Why the premium in cost for the Springfield and Ross?

T

The_Champ

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
19   0   0
Location
The Prairie
Why the premium in cost for the Springfield and Ross? Does it just come down to a matter of scarcity for examples of full military config?

I know all Milsurps have gone up in price a lot, but as long as I can remember these two always cost a lot more than their contemporaries.

Ross in its various military forms produced in the hundreds of thousands, Springfields in the millions.

Curious on opinions.
 
The majority of these rifles were made a hundred years ago or more.
How often do you see unmolested Springfield or Ross service rifles in superior condition? Or even complete and unaltered?
Look at the selling prices of just about all service rifles. They have all been appreciating dramatically.
 
They are both historic icons for different reasons. Both were standard American and Canadian designed service rifles which went to war. The M1903 stood the test of time and was a reliable and accurate rifle in combat conditions over a period of nearly 50 years.

The Ross had great potential, but suffered from a lack of reliability once introduced into the unforgiving demands of active service. Deservedly of not, it was branded as a Judas stick by the troops.
 
purple said:
They are both historic icons for different reasons. Both were standard American and Canadian designed service rifles which went to war. The M1903 stood the test of time and was a reliable and accurate rifle in combat conditions over a period of nearly 50 years.

The Ross had great potential, but suffered from a lack of reliability once introduced into the unforgiving demands of active service. Deservedly of not, it was branded as a Judas stick by the troops.
Click to expand...

Then again, over a million of the first production 1903 Springfields were considered suspect from the standpoint of safety.
 
tiriaq said:
Then again, over a million of the first production 1903 Springfields were considered suspect from the standpoint of safety.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the low number Springfield safety issue never really emerged until the 1920s. US troops fought WW1 with low numbered Springfields and M1917 Enfields, mostly the latter which were produced in larger numbers than the M1903.
 
Pblatzz said:
The Springfield 1903 also was really never imported into Canada as much as other surplus.
Click to expand...
At the beginning of the Second World War, Canada bought large numbers of WW1 US Model 1917 Enfield rifles , to use as training rifles , and also the airforce for guard duties and parades , freeing up the Lee Enfield SMLE rifles for troops overseas, the Model 1917 is fairly common in Canada , the 1903 Springfield, is much less common
 
National pride contributes to the price of these rifles. We as Canadians all have a special place for any rifle of Canadian make. Look at lee enfields, long branch rifles usually have a premium, just because it’s Canadian made. The Springfield has the same in the US, it’s worth something extra because of American pride.
 
purple said:
Funnily enough the low number Springfield safety issue never really emerged until the 1920s. US troops fought WW1 with low numbered Springfields and M1917 Enfields, mostly the latter which were produced in larger numbers than the M1903.
Click to expand...

In Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher has a detailed list of documented low numbered failures. I suspect far more Springfields failed than Mk. III Rosses.

I am amazed at what has happened to the selling prices of M-1 rifles. Even ones cobbled together from miscellaneous parts by inexperienced hobbyists command high prices.
 
The_Champ said:
Wonder how many made it here? And in comparison to, say, 1917s. Why such a price disparity between 1917s and 1903?
Click to expand...
The Americans during WW2 sold us M1917 which we used for drill and practice so that Lee-Enfields where freed up for front line troops. The 1903 was not sold to us as the US kept them and used them until enough Garands where available to replace them. The Canadian government sold the M1917 to the civilian population after WW2. Something I found interesting was that during WW1 the American expeditionary force was equipped with M1917 to about 75% of their personal.
 
tiriaq said:
In Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher has a detailed list of documented low numbered failures. I suspect far more Springfields failed than Mk. III Rosses.

I am amazed at what has happened to the selling prices of M-1 rifles. Even ones cobbled together from miscellaneous parts by inexperienced hobbyists command high prices.
Click to expand...

^ this

nearly 2k for a mixed garand built off an Italian receiver with repro wood, even original ross's are hard pressed to reach those prices.
 
tiriaq said:
In Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher has a detailed list of documented low numbered failures. I suspect far more Springfields failed than Mk. III Rosses.

I am amazed at what has happened to the selling prices of M-1 rifles. Even ones cobbled together from miscellaneous parts by inexperienced hobbyists command high prices.
Click to expand...

Its interesting that none of the documented failures of M1903 Springfields by Hatcher involved battlefield use, although there must have been some. The US military did maintain low numbered M1903s in use right through WW2, although there was no way to predict or test for potential receiver failures. The low number safety debate continues today; some people shoot them, others, incl me, don`t. The only cracked receiver I`ve owned is a Remington M1903 which was made with high quality alloy steels. I suspect that the receiver ring may have been cracked by someone trying to install a barrel with excessive force.

