lot I don't know. Therefore I'm reluctant to jump into these gun threads if I don't have anything to offer, and I hesitate to quibble if I'm not sure of my facts.

I have never owned a gun, the queen lent me a couple. I am almost completely ignorant of the weapons used in the Great war but...

You knew there was a but coming, didn't you?

.... I believe the original heading is a false question. I don't believe the doughboy had any more choice in his rifle than I did. He would be issued with one, like it or lump it but learn how to use it. You may need to, one day.

[Torrey McLean]

In regard to the original question about how many M1903 Springfields were used in the war, I don't have documentary proof but I wouldn't be surprised if 40 to 60 percent of the prewar inventory saw wartime service overseas. Many would have remained in the U.S. in prewar regular Army units at various posts, camps and stations. The M1917 didn't replace the M1903, it supplemented it. I imagine that the M1917 was used mainly to arm new battalions raised for the war.

I heard that the Medal of Honor winner Sgt. Alvin York once had an M1903 he had to exchange for an M1917, so some cross-leveling between units apparently took place, probably so entire battalions would have the same model of rifle. The advantage of the M1917 over the M1903 was that it could be manufactured more quickly and in greater quantity--again I don't have hard data, but neither the design of the M1903 nor the manufacturing facilities at Springfield Armory were suited for surge production.

I've owned guns and been an occasional shooter for most of my life and I know more than most people when it comes to weapons. However, if there's one thing I know about small arms, it's that there's a lot I don't know. Therefore I'm reluctant to jump into these gun threads if I don't have anything to offer, and I hesitate to quibble if I'm not sure of my facts.

Hello, Pete -

FYI, a friend of mine once interviewed (or rather spoke with) Alvin York's son in Pall Mall, Tennessee. York's son informed my friend that Alvin York did not like the peep sight of the M-1917 rifle that he was issued, so at some point he picked up and carried a M-1903 Springfield rifle. Consequently, York actually used a M-1903 Springfield rifle during his "fight with the machine-guns" as he called it, notwitstanding the fact that his unit used M-1917 rifles.

I cannot substantiate this information in any way, and I do not know if York's son is still alive to confirm or refute this information. Nevertheless I pass it on, for what it is worth.

Regards, Torrey

[shippingsteel]

Yes I agree that the Doughboy may not have had much choice in the weapon that he was issued with, but I believe there are many documented cases where soldiers in the frontline used their own initiative to "acquire" themselves a weapon of their own liking. There is no doubt the Canadian troops did when their Ross rifles failed dismally in the trenches. They were decidedly quick to scavenge whatever Enfields they could find that were left on the battlefield, even though the orders from above were to "persist" with the issued Ross rifles.

What I meant with the heading, was which rifle did the troops have a preference for towards the end of the war, when they most probably would have had experience with several of the available weapons on offer. Did they prefer the M1917 or the Springfield.? The MOH winner obviously had a preference, and took the opportunity to exercise his vote.!!

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Were all the Chilean M1912 Mausers made by Steyr? And do you happen to know - were the ones taken into UK service marked with the Chilean Naval "crest" or the standard national one (or any at all as they had not been delivered?)

Chris

I suppose I'd better give you a reply on this question. Although it does take a certain kind of person to keep sticking his head over the parapet in "sniper alley" - (either quite dumb or just a very slow learner, or maybe both.!!)

Anyway FWIW my sources tell me that ALL the Chilean M1912 rifles and bayonets were made by OEWG in Steyr (probably under a "contract" of some kind but I'm not really at liberty to confirm or deny that - I'm sure you'll understand)

All the bayonets were marked with a Chilean crest from the factory, so I would imagine the rifles would have also been marked the same. Have added a couple of links below that have some good pictures of the markings and crest etc. ( Example 1. ) ( Example 2. )

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Thanks.

I was actually wondering about the rifles themselves but this helps. I have recently seen a chilean NAVY M1912 marked [with anchor] rifle (at a cool $1600) but closer to home an far cheaper, a rifle bearing a Chilean national crest [no anchor like that on the bayonet] - both Steyr made. BTW I also saw a French M1915 rolling block (after we had discussed it, in 8mm Lebel - it too was well over $1500)

Bayonets seem plentiful at the moment but rifles seem scarcer (although the 1895 version (which seem to be all Ludwig Lowe made -- in both 7mm and converted to 7.62mm are plentiful and cheap - and popular because they are antiques (thus no FFL needed to order through the post)

Thanks again for the info.

Cheers,

Chris

[TonyE]

Chris - here are some pictures of the Chilean Steyr 1912 rifles. These are actually two that came from HMS Canada, one being the long rifle and the other a short rifle.

