03 vs 98

[Sergeant]

Our military vehicle club recently supported a 3 day WW2 display camp for Memorial Day.

Most of the WW2 vets mistook the 98 for the 03 or vice versa. I did not correct them. But instead asked them to tell me about all the weapons they used back then. Just about everyones favorite was the M1 Grande. Tankers and such were split in their preference between the M1 Carbine and Tommy gun.

Was great hearing the stories from back then. If you have a C&R, and know of a Vet from that period; or are a Vet from that period. Would be great to have an audio or transcript for posterity to go along with your weapon.

I'm going to try and get an audio or wrote down notes for each of my C&Rs from a Vet. After all, owning a C&R is a way of keeping history alive, while enjoying a piece of it at the range now and then.

Just my thought of the day.

PS Some of my C&Rs were the same models I saw on the battlefield in Iraq. So I can write some of my thoughts down. Just as a starting point.

[44 AMP]

Just about everyones favorite was the M1 Grande.

I assume you didn't correct them on this, either?

M1 GARAND, not "Grande". Named after the designer John C Garand, but never officially more than "Rifle, Caliber .30 M1", in the military manuals.

[Blindstitch]

I'm sure I wouldn't correct WW2 vets either. Don't care if it sounds like they're ordering an M1 Garnde from Starbucks.

If you're 86-92 years old and fought for my country you get my respect.

Now if the younger generation is asking go a head and explain to them how to say it in a good manner.

[Dufus]

I had a but load of cousins and uncles that fit in WWII. My oldest grandaddy was a WWI vet.

Knowing what they all went thru brings to the fore front what sort of hell they were in. Just like our active duty veterans of today and all the guys that service in Nam.

My second oldest cousin was severely wounded in Normandy and was hospitalized for 14 months.

My oldest cousin was 93 yrs old and living in Vernon, Tx and was murdered by his caretakers. They killed him and then set his house on fire. He was one of those that did not trust banks and had thousands of dollars stashed at his house.

I was lucky enough to get his service revolver handed down to me. It was a mixed with an Ithaca frame, Remington Rand slide, and High Standard barrel. Numbers reflect it was from 1943.

[James K]

I was once taken severely to task by a book-bound teenager when I said the vets did not generally use the term "Garand", instead calling it "the M1". True, some gun folks, knowing about the famous Garand-Johnson debate, did call the rifle the Garand, but they were the exceptions; most GI's said simply "M1". If anything other than the M1 rifle was meant, another term would be used. An M1 carbine was always a "carbine"; the M1 Thompson SMG was a "Tommy gun"; an M1 helmet was a "steel pot", etc.

The real reason for the confusion in that regard was Army Ordnance's decision in the 1920's to scrap the system of designating a model by the date of adoption, (Model of 1911, Model of 1903, etc.) and begin all over with the letter "M" and a sequential number. After that date, the first new piece of equipment adopted by Ordnance was designated M1, whether a rifle, a carbine or a tank. The next was M2, and so on. There have been gaps and anomalies, over the years, but not as many as some think. For example, there were rifles with all numbers up to M16, though not all were adopted or produced in quantity.

Jim

[Gunplummer]

"Mistook the '98 for the '03". Not hard to imagine, since the '03 design was stolen from the '98.

[James K]

No, it wasn't. The '03 was a combination of the Krag and the Model 1893 Mauser. It was the 1893 which was much feared (and admired) by American soldiers in the Spanish-American War. There are a number of features of the Model 1898 which were not on the 1893; none were used on the Model 1903, and none were included in the Mauser patents for which the U.S. paid royalties.

Any knowledgeable comparison of the Mauser 98 and the Model 1903 will show that the '03 design was not "stolen" from the German rifle.

Jim

[Erno86]

I just bought my first Garand last year in 30-06. I don't care how you pronounce Garand, since most guys out our range pronounce it as Ga-rand --- But sometimes I point out to some of them that the correct pronunciation is Gar-and --- though Ga-rand does sound a bit more flashy; and my Garand did cost me a grand.

[Gunplummer]

What is the difference? Not many people could see a difference just looking at them. It is just a shame the U.S. did not wait a couple years to copy a Mauser.

[James K]

There are a number of differences between the Mauser Model 1898 and the M1903, but not all of the features of the M1903 proved to be good ideas.

The worst undoubtedly is the M1905 sight on the M1903. Complex, overdesigned, with five (yes, 5) tiny aiming points, it was thought wonderful for target shooting, but it must have been a nightmare in combat.

The M1903 also had a cone breech, designed for easier feeding; it was a weakness, though more in theory than in practice.

Then there is the cutoff. The idea was carried over from the Krag; the purpose was not (as many believe) to save ammunition in general, but to allow the exchange of fire while retaining a full magazine in case of an enemy cavalry charge. (1903, remember.)

