The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 14, 2015, 01:14 PM   #26
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Somehow I doubt the designers added the safety lug to the 1903 just so it could be used to somehow check the chamber. They had two rifles in front of them, the 1893 Mauser and the Model 1898 Krag. Neither had a safety lug. So how do they put one on? And that is where their plans went "agley", as Bobbie Burns has it.

They decided to put it on the right side, making it an extension of the Krag's bolt rib. That was OK, but it required that the extractor, taken from the Mauser, had to be shortened and its springiness reduced.

Then, by putting the safety lug on the right side, they had to make it high enough to clear the right lug raceway. But making it that high meant they had to eliminate the Mauser's rear receiver bridge. But their first trials resulted in the receivers warping in heat treatment, so they restored the receiver bridge. Now the rear bridge was so high that the sight had to be raised so the shooter could see over the rear bridge. That meant the rear sight had to be mounted, not on the barrel, but on a raised platform. Now the front sight also had to be raised and placed on its own platform, leaving it in a bad position and likely to be damaged. So they issued a sight protector.

The high sights would not have mattered so much if they could have altered the stock, but that would have made bolt operation more awkward. Result, high sights and a low stock comb meant that a true "cheekweld" could never be reached; the best was a "chinweld" that was not conducive to good shooting.

Even so, the sights were not too bad until the 1905 changes, when they yielded to the target shooter clique and put on that Gawdawful Model 1905 sight, the worst sight ever used on a combat rifle.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 14, 2015, 02:29 PM   #27
Chris_B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2007
Posts: 3,101
Quote:
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
I insist on what, exactly? I deny you any right to put words in my mouth.

I said that you're saying you present proof of something. You reply back with telling me that I said something I didn't. Proof means exactly that.

Whatever you're giggly about is your business. But your manner is confrontational and has more than a touch of a straw man about it. I'll all for debate, but I'm not big on internet fights. I'll thank you to restrict yourself to claiming I said what I actually said in the future..
Chris_B is offline  
Old June 14, 2015, 10:32 PM   #28
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
Quote:
Somehow I doubt the designers added the safety lug to the 1903 just so it could be used to somehow check the chamber.
I agree, for that they would have need help, then it was overlooked by Hatcher. They could not place the third safety on the bottom because that is how Mauser designed it.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old June 14, 2015, 11:05 PM   #29
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Nonsense, since the designers of the 1903 never saw an 1898 Mauser. The Germans and the Americans had the same problem; they anticipated the need for a safety lug with new and more powerful cartridges. The Germans solved the problem one way in their Model 1898, the Americans another way in the Model 1903. I agree that the German solution is neater, but the M1903 safety lug worked when it had to.

I do wish that just because some folks have figured out that 1898 came before 1903, the designers of the 1903 (who began work in 1899 and produced the basic design in 1900) knew all about the German Mauser '98. They didn't; whether they would have done things differently had they done so, I don't know. But I have been over every piece of Springfield Armory and Ordnance Department paperwork I could find from that period and they simply did not know such a thing as a Model 98 Mauser existed, even though the basic 1896 patents were filed in the U.S. Patent Office in Washington.

Jim

P.S. I know the current fad is to bash and insult Hatcher, but blaming him for the design of the Model 1903 seems to be laying it on a bit; he would have been 15 in 1903.

JK

P.P.S. And please don't spout the old BS about how we paid to use the patents on the 98 Mauser. Anyone who has done any research other than repeating misinformation, would know that the patents in question were those for the Mauser 1893 design, not the 1898.

JK

Last edited by James K; June 14, 2015 at 11:13 PM.
James K is offline  
Old June 14, 2015, 11:47 PM   #30
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,433
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
My experience is similar. My grandfather, a veteran of Okinawa, didn't even know what my father was talking about when he mentioned a "Garand" one time, but when when Dad said "M1" Grandpa knew exactly what he meant. Interestingly, my grandfather once told me that he liked the "oh three" better than the "M1" because it was "lighter to pack".