I don`t know about the many Garands which have been assembled by various hobbyists. It isn`t rocket science, but you have to know what you are doing. The Garand receiver is massive compared to the M1903, so I`d be more concerned about proper functionality than receiver failure. I once had a guy ask me about tightening a barrel in a Garand with a cracked receiver ring by using teflon plumbing tape.:eek:
 
Let us not forget that the United States Rifle calibre .30 Model of 1903 using the Model of 1906 cartridge was a project and product of the US GOVERNMENT. Therefore, almost by default, it was vastly superior to anything else ever made, anywhere, any time. (We will, of course, forget that $200,000 lawsuit -- paid in gold at $20 an ounce-- from Mauser..... something to do with patent infringements)

The M1917 was a far better rifle in every respect, but it was denigrated automatically by its "British" ancestry, even though the Brits were studying M1896 Boer Mausers, the Yanks studying Spanish 1893 Mausers which were very nearly identical. The 1917 then went on to serve 2/3 of Americans who actually got overseas, including through the period in which Springfield AND Rock Island BOTH were shut down over the exploding-Springfield fiasco. LOTS of details on this in Hatcher's Notebook!

As to the vastly-inferior Ross Mark III -- for which I found a NUMBER of supporters who USED them in the trenches -- we have to remember that less than half a million were built and that at least 60% of those were sent as aid to Mother Russia.... who ain't givin' them back because they LIKE them too much. Remaining British stocks of Rosses, the so-called "Weedon List" rifles, were used again by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines Light Infantry through the SECOND World War.... and then wholesaled to the Trade, which chopped them all down. Originals are SCARCE, especially in unmolested condition.... and there is STILL no other bolt rifle to equal them in many ways.

So there you have it: pure political propaganda on one side, actual experience in the face of political opposition on the other.

As usual, politics wins, but at least discerning collectors and shooters have figured out that the Ross was a FINE rifle.
 
Law of supply and demand rules. They have 'em, you don't.
If there was no demand, the price for 1903 Springfield rifles would inevitably drop.
 
Philthy1 said:
The Springfield is not only in short supply here, its also an outstanding rifle.
Click to expand...

Well...
When the Americans worked up their unauthorized copy of the Mauser, they missed a few of the outstanding features incorporated in the M98.
The cocking cam system was inferior. The safety breeching of the 98 was ignored; the cone breeching of the '03 is dramatically inferior; although this isn't evident unless there is a catastrophic case failure. The safety and bolt sleeve lock are unnecessarily complex, as was the firing pin setup. The rear sight is remarkably complex.
The manufacture and finishing were very well done, if you ignore the unknown number of rifles made with marginally safe/unsafe receivers.
Based on the performance of the national Match rifles, a reputation for accuracy was established. This reputation spilled over onto issue grade rifles.

Relatively few 03 and 03A3 rifles made it into Canada. This affects the value on the collector market. Springfields were extensively overhauled by the US ordnance system. Rifles in original condition, with all their original parts are quite rare. Finding an all original early 03 or a never upgraded early Mk. III Ross in fine condition is unusual.
 
The elaborate and fragile M1903 rear sight was better suited to target shooting than to use in the field. You can do some excellent shooting with the small aperture sight in the rear leaf, but it would be tough proposition in combat conditions with marginal light. The M1903 is inherently very accurate assuming a good barrel, proper bedding and tight sights. I've shot many of them from the bench along with M1917s/P14s and various Lee Enfields, and they always come out on top. That includes the 03A3 with the aperture sight on the receiver.

The M1917/P14 is more robust, has better combat sights and would be a better battle rifle for these reasons. It was intended to replace the Lee Enfield on the eve of WW1, but the press or wartime needs prevented that. The US possessed many more M1917s than M1903s at the end of WW1 and had good results from the M1917 in the trenches. There was a move to replace the M1903 with the M1917, but politics conspired against this. M1917/P14 production was by civilian firms whereas the US Govt possessed the arsenals and tooling to produce and maintain the M1903. With the war done the US Army wanted to return to target shooting and the M1903s adjustable sights won the argument.

The Brits had enormous numbers of Lee Enfields at the end of WW1 and P14 production was done by American contractors. So for reasons of economy, production capacity and maintenance the P14 was put in stores in favor of the LE, even though the P14 was the superior piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom