View Full Version : WW1 Shortage of '03 Springfields
I think that many of us have read of the shortage of 03 Springfields in the US Army at the time of our entry in WW1, and the use of the 1917 rifle and even Krags to ameliorate that shortage.
I find the attached picture, from the New York State Naval Militia website, very interesting. Apparently, there were enough '03 rifles, in certain cases, so that they could be issued not just to the Navy, but to a state naval reserve unit. The other equipment the sailor is furnished with is also interesting. Unless they were planning on landing parties in France, why would a sailor need a canteen and haversack?
There was a lot of irony in the way our Government worked back then, too.40217
Prior to the entry of the US into WWI, the government was not organized to support large scale overseas combat operations. It is to be expected that efficiency would suffer in the rush to equip military units for deployment.
Rick the Librarian
03-08-2017, 06:17
For the reduced scale of the military before WWI, there were plenty of M1903s, including enough to equip reserve units. It was the transition to a multi-million man force that caused the problem. Keep in mind that there were sufficient M1903s, so that Rock Island ceased production in 1913 and Springfield reduced their production significantly. For example, in Fiscal Year 1916, with war raging in Europe, exactly 11,299 M1903s were manufactured.
The whole business produced a bit of a scandal when war started.
What is interesting is the same thing nearly happened in WWII, I don't have the number in front of me, but I believe the number of M1 rifles originally ordered was relatively small.
5MadFarmers
03-08-2017, 06:19
It's a pre-war photo.
Page 346 in the April of 1917 (Vol 31) edition of the National Geographic. To make the April 1917 issue it had to have been taken earlier. "How much earlier" isn't something that's provided.
Canteen itself is circa 1913. Cover is pre-1917 but the date of the magazine kind of told us that already.
Prior to the entry of the US into WWI, the government was not organized to support large scale overseas combat operations. It is to be expected that efficiency would suffer in the rush to equip military units for deployment.
Oh. I agree. But the incursion into Mexico in 1916 was somewhat of a dress rehearsal for deployment, or so some historians tell us.
From what I read, the inefficiency continued right up to, and through, the end of the war.
It's a pre-war photo.
Page 346 in the April of 1917 (Vol 31) edition of the National Geographic. To make the April 1917 issue it had to have been taken earlier. "How much earlier" isn't something that's provided.
Canteen itself is circa 1913. Cover is pre-1917 but the date of the magazine kind of told us that already.
That explains it!
5MadFarmers
03-08-2017, 06:36
That explains it!
It's a fascinating photo. If I had to throw a dart at a calendar for the haversack I'd toss it at 1915/1916. The cartridge belt is "modern" for that time.
In other words that's not "hand-me-down" equipment. It's almost new. I have a photo taken in China, after WW1, where the landing party has field gear older than that. Presumably the equipment in the China photo is from the regular navy ships.
Fascinating photo. Thanks for pointing it out.
Rick the Librarian
03-08-2017, 06:59
Oh. I agree. But the incursion into Mexico in 1916 was somewhat of a dress rehearsal for deployment, or so some historians tell us.
From what I read, the inefficiency continued right up to, and through, the end of the war.
You're at least partially right - "Preparedness" started to come into vogue about the time of the Mexico incursion. Rock Island was reopened at the end of 1916, but, as the workers had been dispersed after closing of the plant (Conrad Nelson, the "CN" seen on pre-1913 - had gone to work at Remington in 1915, for example).
In FY 1917, production of M1903s increased -- but only to a little over 13,000 M1903s.
I think the fact they were selling new rifles to civilian NRA members in the years right up to the US entry into WW1 speaks volumes to the prewar mindset. As to the photo I also thought it was interesting how new some of the equipment was. Supply chain for that unit was up to snuff.
butlersrangers
03-08-2017, 11:01
The N.Y. Naval Reserve 'Bugler' has an 'anchor emblem' stenciled on the Butt Stock of his model 1903. (Neat Picture).
A similar stenciled anchor appears in this 5/24/08 photo of Brooklyn Naval Reserve Sailors, with Krags.
