WWII bolt action in the Pacific???

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Prof Young

New member
Riflemen, women, persons . . . .

So I'm watching The Pacific for the fourth time and this is the first time I noticed that the Marines were using bolt actions rifles at least at the beginning.
What rifles would those be?

Live well, be safe
Prof Young
 
1903 Springfield.


If you watch closely a few of them are left handed bolts from flipping film to have actor go the other way around a tree. LOL
 
never have watched the pacific.

however history dictates that the marines were still stuck with the 1903 for much of the first couple years of WWII. army always got first dibs on weapons. the marines were happy enough to keep the rifles they knew how to fight with.

some not so historical stories are that during the soloman campaign(guadalcanal), the marines were running low on supplies and the army wasn't very careful with their supply depots so a few marines ended up pilfering garands and after they saw how the new rifles acted they started pushing for getting new rifles... whether there's much truth to it or not I don't know but it makes for good tv.
 
Last edited:
Yep... The Marine Corps started the war with '03 Springfields and the general consensus that the Garand was a POS. A few Marine Officers saw the worth of a selfloading rifle and got the Corps looking at the "new fangled" Army rifle. As the war progressed the Garand was accecpted into the Corps and became standard issue in 1942 (IIRC)
 
My Father served in WWII in the Army in both Europe and the Pacific. In both locations, even as late as post D-day the first rifle he was issued was a 1903, and did not get the Garand until later. When he was shipped to the Pacific, he had to turn in his Garand and was issued a 1903 when he hit the Philippines. Couple of weeks later they got a Garand back. Strange, but I guess the military was giving the Garand to front line troops first and second wave guys second. No way to know for sure, but my Father was issued four different rifles over 3 years, in two different theaters of war. He survived and just turned 93.
 
My uncle was at Pearl Harbor during the attack. After it ceased, he was issued a 1903 covered in cosmo and a bandolier of 30'06 to fight the predicted invasion.
 
In addition to the M1903's mentioned.....

Winchester 70 Nat'l Match rifles with a clip guide for Springfield 5-round clips were used with a Unertl 8X scope in the Pacific theater; a few in Europe.

A few M1917 Enfields were also used in both theaters.

The US Navy bought a thousand or more Remington Model 720's during WWII but they were never put in combat situations. All were set aside at the suggestion of a USMC major (former OIC of the USMC Rifle Team) that they be used as trophy rifles for USN and USMC competitions.

The USA troops also picked up a usable British SMLE .303 if the need arose and it was available with ammo.

And all sorts of commercial bolt and lever action sporting rifles as well as double barreled rifles were used by civilians when the enemy was coming and that's all they had. I vaguely remember reading about a Belgian noble who grabbed his Wesley Richards double rifle when some Axis troops jumped the fence coming into his estate near Antwerp or Ghent and dropped two of them perfectly lined up with a single shot.
 
Bart B. said:
In addition to the M1903's mentioned.....

Winchester 70 Nat'l Match rifles with a clip guide for Springfield 5-round clips were used with a Unertl 8X scope in the Pacific theater; a few in Europe.
Click to expand...

Could the rifle be loaded with clips with the scope installed?

-TL
 
No.

But taking the scope off then putting on a Lyman 48 aperture rear sight, that rifle won a lot of rapid fire matches shooting 10 well aimed shots in 50 seconds. It was then better than the M1903 Springfield when used as a standard service rifle. A few were so employed.

Some may have been used in Korea with a Pachmyer Low-Swing scope mount that when swung up and left, 5-round clips could charge the magazine.
 
Last edited:
In the first years, M1 rifle production was very slow. To make matters worse, FDR ordered over a million M1917 rifles sent to England in the late summer of 1940, practically eliminating the U.S. war reserve. That led Army Ordnance to order the cancellation of a Remington contract to make a modified M1903 in .303 British (the British contracted with Savage for the Rifle No.4) and make the M1903 for U.S. forces. That led to production of the M1903, M1903 Modified, and M1903A3/A4 by Remington and M1903A3 by Smith Corona.

Eventually, M1 production at Springfield got on track and with input by Winchester, there were soon plenty of M1 rifles for front line troops, though some rear echelon troops still were issued Springfields.

I once knew a man who was with the Army Engineers. His job on D-Day, was to get onto one of the beaches in a small boat, in the dark, and set explosives on some of the obstacles the Germans had planted. Since he was not considered a combat or front line soldier, he was issued an M1903, not an M1. So being AHEAD of the front line troops was not considered a combat mission.

Jim
 
I love reading historical accounts like these.

My GF got me the BoB/Pacific box set for Christmas. I also noticed the Marines were using 1903's in the beginning, interesting stuff. Every time SPR or similar comes on I get my Garand out of the safe and 'cradle' it while watching the show.:p

My GF thought I was weird at first but now she understands.:cool:
 
This is a shot of glider troops training in England 1944. Note the 1903 held in the hands of the first trooper on the left.



