[Kaylee]

I can't find it now, but a week or two ago there was a thread here where folks were debating whether '03's made it over to the front or sat on the docks while our doughboys just used Enfields.

For what it's worth, I just saw a photo of a bedraggled, tired looking ol' American boy standing in the trench, holding a battered rifle with some rather odd stains on the buttstock. The caption read something to the effect of "this American solider just beat a German's brains in with his rifle."

The rifle was an '03 Springfield. Rather grainy photo, but the forward sight block was unmistakable.

So.. they were there, and on the front. Book is "War Photography" I'll find author/publisher info if anyone wants verification.

-K

[Badger Arms]

If I'm to believe what I've read, that's true. Talk that I always heard was that most of the guns were 1917's, but then most of the troops weren't front-line troops. The reputation that the 03 had was one of accuracy and refinement. Most saw the 1917 as clumsy, inaccurate, ugly, and crude. The rear sight was not adjustable so soldiers had to learn where their gun shot... most didn't know or care how to adjust the front. In retrospect, a proper rear sight fitted to the 1917 would have made it the equal or superior of the 1903 on all fronts.

Remember that the Army Brass had their careers invested in their Springfield Rifles. They paid Mauser off for the patent rights, set up factories, worked out [many of] the bugs. They showed the gun off. They proudly taught new troops how their gun was superior to any other on Earth. The fact that the BRITISH (only a century after burning Washington) could produce a gun that was BETTER than ours was unheard of. This factors into what guns were used in combat, but also another factor you might not consider. Many of these photos were 'staged' in some way or another. Why would they stage a photo of troops on the front lines holding a BRITISH rifle... merely a substitute standard gun!!! Weren't our troops getting the best?

At this point in history, the actual facts get muddied by everybody's OPINIONS over the years. We could come up with all kinds of statistics, photographical evidence, written and spoken histories, etc. and we'd still end up with skewed statistics.

Me? I prefer the 1917 but give me a real set of sights on it... like the GARAND has.

[Andrew Wyatt]

i'll see if i can find my WWI sourcebooks and settle this matter.

[Kaylee]

Interesting you mention the "staged photograph" -- that's exactly the context that image was used in,as I recall. On the left, you see a war poster, with a smiling, determined, strong and fit Doughboy marching into battle with a grin.. all the buckles and buttons in order. On the right, you see the aforementioned photo, with the guy looking like death warmed over, covered in mud (and likely worse) and a very, very tired look in his eyes. :( The rifle didn't look exactly in the best of shape either.

A staged publicity photo, it weren't.

far as the actual merits of the rifles go.. either one did the job, it seems.

-K

[Sunray]

"...Most saw the 1917 as clumsy, inaccurate, ugly, and crude..." Tell that to your Sgt. York. He used a 1917 for his expoilts well enough.
"...They paid Mauser off for the patent rights..." Only because Mauser threatened to sue the US government for patent infringements. Then your bunch agreed to pay the licence fee.

[Art Eatman]

While the 1917 was quite prevalent in WW I, the Springfield had largely replaced it by the 1930s. In 1941, few overseas troops had Garands.

Art

[4v50 Gary]

Seen plenty of pictures of the '03 overseas during WW I. They had the Warner-Swazey optical sight on them. There's also a "periscope" rifle that is based on the '03. Don't think it was done for the 1917 Enfield.

[Mike Irwin]

"the Springfield had largely replaced it by the 1930s."

Yep, not suprising at all, either.

The Government held the machinery to make Springfield rifles, but the machinery to make Enfield M1917s was held by private companies (Remington & Winchester).

After the war, with the catastrophic budget cuts that were made to the military starting in 1919, there wasn't money to either adopt the 1917 as the standard battle rifle or acquire the machinery/plants from Remchester...

[Jim K]

The regular army troops who went to France carried their issue Model 1903 "Springfields". Later troops were armed with that rifle until Model 1917 production got cranked up in late 1917. The bulk of the draftee army was armed with the Model 1917 "Enfield".

I have seen one photo of a company on what would later be called "R&R" at a French chateau. They posed with what I assume were their issue rifles and both types were present. I would not have thought they would mix rifles within a company, but the ammo and the clips would have been the same, so why not.

It was never intended that the Model 1917 be adopted instead of the Model 1903; it was always considered a substitute standard. There were moves to adopt it in the early 1920's, but there was no longer any means of production, and the cost of retooling Springfield Armory would have been prohibitive. The Model 1917s became part of the war reserve (around 2 million of them), but some were sold off and 1.1 million were sent to England in 1940. It was this dwindling of the war reserve, combined with the excrutiatingly slow ramp up of M1 rifle production that caused the War Department to issue a contract to Remington for new Model 1903's; the contract later was modified for the Model 1903A3 and another was issued to Smith Corona.

