Rod Bayonet Springfield 1903 (w/ Royalties and Heat Treat)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 ноя 2016
- Cool Forgotten Weapons Merch! shop.bbtv.com/collections/forg...
(Note: I misspoke regarding Roosevelt's letter; he was President at the time and writing to the Secretary of War)
The US military adopted the Model 1903 Springfield rifle in 1903, replacing the short-lived Krag-Jorgenson rifle. However, the 1903 would undergo some pretty substantial changes in 1905 and 1906 before becoming the rifle we recognize today. The piece in todays video is an original Springfield produced in 1904, before any of these changes took place.
The most notable difference is the use of the rod bayonet. When the 1903 was in development, the Ordnance Department opined that the bayonet was largely obsolete, and that it was unnecessary to encumber soldiers with a long blade hanging from the belt. Instead, the new rifle would have a retractable spike bayonet that could double as cleaning rod and would be stored in the rifle stock, unobtrusive to the soldier. This ended in 1905 with a critical letter from Theodore Roosevelt (who was Secretary of War at the time). As the rod bayonet was replaced with a traditional blade bayonet, the cartridge would also be improved to a new style spitzer projectile at higher velocity, and the rifles’ stocks, hand guards, and sights redesigned.
In this video I also discuss two often misunderstood elements of the Springfield’s history: heat treating and patent royalties. Are low serial number 1903 Springfields safe to shoot, and why or why not? And did the US government actually pay royalties to Germany for copying Mauser elements in the 1903?
/ forgottenweapons
Related:
1903 Springfield Snipers WWI: • US WWI Sniping Rifles ...
1903 Springfield Snipers WWII: • US WW2 Springfield Sni...
Mauser Gewehr 1898: • Gewehr 98: The German ...
Fun fact: The variable that Ian mentioned of the brightness of the sun changing how hot the metal "looked" was actually already known and worked around by medieval swordsmiths (especially the Viking/Saxon ones) by creating a forge that was inside a small building with no windows (no outside light meant no variation in how the metal looked when it got hot). It's amazing how many lessons have been learned, forgotten, and then relearned throughout history (sometimes, that cycle is even gone through multiple times).
Cool info, man. This is one of the reasons i always check out the comments on FW and InRange videos.
I am an amateur blacksmith and I definitely know the importance of consistent lighting when forging.
this was around the time that health and safety regs began to require windows by law.
Hey mommy mommy can I see you you today today I have have a a a a little little bit of a a a little little bit of a a little little bit bit of of a a little little little little little bit of a w
@@bigredwolf6 You mean crucible steel?
I offer my sincere and earnest apologies to the M1941 Johnson Rifle Bayonet. I was wrong to believe that you were the daintiest and most half-assed attempt at a bayonet in American military history, I am sorry.
If this is my Johnson and this is my rifle, where's my gun then?
"Enemy combatants on approach sir!"
"Screw 'em"
"We're going to go long today" yeah, like we'd be complaining Ian! Another great, informative video 👍
“Bayonets are obsolete.” meanwhile having a magazine cutoff...
well they might use their rapid fire abilities too fast and we can't have that. Never mind that volume of fire often is more effective than marginally more accurate fire.
Because at the time, they believed that volley fire was the way to fight. We know it wasn't, but they didn't know that yet. It wasn't until WWII that soldiers were firing at their own discretion.
The original rod bayonet was part of the 1884 trapdoor springfield. Imagine the contrast
We need to stay ahead of the curve they said.. we'll probably need that cut off when we get back to firing at eachother from 60 feet away
"we're going a little long here"
This doesn't sound like a problem
I've never said that to a woman.
"Long man bad"(EFAP episode 150 is live as I'm writing this, had to make the reference)
Q: "Oh my god, my serial number is 800,001! Is it safe to shoot?!"
A: "Yes, as long as you dont use 300+ grain bullets, with 150,000+ PSI loads."
I'm watching this for a history assignment, we got to pick what our final presentation was about I picked the US military from 1900-1945. Thank you Ian for being my main source for firearms and helping me through my Junior year of Highschool with this project.
