The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Curios and Relics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 30, 2015, 06:44 AM   #26
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
" The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet."

Which is kind of odd, considering that the French were the first to adopt a spitzer boattail bullet...

The Balle D.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 04:00 PM   #27
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
and considering that the german round of the time was a 225gr round nose bullet and at nearly the same time as the 30-06 changeover the germans switched to their S spitzers.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 07:55 PM   #28
Gaucho Gringo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 366
My step grandfather had been involved in Springfield's experiments with 30-06 ammo before and during WWI. He told me they had 30-06 experimental loads at speeds over 36-3700 fps. I didn't think to ask him at the time what the bullet weight was, all I thought that that was fast. Both him and my grandfather had been friends forever and were both in the Army before US involvement in WWI. When my grandfather died and his wife died, he married my grandmother.
__________________
357 Taurus Gaucho, 22 Heritage RR, 2-Pietta 1858 44 NMA Remingtons, Pietta, Euroarms & ASM 36 1851 Navies, 31 Uberti 1849, 12 ga H&R Topper, 16 Ga Western Field, 43 Spanish Remington Rolling Block, 44 ASM Colt Walker, High Point C9 9mm, Winchester 1906 22, Rossi 62 22 rifle, Uberti 1860, H&A & IJ 32 S&W BreakTop, 36 Euroarms 1858, 32 H&R 04, 22mag NAA SS BP revolver, .44 Rodgers & Spencer, IJ 38 S&W BreakTop, IJ 22 Sealed 8
Gaucho Gringo is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 08:45 PM   #29
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
The idea of a pointed bullet, with or without boat-tail, had been "in the air" for years before 1906. The French Balle D, as Mike says, was adopted in 1898 but seems not to have been widely known or adopted, possibly because of French secrecy surrounding any military developments. For whatever reason, it seems to have made little impact in the U.S.; maybe the U.S. did not consider France as a potential enemy.

Even so, leaks are not something invented last week, so other nations were conducting experiments along those lines. The Germans experimented with pointed bullets as early as 1902, but the Spitzegeschoss (S-bullet) was not adopted until 1905. By early 1906, it was widely known and the military journals had articles on its design and performance; the U.S. military Attache in Berlin would have been asleep at the switch if he hadn't reported it, and probably sent some samples to Washington.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 09:11 PM   #30
sgms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 30, 2010
Location: Arizona or Ohio depending
Posts: 1,021
Gaucho Gringo, did your step grandfather work at Frankford Arsenal in the small arms division?
The .30-06 cartridge is a collection all by itself when you look at all the different types issued as well as the experimental one.

If anybody wants to take the time to read about the .30-06 check www.cartridgecollectors.org and search "An introduction to collecting .30-06 cartridges"
sgms is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 09:49 PM   #31
Gaucho Gringo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 366
To be honest I don't really know, I just assumed(you know what happens when we do) it was Springfield. All I know that at the time I was 19-20 years old(which was almost 45 years ago) and was impressed about what he said about the loads they were developing. I really wish now I had paid better attention then but how many other people say the same thing today. I wish I had more info to give you. And I wish i would have known at the time they were both involved in the Mexican Border Indecent chasing Poncho Villa. Only found out about this after they both had passed,
__________________
357 Taurus Gaucho, 22 Heritage RR, 2-Pietta 1858 44 NMA Remingtons, Pietta, Euroarms & ASM 36 1851 Navies, 31 Uberti 1849, 12 ga H&R Topper, 16 Ga Western Field, 43 Spanish Remington Rolling Block, 44 ASM Colt Walker, High Point C9 9mm, Winchester 1906 22, Rossi 62 22 rifle, Uberti 1860, H&A & IJ 32 S&W BreakTop, 36 Euroarms 1858, 32 H&R 04, 22mag NAA SS BP revolver, .44 Rodgers & Spencer, IJ 38 S&W BreakTop, IJ 22 Sealed 8

Last edited by Gaucho Gringo; January 30, 2015 at 09:54 PM.
Gaucho Gringo is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 11:41 PM   #32
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
Most military cartridge development at this time was done at Frankford in Philadelphia, but Springfield also had a small development and research arm. Apparently they were the "big theory" guys, while in Philly they were the engineers and "make it happen" guys.