Jim

[Detritus]

"...They paid Mauser off for the patent rights..." Only because Mauser threatened to sue the US government for patent infringements. Then your bunch agreed to pay the licence fee.

once knew a VERY over focused gun-history nut that firmly believed that the patent royalties to Mauser were at leat a partial motivation for war with germany! (actually he was of the oppinion that as far as the army brass and the ordnance Dept were concerned that that was THE reason..)

as for the usage of teh 1903 and 1917 rifles, i am given to understand that ALL USMC units went to the front fully armed with 1903s, that the first US army divisions to reach the front went armed with springfields, but that the follow-on divisions (the volunteer and draftee reinforcements) like the 82nd "all-american" (to which Alvin York was assigned) deployed with either all 1917s or a mix of '03s and enfields. adn yes the same ammo and loading charger system was used by both so there was no conflict there. though the usage of the exact same "stripper clips" negated, one very small advantage that the 1917 had, in that the mag design allowed for at least one (possibly two, can't remember off hand) extra round.

as for the rest of the 03 vs. P17 debate... can you imagine if a rear sight similar to the '03A3 (i know a post war design) had been added?? though that WOULD reduce the ability of the gun for accuarate fire at long range somewhat (removes the ladder-sight) but then again in combat use it was increasingly found that ladder or vernier style sights were not of THAT much utility .

[buttrap]

I recall my Grandfather saying when he went in 1917 they where issued M-91 Nagants in 7.62x54 in the US. In France is was pretty much the Webley .455 with .303 Maxims and Lewis guns. Also a few SMLE rifles and the occasional german 8mm maxim on ox carts for AA guns. But that was the 20th Aero Squadren that served under British command for the entire war.

[C.R.Sam]

'Twas the BARs that were built but not deployed in significant numbers.

Sam

[Abominable No-Man]

The U.S. was woefully short of '03 Springfields when it started sending troops over to Europe during WW1. I believe that Springfield was the only one set up to produce the '03 at first. So, as has been said before, the marines had them, and a few units of the first regular army had them.

The P1917 Enfield came into being because Remington and a couple of other companies were producing the P (for "Pattern") 1914 .303 Enfield rifles for the Brits, who were also short on rifles and if I remember right, were at the time debating whether or not to replace the SMLE.

The Dept of War (that was the DOD at the time) contracted with the civilian gunmakers (who had the tooling in place already) to modify the P1914 to .30-06 and began issuing the result (P1917-not trying to confuse anyone) as a stopgap arm until sufficient tooling could be set up to produce a lot more of the '03's.

Remember, the U.S. military before WWI was VERY small by any standards (I remember seeing a picture of the ENTIRE Tank Corps once- you could easily make out the face of just about everyone in it.......), so I think that in reality the reason there weren't that many '03's issued to the troops at first was because there weren't that many troops to begin with- also, the Dept of War was still converting everyone over to the .30-06 (before that it was the .30-03, I believe it was a round-nose bullet...).

Jim's right when he said that the 1917 wasn't intended to replace the 1903- I think there was a little talk about making the 1917 the standard, but it wasn't all that serious.

BTW, Springfield paid Mauser royalties for the stripper clips used on the 1903, not the whole rifle. And yes, Remington did at one point in time make Mosin-Nagant rifles for Imperial Russia, and some U.S. troops were armed with them when they were sent to Russia (Archangel....) for a brief period before the Communist Revolution. I don't think they were that well-liked, though, and I don't know of any other use by U.S. troops of the Mosin other than that.

Doesn't mean there wasn't tho....

ANM

[Mike Irwin]

"I recall my Grandfather saying when he went in 1917 they where issued M-91 Nagants in 7.62x54 in the US."

Yep. Winchester, Remington, and possibly another maker (Westinghouse?) were making Nagants for the Czarist government, and when the Russian government withdrew from the war and the Romanoff dynasty collapsed the rifles that were made weren't sent. The US Government purchased them and used them stateside for training purposes.

I'm not sure, but during the Archangel Intervention US troops may have been issued Nagants due to the ease of getting 7.62x54R ammo.

After the war most of those Nagants ended up in the hands of Francis Bannerman, who converted not just a few of them to fire .30-06. You'll still come across those rifles, but today's thinking is that the conversion is NOT safe and they shouldn't be fired.


I've never heard of US troops being armed with Webley revolvers, given that the British couldn't make enough Webleys to arm their own military and had to contract with Colt and Smith & Wesson for guns.

Lewis guns were issued, but later in the war were withdrawn and troops given French Chauchat machine guns in 8mm Lebel, with others being specifically manufactured in .30-06 in 1918.

I've also never heard of US troops being issued Vickers Maxims in .303, but again, anything is certainly possible. The United States didn't enter the war with an overabundance of 1917s.

A subgroup of the American Army did also ended up being armed primarily with French weapons, helmets, and sometimes even uniforms -- African American units. There are a number of photos of Black US troops armed with Lebel and Chauterault-Betherier rifles.

The Americans didn't quite want the black troops, so many were set up under French command, where the French African Colonial troops were treated a lot more equitably by the French.

The history of the Harlem Hellfighters, the 369th Infantry Regiment, and other black units is, in many ways, similar to that of the Nissei Japanese during WW II.

The 369th's band also pretty much singlehandedly set off the French infatuation with black Jazz in the 1920s, which also contributed to many black American veterans becoming ex-patriots to France.

[RON in PA]

There is an excellent series of books on US martial weapons of both World Wars by Bruce Canfield. Mostly from the collectors viewpoint, but lots of info on their use. The US Army used a fantastic variety of weapons from several countries in WW1 esp. as far as MGs were concerned.