The receiver ring of the 1903 is not the strengthened type (large ring) of the Mauser 1898, but the thin type used in the Mauser 1893. The recoil lug of the M1903 is also the smaller one of the Mauser 1893. The M1903 safety, also from the Krag, is more complex, with an unnecessary spring and plunger. The bolt sleeve lock (the Model 1893 has none) of the M1903 is smaller, but more prone to problems than the huskier one of the Model 1898.

The M1903 firing pin does not have the internal shoulders to prevent firing if the firing pin breaks when the bolt is unlocked. Nor does it have the undercut extractor to provide a better grip on a sticking cartridge. The M1903 shares with the Mauser Model 1903 the lack of good gas handling. Though its cocking piece does help deflect gas from the shooter's face, it is not as good as the large flange of the Mauser Model 1898.

So the two rifles would look the same only to the most casual eye; in detail, they are quite different. Overall, and IMHO, the Mauser 1898 was the better combat weapon.

Jim

[Sergeant]

I would never correct someone that made our freedom possible, by their selfless sacrifices. That was truly the greatest generation. And followed by other Vets that do not get the recognition they deserve as well.

Sorry about not catching the correct Garand name. I get lazy with spell check.

If I am so fortunate to live until almost 100, I hope people will forgive me if my memory or senses are not 100% as well.

A lot of good info in the postings.

[amd6547]

My Dad was a vet of WWII in europe...he referred to the M1 as "Garand" all the time. I would say he used M1 and Garand interchangeably.

[toot44]

they know best. I only called my M1 GARAND a gun only once, vets will know what I am talking about.

[F. Guffey]

"Mistook the '98 for the '03". Not hard to imagine, since the '03 design was stolen from the '98.

I agree, Springfield claimed they never a Model 98 Mauser. I have always contended Springfield was guilty of WWHUA (working with head up donkey), they could not find Winchester in New Haven, Connecticut even though it was a just a short buggy ride straight south of Springfield, Mass. A man working at Winchester found the patent office, he discovered someone had discovered nickel. He decided Winchester needed to fix a problem with a new rifle that did not hold up to the new smokeless powder. The model 94 was improved by using nickel and then sold in 1895. Springfield managed to add nickel to the 03 in the mid 1920.

They never saw a Mauser 98? but managed to add a third lug to the Springfield. Even with the third lug exposed and ahead of the rear receiver ring they still had problems finding things. I use the third lug to determine the length of the chamber on 03s. I can use a head space gage or ammo that is going to be fired in the rifle with nothing more than a feeler gage.

there are resource individuals that have receivers that track the 03 from the 30/40 to the 03. Springfield built 800,000 rifles, they could not track failures back top an event, day or person in charge.

I believe we would have been better off if the U.S. had hired the man that could find the Patent Office and fired Springfield. He would not release the Model 94 Winchester until it would hold up to the new smokeless powder.

Then there is the diameter of the 03 receiver, it is the same diameter as the small ring Mauser. Problem? The small ring Mauser has a barrel with a small diameter shank. The 03 with the same small diameter receiver has a large diameter shank, meaning the receiver is thinner.

F. Guffey

[doofus47]

My dad was drafted during Korea. He called it the M1.

[T. O'Heir]

A book-bound teenager at least reads. Knows about the same amount though.
Spell Check wouldn't see 'Grande' as misspelt. No room in a Ronson for a rifle.

[toot44]

I am an ARMY veteran class of 61. I trained with it, and it was the rifle being used at the time. then I went on to be a BAR MAN, what a weapon it was.

[Chris_B]

Hi guys. Bruce Canfeild has an interesting writeup of the Mauser vs Springfield situation in his book about the '03 service rifle, page 26.

It might be a little different in reality than what legend makes it.

To summarize, In 1904, General William Crozier (US) was the one that brought it up in the first place. It was determined that the '03 rifle violated 5 patents and the stripper clips 2. The US instigated this thing.

An agreement was reached in which the US Government paid royalties on each rifle, to Mauser totaling 200,000 USD. The final installment was paid in 1909.

It was the design of the M1906 spitzer bullet that the real kerfuffle was over, and suit was not filed by Mauser, it was Deutsch-Waffen-und-Munitionsfabriken. This is the issue that the US disagreed with and which was interrupted by the Great War and the seizure of the bullet patent by the US Government.

