[ EPU Foyer ] [ Lab and Grill ] [ Bonus Theater!! ] [ Rhetorical Questions ] [ CSRANTronix ] [ GNDN ] [ Subterranean Vault ] [ Discussion Forum ] [ Gun of the Week ]

Eyrie Productions, Unlimited

Subject: "GotW 42: M1903A3 Springfield"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Gun of the Week Topic #68
Reading Topic #68
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Apr-26-17, 00:13 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
"GotW 42: M1903A3 Springfield"
 
   LAST EDITED ON May-04-17 AT 01:51 AM (EDT)
 
[ Oops, that's actually entry 42. --G. ]

To inaugurate the new form of Gun of the Week, I'm pleased to present a Very Special Episode: the M1903A3 Springfield rifle, with special guest stars my father, his father, and his father's rifle.

--G.
holy cow, 42 of these things?
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
GotW 42: M1903A3 Springfield [View All] Gryphonadmin Apr-26-17 TOP
  RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield MoonEyes Apr-26-17 1
     RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield Gryphonadmin Apr-26-17 2
         RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield MoonEyes Apr-26-17 3
     RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield Gryphonadmin Apr-27-17 4
         RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield MoonEyes Apr-27-17 5
  RE: GotW 42: M1903A3 Springfield Gryphonadmin May-27-17 6

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
MoonEyes
Member since Jun-29-03
745 posts
Apr-26-17, 08:43 AM (EST)
Click to EMail MoonEyes Click to send private message to MoonEyes Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #0
 
   LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-17 AT 09:39 AM (EDT)
 
A rather minor, but still, point: In the late 1800s, there WAS no Norway, as such. The cracks were starting to be VERY notable, but at that time, Norway was under at least supposed Swedish control, run, nominally, from Stockholm. It wouldn't last very much longer, though.
And the Norwegian Krag was chambered for the Swedish 6.5x55, rather than US-used .30-40 Krag, which might've been a reason for the rifle coming into service later IN Norway.

I live literally 10 minutes bicycle ride from where the separation of the nations was signed, things you absolutely cannot avoid knowing, as it were.

Oh, and vis-a-vis that last? You're absolutely right. Can't think of any better way. Well, which doesn't involve whipped cream and Charlize Theron, or some similar, but that's rather less likely to happen, I would venture...


...!
Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths
"Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!"


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Apr-26-17, 02:13 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #1
 
   >A rather minor, but still, point: In the late 1800s, there WAS no
>Norway, as such. The cracks were starting to be VERY notable, but at
>that time, Norway was under at least supposed Swedish control, run,
>nominally, from Stockholm. It wouldn't last very much longer, though.

Oh. Right. I think I knew that once, but had forgotten...

>And the Norwegian Krag was chambered for the Swedish 6.5x55, rather
>than US-used .30-40 Krag, which might've been a reason for the rifle
>coming into service later IN Norway.

I dunno, the Danes also used a different cartridge (8x58R), and theirs went into service three years before the American one.

>Oh, and vis-a-vis that last? You're absolutely right. Can't think of
>any better way. Well, which doesn't involve whipped cream and Charlize
>Theron, or some similar, but that's rather less likely to happen, I
>would venture...

Certainly not as a cooperative project with my dad. Yikes.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
MoonEyes
Member since Jun-29-03
745 posts
Apr-26-17, 06:42 PM (EST)
Click to EMail MoonEyes Click to send private message to MoonEyes Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
3. "RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #2
 
   LAST EDITED ON Apr-26-17 AT 06:49 PM (EDT)
 
>Oh. Right. I think I knew that once, but had forgotten...

Well, the point is rather uninteresting in the vast majority of cases, and even in this one, is a tangent at best. I would most likely not been able to say with any certainty, except for the proximity to the place-of-signing.

>I dunno, the Danes also used a different cartridge (8x58R), and theirs
>went into service three years before the American one.

Mmmm. Well, point, indeed. Sweden/Norway used the same round for Rolling Blocks briefly, until they settled on the 6.5x55, in Norway the Krag and in Sweden the Mauser variants based on the Model 1893. Hopefully, I'll get to go shoot one soon-ish, and see if it was as nice as I remember from 20 years ago.

>Certainly not as a cooperative project with my dad. Yikes.

Well, most likely not, no, I would have to think.


...!
Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths
"Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!"


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
Apr-27-17, 00:15 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #1
 
   >A rather minor, but still, point: In the late 1800s, there WAS no
>Norway, as such. The cracks were starting to be VERY notable, but at
>that time, Norway was under at least supposed Swedish control, run,
>nominally, from Stockholm.

I did a little looking into this, and it looks like the Sweden-Norway union was a system not entirely unlike the Austro-Hungarian one, in that Norway and Sweden were still nominally separate countries with a common monarch. They shared a foreign service, because that was directly subordinate to the Crown, but had separate everything elses, including armies. In practice, that probably worked about as well for them as it did for Austria-Hungary, although at least, unlike Austria-Hungary, they didn't go ahead and have a third army for the union-as-a-whole. :)

Anyway, that may explain why the Norwegian Army didn't get around to adopting the homegrown rifle until a few years after the Danes and the Americans did, and why they ended up using the same ammunition for it as the completely different rifle the Swedes adopted—logistical concerns and all that. Certainly they didn't wait for the dissolution of the Union before adopting the Krag, since the final break didn't happen until more than 10 years later.

