Talk:M1903 Springfield

Mauser clone

The Springfield is pretty much a Mauser clone under the surface. AllStarZ 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Response: Yeah except Springfield created the rifle before Mauser did.

So the 1903 Springfield was created before the 1893 and 1898 Mausers? Interesting. Was time travel involved somehow?

The 1903 Springfield was heavily based on the Mauser action, to the extent that (as noted in the article), the US government actually paid royalties to Mauser. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No time travel needed. I *think* I understand what he's trying to say, though.

There's a lot of Errornet mythology that states the M1903 Springfield was an American copy of the 1898 Mauser. Nothing could be further from the truth, if you just dig a little bit into the developmental history of the M1903. (Hatcher's Notebook being one source) It's more correct to say that the M1903 Springfield is a combination of features from the 1893 (Spanish) Mauser and U.S. Krag series of rifles. I base that on these factors:

1. The documented capture and study by the U.S. military of 1893 Mausers from Cuba. The 7x57mm Model 1893 Mausers were a rude awakening for U.S. troops during the Spanish-American War, and were the subject of much research to come up with a solution vs. our obsolete Trapdoors and Krags.

2. Obvious carryovers of features like the magazine cutoff mechanism from the Krag. That's not a Mauser feature.

3. The locations of the 3rd locking lug on either the 98 Mauser or 1903 Springfield bolt bodies. They're totally different.

4. The fact that 99% of all 98 Mausers manufactured were made after January 1st, 1899. The folks at Mauserwerke Oberndorf held their new darling rifle very close to the vest, having upped the ante considerably in the small arms race. Uncle Sam didn't have access to them in decent numbers for quite some time.

5. The the fact that the M1903 was already in shootable prototype form as early as 1900. If you know anything about weapons development, even if the U.S. Springfield Armory managed to snag a 98 Mauser specimen sometime in 1899, they weren't going to have it copied and prototyped for trials by 1900.

6. The M1903's forward receiver ring diameter is 1.305", compared to the 98 Mauser's 1.410" receiver ring diameter, and the older Small Ring (93-96 Mauser) 1.300" receiver ring diameter. Why didn't the U.S. Springfield Armory copy the larger 98 Mauser diameter?

Obviously, this is too much information to place in a Wikipedia article about the M1903 Springfield, but it does add perspective to the What, Where, and When of the item in question.

66.188.103.67 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

infobox

is there any chance we could add an info box Uber555 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Article

Good start on a B-class. Weapon infobox (see Project page) needs added.--Oldwildbill 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be cleaned up in it's layout. I think the best "template" would be the M1 Garand. The layout, order and organisation of the information on this page are optimal and relevant to the historian and the gun buff. Currently this article is more suited to the former. Veritas Panther 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The weapon is also still in service as a drill rifle at the US Merchant Marine Academy... Approximately 400-600 rifles (I didn't count but the leftovers after the issue of some 330 rifles pointed to a number in this range). In addition, once WWII was over, it has been speculated that several walled in sections on the "zero" deck may contain other stores of functional rifles in cosmolene or similiar preservative, as information on the war years at the academy point to a cache of the out-dated rifles and other war material being stored there. But there has been no conformation of this to my knowledge, though study of the walls and history readily verify the presence of additional spaces on the zero deck, the last of which were sealed prior to the end of the Vietnam War. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dry Sand?

The rifle's bullet penetrated dry sand better at the longer distance? Madmaxmarchhare 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation found for M1903A1

I have a source that supports that, if some one will help me set it up it would be much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.157.59 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

I found a source in Google Books that could help this article. http://books.google.com/books?id=vb3dDN9FiekC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=springfield+1903+combat&source=bl&ots=M9ZhMwDYy2&sig=eGPhSDodZrYFJH_FDWyXbLGFEuw&hl=en&ei=-AEuSpu9L4nsyQWnldCBDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA186,M1