Interesting equipment abounds in pre-WW1 photos. N.Y.N.G. 1915, winter training with 1903 Springfield rifles.
4022040221
butlersrangers
03-08-2017, 11:08
A close up of the Naval Reserve marking on Krags: (p.s. - Sorry Rick. I've added rifle ID to my captions).
40222
Rick the Librarian
03-08-2017, 11:09
The sailors in the 1908 picture appear to be using Krags.
It makes one wonder what the US military was thinking up to including WWI. I know there was a powerful peace movement in the US at the time. But did anyone in the US military fully understand the butchery that was taking place on the Western front? I would think that the US had military attaches attached to the French and British forces at least to observe what mass scale butchery was taking place before the US gets involved in WWI especially the technical advances in aircraft, artillery, automatic weapons and poison gas to name just a few. I know that the Chief of Ordnance was relieved for his arrogance and incompetence. If it was not for the US Pattern 1914 production at three major rifle makers the US Army could not field an expeditionary force before 1919 or later. By then it was possible the Germans could have won WWI. With the Model of 1917 Rifle, the US was able to meet the multi-million man army demand for rifles. As the US military expanded M1903 Springfield rifles were allocated to Regular and National Guard division troops. The new National Army divisions were allocated the M1917 Rifle. The US Navy and Marines still retained the M1903 Springfield as their standard rifle. Some M1917 Rifles were provided to the US Navy and Marines probably just used as training rifles. I have read that many of the pre-existing M1903 Springfield Rifles required a re-build due to their poor condition and the lack of funds in the pre-war years for spare parts. There are several excellent books on the US Ordnance Corps in WWI including one written by General Crozier as rebuttal to his being relieved (fired) as the Chief of US Ordnance.
Cheers
--fjruple
5MadFarmers
03-08-2017, 11:42
So in the first photo it's listed as New York Naval Militia.
In the Brooklyn photo it's listed as New York Naval Reserve.
Two different things.
Which, without any real knowledge of it, not having encountered it before today, I'd say both are actually Militia.
"Does that matter?" Yeah, in some strange ways it does. Mainly funding.
What leads me to believe they're Militia instead of reserve? That anchor marking. In OP's photo it's clearly there. That photo was used in the National Geographic April of 1917 edition. The credit is to the American Press Association.
http://5madfarmers.com/images_2017/nav_mil-1.png
Sea Power of March 1917 had a story.
http://5madfarmers.com/images_2017/nav_mil-2.png
Part of the same set?
http://5madfarmers.com/images_2017/nav_mil-3.png
Which makes that one too?
Which would explain the almost new equipment. "Paid for by the State of New York." Reserves would likely still be waiting for Navy trickle down stuff. Months after those photos were taken the 12th Engineers were in London with Krags and round canteens.
State money.
Smokeeaterpilot
03-10-2017, 04:53
Keep in mind that there were sufficient M1903s, so that Rock Island ceased production in 1913 and Springfield reduced their production significantly. For example, in Fiscal Year 1916, with war raging in Europe, exactly 11,299 M1903s were manufactured.
Corrected figure
FY16 - 13,631 M1903 rifles were produced at Springfield Armory
blackhawknj
03-10-2017, 06:58
Perhaps someone connected with that unit had "pull"-cf. how TR procured Krag Carbines for the Rough Riders.
A Declaration of War changes everything when it come to military budgets and procurement processes.
I have 2 M-1 Garands. One, serial number in the 300,000 range, September 1941, the other, 600,000 range, May 1942. Boosting production not always that easy, especially in that day when it required more skilled workers. Cf the problem of the Low Number M1903s. Plus the M-1 was meant for infantrymen, rear echelon and support types would have carried M-1 Carbines. IIRC we had about 600,000 M1903s on hand in 1917, more than enough for our peacetime establishment.
Rick the Librarian
03-11-2017, 05:40
Corrected figure
FY16 - 13,631 M1903 rifles were produced at Springfield Armory
2,000 more??? Well, that makes things ALL better!! LOL!! (I went by Brophy's "Arsenal of Freedom" book, but I'm assuming the corrected figure is the result of your archives research?) Did the higher number include NM rifles? Brophy had them separated out and the smaller number I quoted were just "service" rifles.