I am also reminded of another humorous story about pronunciation of certain guns. My younger brothers are very much into video games (I play occasionally, but not like they do). One of my brothers told me once, laughing hysterically the whole time, about how one of his online "gamer" buddies had mispronounced the name of a certain Soviet submachine gun featured in a popular WWII-themed game. Rather than pronouncing it "P-P-S-H" this young man instead referred to the gun with a sound that can only be described as that of steam escaping
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 06:27 AM   #31
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
Quote:
I agree that the German solution is neater, but the M1903 safety lug worked when it had to.
I said placing the third lug exposed on the right side was brilliant. It is possible to have the Mauser bolt supported on the third lug. Then there is the infatuation reloaders have with head space and bolt set-back. Had anyone noticed the third lug on the Springfield bolt set back could have been tracked from round one. The third lug set in front of the rear receiver ring, between the lug and receiver ring is a gap. All that would have been required was for someone to measure the gap and then keep track. They would need to have done a better job of keeping up with the gap than they did with the length of the chamber.

In the beginning the 03 had a small gap, set back could have put the third lug against the rear receiver ring. All of that changed when replacement bolts were made and Remington started building the 03 and 03A3, the gap was increased.

The first 03s were built with a slot in the rear bridge, who knows? Springfield could have had a design on a mid-bolt handle, Who knows again? Had the handle been placed forward of the rear receiver ring would we be making claims the Germans thought we were shooting machine guns. The bolt handle in front of the rear receiver ring would also function as a third lug.

There was only one Mauser prior to the 98 with a third safety type lug. It is possible to add it to all small ring Mausers, rational? That leaves me to believe no one believes it is necessary or they just have not got around to thinking about it.

Bashing Hatcher: I believe those that read Hatcher then quote him are the bashers.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 05:38 PM   #32
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
If I understand, the pronunciation of PPSh is something like "paw-paw-shaw".

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 07:59 PM   #33
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
The 1901 Springfields had a safety lug the same place as the 1903, but lower so the receiver bridge did not have to be humped up. It was still a solid bridge calling for a rearmost bolt handle location. Pictures at:
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Bolt%...L%201901..html
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 09:55 PM   #34
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
One receiver had an open rear bridge before the spike bayonet.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 10:23 PM   #35
Arizona Fusilier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2000
Posts: 1,082
No disrespect.....but I'm still taken aback by a veteran of the day mistaking an '03 for a '98.

Would a modern vet make such a mistake? I know an AK looks nothing like an M4...but still......

Or perhaps this is just proof how much of a gun-geek the rest of us are?
Arizona Fusilier is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 10:33 PM   #36
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
Be interesting to see a picture and reference to a split bridge non-Krag, Guf.

Found it. The Springfield 1900 had two front locking lugs and a tall safety lug. It had a protruding magazine reminiscent of the 1891 Mauser. The bridge was split to pass the safety lug, as was done on the first two 1901 flush magazine guns. After that, the safety lug was lowered for the rest of the 1901s, but back to the tall form in the 1903 with a hump on the bridge.

I understand that the royalties we paid Mauser up until we entered WWI were for the rights to the stripper clip and rimless cases, not the action of the rifle itself. Maybe Jim K has details.

Last edited by Jim Watson; June 15, 2015 at 10:53 PM.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 15, 2015, 10:38 PM   #37
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,616
Quote:
No disrespect.....but I'm still taken aback by a veteran of the day mistaking an '03 for a '98.
No disrespect, but many "veterans of the day" were not "veterans of the campaign". Naval and aircrew and support personal rarely would have seen a 98k, and that was 70 years ago (for example).

Now, some one like an old (and now passed) friend of mine, who jumped the night before D-Day, and survived St. Mere Eglise, and spent the Battle of the Bulge at Bastonge, knew the difference, but another, who was at Saipan and The Philippines, and another who ran a raidio station in Alaska might not have remembered the differences so many years later.

If they weren't gun guys. Gun guys remember.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 06:01 AM   #38
F. Guffey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2008
Posts: 7,249
Quote:
Be interesting to see a picture and reference to a split bridge non-Krag, Guf.
Posting pictures is a thankless job. One of my resource people has at least one as in receiver (not picture). Other odd and or unseal 03 prototype receivers are not threaded for barrels and as would be expected, the receivers are not heat treated. I believe he has 5 different ones.

F. Guffey
F. Guffey is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 09:42 AM   #39
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
I agree.
I tracked them down. Interesting.

I still think we should have bought the whole engineering package from Mauser and issued the latest 1898 in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57).
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 12:01 PM   #40
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
With a lot of Congressmen and Senators still PO'd about adopting that "furrin" Krag, buying the rights to a German rifle would have not been a good career move for any ordnance officer.