The recent move

I would like to ask Esskater to please explain the reason for his undiscussed move of this article from M1903 Springfield rifle to M1903 rifle. Moves such as this one should usually be discussed prior to their occurrence, and in this case I think it should be discussed if this move should stay, as the rifle in question is very frequently referred to as the M1903 Springfield rifle.--LWF 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

im fine with you changing back im was under the impresion that other made this weapon also. sry if i did this under false pretenses. im very sry. ive been getting into the habit of asking fro peopole opions on moves. (Esskater11 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Although Springfield was the original manufacturer most people refer to it as, "The Springfield rifle" which is why it is a good idea to have it as M1903 Springfield rifle. Since we still need the designation, it is only fitting to have it as M1903 Springfield rifle. By the way, something that would really help us all would be if you were a little more careful about spelling and capitalization. Some of the things you've written have been hard to understand because of your spelling, and it can be hard to tell when some of your sentences start or end because of the lack of capitalization. It's also a good habit to get into when editing the encyclopedia, because when people go there, they expect it to be without typos, and written with proper English grammar. Also, when writing something in the talk pages, you need to skip a line after the last persons comments, or else they run together and become hard to read.--LWF 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sry i have really bad grammer im gona start asking people to change things that i know are wrong, due to my bad grammer.(Esskater11 02:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Penetraion of various materials

Wouldnt the whole write up on how far its capable of penetrating various materials go better on the .30-06 page than on this page? EO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.196.202 (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

British Servise

Mention could be given to the thousands sold to Britain after Dunkirk in WWII , they were used for Regular Army and then the Home Guard afetr supplies of Lee Enfields matched demand Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Barrel and action

Yesterday I got a Springfield Leader Stock. (Obviously made for the Springfield action). I am going to chamber it in .270, 30-06, or 7.62x51mm NATO. If I chamber it in 30-06 could I just go to Cabela's and pick up a 22" Barrel, M1903A3 Action and install them without the help of a gunsmith? All of the Names were Taken July 21 13:05

USE THE MILITARY NAME OF RIFLE

Like many weapons, this has many different names attached to it. Grandpa called it 'the rifle' (as opposed to our Winchester 1894) or the " '03' " or the " '06' " Referring to either the year or the caliber. There were three models produced, during the war, just like the M-16 of Vietnam, several companies made the same designed rifle. Some shot better than others. Springfield Armory made some, but Colt made some as well, as well as companies which no longer exist except as memories. The OFFICIAL NAME is the M-1903, and the various (?) improvements (?) were then sub-named A-1, A-2 and the A-3. While Springfield WAS the company of origin, just as the Armalite corporation was the company of origin for the M-16, Colt ended up buying out Armalite, and keeping it as a subdivision for many years before it spun it off again - so many of the AR (Automatic [also Armalite] Rifle) 14, 15 and 16's were made by Colt, would you look under Armalite or under Colt for the factory of Origin. Often the company just adds prestige to a name - such as the "SAA" -- Single Action Army can also be the "Peace Maker" or the "Colt Peacemaker" or simply "the 45" and later with the addition of Browning's Automatic Pistol, Colt (APC) it became a "45 Long" or "Long 45" -- the military name was the M-1903A-1, M-1903A2 or the last version, the M-1903A3, which was often reserved for 'sniping' because it had extra groves and lands thus spinning the bullet faster, sooner, and making it more accurate. This also went along with the inventions for more uniform and higher tolerance bullets and casings. M is the destination for a military weapon, thus the M-16 and not the AR-16, though both are correct, as is the Colt M-16 or even the Colt-AR-16.

The correct name is the M-16 if you are speaking of a military issue weapon. If you are speaking of a civilian issue weapon, for example, a 'sport' version (hunting version) using exactly the same parts except for the frame -- would be the 1903 Springfield. Just as the semi-automatic version of the M-16 is generally called the AR-16 when issued as a civilian or Semi-automatic rifle.

This can cause some problems since the M-1 can refer to either the M-1 Garand rifle, a heavy 30-06 chambered weapon, or the M-1 CARBINE which is a small 30 caliber carbine meant to take the place of the more expensive Automatic Colt Pistol (M-1911 [in general the A-1 version] if issued by the military or simply the 1911 or 1911A1 (or any of it's many configurations) if bought as a civilian side arm) to the M-1 Abrams -- a reasonably massive Long Range Battle Tank in all IT'S configurations M-1-A1, etc. I don't think it would be called a '1', though the M-1903 is well known as the civilian issue 1903 (A1-3) and the Colt 45 Long Single Action Army as simply the "SAA".

