03 vs 98
- Thread starter Sergeant
- Start date
Springfield claimed they never saw a 98, they suddenly after building rifles with only one lug they build the 03 with three. The Mauser had three, one, the third lug was hidden, out of sight.
The third lug on the Mauser works, I have two with the lugs sheared off and a third with the lugs ready to separate. The Springfield 03 third lug is out there for those aware of it to see, problem, not many knew what to do with it. I use it to track the length of the chamber form the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face. If I want to know how much traveling my ammo does in an 03 I measure it.
F. Guffey
The third lug on the Mauser works, I have two with the lugs sheared off and a third with the lugs ready to separate. The Springfield 03 third lug is out there for those aware of it to see, problem, not many knew what to do with it. I use it to track the length of the chamber form the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face. If I want to know how much traveling my ammo does in an 03 I measure it.
F. Guffey
You mean to say that is proof that the 03 design was stolen.
Ignoring the data we have that says that the lug design was not stolen, how does evidence of concurrent design prove wrongdoing? By this logic, if you and I both design similar things, I "must have stolen" your idea because I had never seen anything like what I came up with before.
That's an accusation, not proof.
Ignoring the data we have that says that the lug design was not stolen, how does evidence of concurrent design prove wrongdoing? By this logic, if you and I both design similar things, I "must have stolen" your idea because I had never seen anything like what I came up with before.
That's an accusation, not proof.
"Stolen?" There is no doubt at all that the 1903 design was a combination of features of the Model 1893 Mauser and the U.S. Krag. All one has to do is look at the rifles. The fact is that there are not, and probably never have been, any "new" gun features, and in the design ferment in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gun ideas and patents were blowing around in the air like snowflakes.
It seems obvious that the Springfield designers never saw an 1898 Mauser; had they done so, they would not have done some things the way they did. But they did have Model 1893 Mausers (a few hundred thousand, IIRC) to study. I read one report that Springfield considered the Mauser 1893 design to be theirs by right of capture. If so, the government lawyers goofed. A nation's patents can be used by an enemy by right of capture; but the patents were not Spanish, they were German, and we had no such right in regard to German patents in 1900.
Jim
It seems obvious that the Springfield designers never saw an 1898 Mauser; had they done so, they would not have done some things the way they did. But they did have Model 1893 Mausers (a few hundred thousand, IIRC) to study. I read one report that Springfield considered the Mauser 1893 design to be theirs by right of capture. If so, the government lawyers goofed. A nation's patents can be used by an enemy by right of capture; but the patents were not Spanish, they were German, and we had no such right in regard to German patents in 1900.
Jim
I have never been all that giggly about Springfield, they went on a junket looking for a rifle design and passed on all the good designs then brought back the Krag. They could not figure a way to build it with two locking lugs so they built it with one then decided it only needed one. Then they built the 03, with no one at the controls. There are members of forums that claim they had the opportunity to return suspect receivers for 'safer' receivers. One claim was made by Jim Keenan, he decided he would hit the receiver with a hammer, in his claim the receiver shattered.
Back to 'no one in control', hitting receivers with a hammer, the thought of testing the receivers with a hammer would have never occurred to Springfield.
Then there was the short buggy ride from Springfield to New Haven. John Browning used nickel on some parts of the Model 94 to improve handling of smokeless powder. Springfield did not add nickel to the Springfield for another 25+ years. I have M1917s that are stamped NS, that is 22 years after Winchester/Browning and the Model 94.
Most disappointing, I have the perception there were no windows in the building at Springfield in Springfield. If you insist they did not have spies checking on gun development of other manufacturers and designers? Well no, a blind hog does not find a third lug safety devise that was absent on everything they built before the 03, the difference was the location. The Mauser was designed by a genius, John Browning worked for Winchester and in my opinion there were no genius working at Springfield. My opinion, they could move the third safety lug from the bottom to the right side, for me that was brilliant. The third lug exposed ahead of the rear receiver ring allows me to check the length of the chamber from the shoulder to the bolt face.
F. Guffey
Somehow I doubt the designers added the safety lug to the 1903 just so it could be used to somehow check the chamber. They had two rifles in front of them, the 1893 Mauser and the Model 1898 Krag. Neither had a safety lug. So how do they put one on? And that is where their plans went "agley", as Bobbie Burns has it.
They decided to put it on the right side, making it an extension of the Krag's bolt rib. That was OK, but it required that the extractor, taken from the Mauser, had to be shortened and its springiness reduced.
Then, by putting the safety lug on the right side, they had to make it high enough to clear the right lug raceway. But making it that high meant they had to eliminate the Mauser's rear receiver bridge. But their first trials resulted in the receivers warping in heat treatment, so they restored the receiver bridge. Now the rear bridge was so high that the sight had to be raised so the shooter could see over the rear bridge. That meant the rear sight had to be mounted, not on the barrel, but on a raised platform. Now the front sight also had to be raised and placed on its own platform, leaving it in a bad position and likely to be damaged. So they issued a sight protector.