(I was amused to find a note that the Norwegian and Swedish 6.5x55 ammunition were slightly different in practice, with the Norwegian cartridges tending to be just a little bit oversized, and that some people assumed—evidently wrongly—that this was so the Norwegians could use captured Swedish ammunition in the expected civil war but not the other way around. Seems more likely it was just one or the other ammunition plant getting it slightly wrong. Ockham's razor and all that. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
MoonEyes
Member since Jun-29-03
745 posts
Apr-27-17, 09:23 AM (EST)
Click to EMail MoonEyes Click to send private message to MoonEyes Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
5. "RE: GotW 40: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #4
 
   >I did a little looking into this, and it looks like the Sweden-Norway
>union was a system not entirely unlike the Austro-Hungarian one, in
>that Norway and Sweden were still nominally separate countries with a
>common monarch. They shared a foreign service, because that was
>directly subordinate to the Crown, but had separate everything elses,
>including armies. In practice, that probably worked about as well for
>them as it did for Austria-Hungary, although at least, unlike
>Austria-Hungary, they didn't go ahead and have a third army for
>the union-as-a-whole. :)

Formally the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway was...more than a bit of a mess. It was something of a compromise between the desire for independence of Norway, which had been Danish, and the Swedish demands for restitution for the Napoleonic wars, where Denmark had been on the 'wrong' side. Denmark handed over Norway, and a significant chunk of change, and Sweden handed over Pomerania, a part of what is now Germany and Poland, a significantly smaller amount of real estate.

Sweden, all through the union, tried to increase the "one nation" sentiment, and the Norwegians, ungrateful bastards that they were, were VERY much of the "Norway as an independent country without Swedish intervention" bent. Cue massive surprise in Sweden, and no-where else in the world.

Foreign service was indeed shared, about 20 years after the creation of the union Norway even got to be a part of the decision-making there. One of the large issues that made the major cracks appear was that Norway didn't have a real leadership of it's own for the majority of the union, instead having a Governor-General, which was seen as a blatant flaunting of the Swedish control of Norway.

There was also a union-mark in the flags, so that each nation had it's own flag, and the upper, inner quarter would be a 'combined' flag, sort of how the Brit flag is in the Australian one. This, however, bred resentment in Norway, seen as a reminder that they weren't free. Also, the mark was heniously ugly(my opinion), and was generally referred to as the

And no, there was no third unified army.

>Anyway, that may explain why the Norwegian Army didn't get around to
>adopting the homegrown rifle until a few years after the Danes and the
>Americans did, and why they ended up using the same ammunition for it
>as the completely different rifle the Swedes adopted—logistical
>concerns and all that. Certainly they didn't wait for the dissolution
>of the Union before adopting the Krag, since the final break didn't
>happen until more than 10 years later.

Well, the ammo was decided on first, in an actual bi-nation committee, the desire was a flatter trajectory and more ammo brought along(much like the 7.62 vs 5.56). The previous round had been the 10.15mm Jarmann. Each nation then picked the rifle they wanted to have shoot that round. The committee decided on the 6.5x55mm, Sweden went and bought Mausers, before then making licensed versions domestically, using high-grade Swedish tool steel(even in the German-produced ones), and Norway decided on the Krag, rechambered.


>(I was amused to find a note that the Norwegian and Swedish 6.5x55
>ammunition were slightly different in practice, with the Norwegian
>cartridges tending to be just a little bit oversized, and that some
>people assumed—evidently wrongly—that this was so the
>Norwegians could use captured Swedish ammunition in the expected civil
>war but not the other way around. Seems more likely it was just one
>or the other ammunition plant getting it slightly wrong. Ockham's
>razor and all that. :)

Not a bad thought. :) It's actually due to a (mis-)interpretation of the specs, where the Krag used the maximum chamber pressure and the Mauser the minimum. The Norwegian ammo still worked in the Swedish gun, it just required a bit more push on the bolt. Both ammos were within the specifications, just not on the same end of it. It's because Josef Alm was a moron perpetuating a rumor(Alm was a Swedish "weapon-historian" of the '30s) that the idea still pops up. Incidentally, spitzer rounds took nearly 50 years to arrive. The original designation was the m/94, where the number means what you think. The spitzer was the m/94-41. Again, the numbers mean what you think.

...!
Stoke Mandeville, Esq & The Victorian Ballsmiths
"Nobody Want Verdigris-Covered Balls!"


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Gryphonadmin
Charter Member
19265 posts
May-27-17, 11:41 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Gryphon Click to send private message to Gryphon Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: GotW 42: M1903A3 Springfield"
In response to message #0
 
   Went upstate today for a cookout with the crew; it was the first opportunity I had to show my grandfather the restored rifle.

"Well, I'll be damned," he said. "I never thought I'd see one of these again."

He was very pleased, particularly after we were able to get it across to him that it was his old deer rifle restored, and not just a random M1903A3 I found somewhere. (I say it that way because he's quite deaf, so explaining anything these days takes some work. :)

Gramp's been having some memory problems of late, but he recognized the rifle right away, and gave my Uncle Mike a short history of the model when he asked, which my Aunt Dot couldn't stop talking about afterward. I guess the problem's more with short-term than long-term. Anyway, I guess Dad and I are heroes now, for providing some mental stimulation along with everything else...

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

[ YUM ] [ BIG ] [ ??!? ] [ RANT ] [ GNDN ] [ STORE ] [ FORUM ] GOTW ] [ VAULT ]

version 3.3 © 2001
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited
Benjamin D. Hutchins
E P U (Colour)