The same can be said of the 45-70 -- some add 'government' to the end, and this may be that the cambering on the government issue is from one (or two) to a fractional thousandths of an inch off of the original 45-70 Sharps barreling and exactly WHICH 45-70 you are using (steep wall, carbine, rifle, etc), which is a fractional (or few fractional) thousandths off modern 45-70's. If you go to several different reloading books you will see the +- in some, and an absolute value in others. It all get's very confusing. And then you get into the introduction of more powerful powder concoctions and the caliber stays the same, but the chamber where the initial explosion occurs, and the thickness of the brass changes by just a few fractional thousandths of an inch as metallurgy changes. It gets very complicated as you can see.

For example take the 308 caliber and the 7,62x51mm NATO cartrage. They are CONSIDERED TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME. HOWEVER: The difference is ARGUABLY in the thickness of the brass, and the diameter of the bullet. Both are considered to be the same in the 'real world', though shooting a .308 in a 7.62 or the other way around will result in a difference of pressures and includes the percentage of re-usable brass. And accuracy of a SPECIFIC rifle. I do have to stress the word 'ARGUABLY' since I have been reading extensively on the subject for a few years and the amount of RELIABLE information is quite dirth. Though the amount of REPEATED information is extensive. And some is simply personal preference between the two rounds. The difference seems to be mainly among re-loaders of precision rounds and then the EXACT signature of each action, barrel, and shooter comes into play. Though if one plows through military jargon one does see differences pop up here and there, and they are 'real world non-applicable'.

I am a long-range target shooter, not bench rest, but close, and can pull down any of perhaps 8 books which give different loads for different manufacturers of power and brass and bullets. I know what shoots neat perfection out of my rifle, but it might not even get on the paper out of your rifle, and the same is true of your load, my rifle might not be able to punch paper at 200 meters out of it's barrel. MY loads are written in the margins as they change with humidity, temperature, number of rounds shot, age of power, etc -- so even something as scientific as an approved printed book of tables can be wrong -- and right -- at the same time. So, to even the playing field, every 'field load' comes out just a little different -- buy Remington in it's various grades, do the same for Winchester, UMC, Speer, etc -- and put your rifle in a bench-rest vice and shoot away and each bullet-power-cartrage load will punch holes in a different place on the target. Off the shelf Remington 150 grain caliber 270 will shoot all over the target out of my Remington 700 at 200 yards -- I might even miss the paper. But put in a 130 grain load and I will punch out the center of a small arms target at 200 yards. HERE is where you can be picky and not just say Remington 700 caliber 270 - suddenly the little things make a difference -- and my precision rifle is NOT the Remington, that's my hunting rifle.

I vote to continue to use the MILITARY ISSUE name for military weapons Even if the M-1 is both a carbine and a battle tank. A simple branch can take you to the weapon system you are researching. It should not be difficult to tell the difference by either a photo, or simply looking at the weight or size of bullet fired from ANY barrel of the tank. It is VERY doubtful that any GI in or around an Abrams Battle Tank will be armed with an M-1 30 caliber carbine.

Sometimes the ONLY difference between a military weapon is the serial number. An example for the Sig-Sauer P-226 used by the navy starts with the letter 'U'. Any Sig-Sauer P-226 used by the Navy Seals, has an USN anchor stamp and a lanyard attachment on it. The Military Designation for this weapon is MP-2267 -- Military (or) Police 226, the Sig-Sauer is understood, and if issued to the military the serial number is different and they might have a fancy stamp (like the seals stamp of crossed anchors) or the lanyard attachment.

Stick with M-1903 as the original issue THEN you can talk about the differences between the A-1, A-2 and A-3 models. A 1903 is a civilian rifle, an M-1903 is a military weapon. And you can only tell if Springfield made it by looking at the proofing stamps on the barrel, receiver, bolt, etc. It's possible you have a Springfield barrel, a Colt Bolt, and an Ithaca receiver and the wooden frame from Greer and Laing and a Bannerman firing pin! which part is most important?

68.126.134.26 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)