Mk 1 questions

[11mm]

I recently purchased a Mk 1 which I have yet to receive. If there is anything really original (i.e. Mk 1 trigger group and other parts), I may post pictures and ask more questions. At least, it appears to have a correct, period stock and a barrel which is most likely original, by the date vs. the receiver number.
Prior to ordering it, and after, I have looked up as much as I can on the subject of Mk 1 rifles.
Major Culver's " Pipsqueak Pistol" article was very informative. In it he states that the Mk 1 rifles were stored until 1937-38, at which time the rifles were modified with conventional parts and released to general use, the devices having been scrapped earlier.
1) If the devices were scrapped in 1931 or shortly thereafter , why did the Army wait to modify and release the weapons? Without the devices, they weren't of much use, except as regular weapons.
2) Lots (it seems) of Mk1 rifles I have seen for sale on the internet seem to have WW 2 barrel dates. Were they used that much in the few years after release that they had to be refurbished? Or were separate Mk 1 receivers made back in 1918-20 and put in storage?
3) Can we assume (bad word, I know) that surviving Mk 1s with the Mk 1 components somehow escaped the refurb in the late 30's, or are they mostly just restored by collectors using surplus parts?
4) Were some Mk 1 rifles issued during the 20's and simply never recalled for modification or, if recalled, simply modified at a different time than the general release in the late 30's?
5) I know it is not really likely, but are there any pictures of Mk1 rifles being used in the field (with or without the devices) anytime in the 20's or 30's?
I know, like many questions about the 1903 rifles, the above may be un-answerable based on lack of records and the fact that most who would have seen the Mk 1s in pre-WW2 service are now deceased. Still, a new collector rifle always raises questions for me, so I thought I'd ask.

[John Beard]

I recently purchased a Mk 1 which I have yet to receive. If there is anything really original (i.e. Mk 1 trigger group and other parts), I may post pictures and ask more questions. At least, it appears to have a correct, period stock and a barrel which is most likely original, by the date vs. the receiver number.
Prior to ordering it, and after, I have looked up as much as I can on the subject of Mk 1 rifles.
Major Culver's " Pipsqueak Pistol" article was very informative. In it he states that the Mk 1 rifles were stored until 1937-38, at which time the rifles were modified with conventional parts and released to general use, the devices having been scrapped earlier.
1) If the devices were scrapped in 1931 or shortly thereafter , why did the Army wait to modify and release the weapons? Without the devices, they weren't of much use, except as regular weapons.
2) Lots (it seems) of Mk1 rifles I have seen for sale on the internet seem to have WW 2 barrel dates. Were they used that much in the few years after release that they had to be refurbished? Or were separate Mk 1 receivers made back in 1918-20 and put in storage?
3) Can we assume (bad word, I know) that surviving Mk 1s with the Mk 1 components somehow escaped the refurb in the late 30's, or are they mostly just restored by collectors using surplus parts?
4) Were some Mk 1 rifles issued during the 20's and simply never recalled for modification or, if recalled, simply modified at a different time than the general release in the late 30's?
5) I know it is not really likely, but are there any pictures of Mk1 rifles being used in the field (with or without the devices) anytime in the 20's or 30's?
I know, like many questions about the 1903 rifles, the above may be un-answerable based on lack of records and the fact that most who would have seen the Mk 1s in pre-WW2 service are now deceased. Still, a new collector rifle always raises questions for me, so I thought I'd ask.

1. The U.S. was in depression, there was no money, there were no hostilities, and no compelling need for rifles.

2. Two factors contributed to re-barreling Mark I rifles in early WWII: (1) Many rifles had been issued to National Guard units several years prior to the war and had not been well cared for, and (2) Mark I rifles had been headspaced long with little margin for wear.

3. The Chief of Ordnance issued an order in the 1930's directing removal and replacement of peculiar Mark I components. Circumstantial evidence indicates that the order was either ignored or perhaps counter-manded later. No compelling reason existed to remove and replace the components.

4. Yes.

5. Probably, but I haven't seen them.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[Rick the Librarian]

The nearest thing I've seen to a Mark I on a battlefield. This photo appeared in a book on former WWII battlefields and was taken in New Guinea, probably in the 1960s or early 70s.

http://www.fototime.com/F6A31D7562F6024/standard.jpg

Below is a closer look. When I posted this, a sharp-eyed CSP member noticed it had the ejection port of a Mark I, which you can see, My theory is that this rifle was assigned to one of the two National Guard divisions, either the 32nd (from the Midwest) or the 41st (mostly from the Pacific Northwest), both of which spent a considerable time fighting in New Guinea.

http://www.fototime.com/30A8EA7E1B2966A/standard.jpg

[11mm]

1. The U.S. was in depression, there was no money, there were no hostilities, and no compelling need for rifles.

2. Two factors contributed to re-barreling Mark I rifles in early WWII: (1) Many rifles had been issued to National Guard units several years prior to the war and had not been well cared for, and (2) Mark I rifles had been headspaced long with little margin for wear.

3. The Chief of Ordnance issued an order in the 1930's directing removal and replacement of peculiar Mark I components. Circumstantial evidence indicates that the order was either ignored or perhaps counter-manded later. No compelling reason existed to remove and replace the components.

