E.C. Crossman

[Phil McGrath]

Is his "Book of the Springfield" worth the $10.00 I paid from the gun show? :icon_scratch:

[clintonhater]

In ANY edition, absolutely! Most common ed. is probably the one with Roy Dunlap's additions.

[Phil McGrath]

In ANY edition, absolutely! Most common ed. is probably the one with Roy Dunlap's additions.

Yes, that's the one.

[John Beard]

Absolutely.

J.B.

[Phil McGrath]

Thanks' guys!

[Fred]

Phil, Only you can determine if the book has value to you. Read it and find out.

[clintonhater]

Phil, Only you can determine if the book has value to you. Read it and find out.

The person to whom it would have no value has no serious interest in '03s. (Not a crime--I have no serious interest, for ex., in Garands.) Crossman actually submitted the manuscript for this book and what became Military & Sporting Rifle Shooting to his publisher, Tom Samworth, as a single work, but Mr. Sam wisely decided there was too much material for a single volume.

Closest thing, by the way, to a biography of Crossman is an article that appeared in the 2010 Gun Digest.

[Rick the Librarian]

Crossman's book is not for the beginner. It was written in 1931 and then, Roy Dunlap updated it in 1951. It was written back in the day when the Springfield was as much (if not more) seen as a "vehicle" for a sporter, rather than as a collectible military rifle. One of the classics but not particularly easy to get through, if you're new to the '03.

[clintonhater]

Crossman's book is not for the beginner. It was written in 1931 and then, Roy Dunlap updated it in 1951. It was written back in the day when the Springfield was as much (if not more) seen as a "vehicle" for a sporter, rather than as a collectible military rifle.

Not when brand new '03s, along with NRA Sporters, etc., could be ordered by the gross through DCM! Not when dozens of articles were being written in the Rifleman and other gun mags even into the '60s on how to butcher (i.e., "sporterize") your Springfield, Mauser, etc.

[Rick the Librarian]

While obviously I deplore the practice of "butchering" the M1903, I do keep in mind the times, when M1903s and other military surplus rifles were extremely common and relatively cheap.

I do remember seeing a magazine about 10 years back that discussed "sporterizing" military surplus rifles, including the M1903, M1917 and SMLE. I've always wondered how many readers followed that "advice" and found out later what they had done to the value and collectability of their rifle!! :)

[clintonhater]

I do remember seeing a magazine about 10 years back that discussed "sporterizing" military surplus rifles, including the M1903, M1917 and SMLE.

Sporterizing them in the '50s is one thing, when they were still being sold for next to nothing as surplus, but anyone who was promoting doing that as recently as 10, or even 20, yrs ago deserved to be tarred & feathered.

[Rick the Librarian]

Sporterizing them in the '50s is one thing, when they were still being sold for next to nothing as surplus, but anyone who was promoting doing that as recently as 10, or even 20, yrs ago deserved to be tarred & feathered.

+1 !! :)

[Phil McGrath]

Crossman's book is not for the beginner. It was written in 1931 and then, Roy Dunlap updated it in 1951. It was written back in the day when the Springfield was as much (if not more) seen as a "vehicle" for a sporter, rather than as a collectible military rifle. One of the classics but not particularly easy to get through, if you're new to the '03.

Well I'm a beginner starting too collect books, it hasn't been bad so far. Ahhh you guys know I'm really just a shooter that also enjoys the history.

[Ketoujin]

Sporterizing them in the '50s is one thing, when they were still being sold for next to nothing as surplus, but anyone who was promoting doing that as recently as 10, or even 20, yrs ago deserved to be tarred & feathered.

I'm not a violent man but.......yes, to facilitate such butchering on any collectible arm in word or deed is something that doesn't sit well with me. People can do what they want with their own property, of course, but with all the excellent purpose-built sporting guns out there - many of them made with more modern materials anyway - why mutilate a collectible example?

I strongly concur with the other posters' thoughts on Crossman and his "Book of the Springfield." It is, indeed, NOT an M1903 (or M1903A3 if we include the 1951 Roy Dunlop-edited re-print) novice or neophyte's book at all. Yet, for those who are serious students of the subject - gun-smithing, shooting, and their relation to the '03 lineage specifically - it is a fascinating book. For my part, having missed entirely the golden age of American surplus martial arms and '03 and '03A3 availability in particular, I also find the book, in both its versions, to be a great "time-capsule" as well.

Best,

Gunnar

[Cosine26]

Those of you who enamored with the 03A3 and the 03A4 will be completely chagrined by Roy Dunlap’s view of these rifles (in his addendum to The Book of the Springfield) and I believe that Capt. Crossman’s opinion would be even more vitriolic. Crossman criticized the workmanship of the M1903’s made during WWI. Dunlap’s opinion of the 03A4 was even worse and I firmly believe that Crossman would have a much worse opinion.
Roy Dunlap was a pre-war big bore shooter and during WWII was an US Army armored for the whole war. Read his book Ordnance Went Up Front to follow him through North Africa and the Pacific theater. He was also a premier gunsmith after WWII and worked with the Army rifle teams during the development of the NM M1. He also built some very fine M70 target rifles.
Crossman was a proponent of both sporterizing the NM M1903 and the NRA Sporter. He also defended the SHT receivers. Dunlap did not.
Both men were very opinionated. I never knew Crossman but I did Know and correspond wit Dunlap about big bore target rifles
FWIW

[Rick the Librarian]

I'm reading the 1951 with Dunlap's additions and one thing interesting is regarding low-numbered M1903s: Crossman says they're all right with normal loads, Dunlap, 20 years later, says they should be retired - all in the same book! :)

[clintonhater]

I'm reading the 1951 with Dunlap's additions and one thing interesting is regarding low-numbered M1903s: Crossman says they're all right with normal loads, Dunlap, 20 years later, says they should be retired - all in the same book! :)

Hindsight is usually a little keener than foresight.

[clintonhater]

Both men were very opinionated...
FWIW

Part of the reason, probably, Samworth considered Dunlap a fitting sequel to Crossman. Particularly enjoyed Dunlap's commentary in his own book on the Jap equipment he encountered in the Pacific.

[Rick the Librarian]

Yes, I enjoyed his book, as well.

[JimF]

. . . . .
Both men were very opinionated. . . . . .

Ahh, but that holds true for most of us here!!

We here, of the conservative bent, hold opinions that we freely convey to each other on forums and at the rifle ranges!!

I wouldn't have it ANY OTHER WAY!!

That's how I learn NEW information about these inanimate objects called firearms! --Jim

[jgaynor]

Is his "Book of the Springfield" worth the $10.00 I paid from the gun show? :icon_scratch:

Absolutely! I would suggest it is worth several times what you paid.

Captain Crossman had a well developed sense of humor which comes through in his writing style.

Anyone interested in the subject of sniping rifles and optics between WW1 and WW2 should closely study all three of the chapters related to telescopic sights.

Dunlap did not like the WW2 vintage "Springfields" because they were not as nicely finished as early M1903's and would be a pain to customize after the war. He comes right out and says so in exactly those words. His criticism of the Weaver 330C's (M73B1) lack of moisture resistance is accurate and justified. By the time the U.S. got interested in the subject th only alternative was to adopt a commercial product that happened to be available.