The Model 1903 Springfield rifle: An American icon

PALADIN85020 said:

The Krag's bolt handle was meant as a safety backup in case the single lug cracked; it did not bear on the frame unless the single lug gave way. It also had a long longitudinal lug on the bolt which served the same purpose, so there were three lugs, only one of which actually bore on the frame under normal circumstances. The '03 had two load-bearing lugs and a rear safety lug which did not bear on the frame except in the event of an incredible overload that might crack the two forward lugs. Both rifles were designed with these safeguards, but the '03 had the strongest load-bearing lockup of the two. You are right in that the heat treatment of all of the Krags and the early '03s left something to be desired. The workers at Springfield had to eyeball the heat treatment; usually they were pretty good at it, but I'm sure there were "Monday rifles." The later '03 double heat treatment, and later, the nickel steel receivers and bolts took care of that problem.

John

Click to expand...

I have seen a thread at doublegunshop where a gent milled the lug completely off of a Krag bolt and it held up fine. The Krag is IMO a needlessly-maligned military rifle and was used as a red herring by Elihu Root to mask systemic problems the US Army had in combined-arms tactics in the Spanish-American War; the only officer in Cuba with field experience above Company-level was Joe Wheeler. All the regular Generals were JOs in the Civil War and the US Army had not maneuvered infantry at above Regimental level anywhere but West Point (or even seriously thought about it) since 1865's Grand Review.

Denmark and Norway both fielded Krags in WW2, and reports indicate the Norwegian Krags were more capable arms than the German K98s. The Nazis would have to call in close air to eliminate Norwegian troops as they could not close even to mortar range due to rifle fire.

Our local American Legion post uses issued 03 Mk1's in our honor/color guard. I ran across the paperwork awhile back where the Post received them in 1947. Another Post in the area had issued M1898 Krags along with several hundred rounds of .30-40 blanks when it closed down some time ago.
We thought about trading our 03's for M1's but since the post is named after two local WW1 vets killed in France, we thought it fitting to keep the 03's. Some are barrel dated 1918/1919 (am guessing original tubes) and some have early 40's dates (re-barreled).
They're cool when we stack arms at Memorial Day services, etc.
Now if we could come up with some Pedersen devices.

PALADIN85020,

Like this? Carried it all through junior high and high school:

Plain Old Dave said:

Denmark and Norway both fielded Krags in WW2, and reports indicate the Norwegian Krags were more capable arms than the German K98s. The Nazis would have to call in close air to eliminate Norwegian troops as they could not close even to mortar range due to rifle fire.

Click to expand...

Krags are extremely accurate rifles, with a smooth action. At medium long engagement ranges, they're the equal of most other infantry bolt guns.

That having been said, they're manifestly inferior to either the Mauser 98 or the Springfield for general service at normal engagement ranges. The .30 USG (.30-40) was a decent round for its time, but inferior to both the 6.5x55 and especially the .30-06.

The biggest problem with the Krag (at least the American ones) was the inability to use stripper clips. Experimental guns adapted to clip loading were made, but never would have been the equal of properly designed staggered box magazine gun. The Ordnance Corps realized this and threw in the towel.

The M1903, and especially the M1903A1 Springfields were a rare combination of esthetic beauty and combat effectiveness.

The Springfield was a rifleman's rifle. It's real qualities shone in the hands of highly trained marksman (like the Marines in WWI) rather than in hastily trained conscripts.

British riflemen scythed the German infantry like corn, at very long ranges, at the Battle of Mons. I wonder what they would have done with M1903 Springfields. Their rate of fire would have been lower, but their inherent accuracy even greater, and at even greater ranges.

cmort666 said:

The M1903, and especially the M1903A1 Springfields were a rare combination of esthetic beauty and combat effectiveness.

The Springfield was a rifleman's rifle. It's real qualities shone in the hands of highly trained marksman (like the Marines in WWI) rather than in hastily trained conscripts.

British riflemen scythed the German infantry like corn, at very long ranges, at the Battle of Mons. I wonder what they would have done with M1903 Springfields. Their rate of fire would have been lower, but their inherent accuracy even greater, and at even greater ranges.

Click to expand...

It's been said that the United States produced a target rifle with the '03. The rear sight, in particular, was complex. As one elevated the sight, it actually moved laterally to compensate for bullet drift at longer ranges. Still, the later '03A3 bridge-mounted sight was probably superior, as it was a peep sight. The receiver-mounted sight of the '03 had a peep aperture, but it was way too far away from the eye to be used effectively.

All in all, someone really familiar with the rifle could make hits at amazing ranges.