"The pointed bullet was clearly "inspired" by the German "S" bullet to the extent that U.S. Ordnance even informally called it the "S" bullet. (Later, the U.S. was forced to pay royalties to DWM for those bullets, many of which had been fired at the Germans during WWI.)"

Jim, I don't think that's correct.

The patent for spitzer bullets was held by Arthur Gleinich, an independent ballistician whose work was examined by the German small arms commission working to iron out some of the problems with the early versions of the 7.92x57 round.

Here's his patent application: http://www.google.com/patents/USRE12927

And some narrative background on his work to secure the patent:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6N...einich&f=false


The United States procured a production license from Gleinich in 1905 or so, giving us the right to manufacture the bullet for the .30-06 round (https://historicfirearms.wordpress.c...thur-gleinich/)


I'm not finding anything definite, but Gleinich also apparently either licensed or assigned his patent to the German state for production at DWM.

I can't find any indication that DWM ever brought a royalties suit against the United States over production of the bullet type.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 30, 2015, 11:45 PM   #33
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
Most people know about the .30-06 round. Probably fewer know about the .30-03 round.

Very few know that there was a production round before that one, the .30-01. It was the first production round to take the shape of the .30-03 cartridge, but had a MUCH thicker rim than the round adopted in 1903.

Unfortunately, it's a fairly rare and valuable cartridge.

You can see two .30-01 cartridges near the bottom of the page here:

http://www.oldammo.com/february05.htm
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 31, 2015, 06:50 AM   #34
Gunplummer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
Mentioning the Frankford Arsenal brings to mind the old NRA Handloader Guide. There is a lot of information in the book obtained from Frankford Arsenal about cartridge loads, bullets, barrel wear, and just useful general information. I believe it to be out of print for years and that is a shame.
Gunplummer is offline  
Old January 31, 2015, 06:36 PM   #35
Nonsuch
Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2015
Location: Littlerock Ca.
Posts: 17
30/06 ammo M 1&M 2

At the close of WW2 the Garand was returned to the M2 Ball loading. main reason recoil complaints from new troops. Rumored reason was the War Dept. did not want to spend money on ammo because they had so much in stock even after Korea when the T-65 round was in development. They were working the .308 round for Nato usage. The U.S. navy had some M1 rifle converted to.308 via a pressed in adapter (which can still be found on the open market)These were, I am told were mostly used on Mine sweepers.
How many of you know what the last battle fought in the Pacific using the 1903 Springfield was, as a main battle rifle, and also what year the 1903A3 made its appearance in was and which battles they were fought in? (Try 1943 and none).
Nonsuch is offline  
Old January 31, 2015, 10:51 PM   #36
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Mike, the Ordnance Department itself raised the issue of Mauser patents that might have been infringed by the M1903 rifle and its clip, and voluntarily paid royalties to Mauser, but I can find nothing to indicate that they obtained a license in advance for production of the pointed bullet.

In fact, it doesn't appear that Gleinich had obtained a U.S. patent on the pointed bullet prior to its adoption by the U.S. Army, or that the Army at that point had ever heard of Gleinich, though they certainly knew of the "S" bullet. When DWM first raised the issue in November 1909, Ordnance countered with a claim that one LTC Farley had patented a pointed bullet in 1896. The issue was delayed, then deferred until after WWI, when a court rejected the Farley claim and ordered that royalty payments be made to DWM.*

Here is the story as usually given, though I have seen basically the same thing in a number of other sources, some of them official.

http://www.asymco.com/2010/03/11/the...atent-lawsuit/

*The Farley bullet is both pointed and boat-tailed. If it was made per the drawing, it might have presented a problem that was encountered later - that a very sharply pointed bullet tends to be inaccurate, a more blunt nose being better. Oddly, the same problem was found in early rocket and missile tests, and Army bullet experts provided the answer.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old January 31, 2015, 11:53 PM   #37
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
Jim,

That's certainly interesting, and certainly not how I've heard it over the years.