If Remington and Winchester and Eddystone had been tasked to produce 1903's rather than M-1917's, the total output of rifles would have been dramatically beyond anything produced by SA and RI. Remington and Winchester as well as Eddystone were simply better capable of industrial scale production. Got to wonder what they could have done had the tooling, etc. been in their hands. Notably none of the M-1917's ever had a issue with cracking from improper heat treating. Sincerely. bruce.
Smokeeaterpilot
03-11-2017, 09:52
2,000 more??? Well, that makes things ALL better!! LOL!! (I went by Brophy's "Arsenal of Freedom" book, but I'm assuming the corrected figure is the result of your archives research?) Did the higher number include NM rifles? Brophy had them separated out and the smaller number I quoted were just "service" rifles.
I wasn't commenting on the status of production, merely quoting a string of correspondence between the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory and the Small Arms Division. The document conflicted with that number. I tend to trust primary sources of published works. Authors do make mistakes.
The C/O of Springfield after WWI was requesting a brief but detailed history of the M1903 Service Rifle as well as production numbers up until US Declaration of War. It lays out the production numbers by month within each FY.
5MadFarmers
03-11-2017, 11:35
I wasn't commenting on the status of production, merely quoting a string of correspondence between the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory and the Small Arms Division. The document conflicted with that number. I tend to trust primary sources of published works. Authors do make mistakes.
The C/O of Springfield after WWI was requesting a brief but detailed history of the M1903 Service Rifle as well as production numbers up until US Declaration of War. It lays out the production numbers by month within each FY.
You didn't actually answer Rick's question. Yes, Authors do make mistakes but Brophy's number is actually accurate - depending what you're after. As is your number.
To answer Rick's question:
11,299, the number you received from Brophy, is standard service rifles.
1,811 were star gauged rifles.
521 were star gauged and specifically for the national matches.
Total is as Smokeeaterpilot provides - to included all three groupings.
But your point remains Rick that 13,631 versus 11,299 isn't going to materially affect arming an army of 3,000,000 thereabouts.
6 rifles were altered for .45acp so lose those but, in addition to the 13,631, they made 165 receivers. Given the other spare parts that takes it to over 13,700 so perhaps Pershing felt better.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
"But 5, you skipped the other 9 receivers listed separately!"
Yikes!
====
If the topic is of interest to you, you may wish to check out the post I'll be making momentarily in "books and videos." The questions to above are addressed.
Smokeeaterpilot
03-11-2017, 05:13
You didn't actually answer Rick's question. Yes, Authors do make mistakes but Brophy's number is actually accurate - depending what you're after. As is your number.
To answer Rick's question:
11,299, the number you received from Brophy, is standard service rifles.
1,811 were star gauged rifles.
521 were star gauged and specifically for the national matches.
Total is as Smokeeaterpilot provides - to included all three groupings.
But your point remains Rick that 13,631 versus 11,299 isn't going to materially affect arming an army of 3,000,000 thereabouts.
6 rifles were altered for .45acp so lose those but, in addition to the 13,631, they made 165 receivers. Given the other spare parts that takes it to over 13,700 so perhaps Pershing felt better.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
"But 5, you skipped the other 9 receivers listed separately!"
Yikes!
====
If the topic is of interest to you, you may wish to check out the post I'll be making momentarily in "books and videos." The questions to above are addressed.
Didn't answer it because I simply couldn't. The paperwork did not make make the statement concerning variations or categories of M1903. Simply stated:
"1. This office requests that a complete, but brief history of the production of Springfield rifles, model 1903, be furnished for the period previous to the declaration of war, April 6, 1917."
All numbers appear to be inclusive since it does not stipulate service grade versus national match, star gauged, etc.
