Tweet
The M1903 Springfield Rifle
By Leroy Thompson
Review
Osprey Publications has released a huge number of books on military subjects in the last ten to twenty years. A few years ago, they started a “subseries†on weapons. This book is part of that series. It was published in a “trade paperback†edition and cost $19.95 MSRP.
Mr. Thompson has written other books on counter-terrorism, security and other topics and (according to his book), has appeared on a number of TV shows as a weapons expert.
Thompson took on a daunting task – to give a history of the M1903 in 80 pages. He set the bar even higher by also attempting to go into the history of the 30-06 and the use of the M1903 in sporting and hunting – all in the 80 pages he was allowed. Although Mr. Thompson has a good bibliography, his acknowledgements section lacks the name of any “big name†associated with the study or collection of M1903. Unfortunately, this lack is reflected in his book. He says he has owned M1903s, I feel, from the book, they are a surface interest, only.
The book is well laid out with plenty of sub-headings. The color pictures and diagrams are outstanding. There were three or four beautiful color paintings commissioned for the book which I’d like to have hanging on my wall. The black and white pictures were adequate. Some of the captions were just plain wrong. For example, he showed a comparative picture of the rear sight in the “up†and “down†position. In the “up†position, Thompson said the rear sight was set for 1,400 yards, when the picture shows a rear sight set for the lowest possible setting, probably 100 yards. Another caption, accompanying a reproduction of a painting entitled “Knocking Out the Moros†the author states, was produced in 1913, when in reality, the ACTION depicted happened in 1913; the painting is from the 1960s.
The introduction is pretty good, but Thompson shows his lack of detailed knowledge of the M1903 by a group of nagging errors which start to crop up, and continue through the book. He says that Springfield ceased production of 1903s in 1938 (it was 1939); that Remington started production in 1942 (1941) and Smith-Corona, 1943 (1942). He states that “not enough M1 had then been produced to arm units in the Philippines†(all “regular†units in the Philippines had M1s).
The author seems to get hung up on relatively minor variations of the M1903 or accessories that received little use. For example, he expends two full pages (again, this is an 80-page book) on the Maxim silencer and the Yaggi periscope device; he uses another page and a half to discuss the Hoffer-Thompson and .22 variations. Two more pages on rifle grenades. Not bad, in themselves, but this was a short book. It seems to me, a competent editor would have cut these down considerably. Finally, nearly 10 pages are spent discussing the use of the M1903 as a sporter, hunting rifle, etc. The author spends a good share of the last major chapter reminiscing about “1903s I have lovedâ€. Nice, but again, a waste of time in a small book.
There were a number of errors, showing what I believe to be a superficial and incomplete knowledge of the M1903; a few examples below:
1) The author claims that Alvin York used a M1903. While I admit there is some evidence to support this, Thompson claims that since a statue shows York with a M1903, it must be true.
2) He uses, although on an inconsistent basis (and without any explanation) the so-called “Type†designations for parts used by Poyer and Harrison
3) Inside a short section on the Bushmaster carbine, the author squeezed in a small part on an experimental carbine, made by Springfield Armory – no idea why.
4) An obviously incomplete and probably incorrect knowledge of the National Match M1903 – the origins and purposes
5) Thompson didn’t really understand the development of the Remington M1903. He stuffs together the Remington M1903 and M1903A3. He says the 1903 (modified) [my schoolteacher soul was bugged by the fact that he didn’t capitalize “Modified!] was approved for production as the M1903A3! I think he should have cut down on his discussion of the Maxim Silencer and studied a little more on the Remington M1903!!
6) An incomplete understanding of the German patent claims. He doesn’t state (or appear to understand) that the money paid post-WWI was due to the illegality of the seizure of German patents and had nothing to do with the Spitzer-type bullet adopted by the U.S. Army in the early 1900s.
The author does spend considerable time discussing the use of the M1903 and in this, he is more successful. He quotes from a number of officers and men who used the M1903 in World War I and World War II.
In summary, this book would be recommended only for those desiring a very superficial history of the M1903. The author tried to accomplish too much in too short a “canvasâ€. He tried to cover too many details that were not needed in a short book on the M1903. He obviously needed a better editor, familiar with the topic to better organize the book. I can’t get over the feeling that Osprey selected this gentleman without examining his fitness to write the book. He quoted from a great many sources but showed he lacked an in-depth knowledge. The M1903 deserved better.
Comment