A guy I know who is very experienced with 20th Century US Military firearms found a original unaltered ram-rod 1903 at a gun shop for $800. He held on to it for about 10 years and finally sold it for around $30,000. These are not cheapies.
just the rod? thats ridiculous you could buy 3 barrett m82s for that he really suckered someone in selling someone a rod for 30,000 dollars
@@gcart7675 the 1903 springfield is not a super rare gun, but the ramrods are very rare. it's a piece of history and many would pay millions for something others can't have, so i'm not sure he really suckered someone. just found the right buyer.
Vsucc no its still suckering them cause only people who think like that would buy something like that and pay that price for it when you could literally make your own yeah it wouldnt be real but like i said only the people whod buy it cause they think that way would pay that for it for that reason
think he meant a rifle with original ramrod
@@gcart7675 The person isn't interested in having something that looks and feels the same - he wanted to own a piece of history.
Many years ago, Teddy Roosevelt’s letter was on display at the Springfield Arsenal museum, in a frame over a nice example of an early 1903. Just last year, I visited the museum and found that it was vastly reduced and the letter was nowhere to be found. The organ of civil war muskets was also gone! 😢
1903: "Bayonet is obsolete"
2012: Some brit leads bayonet charge in afghanistan.
Hemimike426 isn't that just like the British
Well yeah, pretty sure that if someone said the shovel is obsolete some russian would lead a shovel charge some 100 years later.
Hemimike426 Please tell me the lead of the charge caught a 7.62, thats so cringy I cant...
Hemimike426
Already happening, the Russians still like to use entrenching tools to beat their enemies to death, in fact, they did it since at least WWII.
nice links
getting stabbed with a screwdriver is not very pleasant but I would not go to war with a screwdriver as a bayonet
honestly, when was a bayonet really a weapon? the cartridge firing breech-loader killed it!!!
keith moore The Japanese were pretty keen on their bayonets.
is this where "you're screwed" comes from? :)
I would.
A long reaching pointy stick will always have a place in battle. The brits made use of bayonet charge to great effect in the falklands, there where also cases in Afghanistan and such.
I always loved the look of the old-school military rifles with the full wood forestock
Full wood 👁️🫦 👁️
Hatcher also said that it was common practice for troopers to 'grease' their cartridges. This dramatically increased pressure on the bolt face. Hatcher's preferred fix (which was not implemented by the Army) was to drill a vent hole in the side of the receiver. This "Hatcher Hole" was only adopted by the Marines. The hole would relieve pressure and allow even a brittle receiver to survive a failed case.
I really like these longer videos and the whole channel in general.
Love these longer videos with tons of historical and technical anecdotes. Keep up the good work!
A proper bayonet should also be a good knife. A good knife is never going to be obsolete because it is just too useful as a tool, if not as a weapon. The last ditch/psychological effect of the Bayonet is certainly something that shouldn't be overlooked as well.
No kidding! I was actually linked here from the video on the M1915 Bolo Bayonet, and I'm surprised that the US didn't make a couple million of those for the trenches after we arrived, what with all the 'interesting' blades that did get made.
Modern combat gear is pretty much completely immune to bladed weapons.
@@anzaca1 I don't agree with your assessment. While you won't be defeating ballistic plate with a knife, you really don't have to. There are still all the soft spots between plates that knives can easily be put through. Small wounds, especially on a human leg, which is typically not armored can and will cause a very painful death quite easily.
Thanks for doing this kind of stuff. I find it really interesting to learn about all the various historical tidbits behind these guns. Please keep on doing what you're doing :)
Absolutely superb review on this one Ian
Great video Ian... full of some very interesting information. Well worth the time to tell it.
Over there over there! Love it Ian! Thank you for sharing!
I was amazed how you described the issue of heat treating the receivers. My old material science professor could not have explained that any better. Great job!
Even as far back as the late 18th Century, it was accepted by officers who had actually conducted bayonet charges, the *primary* point of the bayonet is not to actually stab guys who stand and fight - it is to cause the line being charged to break in fear, making it easier to shoot or stab them in the back. Likewise, the intimidation factor made them quite well suited for riot or prisoner control.