Gleinich never applied for a US patent on his bullet design, then again, while DWM apparently applied for US patents, there doesn't seem to be any indication that one was ever awarded.

Hummm.... OK, it looks as if a patent was awarded in 1907.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old February 1, 2015, 05:12 PM   #38
bedbugbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2009
Posts: 3,282
jaughtman - see . . . your question wasn't "silly" at all . . and I've wondered that as well but never asked . . . you created an interesting and educational thread!

BoogieMan - a little "off topic" (on my part) but very interesting what you say about the tear down of Frankfort Arsenal . . . it's too bad that some of it at least is not preserved and a museum created on the roll it played in WWII. I'm from Michigan . . . and winter in AZ. I just talked with a friend of mine who flies now for a freight airlines that is based right next to the Willow Run Bomber plant. That is currently being torn down as well and will at some point, be only a memory. I knew fellows who helped build that plant during the war as well as several who worked there. I never knew that that plant was constructed so that it could survive a direct bomb blast . . . which fortunately never happened. As a result of the design, the company who is tearing it down and doing the salvage work is evidently having some problems because of the way it was constructed and running into problems they hadn't planned on.

These plants and places that were such an important part of this country's history during WWII are being lost and fading away just as the men and women of that generation. Today's kids know very little of the history of this time and it's unfortunate as I truly believe there will never be another "greatest generation".

To those that posted on this thread . . . I for one, greatly appreciate all the fine information as I have often wondered about such things. My father-in-law was in the 34th (Red Bull) Division and saw action in North Africa and up through Italy . . and had a very rough time of it along the way. He was a "BAR man" but I could never get him to talk about any of his experiences very much.

To the OP . . thanks for posting this . . it's interesting stuff and I'm sure a lot of folks have learned things they didn't know!
__________________
If a pair of '51 Navies were good enough for Billy Hickok, then a single Navy on my right hip is good enough for me . . . besides . . . I'm probably only half as good as he was anyways. Hiram's Rangers Badge #63
bedbugbilly is offline  
Old February 1, 2015, 06:46 PM   #39
Dragonflydf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2014
Posts: 217
While they are tearing down the Willow Run plant, a portion of it is being saved and will be the home of the air museum which is all ready on the field.
__________________
Jack, You have Debauched my sloth !!!!!!
https://www.facebook.com/shoot.the.guns.of.history
Dragonflydf is offline  
Old February 2, 2015, 01:50 AM   #40
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Just for info, here is an excerpt from something I prepared on the Mauser rifle patents; not relevant to the bullet issue, but maybe of interest. It is sure to bother those folks who believe that the M1903 is a copy of the Mauser 1898.

"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. The Model 1903 did copy some features of the Mauser, but it was the Model 1893, and all but one patent covered features that were used in that or earlier Mauser rifles. (Large quantities of Model 1893 Mausers had been captured from the Spanish and had naturally been examined at Springfield.) 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 1896-97 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.)"

That last point was added because of the claim by one writer that he has seen records proving that not only did the U.S. copy the 1898 Mauser, Springfield actually made many thousands of them!

Jim
James K is offline  
Old February 3, 2015, 02:44 AM   #41
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
ok, so the Mauser features used by the 1903 Springfield were Mauser, but not 98 Mauser.

I can see that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 3, 2015, 07:15 AM   #42
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
Yep.

Remember, the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old February 3, 2015, 09:03 PM   #43
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Someone once described the Model 1903 as a "rifle marriage" between the 1893 Mauser and the 1898 Krag. The earliest rifle, sometimes informally called the Model 1900, was a Krag with a different receiver; it fired a rimmed, tapered cartridge that was nothing more than an elongated .30-40. It had a single column magazine more like the early Mausers than like the Model 1893.