If we had, though, why a "7.62x57"? The 8mm would have been a better cartridge (though the 8x57js was still in the future).

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 12:15 PM   #41
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
Because us 'Murricans don't do nothin' in fancy French measurements.
We had a .30, we kept a .30, we went to still another .30. Just what's natural.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 04:51 PM   #42
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,804
Mauser that wasn't a Mauser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_YuytaM8jg

I had a '04/39 converted from the 6.5 to 7.92x57. Manufactured by DWM.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 06:33 PM   #43
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
Does this mean the Portuguese were as badly NIH as we were?
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 07:59 PM   #44
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Some years ago, I read an interview c. 1892 of the Army major who chose .30 for the new (Krag) rifle. The writer asked how that caliber was chosen, and admitted that he expected to hear about extensive tests and complex mathematical calculations. Instead, the officer replied that 30 caliber "seemed like a nice round number."

So much for a decision that set the U.S. rifle caliber for the next 70 years.

(And I suspect that the Germans chose 8mm for the same reason.)

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 08:09 PM   #45
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,453
But the German designation was originally 7.9mm; later 7.92.
And why did they ever come up with 9.3mm when 9.5 works out so well in both French and English?
Jim Watson is offline  
Old June 16, 2015, 08:53 PM   #46
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
The original German military designation was 8mm. 8x57j was the civilian designation. 8mm is .315", and that is what the original groove diameter was. The bore diameter was, and remained, .311". When the shallow grooves wore and eroded too quickly, the military changed the groove diameter spec to .323" diameter, deepening the grooves to .006" (.323"-.311"= .012"; divided by 2 = .006")

Then, for some reason, even though the 8mm had been made 8.21mm, the military chose to call it 7.9mm. This is often seen in American publications as 7.92, but the official German documents I have seen always call it 7.9. The civilian designation is 8x57js.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 17, 2015, 12:11 AM   #47
tangolima
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2013
Posts: 3,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by James K View Post
The original German military designation was 8mm. 8x57j was the civilian designation. 8mm is .315", and that is what the original groove diameter was. The bore diameter was, and remained, .311". When the shallow grooves wore and eroded too quickly, the military changed the groove diameter spec to .323" diameter, deepening the grooves to .006" (.323"-.311"= .012"; divided by 2 = .006")

Then, for some reason, even though the 8mm had been made 8.21mm, the military chose to call it 7.9mm. This is often seen in American publications as 7.92, but the official German documents I have seen always call it 7.9. The civilian designation is 8x57js.

Jim
It is called 7.9 because that's the bore diameter, 0.311" = 7.9mm; same as we call 30 cal even the groove diameter is 0.308".

I think the original groove diameter is 0.318" instead of 0.315", but I could be wrong.

It is 8x57is, instead of 8x57js; i as in Infanterie (infantry).

-TL
tangolima is offline  
Old June 17, 2015, 11:40 AM   #48
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Correct on all counts.

On the change to 7.9, my sort of question was why, when they increased the bullet diameter, they decreased the numeric designation. If you go from 8mm to 8.2mm, logically you would call the new caliber 8.2mm, not 7.9mm.

On the "J" vs "I", the letters are nearly identical in Fraktur except for length; box markings in "Roman" letters vary, with some ammo makers using the "J" and others using the "I". I used the J because it is the more common today.

Jim
James K is offline  
Old June 18, 2015, 09:55 AM   #49
mapsjanhere
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
The original German designation was 8x57 I.

For Infantry. The J is an error in reading German fraktur script that has become ingrained in anglophone writings.
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying.
mapsjanhere is offline  
Old June 18, 2015, 09:05 PM   #50
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
I first learned to read German printed in Fraktur, but still thought for some time that the I and J were identical. In fact the J did not exist in Latin, German or most other languages, including English, for many centuries, since words in which we now use "J" were spelled with an "I" and pronounced with an I/Y sound. German words that are now spelled with a J are usually pronounced as if it were an I or Y, as in ja and jung.

And the cartridge designation "JS" is used not only by Anglophones - some German and other European cartridge boxes use the "JS" designation. Maybe they do that only for ammunition exported to the U.S., but I have an S&B box in front of me that has "JS", not "IS".

IIRC, it was Adolf who banned Fraktur, so maybe he wasn't all bad. Today, most Germans can't read the old printing at all or can so so only with difficulty.

Jim
James K 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 09:47 PM.


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 0.10558 seconds with 8 queries