The perfect bayonet engagement is one where your guys still have clean bayonets at the end.
Which means the key points to effective bayonet employment are:
1. A credible stabby bit. It doesn't have to be *great*, merely *credible*. Which means that it only makes sense to make them multi-purpose, so long as you don't compromise the credibility of them as a bayonet. So, trowel and field knife bayonets make sense, while rod bayonets do not.
2. The bayonet should be *visible*, meaning that blue or parkerized bayonets are a bad idea, because if the enemy can't tell you have mounted a bayonet, the fear factor can't kick in. They don't have to be mirror bright, but they should be something that contrasts with the rifle. Matte white works.
3. The troops holding the bayoneted rifles must look competent,confident, and aggressive. So, while the bayonet training doesn't have to be terribly involved, it still has to be good enough that the troops look like what they are doing, are confident they know what they are doing, and are actually good enough to be able to stand up to the skills of their likely opponents.
As an old Lance Corporal once said "They don't like it up 'em"
I thought the primary point of the bayonet was the end of it.
@@DraikSith LOL. Good one
Really enjoyed this longer video
Excellent episode! (Sunday mornings - we have the time to watch the longer ones :-) )
Great bit of history, loved the patent info and the heat treat conflict. Thanks for the insight into a great rifle.
Great video, Ian, very informative as usual. Thanks.
thank you for all this research Ian, your videos are a service to the general public!
Dang, great video man, so cool, love the story telling.
Thanks Ian. Very informative!
cool information! I learnt a lot from this; great video as always Ian.
Go long, go long! Anytime you want to make a longer video, Ian, do it...we will watch and thoroughly enjoy!
i love these long ramble videos :D keep it up mate :D
Your lectures are so educational. Thank you!
Never worry about going long. :) I always prefer the longer videos, because it invariably means there's more cool stuff to learn.
Great explanation of both the "Patent infringement" issue as well as the "Brittle 03s". Thanks!
Ian, your vids are incredibly informative and fascinating! Keep up the good work, mate.
fantastically educational. Thank you, Ian!
Tons of knowledge and history in this video. Thank you.
Very good presentation, I enjoyed it, thanks.
Really good video here Ian. Thanks.
I was just doing research on these things a few weeks ago. Thanks for the upload.
and shutouts to Teddy.
Good video,i learn a lot about firearms history with this channel.
Just want to say I enjoy the longer videos with more history and tidbits. Thanks
That was an excellent episode, I love all the detail. I think I've fenced with more robust épées than that bayonet.
Matthew Doye you can just say sword instead of épée you know
Ian, it would satisfy the curiosity of many of us if you would give, as part of your well informed details about your subject firearms, an equally well informed guesstimate of value of that particular arm. Thank you. Love the education we’re all receiving !
Excellent information, Thank you.
Yet another great video, I ,ove learning new things, especially about war and weapons of all sorts.:D
WOW! Ian you never cease to amaze me. I do not claim to be an expert at all on history or firearms but I am very much enthusiastic about the two subjects.... I've heard a very little about how the 1903 springfield rifle became to be chambered for the 30-1906 or 30-06 cartridge, but this videos explains it. I also was ignorant in the understanding of how us Americans basically copied the Mauser action and owed them loyalties, but yet again, in this video you explain it all.... I am very glad for people like you, who have this seemingly endless supply of knowledge which might only be interesting to a select few people... but to those, like me, who are very much interested in, and just now learning for ourselves, this knowledge is very much valuable... I appreciate everything you do. Keep up the excellent work!!!
lol "do they explode" .. real reassuring
Speaking of bayonets and how this channel is forgotten weapons rather than forgotten firearms would it be possible to see some of the bayonets being sold? I've always been a fan of the old sword bayonets.
edit: I get the feeling I might've asked this before, I apologise if so.
Modern M9 bayonets that are modular; with replaceable parts are another absurd idea. Who on Earth signed off on those and how much did they get paid under the table? Compare their strenght to any 20th century Mauser full tang bayonet.
