Silly WW2 .30 cal. question....
- Thread starter jaughtman
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
Yep.
Remember, the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war.
Remember, the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war.
Someone once described the Model 1903 as a "rifle marriage" between the 1893 Mauser and the 1898 Krag. The earliest rifle, sometimes informally called the Model 1900, was a Krag with a different receiver; it fired a rimmed, tapered cartridge that was nothing more than an elongated .30-40. It had a single column magazine more like the early Mausers than like the Model 1893.
The other changes from the 1893 Mauser were mainly the addition of a magazine cut-off (which was never part of German tactical use and appeared on only one Mauser and in a different form) and the addition of a bolt sleeve lock. The former was carried over from the Krag at the request of the infantry. The latter was of an entirely different form that that patented by Mauser and used in their Model 1898; nonetheless, the U.S. paid a royalty on it. Another change, not visible and that would be a source of controversy for many years to come, was the use of a cone breech and the bolt head to accommodate it. It was intended to make cartridge feeding smoother for target shooting.
Jim
The other changes from the 1893 Mauser were mainly the addition of a magazine cut-off (which was never part of German tactical use and appeared on only one Mauser and in a different form) and the addition of a bolt sleeve lock. The former was carried over from the Krag at the request of the infantry. The latter was of an entirely different form that that patented by Mauser and used in their Model 1898; nonetheless, the U.S. paid a royalty on it. Another change, not visible and that would be a source of controversy for many years to come, was the use of a cone breech and the bolt head to accommodate it. It was intended to make cartridge feeding smoother for target shooting.
Jim
Gary L. Griffiths
New member
To add what I recall from an article about the .30-06 / M1 Ball / M2 Ball, the '06 was originally loaded with the 150-gr flat based bullet. Doctrine evolved for long-range firing at troop columns, convoys, etc., sometimes even out of sight of the firing infantry units. The M1 Ball with its 172-gr boat tail bullet was developed to extend the range of plunging fire at area targets. With the development of the mortar, long-range fire at area targets by infantry units was now possible with man-portable artillery, so the long range of the M1 Ball was no longer necessary. Since it recoiled considerably harder than the .30-06, (and possibly due to range issues as previously mentioned) the military adopted the M2 Ball cartridge, which was, essentially, identical to the original '06 in ballistics.
As has been pointed out, with millions of M1 Ball rounds in the inventory at the beginning of WWII, it would only make sense to load them into machine gun belts where the excess recoil would not be a factor, and where extra range and penetration would be desirable.
As has been pointed out, with millions of M1 Ball rounds in the inventory at the beginning of WWII, it would only make sense to load them into machine gun belts where the excess recoil would not be a factor, and where extra range and penetration would be desirable.
Mike Irwin wrote:
"the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war."
Yep, and guess where thousands of them were stored. If you guess Springfield Armory, you win the prize. So the designers at Springfield had a lot of Mausers to play with and study, but NOT the latest 1898 model which, in 1900 when the Springfield was being designed, had not been seen outside Germany.
Jim
"the US military captured a LOT of Mausers during the Spanish American war."
Yep, and guess where thousands of them were stored. If you guess Springfield Armory, you win the prize. So the designers at Springfield had a lot of Mausers to play with and study, but NOT the latest 1898 model which, in 1900 when the Springfield was being designed, had not been seen outside Germany.
Jim
Mike Irwin
Staff
Who, other than you, has said anything at all about the 1898 Mauser in this thread? 
tahunua001
New member
well since a lot of fellows seem adamantly convinced that the 1903 springfield is a direct copy of the K98, it bears mentioning since earlier versions of mausers were cock on close actions and since the springfield shares nearly as much in common with the Krag as it does with mausers, it does bear mentioning that the guys at springfield had never even seen a K98 prior to developing the springfield.
a lot of fellows think the royalties springfield was supposed to pay to mauser had to do with the actual design features of the 1903 rather than the ammo used, if I recall there was some debate over the extractor claw or something or other but WWI broke out and people stopped caring.
a lot of fellows think the royalties springfield was supposed to pay to mauser had to do with the actual design features of the 1903 rather than the ammo used, if I recall there was some debate over the extractor claw or something or other but WWI broke out and people stopped caring.
Well if the boys at Springfield never saw a 98 Mauser, they sure designed a rifle a lot like one. Close enough that it did go to court, and we did pay royalties. However, by the time the decision was reached, WW I was going on, and the money was placed in an escrow account. After the war, the money was taken, as part of Germany's war reparation payments.
Mauser never saw a penny of it.
