springfield 1903
- Thread starter mini14guy
- Start date
ATOM, Thanks for your nice comments about me.
In what you quoted though, I was only referring to the actions, in general, that Ackley blew up, and he stated what I quoted.
I know that many Springfields have blown up and injured people.
When Ackley tested the Springfield actions for hardness, he found them very variable, as to hardness. Some too hard, some too soft.
In what you quoted though, I was only referring to the actions, in general, that Ackley blew up, and he stated what I quoted.
I know that many Springfields have blown up and injured people.
When Ackley tested the Springfield actions for hardness, he found them very variable, as to hardness. Some too hard, some too soft.
Thanks to the Pics in this thread, I just discovered my grandpa's old rifle is a Springfield 1903! Now, its heavily sportered, scoped, and has been rebarreld to .222 Rem, But After seeing these pics They looked familiar, so I dug it out and compared the receiver to the pics and unless a similar rifle was made, its a sportered 1903. The serial number is 79###x so I am assuming its a late production? I can also barely see the "U.S." stamping sticking out from the scope mount, if I remove the mount I would guess I would see the "Springfield Armory Model 1903" stamp. Its not collectible by far, Its got a olot of sentimental value, but Its neat to find out that its more then just a common hunting rifle, its a freiken 1903!
I thought the 03A3 was well into production in 1942 as the Springfield was dropped in favour of the Garand soon after. Much to the chagrin of the USMC it was issued to Army units first, I think.
Actually I just checked, Remington produced over 200,000 03A3's in 1942. Don't know if any were issued in 42 though.
Traditionally, the US Marine Corps has its own supply system. The Garand was being built for the Army at a time when the Army had changed rifles officially and the Marines had not.
But US Marines aren't completely dumb (only the leaders, sometimes) and so a shipment of nice new Johnsons that had been ordered by the Dutch East Indies was 'appropriated' by the Marines and went to the Pacific. This is why so many Johnsons look like garbage: they were used halfway to death and then left in the Pacific when the Marines finally got Garands.
But US Marines aren't completely dumb (only the leaders, sometimes) and so a shipment of nice new Johnsons that had been ordered by the Dutch East Indies was 'appropriated' by the Marines and went to the Pacific. This is why so many Johnsons look like garbage: they were used halfway to death and then left in the Pacific when the Marines finally got Garands.
I didn't make myself completely clear there.
Marines, traditionally, are soldiers who serve aboard ships; that's how they got the name. If anythng, they are a part of the NAVY.
The Board of Ordnance was the ARMY's purchasing agent, not the Navy's. Their order went in first, they got their rifles first. Initially, the Marine Corps didn't even want the Garand. They wised up somewhat.
Navy procurement is different. This is why the US Navy still has some STONERS hidden away and sometimes even used while the Army doesn't have them. Same as the Navy kept the M-14 around longer than the Army.... and the Army had to borrow some from the Navy a few years ago. Now they are having new ones made and are buying back all the surplus ones they can find, which is part of the reason that the prices have gone up in free countries where you can still own and shoot such things.
But they are different supply systems for different troop formations, handled differently by different bureaucrats.
Hope this helps.
Marines, traditionally, are soldiers who serve aboard ships; that's how they got the name. If anythng, they are a part of the NAVY.
The Board of Ordnance was the ARMY's purchasing agent, not the Navy's. Their order went in first, they got their rifles first. Initially, the Marine Corps didn't even want the Garand. They wised up somewhat.
Navy procurement is different. This is why the US Navy still has some STONERS hidden away and sometimes even used while the Army doesn't have them. Same as the Navy kept the M-14 around longer than the Army.... and the Army had to borrow some from the Navy a few years ago. Now they are having new ones made and are buying back all the surplus ones they can find, which is part of the reason that the prices have gone up in free countries where you can still own and shoot such things.
But they are different supply systems for different troop formations, handled differently by different bureaucrats.
Hope this helps.
I looked at a Johnson at the gunshow in Chilliwack this past month..it was beat to hell..the owner wanted $1600 if you wanted to take it home with you
For definitive info on M1903, M1903A3, and M1903A4 serial numbers and production history check the following references:
- The Springfield 1903 Rifles, Brophy
- Illustrated Guide to the '03 Springfield Service Rifle, Canfield
- The '03 Era, Campbell
- The M1903 Service Rifle, Poyer
Model 1903A3 production did not begin until December 1942 with qty 1909 rifles produced by Remington and qty 5540 produced by Smith-Corona. The fighting on Guadalcanal was finished in late Dec 1942/early Jan 1943, so there is virtually no possibility that M1903A3 rifles were used in combat there.
By the time the M1903A3 came into service most first-line combat units were armed with the M1 Garand,so it was largely used by second echelon and training troops. The old M1903s were heavily used by the Marines on Guadalcanal in 1942 and they also appear in photos of US Army troops early in the North african campaign which started in late 1942.
I've spent time in the field with the Marine Corps and have always admired their history and spirit. They have never lost a battle and are also renowned for their high casualty rates and "hey diddle-diddle, up the middle" frontal assaults. I think this is a tradition from amphibious operations were there were few tactical options, but to attack head on. Back in the bad old Cold War days, when we were squared off against the Russkie masses, we used to have discussions about the Marines (and the US Army for that matter) trying to be a bit more economical with their casualties and a bit more immaginative with their tactics in order to inflict higher casualties with less losses to themselves. The Airland Battle operational doctrine, which was developed in the early 1980s, addressed this issue and was a great leap forward.
- The Springfield 1903 Rifles, Brophy
- Illustrated Guide to the '03 Springfield Service Rifle, Canfield
- The '03 Era, Campbell
- The M1903 Service Rifle, Poyer
Model 1903A3 production did not begin until December 1942 with qty 1909 rifles produced by Remington and qty 5540 produced by Smith-Corona. The fighting on Guadalcanal was finished in late Dec 1942/early Jan 1943, so there is virtually no possibility that M1903A3 rifles were used in combat there.
By the time the M1903A3 came into service most first-line combat units were armed with the M1 Garand,so it was largely used by second echelon and training troops. The old M1903s were heavily used by the Marines on Guadalcanal in 1942 and they also appear in photos of US Army troops early in the North african campaign which started in late 1942.
I've spent time in the field with the Marine Corps and have always admired their history and spirit. They have never lost a battle and are also renowned for their high casualty rates and "hey diddle-diddle, up the middle" frontal assaults. I think this is a tradition from amphibious operations were there were few tactical options, but to attack head on. Back in the bad old Cold War days, when we were squared off against the Russkie masses, we used to have discussions about the Marines (and the US Army for that matter) trying to be a bit more economical with their casualties and a bit more immaginative with their tactics in order to inflict higher casualties with less losses to themselves. The Airland Battle operational doctrine, which was developed in the early 1980s, addressed this issue and was a great leap forward.
I love the Springfields. I probably have around a dozen in my collection. I also have the 1903 Mk1, and the 1922 M2, I waited for 5 or 6 years until the M2 came my way. I don't have an 03 with a really good C Stock. I have good complete 03 action I purchased a few years ago with the intention of building a rifle, but that went down the tubes. The gunsmith I had lined up isn't doing much these days due to he and his wifes health issues have cought up with them.
I nearly forgot about it. I think I will get my money out of it and use the funds to pay some bills.
I nearly forgot about it. I think I will get my money out of it and use the funds to pay some bills.