4. Yes.

5. Probably, but I haven't seen them.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

Thanks John. I'm satisfied.
It seems that your answer #1 could cover a lot of issues regarding the 1903 during the 1930s.

[11mm]

Well, the rifle showed up. It appears to be pretty authentic. It still has the mark 1 sear, but not the little insert piece that nests into it. It has the screw head in the cut-off axle, is uniformly a blackish parkerized finish, has a j5 bolt and a DAL cartouche . The handguard looks right, too, as it matches the stock in color and wear The bore is generally very good, but is a bit more worn toward the muzzle than at the breech, where the rifling is excellent. It still had a little cosmoline in parts. I guess I will see how it shoots.

[jerrbear]

11mm, Can you post some pics of your MK 1. I agree with you on the barrel replacements as most I have seen are WWII vintage.

[John Beard]

Well, the rifle showed up. It appears to be pretty authentic. It still has the mark 1 sear, but not the little insert piece that nests into it. It has the screw head in the cut-off axle, is uniformly a blackish parkerized finish, has a j5 bolt and a DAL cartouche . The handguard looks right, too, as it matches the stock in color and wear The bore is generally very good, but is a bit more worn toward the muzzle than at the breech, where the rifling is excellent. It still had a little cosmoline in parts. I guess I will see how it shoots.

In case you aren't aware already, the magazine cutoff spindle has a tiny spring-loaded plunger in the far end which bears against the ejector. The plunger and spring frequently fall out and are lost when the spindle is removed. So be careful.

In addition, the cutoff screw has a special teat which engages a dimple in the cutoff spindle. The screw-slotted spindle head facilitates aligning the screw with the dimple.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[11mm]

In case you aren't aware already, the magazine cutoff spindle has a tiny spring-loaded plunger in the far end which bears against the ejector. The plunger and spring frequently fall out and are lost when the spindle is removed. So be careful.

In addition, the cutoff screw has a special teat which engages a dimple in the cutoff spindle. The screw-slotted spindle head facilitates aligning the screw with the dimple.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

Thanks John. I did not plan (or have) to remove that part. Now I certainly won't.

[Fred]

Well go ahead and take it out to clean any gunk and corrosion off of it. There's nothing too tricky about it. Just bear in mind what John said. It won't fly apart and get lost. Just be aware of what is going on and watch what you're doing while you're removing it that's all. I cleaned mine out. No problems. Don't be scared to do so.

[11mm]

11mm, Can you post some pics of your MK 1. I agree with you on the barrel replacements as most I have seen are WWII vintage.

Here are some pictures of what I imagine to be the important bits. I note a slot in the handguard. What's that for?

2797927980279812798227983

[Fred]

I believe that slot was meant as an aid in production of the hand guards at Springfield Armory when they needed to hold it in place while the machines shaped it. Not sure but I think that's right. Your cocking Piece was made during WWII by Remington. It can be easily replaced.

[11mm]

I believe that slot was meant as an aid in production of the hand guards at Springfield Armory when they needed to hold it in place while the machines shaped it. Not sure but I think that's right. Your cocking Piece was made during WWII by Remington. It can be easily replaced.

Right you are Fred, and I replaced the cocking piece. By the way, with either the Remington cocking piece or the replaced correct Springfield cocking piece, this rifle has a very light trigger. I wonder if that has to do with the Mk1 sear. The rifle shows great promise at 100 meters with 200 grain cast lead bullets.

[Fred]

John, I've noticed that most of the rifles I've handled that were put together during WWI have extremely light triggers. Beats me why. I think that they'd be dangerous in a combat situation, but would be really great for target shooting.

[Richard H Brown Jr]

Fred:

re. Light Triggers. Uh back before 1914 or so, you had SHOOTER's in the army, and time spent on marksmanship and weapons maint.

[Fred]

That makes sense to me Richard. I figured that the practice of fine tuning a trigger release wasn't by accident. My Rod Bayonet 03 (1904) is the same way. Beautiful release. My old Mark I made in early 1919 required a lot more to release. It's almost as if there was a certain person or persons who were adjusting the early rifles quite well for Shooters who knew how to employ such light triggers and then when those workers were eventually replaced by others, the new workers had an entirely different idea of what a trigger release should be. Perhaps complaints from men who were prone to just jerk the trigger in the heat of combat had some influence on it all.

[gunner312]

I have a MK1 that I'd really like to bring back to it's original condition, It is missing the M1 parts for the trigger and etc. If anyone has the parts that would be willing to sell them, email me at gunner312@q.com with the particulars. Mine has a standard trigger and etc in it from the re-build period. I really like shooting this rifle.

Semper Fidelis,

gunner312
(Jim Wright)

[Griff Murphey]

Rick; don't forget the 37th Ohio. My Father-in-law was a 31 year old draftee who was called up after Pearl Harbor and joined the Division at Indiantown Gap. They went to NZ, Suva, Fiji, and he served on Guadalcanal in the 112th Medical Battalion. He remembered using the 03 and Garand, but as a Corporal, Medic, he carried the carbine.