A somewhat similar situation happened in England. The fuzes used in British artillery shells were a Krupp design. There was a (pre war) contract, Britain paid a penny to Krupp for each shell they made with a Krupp fuze. During the war, the money was put in escrow, and after the war, paid to the victors as war reparations. Krupp never saw a penny after the war started.
Mauser never saw a penny of it.
A somewhat similar situation happened in England. The fuzes used in British artillery shells were a Krupp design. There was a (pre war) contract, Britain paid a penny to Krupp for each shell they made with a Krupp fuze. During the war, the money was put in escrow, and after the war, paid to the victors as war reparations. Krupp never saw a penny after the war started.
OK, 44 AMP, just what part of the M1903 was copied from the Mauser 98 that NOT also on the Model 1893 Mauser? And why didn't they copy the simple Mauser 98 safety lug instead of sticking on that gawdawful lump in the middle of the bolt? And the Mauser 98 extractor camming action?
Jim
Jim
"I never figured out why the went with a two piece firing pin."
Ever seen a Krag? They wanted to have the ability to re-cock the firing pin without opening the bolt for fear of hangfires. They made the cocking knob a permanent assembly with the firing pin, as on the Krag, and so they had to make the firing pin two piece. The Mausers (93 and 98) have no cocking knobs and have firing pins that lock into the cocking piece. The 93 has no means of manually cocking the firing pin; the 98 has a notch in the cocking piece that can take a cartridge rim to pull back the firing pin.
(That concern with hangfires and the possible danger of opening the bolt prematurely led to the same feature on the M1 and M14 rifles; if the round doesn't fire, the user can try another strike by unlatching the trigger guard and re-cocking the hammer by working the guard like the lever of a lever action rifle.)
Jim
Ever seen a Krag? They wanted to have the ability to re-cock the firing pin without opening the bolt for fear of hangfires. They made the cocking knob a permanent assembly with the firing pin, as on the Krag, and so they had to make the firing pin two piece. The Mausers (93 and 98) have no cocking knobs and have firing pins that lock into the cocking piece. The 93 has no means of manually cocking the firing pin; the 98 has a notch in the cocking piece that can take a cartridge rim to pull back the firing pin.
(That concern with hangfires and the possible danger of opening the bolt prematurely led to the same feature on the M1 and M14 rifles; if the round doesn't fire, the user can try another strike by unlatching the trigger guard and re-cocking the hammer by working the guard like the lever of a lever action rifle.)
Jim
Thanks James, explained that way, I can see the sense of it now.
The swede 96 is a 95 Mauser, right? Not certain the difference from a 93, but I know the difference from a 98. The Swede has a "step" on the cocking piece that (looks awkward) could be used to recock it.
And I actually knew that about the M1 /M14 and M1A rifles.
The swede 96 is a 95 Mauser, right? Not certain the difference from a 93, but I know the difference from a 98. The Swede has a "step" on the cocking piece that (looks awkward) could be used to recock it.
And I actually knew that about the M1 /M14 and M1A rifles.
There were two basic Swedish models, the 96 rifle and the 94 carbine. While part of the group known generally as "pre-98 Mausers", they have a few unique features, including that odd cocking piece you mention, and which I forgot in my previous comments.
There is one oddity about the carbines; they have 17 3/4 inch barrels. The ones that were imported prior to 1968 had to have an extension welded on the end to bring them over the then 18" minimum. Later, the law was changed to a 16" minimum for rifles and ones imported after that did not need the extension.
Some folks think the importers had enough clout to get the law changed because of those carbines. In fact, it was due to carbines, but not ones from Sweden. After the U.S. Army had sold thousands of M1 Carbines to NRA members through DCM, someone discovered that many had 17 3/4" barrels. Ooops! The U.S. government had broken its own law!! And no one had kept track of who got the short barrels. Call them all back? Uh, no. Search a half million homes and confiscate guns? Gawd, no. So, they took advantage of the pending change in the law to change that barrel length minimum and hoped no-one realized why.
Jim
There is one oddity about the carbines; they have 17 3/4 inch barrels. The ones that were imported prior to 1968 had to have an extension welded on the end to bring them over the then 18" minimum. Later, the law was changed to a 16" minimum for rifles and ones imported after that did not need the extension.
Some folks think the importers had enough clout to get the law changed because of those carbines. In fact, it was due to carbines, but not ones from Sweden. After the U.S. Army had sold thousands of M1 Carbines to NRA members through DCM, someone discovered that many had 17 3/4" barrels. Ooops! The U.S. government had broken its own law!! And no one had kept track of who got the short barrels. Call them all back? Uh, no. Search a half million homes and confiscate guns? Gawd, no. So, they took advantage of the pending change in the law to change that barrel length minimum and hoped no-one realized why.
Jim