Rick the Librarian
03-11-2017, 05:26
Smokeeater and I are friends and I was just razzing him about the "extra" 2000 rifles. I find, as I get older and have to spend more time trying to explain my humor!! LOL!!:banana100:
5MadFarmers
03-11-2017, 05:59
Smokeeater and I are friends and I was just razzing him about the "extra" 2000 rifles. I find, as I get older and have to spend more time trying to explain my humor!! LOL!!:banana100:
No problem.
Kind of hidden in what I posted is a real problem. Everybody tends to take "production" rifles and then starts looking at the serials. In doing that myself with trapdoors, once upon a time as the story goes, I also looked in the parts and found receivers. Number wasn't insignificant. Same thing is true for the other guns. More so for the M-1905 bayonets from what I remember when I reviewed those.
So:
1) Finished rifles.
2) Receivers.
3) Receivers which received a number but likely didn't make it all the way through production.
Makes it a bit messy. Then, with respect to Krags, I noticed two additional issues:
4) Numbers which appear to be stamping mistakes.
5) Indications that the reports were gamed.
I doubt #5 affects M-1903s for specific reasons but #4 perhaps could.
All of which should be boiled down to "be careful of the completed rifles number as it's only useful for certain things."
For what it's worth they broke the rifles out by group due to cost differences.
Smokeeater and I are friends and I was just razzing him about the "extra" 2000 rifles. I find, as I get older and have to spend more time trying to explain my humor!! LOL!!:banana100:
Not your fault. He has no humor. And his research is subpar
Rick the Librarian
03-11-2017, 08:28
I learned quite a while back that "date of manufacture" tables are indications, only, not etched in concrete.
Well I'll be, has anyone ever seen a Krag or Springfield for that matter with that anchor stamp? I sure haven't, and as a Navy man I'd like to get my paws on one!
You gotta get a Lee Navy for that!
Rick the Librarian
03-12-2017, 08:33
Somebody mention a Lee-Navy?? :)
40274
40275
Commenting on 'lack of bring prepared' before going to war. Back in those days we tended to mind our own business till provoked, the Germans sub sinking of that ship did it in WW1, and of course Pearl in WW11. And we were just as unprepared at the start of WW11, even tho most in authority knew we would be drawn in sooner then later. Now we are quick to strike, even when there is no danger directly to us. That started with Nam, I think.
el Woodman
07-12-2017, 10:42
"Corpsman UP!" USMC have no Marine medics; we have US Navy Hospital Corpsmen. So the gentleman in the photo is likely a Sailor who Marines call "Doc".
cplnorton
07-13-2017, 12:26
If we didn't jump into the war so fast in the summer of 1917, Winchester had been gearing up to produce 1903's since 1916. I found all the documents when I pulled all the Marine A5 docs. But the Govt had been tryin to outsource the production of 1903s, and Winchester was trying hard to get the contract. And it appears from the correspondance they had been successful. But the war started, and they told the govt it would take them to long to get into production the numbers they requested, so they mentioned they could produce the 1917's and well the rest is history.
But yeah WRA was going to make 1903's, how cool is that. lol
el Woodman
11-23-2017, 02:30
I concur that R/W/E were better for industrialized mass production than SA/RIA ever dreamed of being.....But the main difference is quality...The 1917 is a Ford F150;Rugged and effective, but don't dream about shooting a 1917 in a National Match......The 1903 is more like a Ferrari 308GTS; Precision crafted by a man who was more of an artisan than assembler....I guess what I'm saying is that 1917s were built by armorers;The 1903s were built by gunsmiths.....But like Kruschev said in WWII as a Soviet Arms Kommissar "Quantity has a quality all its own"......My $.02.
clintonhater
11-23-2017, 02:59
The 1917 is a Ford F150;Rugged and effective, but don't dream about shooting a 1917 in a National Match......The 1903 is more like a Ferrari 308GTS
If that's the difference, and I found myself squatting in the mud at the bottom of a trench, I know which one I'd want in my hands.