John

PALADIN85020 said:

It's been said that the United States produced a target rifle with the '03. The rear sight, in particular, was complex. As one elevated the sight, it actually moved laterally to compensate for bullet drift at longer ranges. Still, the later '03A3 bridge-mounted sight was probably superior, as it was a peep sight. The receiver-mounted sight of the '03 had a peep aperture, but it was way too far away from the eye to be used effectively.

All in all, someone really familiar with the rifle could make hits at amazing ranges.

John

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about the M1903 rear sight is that while it's finely adjustable, it doesn't have tactile or audible clicks. Instead (at least for across the course target shooting), a micrometer tool is used to set the elevation slide. The micrometer is set to the desired elevation, then the slide loosened and aligned with the micrometer. Obviously not practical for combat.

cmort666 said:

Krags are extremely accurate rifles, with a smooth action. At medium long engagement ranges, they're the equal of most other infantry bolt guns.

Click to expand...

Strike 'equal' and replace with superior. Less muzzle blast, more intelligently designed stock and with either the 1901 or 1902 sights capable of first round hits on targets at visual range.

That having been said, they're manifestly inferior to either the Mauser 98 or the Springfield for general service at normal engagement ranges. The .30 USG (.30-40) was a decent round for its time, but inferior to both the 6.5x55 and especially the .30-06.

Click to expand...

The 6.5 has better sectional density than many .30-'06 loadings and is a better round for much the same reason the Krag is: Less punishing recoil makes practical accuracy easier.

The biggest problem with the Krag (at least the American ones) was the inability to use stripper clips. Experimental guns adapted to clip loading were made, but never would have been the equal of properly designed staggered box magazine gun. The Ordnance Corps realized this and threw in the towel.

Click to expand...

The Krag was never intended to be used as a magazine rifle. It was a single-shot rifle with magazine intended for 'emergency use', and actually may be fired as rapidly as any other boltgun and faster than other non-stripper fed rifles. Dump 5 in the gate, smack it shut and you're good.

Honestly, the politics behind the (to me unjustified) switch from Krag to 1903 would make a fascinating study in the context of the revolution in what we now call doctrine that happened between 1899 and 1909.

All in all, someone really familiar with the rifle could make hits at amazing ranges.

Click to expand...

Which the Marines did at Belleau Wood. 800yd hits were reported by the Huns. On the topic of the 1903, was I the only one that was almost throwing things at the TV on Top Shot when the shooters couldn't figure out that the 1906 sight's battle zero was 425 yards and accordingly to hit at 100 they would need to aim nearly a foot low?

Plain Old Dave said:

The Krag was never intended to be used as a magazine rifle. It was a single-shot rifle with magazine intended for 'emergency use', and actually may be fired as rapidly as any other boltgun and faster than other non-stripper fed rifles. Dump 5 in the gate, smack it shut and you're good.

Click to expand...

Which alone made it obsolete. "Modern" warfare required the ability to reload quickly, not just from round to round, but magazine to magazine.

If you need proof, shoot the NRA timed and rapid fire stages with a Krag, side by side with somebody with a Mauser, Springfield, Pattern 14, M1917 "Enfield", Mosin-Nagant, or pretty much any "modern" bolt action military rifle. You won't even finish either stage. And that's with nobody shooting at YOU.

The Battle of Mons would have been VERY different had the British been equipped with Krags.

Last night on the Encore Western Channel, the movie "They Rode to Cordora". Gary Cooper and Rita Hayworth. The 1916 Punitive Expedition into Mexico after Poncho V.

Regimental sized cavalry charge using 1911's and then breaking out the 1903's.

Not sure how accurate the uniforms and equipment was, but it was an interesting film I had not seen before.

LTC

1943 Made Rifles

Remington M1903A3 and Springfield M1 both made in the last half of 1943.

good article. My 03(frankengun) needs a trip the gunsmith for a new barrel so it doesn't get much range time but my m-1917 eddystone does . I feel that the powers to be would have been better off after the war developing an adjustable rear sight for the m-1917 than keeping the m-1903 as the main issue rifle.

Shot the .22LR M2 Springfield in high school and loved them. Years later as an adult I managed to get my very own. Wonderful little rifle with a 1934 barrel date. It'll be 80 next year...

Had one of the $14.50 DCM 03A3s; ultimately gave it away to a boyhood friend, now deceased. I'm totally amazed at the prices being asked for them 50 years later!

Bat Guano said:

I'm totally amazed at the prices being asked for them 50 years later!

Click to expand...

It is amazing for 03's and others. IIRC, I remember getting my first DCM M1 for less than $100.