[James K]

I have posted this before, but here goes again:

In any discussion of the Model 1903's origins, it is almost certain to be stated that it was copied from the Model 1898 Mauser. This is supposedly proven by the fact that the U.S. paid Mauser royalties on six patents which allegedly covered the Model 1898 Mauser. That is not true. All but one patent covered features that were used in previous Mauser rifles, notably the Model 1893 ("Spanish Mauser"), large quantities of which were captured from the Spanish. The one remaining patent covered a variation of the bolt sleeve lock, which was later used in the Model 1898 Mauser, but which Springfield did not use in the same way.
The patents, dates, and area of coverage are as follows:
No. 467,180 01/19/1892 Extractor
No. 477,671 06/28/1892 Extractor collar
No. 482,376 09/13/1892 Ammunition clip
No. 527,869 10/23/1894 Internal box magazine
No. 547,933 11/15/1895 Safety catch
No. 590,271 11/21/1897 Bolt sleeve lock
With the possible exception of the last, NONE of those patents covered features of the Model 1898 Mauser and there is no evidence in any of the archival records I have seen that the Springfield designers ever saw a Model 1898 Mauser or the U.S. patents covering its features. (References to the "Model 1898" in the ordnance records of the time invariably refer to the U.S. service rifle, the Model 1898 Krag, not to the Mauser.)

The last parenthetical sentence should be noted. Several years ago, one of the gunzines featured a long article by some hack who had read the COFORD reports and saw references to the M1898 and the ways the new M1903 differed. Jumping with both feet in his mouth, he concluded that the "Model 1898" was the Model 1898 Mauser, being totally ignorant of the fact that the latest Krag rifle was the U.S. Model 1898.

Jim

[44 AMP]

Several years ago, one of the gunzines featured a long article by some hack who had read the COFORD reports and saw references to the M1898 and the ways the new M1903 differed. Jumping with both feet in his mouth, he concluded that the "Model 1898" was the Model 1898 Mauser, being totally ignorant of the fact that the latest Krag rifle was the U.S. Model 1898.

this boggles my mind. While I am not familiar with either the COFORD report or the article written, I have to wonder at someone who sees a report on the differences between a Krag and a Springfield (one would assume the magazine was mentioned) and still thinks the "98" is a Mauser.

[amd6547]

Irregardless of all that, I will comment on one aspect of the OP.
I've never met a WWII vet who would mistake an 03 with a Mauser 98.

[F. Guffey]

Springfield claimed they never saw a 98, they suddenly after building rifles with only one lug they build the 03 with three. The Mauser had three, one, the third lug was hidden, out of sight.

The third lug on the Mauser works, I have two with the lugs sheared off and a third with the lugs ready to separate. The Springfield 03 third lug is out there for those aware of it to see, problem, not many knew what to do with it. I use it to track the length of the chamber form the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face. If I want to know how much traveling my ammo does in an 03 I measure it.

F. Guffey

[Chris_B]

You mean to say that is proof that the 03 design was stolen.

Ignoring the data we have that says that the lug design was not stolen, how does evidence of concurrent design prove wrongdoing? By this logic, if you and I both design similar things, I "must have stolen" your idea because I had never seen anything like what I came up with before.

That's an accusation, not proof.

[James K]

"Stolen?" There is no doubt at all that the 1903 design was a combination of features of the Model 1893 Mauser and the U.S. Krag. All one has to do is look at the rifles. The fact is that there are not, and probably never have been, any "new" gun features, and in the design ferment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gun ideas and patents were blowing around in the air like snowflakes.

It seems obvious that the Springfield designers never saw an 1898 Mauser; had they done so, they would not have done some things the way they did. But they did have Model 1893 Mausers (a few hundred thousand, IIRC) to study. I read one report that Springfield considered the Mauser 1893 design to be theirs by right of capture. If so, the government lawyers goofed. A nation's patents can be used by an enemy by right of capture; but the patents were not Spanish, they were German, and we had no such right in regard to German patents in 1900.

Jim

[F. Guffey]

You mean to say that is proof that the 03 design was stolen.

I have never been all that giggly about Springfield, they went on a junket looking for a rifle design and passed on all the good designs then brought back the Krag. They could not figure a way to build it with two locking lugs so they built it with one then decided it only needed one. Then they built the 03, with no one at the controls. There are members of forums that claim they had the opportunity to return suspect receivers for 'safer' receivers. One claim was made by Jim Keenan, he decided he would hit the receiver with a hammer, in his claim the receiver shattered.

Back to 'no one in control', hitting receivers with a hammer, the thought of testing the receivers with a hammer would have never occurred to Springfield.

Then there was the short buggy ride from Springfield to New Haven. John Browning used nickel on some parts of the Model 94 to improve handling of smokeless powder. Springfield did not add nickel to the Springfield for another 25+ years. I have M1917s that are stamped NS, that is 22 years after Winchester/Browning and the Model 94.

Most disappointing, I have the perception there were no windows in the building at Springfield in Springfield. If you insist they did not have spies checking on gun development of other manufacturers and designers? Well no, a blind hog does not find a third lug safety devise that was absent on everything they built before the 03, the difference was the location. The Mauser was designed by a genius, John Browning worked for Winchester and in my opinion there were no genius working at Springfield. My opinion, they could move the third safety lug from the bottom to the right side, for me that was brilliant. The third lug exposed ahead of the rear receiver ring allows me to check the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face.

F. Guffey