firing pin rod cocking/decocking knob

[milboltnut]

Hey fellas,
I'm guessing this knob was derived from the SMLE?

I don't remember reading about it anywhere even in Hatchers notebook.

Thoughts?

[psteinmayer]

The knob for the 03 was a carryover from the Krag.

[milboltnut]

how could I miss that?? LOL thanks

[chuckindenver]

it was flared at the end to deflect hot gas away from the shooters face if it suffered a case head failure.

[milboltnut]

so between Hatcher drilling a hole in the receiver and the knob being tapered, that took care of the possible ruptured case.

I heard the cutaway (that is also clearance for the thumb, stripper clip charging) ahead of the stripper clip charger bridge acts as a diversion for gas escape too??

[dave]

That small flare on the knob would do little to deflect gas, it is more of a 'grip' so it can be pulled back and lowered. The 1898 Mauser used a large flange around the front of the bolt shroud but as the '03 was copied from the 1893 Spanish Mauser it does not have that feature.

[Darreld Walton]

The primary purpose of that flare is to direct gas from a pierced primer from blowing back into the shooter's face. It was NOT designed primarily as a way to "de-cock" the rifle. To do that, ensure the chamber is empty, pull the trigger and close the bolt. That function can be done one-handed (if you're right handed, it's much easier).
Remember that if the firing pin is lowered (by ANY method) against a chambered cartridge, the end of the firing pin rests against the primer, with spring pressure. Almost any bump, from dropping the rifle, or against equipment, could, and likely would, cause a discharge! Pulling the knob, and then the trigger, and lowering the firing pin is akward, AND dangerous. The only scenario where I could see it (the flare) being used to re-cock the rifle is in the event of a failed discharge. Even then, it's far better to wait a second or two, and then cycle the action to remove the round and reload, or, simply raise and lower the bolt handle to recock the rifle.
To say that the '03 rifle was a direct copy of any Mauser is not exactly correct. The most desired feature of our new rifle was an ability to load via a stripper clip. That meant a new, "rimless" cartridge case, rather than retaining the 30-40, with improved ballistics. The '03 was a mix of features, including the Krag, the Mausers, and other rifles.
There are several design "flaws" that were never corrected in our main battle rifle. It 'needed' a one piece firing rod design, instead of the weaker, two piece affair, it 'needed' a flat breach, a gas shield on the shroud, it did not 'need' a magazine cutoff...and the sights were terrible for a combat rifle.

[dave]

Two main things we copied from the Mauser---Staggered box magazine and the stripper clips. Mauser sued and we paid 200,000 dollars (or was it 20,000?) for the magazine infringement and some pennies each, for stripper clips we made, up to some specified amount. There were other things copied from the Mauser but they may not all have been under patents. The two piece firing pin was probably a design to avoid another patent.
I did not use the word 'direct' in my post. And I did not say anything about lowering firing pin on a cartridge, most likely it was to retry a hang fire or misfire, with out opening the action. The Mauser has this feature also, altho its done with a cartridge rim, no grip on the knob.
We had just fought the SAW and the Mauser was recognized as vastly superior to our Krag, especially the cartridge. Except for the Mannlicher action 'almost' all bolt action rifles made to-day are modified Mauser actions. Rimmed cart. can and are used in stripper clips, there are several examples out there! The '03 needed a "gas shield on the shroud" ? why? it had the flared knob!!!??

[IditarodJoe]

The Springfield 1903 rifle was based concepts, and modifications of concepts, taken from many, many other arms that came before it. Same is true of Mauser's rifles. Far too much is made of the notion that Springfield "copied" Mauser's design. If you take either a Springfield or a Mauser and strip away everything that wasn't wholly invented by Paul Mauser, you'll be left with little to nothing.

[Darreld Walton]

The whole discussion about the true purpose of the firing pin rod flange reminds me of an old joke I once heard. Something about a Brit, a Frenchman, and a Pole discussing a flange on that one part of the human male anatomy. One claimed it's purpose was for the man's pleasure, the second's remark was that it provided pleasure for the woman, and the third guy said "it keeps my hand from slipping off"......
Please, have a nice day.

Tact has never been one of my strong suits. Gotta do something about that......

[dave]

The Springfield 1903 rifle was based concepts, and modifications of concepts, taken from many, many other arms that came before it. Same is true of Mauser's rifles. Far too much is made of the notion that Springfield "copied" Mauser's design. If you take either a Springfield or a Mauser and strip away everything that wasn't wholly invented by Paul Mauser, you'll be left with little to nothing.

Not true, unless you discount 'improvements' which were patented. The 98 design was the last major change which were made by the Mauser brothers. About what would be left is a bolt and receiver of some sort. Look up their patents (or read about them) two of which we violated in the 03 and redesign parts to avoid others . Olson states that a large number of Spanish Mausers were 'extensively studied at SA and ultimately led to the US adoption of a Mauser type rifle, the 1903'.
Name some of those 'many other concepts and many, many other arms that came before it'. Please!
The Mauser was the most used and copied military rifle used by major country's every where in the world up to the end of WW11 and still is for sporting rifles. About the only major exception is the Brits (including their satellites).

[jgaynor]

Link to the FIVE rifle patents and TWO charger patents infringed by the the US. A settlement was negotiated by ordnance and paid prior to WW1.
http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerdog/generalstorage/tempworkingdirectory/Scan_Doc0016.pdf

Courtesy of a Well known authority :) with special thanks to Mr Michael Petrov.

[Dan Shapiro]

There were two aspects of this patent infringement case. The first was shortly after the rifle was issued. It had to do with the stripper clips used. After examination of the German patents after being contacted by the German patent holders, the U.S. agreed to pay royalties of 50 cents per thousand stripper clips and 75 cents per rifle until the sum of $200,000 had been paid. These royalties were paid from 1905 to 1909. There was no litigation and the settlement was decided amicably.

When the Spitzer bullet was adopted later, another German company said that their patents had been violated. Since the U.S. had also been investigating a Spitzer (pointed) type bullet, the claims were rejected by the U.S. The lawsuit went to trial in July, 1914; with the start of WWI shortly after, the suit was put aside. In 1917, the German patents were seized as alien property.

After WWI, a tribunal decided that, while the suit may not have been vaid, the seizure of assets by the U.S. was not. As a result, the U.S. had to pay over $400,000 including over $100,000 interest on basically a technicality.

(Much of this material is taken from Clark Campbell's book on the 1903 but the gist of it is agreed by most other historians.)

[dave]

I wonder how the US got away with seizing Bayer in the US? Honest question, not starting a argument.

[milboltnut]

thanks for the input from all.. with the exception of one.