Somewhere I have a photo of an 82d Airborne Division trooper with a 1903A3 all kitted out in combat gear, chute and reserve.
 
One point to consider, whether the discussion is about WWII Springfields, or Civil War Henrys. Your soldiers don't need a better weapon that the enemy has, they just need as good a one. Since the Germans had few semi-auto rifles prior to 1944, and the Japanese never did, the M1903 was at least as good as the Mauser or Arisaka. And that was all that was needed.

Unless there is some great (and unlikely) discrepancy, like flintlocks against M16's, the infantry rifle is not a major determinative of victory in war. Organization, tactics, leadership, control of the air/sea, production capacity, economic power, all play a greater role than the infantry individual weapon.

The pistol plays even less of a role and influences nothing, but we still hear nonsense to the effect that the US won WWII because the M1911A1 pistol is better than the Luger or Nambu. So much for all those fighters and bombers, tanks and artillery pieces (and A-bombs) - what counted were the pistols!

Jim
 
In WWII the older established units had the older equipment and uniforms, the newer ones received the newer equipment. One of my M-1 Garands is in the 600,000 range, it was made in May 1942. I read one account where a unit was issued M-1s-with NO manuals, even the NCOs didn't know how to field strip it, etc. I read one account of the Bulge, an artilleryman from a unit that had been scattered was given an M-1 so he could fight as an infantryman, he had been in the Army since 1941 and have NEVER even seen one.
 
The Marines had M1903 Springers whent they first started in the Pacific campaign.

Good reliability and stopping power, at least as good but probably better than the Japanese Arisaka rifle. The M1 came later.
 
James K.

This would get you kicked off the forum at 1911forum.com.

"The pistol plays even less of a role and influences nothing, but we still hear nonsense to the effect that the US won WWII because the M1911A1 pistol is better than the Luger or Nambu. So much for all those fighters and bombers, tanks and artillery pieces (and A-bombs) - what counted were the pistols!"

When I was in Viet Nam, we got the option of turning in 1911s if we did not want to carry them(and the attendant junk that goes with one). Every man in the company, issued a .45, jumped at the chance to dump the old clunkers. You could make up the weight in an extra frag and an extra mag. An outstanding tradeoff.
 
James K said:
One point to consider, whether the discussion is about WWII Springfields, or Civil War Henrys. Your soldiers don't need a better weapon that the enemy has, they just need as good a one. Since the Germans had few semi-auto rifles prior to 1944, and the Japanese never did, the M1903 was at least as good as the Mauser or Arisaka. And that was all that was needed.

Unless there is some great (and unlikely) discrepancy, like flintlocks against M16's, the infantry rifle is not a major determinative of victory in war. Organization, tactics, leadership, control of the air/sea, production capacity, economic power, all play a greater role than the infantry individual weapon.

The pistol plays even less of a role and influences nothing, but we still hear nonsense to the effect that the US won WWII because the M1911A1 pistol is better than the Luger or Nambu. So much for all those fighters and bombers, tanks and artillery pieces (and A-bombs) - what counted were the pistols!

Jim
Click to expand...
Good point. There is a saying within war historian circles. Amateurs fixate on tactics, professionals study logistics.

-TL
 
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I'll take a 1911A1 over a sherman any day and it was the M1 garand that led to a little meet and greet aboard the Missouri, not fat man and small boy. :D

I take exception to some claims that the springfield was superior to the arisaka. unless we compare peace time springfields to last ditch arisakas the comparison is apples to tacos, and I like both.
 
I saw Saving Pvt Ryan! 4th or 5th shot from a 1911 blows up a Tiger tank! We couldn't lose with a pistol like that! :rolleyes:

While the Garand may have "become standard issue" in 1942, not everybody got them, and even some Army units fought the entire war with 1903 Springfields.

When the Marines landed on Guadalcanal on Aug 8 1942, they carried Springfields. They fought the entire campaign with them, and it wasn't until 6 months later (Feb 43) that they even SAW Garands, in the hands of army troops landing to relieve them.

Rumor has it that the Marines then begged, borrowed, stole, or sometimes even traded for Garands till they got their own issued, and there might be some truth to that, but if so, it would be an individual thing. Garands aren't much good with out Garand ammo (the clips) and while a Jarhead might get a Garand and enough ammo from Dogface for himself, in a poker game, or trading for genuwine real Jap hari kari knives..keeping even a squad supplied with bootleg ammo for stolen Garands couldn't have been easy.

And there also all those pesky sgts and officers who don't look kindly to things not in the official TO&E.

They may not bother you when the bullets are flying, but they are always right there the instant the bullets stop. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top