J.L. Roberts wow I wouldn't use an M9 bayonet at all
Love the longer vids!
Thanks for the information Ian. Very early on in my hi-school ROTC class, we used the old "03's" for our Drill Team. Never enven heard of that version with the round bayonet. :)
Very informative. Thanks!
Thanks for explaining the patent issues with Mauser and DWM. I used to think it was more of a "stupid Americans copying the Mauser and thinking they can get away with it" case. Now, I know it's not the case :) Thank you Ian, keep up the great work!
If you legitimately thought that and saw absolutely no problem blaming it on "stupid Americans" then you're an asshole.
He could have explained though that naming a company "german weapons factory" does NOT make it "the german government" FFS.
Imagine accidentally coping someone and then asking them how to set up the royalty arrangement after you've already started production.
6:21 For anyone wondering, DWM stand for Deutsche Waffen- und Munitionsfabriken, which I first learned of when watching Tales Of The Gun on the History channel
I picked up a low number 1903 not that long ago. It's an early 1906 springfield receiver, with a 1909 springfield barrel on it and it was rebuilt some time after wwII with a remingtion bolt, stock, and rear sight. The theory so far, at least the one I have been told, is that it was built in 30-03, rebuilt into 30-06 in 1909, and then rebuilt either for use in ww2 or after use in ww2. I am not worried about shooting it, and I plan to as soon as I find some greek hxp for a good deal, this video was informal but did not change my opnion on shooting mine.
My grandfather was drafted in 1917. Just before they were to ship over there, they were target practicing and the gun the man next to him was using, blew up. It put my grandpa's right eye out and he didn't have to go to France. Of course it's tragic that he lost his eye but it may have saved his life. Ironically, he was an avid hunter. He was right handed but somehow shot using his left eye. I never got to see him do it. He mostly used a shotgun.
Thank you for the reminder. Years ago I was told to stay away from the pre 1906 Springfields. But never knew exactly why.
*thumbs up* Keep doing the things with the stuff. Don't worry how long the video is, just keep doing your thing.
I do like how the stock looks, specifically right in front of the rear sight. Doesn't have that weird swoop.
"Press here pull forward to were it snaps" Fitting description
"One to keep it company in the safe"
Oh how Droll.
Wow, I really enjoyed all the backstory on the rifle. I will bet money that sometime in the future a bayonet or similar weapon will be placed on combat rifles. JMO. Keep the videos coming, Looking forward to the next one, Thanks.
Love the longer video
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
Ian,
Love your vids . Lots of detailed info that you don't get elsewhere.
However, please fact check me on this.
The issue with the 1903 receivers was due to overheating the ingots in the forge shop, not in heat treat. This is where the crystalline structure of the steel was made brittle. The part about judging the furnace temp by eye is correct, but it was the forge furnace. Less skilled workers brought in due to the war was responsible for this.
The type of steel used in the 1903's up until the late 20's was Type C Ordnance Steel, a low carbon steel, the same steel used in the Krag. The "heat treat" used was actually just case hardening using animal bones and leather scraps to provide the carbon to give the steel a hard skin. When the supply of this steel was finally used up in the late 20's, they switched to nickle steel, which did not require the "double heat treat" procedure. Rock Island only briefly used DHT. They switched to nickle steel much sooner.
As you mentioned, Hatcher wrote about receivers failing, and it didn't become a problem until war production rifles entered service, and wartime manufactured ammo by companies that had little experience in ammo manufacture were given contracts. McBride also complained about this in his books.
The bolt was also made from the same steel and was changed to DHT and then nickle steel, the same as the receivers. You can identify early single heat treat bolts by the straight down bend in the handle. DHT and nickle steel bolts have the handle swept to the rear. Nickle steel bolts are stamped N.S. at the handle root.
Another interesting fact I seem to remember is that the Marines never withdrew their low number 03's from service until they were replaced with the M1 in WW2.
Electrification of the Arsenals and the installation of incandescent lights in the heat treat areas also had a big impact on the workers ability to gauge metal temperature.