The rifles that came to the British when they seized the Almirante Lattore in 1914 were all relatively low serial numbers. The long rifle is serial A9 and the short rifle A112. In addition to the crest on the receiver, there is also a crest stamped on the butt. These rifles were not marked with the usual British acceptance stamps, perhaps because they stayed with the ship when she became HMS Canada, but the long rifle has an interesting stamp on the butt, "4B". This is believed to relate to the fact the Canada was part of the 4th Battlecruiser Squadron of the Grand Fleet.

Also shown is a packet of British military 7mm ammo for these rifles.

The pictures are all from Part 4 Royal Navy Small Arms of my British Secondary weapons books.

Regards

TonyE

..and here is the butt marking.

[4thGordons]

Thanks! That was what I needed to know.

The serial on the one I saw was a B prefix and in the 1400 range. Same Steyr markings. Same crest.

I am fairly certain it has no British connection BUT might be a nice "placeholder"....

Am I correct in thinking (seeing on the photo) that the Chilean M1912 did not have the "rollocoaster" rear sight of the GEW 98? certainly the one I saw did not.

Thanks again.

Chris

[truthergw]

Hi Tony. I am intrigued by the ' mine sinking only' label. I was aware that rifles were used for this but why is this ammunition reserved for the purpose, or is it the rifle?

[TonyE]

Hi Tom

When the Almirante Lattore was seized and she became HMS Canada, the Chilean Mausers were her small arms complement. Then around the turn of the year the RN were issued with their Arisaka rifles and I guess the Mausers became redundant as armament for the Royal Marines on board. The date on the ammo packet is December 1916 by which time the Arisakas had been replaced by Ross rifles. I cannot be certain, but I suspect that they had no other use for the relatively few Mausers on charge so they were relegated to exploding mines on mine sweeping trawlers. see the picture on my previous post of a civilian crew, a couple of whom are armed with these Chilean rifles.

Regards

Tony

[TonyE]

Chris

The Chilean rifles had normal ladder rear sights as per this picture of the short rifle in my previous post.

Regards

TonyE

[shippingsteel]

Can anyone tell me anything about the service history of the M1917 rifles post WW1.? How long did they stay in service with the US Army and would they have been sold out straight into surplus, or did they get tipped on into service with any other nations.?

I am particularly interested in finding out if they would have seen service in the Phillipines, or in any other US operations or minor conflicts between the wars that would have involved jungle fighting. You can find out about the background to this question by checking THIS OTHER THREAD which is running in the Equipment section of the forum.

The mystery item involved here is a green canvas bayonet scabbard or sheath which appears to have been made especially for the P1907 bayonet or one of its American made variants the P1913 or M1917. There has been some discussion about the origins of this item but with no firm conclusions having been established to date. Further knowledgeable input is now required.!!

The complete lack of reference to this style of equipment has made me think that it may have been locally made in the SE Asian theatre as a stopgap replacement for the old original style leather scabbard which would have rapidly decayed in use under jungle conditions. Other nations that may have been using the Enfield rifles or that style of bayonet may also have been involved - it is definitely a mystery item.

Any assistance with this question would be appreciated.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Will post on M1917 use later, in the meantime THIS MIGHT BE OF INTEREST

[shippingsteel]

Thanks for that Chris - it would appear that "we are not alone".!!

Very interesting stuff and nice to know I am not the only one with this problem.

Cheers, S>S

[gew98]

This thread has turned out to be one of the best of it's type around on the subject(s). I've enjoyed the give and take on clean level here !.

I've owned a handfull of 1903 rifles and pokers. They did not impress me much at all. I agree wholeheartedly it is a delicate rifle and potentially dangerous with low quality ammunition ( peirced primers or longitudal case splits ).

The Us Model 1917... I've owned a handfull of these - all were about unissued condition. I found them of course sturdier than the 03 , but not as accurate as the Patt'14 by far. Many original period as made 1917's I have owned and handled were put together using not fully seasoned wood and this has for sure accounted for some of the accuracy issues as well as the nature of their rushed manufacture.

I kept the one period excellent condition matching Patt'14 I managed to find and it's one amazingly accurate rifle , and smooth. I even have one of those old marbles adaptors that allows one to shoot 32 S&W pistol ammo in it and it is just as accurate with that. I love this rifle if you could'nt tell.

The Only SMLE I kept is a 1911 dated as made & matching in superb condition. It shoots fantastic - no other way to put it. I can't express my admiration for the times to produce such quality rifles and often under duress.

The Ross... egads man !. Just not a good feeling rifle and the couple I had both had the 'relieved' chamber shoulders which caused reloadable brass fired in them to be junk. They shot OK , nothing spectacular but as noted their unusually overcomplicated and uber delicate rear sights really let one down.And yes I did manage to dislodge the mounted bayonet on a bet with rapid fire on a bet.