Quote:
|
I doubt the average Brit was any better than the average American with his rifle (be it M1917 or the 1903).
|
Um, I have to disagree with that. Frankly after the Spanish American War, we, the Americans (soliders) sucked when it came to marksmanship. At the turn of the century we had little interest in military preparedness.
I believe it was McBrides "A Rifleman Goes to War" where McBride reports that the NCO's in Europe would often "charge" the privates a fee to show them how to work their rifles This was in the trenches. (I may have my books mixed up).
In 1914 the British and more so the Americans were ill prepaired for war, which explains the huge losses the British suffered the first few years of the war.
Quote:
|
1903 was not the most used arm by the US in WWI either, it was the M1917 by a lot. Pretty fair adaptation of the platform to a useful form the Brits would have been better off keeping.
|
The reason the M1917 was used more in WWI wasn't that it was a better rifle, but it was because we didn't have enough Springfields.
Except for Cuba and the Philippiens we hadn't sent an army overseas and didn't understand that we would have to.
Production of the Springfield stopped after 10 years of production because we assumed we had enough rifles to meet our needs.
At the start of WWI we had 600,000 Springfields and 160,000 Krags (Krags not Kraig, I'm Kraig, the Krag is a rifle) to supply what would end up being 2,084,000 troops eventually sent to France.
The M1917 was already being developed to supply the British ( but production delays caused the British to cancil the contracts since they were able to get their Enfield product up to snuff).
Since we were geared up to produce milions of M1917s it was a simple proceedure to convert these rifle to the 30 Cal ('06) US Round.
Springfield and Rock Island simply couldn't produce the rifles we needed.
As mentioned the Marksmanship Abilities of the American Soldier, during the period was lacking. Seriously lacking.
Gen Pershing understood that and commissioned Col McNab to develope a program of instruction in rifle marksmanship for the Infantry School and in France which greatly enhanced the quality of marksmanship of the troops in France (This was nothing more then the program of instruction of the Small Arms Firing School conducted at Perry and the Eastern and Western Games conducted by the Civilian Marksmanship Program).
Whether the Springfield is more accurate then the M1917 or British Enfield is debatable. Based on our individual experiences.
I have an excellent M1917, and from sand bags and sling position it will shoot as well as my 1903a3. But in a CMP GSM match it wont hold a candle to my 'A3. To me the 1903 is just easier to shoot.
But for a fair aynalsis one needs to look at the scores fired at the CMP's Garand, Springfield, and Vintage Military (GSM) games. When you look down the list of score, (you have to compare the different matchs as the Springfield has a seperate class) The Springfield scores are higher on the average. Even a tad bit higher then the Garand.
The Enfield is classed with the M1917, Mausers, Mosins, Sweeds, Swiss, etc etc. The scores over all in these matches are lower then the scores fired in the Garand and Spingfield matches.
Understanding the GSM matches are not match rifles, but as issued military surplus rifles.
The CMP awards metals for the GSM matches, Gold, Silver and Bronze, based on scores. The Spingfield cut off score is a point or two higher then the Garand. The "other" military rifle cut off is some what lower then both the Springfield and the Garand.
But in reality, its based on personal experience, and the individual rifle we shoot. A Mosin would be a good example of this; One has a Mosin with an excellent barrel and swears it's the most accurate miliary rifle in existance. The next guy gets a poor, pitted, worn out barrel and swears it a kin to throwing rocks.
Thats why I like to choose the results of the CMP GSM Games where 100's of rifles are used. When it comes to Vintage Sniper Rifles, few can compete with the M1903a4s.