Re:Difference. Ah ... no. Pre-war 03's were of course produced slowly as there was not need to hurry. There was no urgent demand. Rifles produced during the war were fine rifles, but not artful. Comparing quality of fit/finish, consistency of bores, barrels, and comparing the actual practical usefulness of each in combat, there is no meaningful advantage to the 03 or disadvantage to the 17. For what it's worth, I've handled, fired and used both rifles over years since 1979. I've shot them with ball and handloads. I've found that a good 03 will as expected give good on target results. The exact same is true of a good 17. For shooting in a hurry, the 17 is superior given it's aperture rear sight. The 17 front sight is easier to acquire simply b/c of the way it is made. That single thin blade of the 03 is fine for targets. In the field it is not so good. If the rear sight of the 03 was more finely adjustable for windage, it would be more useful. But given its gross graduations of scale, it is questionable just how useful those adjustments might be in the field. Stocking on either rifle left a lot to be desired, both would have benefited from a higher comb. With the C stock, the 03 really came into its own. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
Good points all around gents. Makes you wonder, however, if the Marines would have had such good success at long ranges (and earned their reputation) if they had been outfitted with 1917s and not 03s.
clintonhater
11-23-2017, 07:31
For shooting in a hurry, the 17 is superior given it's aperture rear sight.
For ANY kind of shooting an aperture is superior. But an aperture located half-way down the brl as on the '03 is not the same.
Re: Aperture. Agree. The aperture is superior. The location of the rear sight on the 03 was unfortunate. The 03-A3 while not as finely finished was an improvement given that the rear sight was properly located on the receiver. It would have been even better had the rear sight been more substantial and finely adjustable coupled with a thicker more useful front sight. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
psteinmayer
11-27-2017, 03:50
The 1917 is a Ford F150;Rugged and effective, but don't dream about shooting a 1917 in a National Match
Interesting, because I have witnessed 1917s out shoot 1903s and 1903A3s many times in CMP matches, AND at Camp Perry in the National Matches!
John Beard
11-27-2017, 08:41
The 1917 National Matches were cancelled because of U.S. entry into WWI. The 1918 National Matches were fired with Remington M1917 rifles. And the rifles promptly set record-high scores in their competitions, especially rapid-fire. And the M1917 rifles were promptly outlawed for the 1919 National Matches. Do you smell a foul odor?
Happy Holidays!
J.B.
Re: Nat. Matches. Remarkable! Who'd have thought it! Were these rifles fitted with different rear sights that would permit both fine windage and elevation adjustments or were they fired using the standard issue type sights? Sincerely. bruce.
The M1917 Enfield suffered from the disease of "not being invented here." Even though the M1917 had an excellent showing at the National Matches, the rifle shooters did not like their Springfields being taken away. This created a natural biases against the M1917 as being too long, heavy and not balanced. Many folks forget the the M1903 was compromise between the US Army Schools of Infantry and Cavalry to eliminate two separate weapons for both the Infantry (Rifle) and Cavalry (Carbine). I have read that new adjustable rear sights were being development at the end of WWI for the M1917. The Brits also developed a fine adjustable rear sight for their sniper version of the Pattern 1914. The M1903 was also not without its problems, such as brittle receivers, the infamous low numbered receivers. The M1903 also required a PJ O'Hare M1903 Sight Micrometer for early match shooting. If the M1917 was developed further it would have been great rifle for National Match shooting. The Brits and the Commonwealth countries had no problem developing the Pattern 1914 into match rifle.
--fjruple
psteinmayer
12-08-2017, 07:22
Were these rifles fitted with different rear sights that would permit both fine windage and elevation adjustments or were they fired using the standard issue type sights?
As far as I know, they would have had to been an "As Issued" service rifle. That's definitely the case now-a-days! Anyone who scores a gold medal is required to have the rifle inspected, and if anything is found to be modified (other than modifications authorized by the rules) and the rifle and shooter is disqualified. This includes bedding and sight modifications (apertures can be enlarged though).
Richard H Brown Jr
12-09-2017, 12:50
Going back to the first page of this thread the NY Naval Militia is still in force, it's a reserve unit under NY control but can get called into Federal Servie by the US Navy. http://dmna.ny.gov/nynm/?id=history I suspect, that The weapons were *bought* from the arsenal by the state of New York to arm it's battalions as they were first established.
R Brown
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.