The high sights would not have mattered so much if they could have altered the stock, but that would have made bolt operation more awkward. Result, high sights and a low stock comb meant that a true "cheekweld" could never be reached; the best was a "chinweld" that was not conducive to good shooting.
Even so, the sights were not too bad until the 1905 changes, when they yielded to the target shooter clique and put on that Gawdawful Model 1905 sight, the worst sight ever used on a combat rifle.
Jim
They decided to put it on the right side, making it an extension of the Krag's bolt rib. That was OK, but it required that the extractor, taken from the Mauser, had to be shortened and its springiness reduced.
Then, by putting the safety lug on the right side, they had to make it high enough to clear the right lug raceway. But making it that high meant they had to eliminate the Mauser's rear receiver bridge. But their first trials resulted in the receivers warping in heat treatment, so they restored the receiver bridge. Now the rear bridge was so high that the sight had to be raised so the shooter could see over the rear bridge. That meant the rear sight had to be mounted, not on the barrel, but on a raised platform. Now the front sight also had to be raised and placed on its own platform, leaving it in a bad position and likely to be damaged. So they issued a sight protector.
The high sights would not have mattered so much if they could have altered the stock, but that would have made bolt operation more awkward. Result, high sights and a low stock comb meant that a true "cheekweld" could never be reached; the best was a "chinweld" that was not conducive to good shooting.
Even so, the sights were not too bad until the 1905 changes, when they yielded to the target shooter clique and put on that Gawdawful Model 1905 sight, the worst sight ever used on a combat rifle.
Jim
I insist on what, exactly? I deny you any right to put words in my mouth.
I said that you're saying you present proof of something. You reply back with telling me that I said something I didn't. Proof means exactly that.
Whatever you're giggly about is your business. But your manner is confrontational and has more than a touch of a straw man about it. I'll all for debate, but I'm not big on internet fights. I'll thank you to restrict yourself to claiming I said what I actually said in the future..
Nonsense, since the designers of the 1903 never saw an 1898 Mauser. The Germans and the Americans had the same problem; they anticipated the need for a safety lug with new and more powerful cartridges. The Germans solved the problem one way in their Model 1898, the Americans another way in the Model 1903. I agree that the German solution is neater, but the M1903 safety lug worked when it had to.
I do wish that just because some folks have figured out that 1898 came before 1903, the designers of the 1903 (who began work in 1899 and produced the basic design in 1900) knew all about the German Mauser '98. They didn't; whether they would have done things differently had they done so, I don't know. But I have been over every piece of Springfield Armory and Ordnance Department paperwork I could find from that period and they simply did not know such a thing as a Model 98 Mauser existed, even though the basic 1896 patents were filed in the U.S. Patent Office in Washington.
Jim
P.S. I know the current fad is to bash and insult Hatcher, but blaming him for the design of the Model 1903 seems to be laying it on a bit; he would have been 15 in 1903.
JK
P.P.S. And please don't spout the old BS about how we paid to use the patents on the 98 Mauser. Anyone who has done any research other than repeating misinformation, would know that the patents in question were those for the Mauser 1893 design, not the 1898.
JK
I do wish that just because some folks have figured out that 1898 came before 1903, the designers of the 1903 (who began work in 1899 and produced the basic design in 1900) knew all about the German Mauser '98. They didn't; whether they would have done things differently had they done so, I don't know. But I have been over every piece of Springfield Armory and Ordnance Department paperwork I could find from that period and they simply did not know such a thing as a Model 98 Mauser existed, even though the basic 1896 patents were filed in the U.S. Patent Office in Washington.
Jim
P.S. I know the current fad is to bash and insult Hatcher, but blaming him for the design of the Model 1903 seems to be laying it on a bit; he would have been 15 in 1903.
JK
P.P.S. And please don't spout the old BS about how we paid to use the patents on the 98 Mauser. Anyone who has done any research other than repeating misinformation, would know that the patents in question were those for the Mauser 1893 design, not the 1898.
JK
Last edited:
My experience is similar. My grandfather, a veteran of Okinawa, didn't even know what my father was talking about when he mentioned a "Garand" one time, but when when Dad said "M1" Grandpa knew exactly what he meant. Interestingly, my grandfather once told me that he liked the "oh three" better than the "M1" because it was "lighter to pack".