The other changes from the 1893 Mauser were mainly the addition of a magazine cut-off (which was never part of German tactical use and appeared on only one Mauser and in a different form) and the addition of a bolt sleeve lock. The former was carried over from the Krag at the request of the infantry. The latter was of an entirely different form that that patented by Mauser and used in their Model 1898; nonetheless, the U.S. paid a royalty on it. Another change, not visible and that would be a source of controversy for many years to come, was the use of a cone breech and the bolt head to accommodate it. It was intended to make cartridge feeding smoother for target shooting.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old February 26, 2015, 01:01 AM   #44
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
To add what I recall from an article about the .30-06 / M1 Ball / M2 Ball, the '06 was originally loaded with the 150-gr flat based bullet. Doctrine evolved for long-range firing at troop columns, convoys, etc., sometimes even out of sight of the firing infantry units. The M1 Ball with its 172-gr boat tail bullet was developed to extend the range of plunging fire at area targets. With the development of the mortar, long-range fire at area targets by infantry units was now possible with man-portable artillery, so the long range of the M1 Ball was no longer necessary. Since it recoiled considerably harder than the .30-06, (and possibly due to range issues as previously mentioned) the military adopted the M2 Ball cartridge, which was, essentially, identical to the original '06 in ballistics.

As has been pointed out, with millions of M1 Ball rounds in the inventory at the beginning of WWII, it would only make sense to load them into machine gun belts where the excess recoil would not be a factor, and where extra range and penetration would be desirable.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old February 26, 2015, 07:29 PM   #45
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Mike Irwin wrote:

"the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war."

Yep, and guess where thousands of them were stored. If you guess Springfield Armory, you win the prize. So the designers at Springfield had a lot of Mausers to play with and study, but NOT the latest 1898 model which, in 1900 when the Springfield was being designed, had not been seen outside Germany.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old February 26, 2015, 07:46 PM   #46
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,367
Who, other than you, has said anything at all about the 1898 Mauser in this thread?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old February 27, 2015, 05:26 PM   #47
tahunua001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 21, 2011
Location: Idaho
Posts: 7,839
well since a lot of fellows seem adamantly convinced that the 1903 springfield is a direct copy of the K98, it bears mentioning since earlier versions of mausers were cock on close actions and since the springfield shares nearly as much in common with the Krag as it does with mausers, it does bear mentioning that the guys at springfield had never even seen a K98 prior to developing the springfield.

a lot of fellows think the royalties springfield was supposed to pay to mauser had to do with the actual design features of the 1903 rather than the ammo used, if I recall there was some debate over the extractor claw or something or other but WWI broke out and people stopped caring.
__________________
ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar.
I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein
You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin
tahunua001 is offline  
Old February 27, 2015, 11:18 PM   #48
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
Well if the boys at Springfield never saw a 98 Mauser, they sure designed a rifle a lot like one. Close enough that it did go to court, and we did pay royalties. However, by the time the decision was reached, WW I was going on, and the money was placed in an escrow account. After the war, the money was taken, as part of Germany's war reparation payments.

Mauser never saw a penny of it.

A somewhat similar situation happened in England. The fuzes used in British artillery shells were a Krupp design. There was a (pre war) contract, Britain paid a penny to Krupp for each shell they made with a Krupp fuze. During the war, the money was put in escrow, and after the war, paid to the victors as war reparations. Krupp never saw a penny after the war started.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 28, 2015, 03:07 PM   #49
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
OK, 44 AMP, just what part of the M1903 was copied from the Mauser 98 that NOT also on the Model 1893 Mauser? And why didn't they copy the simple Mauser 98 safety lug instead of sticking on that gawdawful lump in the middle of the bolt? And the Mauser 98 extractor camming action?

Jim
James K is offline  
Old February 28, 2015, 08:23 PM   #50
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
I didn't say they copied the 98, I said they built a rifle a lot like one.

I don't know why they did exactly what they did, personally, I never figured out why the went with a two piece firing pin. Among other things.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06103 seconds with 8 queries