I am also reminded of another humorous story about pronunciation of certain guns. My younger brothers are very much into video games (I play occasionally, but not like they do). One of my brothers told me once, laughing hysterically the whole time, about how one of his online "gamer" buddies had mispronounced the name of a certain Soviet submachine gun featured in a popular WWII-themed game. Rather than pronouncing it "P-P-S-H" this young man instead referred to the gun with a sound that can only be described as that of steam escaping
I said placing the third lug exposed on the right side was brilliant. It is possible to have the Mauser bolt supported on the third lug. Then there is the infatuation reloaders have with head space and bolt set-back. Had anyone noticed the third lug on the Springfield bolt set back could have been tracked from round one. The third lug set in front of the rear receiver ring, between the lug and receiver ring is a gap. All that would have been required was for someone to measure the gap and then keep track. They would need to have done a better job of keeping up with the gap than they did with the length of the chamber.
In the beginning the 03 had a small gap, set back could have put the third lug against the rear receiver ring. All of that changed when replacement bolts were made and Remington started building the 03 and 03A3, the gap was increased.
The first 03s were built with a slot in the rear bridge, who knows? Springfield could have had a design on a mid-bolt handle, Who knows again? Had the handle been placed forward of the rear receiver ring would we be making claims the Germans thought we were shooting machine guns. The bolt handle in front of the rear receiver ring would also function as a third lug.
There was only one Mauser prior to the 98 with a third safety type lug. It is possible to add it to all small ring Mausers, rational? That leaves me to believe no one believes it is necessary or they just have not got around to thinking about it.
Bashing Hatcher: I believe those that read Hatcher then quote him are the bashers.
F. Guffey
Jim Watson
New member
The 1901 Springfields had a safety lug the same place as the 1903, but lower so the receiver bridge did not have to be humped up. It was still a solid bridge calling for a rearmost bolt handle location. Pictures at:
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Bolt...ODEL 1901/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY MODEL 1901..html
http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Bolt...ODEL 1901/SPRINGFIELD ARMORY MODEL 1901..html
Arizona Fusilier
New member
No disrespect.....but I'm still taken aback by a veteran of the day mistaking an '03 for a '98.
Would a modern vet make such a mistake? I know an AK looks nothing like an M4...but still......
Or perhaps this is just proof how much of a gun-geek the rest of us are?
Would a modern vet make such a mistake? I know an AK looks nothing like an M4...but still......
Or perhaps this is just proof how much of a gun-geek the rest of us are?
Jim Watson
New member
Be interesting to see a picture and reference to a split bridge non-Krag, Guf.
Found it. The Springfield 1900 had two front locking lugs and a tall safety lug. It had a protruding magazine reminiscent of the 1891 Mauser. The bridge was split to pass the safety lug, as was done on the first two 1901 flush magazine guns. After that, the safety lug was lowered for the rest of the 1901s, but back to the tall form in the 1903 with a hump on the bridge.
I understand that the royalties we paid Mauser up until we entered WWI were for the rights to the stripper clip and rimless cases, not the action of the rifle itself. Maybe Jim K has details.
Found it. The Springfield 1900 had two front locking lugs and a tall safety lug. It had a protruding magazine reminiscent of the 1891 Mauser. The bridge was split to pass the safety lug, as was done on the first two 1901 flush magazine guns. After that, the safety lug was lowered for the rest of the 1901s, but back to the tall form in the 1903 with a hump on the bridge.
I understand that the royalties we paid Mauser up until we entered WWI were for the rights to the stripper clip and rimless cases, not the action of the rifle itself. Maybe Jim K has details.
Last edited:
No disrespect, but many "veterans of the day" were not "veterans of the campaign". Naval and aircrew and support personal rarely would have seen a 98k, and that was 70 years ago (for example).
Now, some one like an old (and now passed) friend of mine, who jumped the night before D-Day, and survived St. Mere Eglise, and spent the Battle of the Bulge at Bastonge, knew the difference, but another, who was at Saipan and The Philippines, and another who ran a raidio station in Alaska might not have remembered the differences so many years later.
If they weren't gun guys. Gun guys remember.
Posting pictures is a thankless job. One of my resource people has at least one as in receiver (not picture). Other odd and or unseal 03 prototype receivers are not threaded for barrels and as would be expected, the receivers are not heat treated. I believe he has 5 different ones.
F. Guffey
Jim Watson
New member
I agree.
I tracked them down. Interesting.
I still think we should have bought the whole engineering package from Mauser and issued the latest 1898 in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57).
I tracked them down. Interesting.
I still think we should have bought the whole engineering package from Mauser and issued the latest 1898 in .30 x 2 1/4" (7.62x57).
With a lot of Congressmen and Senators still PO'd about adopting that "furrin" Krag, buying the rights to a German rifle would have not been a good career move for any ordnance officer.
If we had, though, why a "7.62x57"? The 8mm would have been a better cartridge (though the 8x57js was still in the future).
Jim
If we had, though, why a "7.62x57"? The 8mm would have been a better cartridge (though the 8x57js was still in the future).
Jim