Hey, a cleaning rod can be really deadly too! Not in actual hand-to-hand combat though. I've heard an interesting story from some troops that fought in Chechnya, where Russian spec ops would sneak up on sleeping sentries and what not and kill them by driving their standard AK cleaning rod through the poor guys' ears. Apparently that was really quick, quiet and clean.
(Yeah, I know, this is completely irrelevant. Interesting story though, IMO)
holy fuck that sounds gross
Makro vicious
Wow, takes cleaning the ear to a whole new level.
Don't AK cleaning kits generally have pull chain/string instead of a cleaning rod?
+Peter holy shit
Oh my god I need to use this genie sneak up on a enemy
Lovely looking rifle
Where/how do you learn about these obscure guns? Do you research each gun, or do you know all this already? Keep up the good work!
Thoroughly interesting video
Nice job, thanks
Superb rifle, those woods ! I think this version looks better than the later rifles, very sleek.
"We're going long here, hope you guys don't mind." Have we ever!? Keep 'em commin'!
Ian...you NEED this rifle!
Excellent informative presentation. Speaking of impracticality, why did they have 2 mud catching holes in the front sight holder?
In addition to your excellent offering, I'd like to add that the 30-03 cartridge was shortened by 1/10th of an inch to the present 30-06 dimension.
Taking 17 and a half minutes to get to the title item, in most vids bad, with Ian - great!
i fire my 1910 springfield often, but my compromise to the possibility of a brittle reciever i only shoot M1919 gallery loads. its accurate with very little recoil. i dont like to own guns i cant shoot.
A gun you can't shoot only makes for a club and dust collector.
I keep my two unshootable guns around just as reminders to always research and do a thorough inspection of any gun you buy. I never want a bolt exploding or being a single shot away from exploding on me again.
It's always interesting to hear how in the past presidents were apparently quite personally involved in things like the development of firearms.. I heard Lincoln personally held firearms trails on the lawn of the Whitehouse. And now Teddy Roosevelt getting involved with the bayonet question? Fascinating. I wonder if the job just involved less in general for them to be able to spend time on relatively trivial things like that.
Hi Ian. I love your channel and all your vids! One correction here: Theodore Roosevelt was President when he wrote the letter you quote - he sent it to the Secretary of War. TR was Asst. Sec. of the Navy pre-Spandish American War, but was never Secretary of War. Supposedly, War Department folks brought him a rod bayonet Springfield to the White House to inspect, and he mounted a traditional bayonet on a rifle, had a man hold the rod bayonet-mounted Springfield, and proceeded to whack it violently with his blade bayonet until the rod bayonet broke clean in two. Hence, the follow-up letter.
I'd add, he loved the '03 Springfield though, and later had Springfield Armory make him a sporterized version to take on his African safari post-presidency. It's viewable at his home, Sagamore Hill, in Oyster Bay Long Island.
Bayonets are completely obsolete...until you need one. Then suddenly a need arises.
I was curious if you had plans to cover the M1903 Hoffer Thompson .22 Trainer rifle? Noticed the John Garand .22 video but couldn’t find any others. Just trying to find more information about the one my grandfather has.
Depending on the alloy used in the receivers the heat treating process would involve heating to the Austenizing temperature (1200 to 1400 degrees F depending on the alloy if memory serves and then quenched in either water or oil). This is the temperature at which the steel undergoes a phase change and goes from a face centered cubic structure to a body centered cubic structure. What this means is the alloying elements (the Carbon, Vandium, Chrome or what ever is in the specific alloy) go from being on the faces of a cube made up of 8 iron atoms to being inside the cube of 8 iron atoms. The quenching process drives the temperature down fast enough that the steel is unable to go through the phase change back to the face centered structure. However this process also introduces stress into the structure of the steel. This were the second part of the heat treating process becomes involved. The tempering or drawing back of the steel that reduces its overall hardness but also decreases its brittleness and increases its resistance to shock loads. And this is where I suspect the heat treatment process of the steel in the receivers was flawed. The temperatures involved in the tempering process vary by alloy but often also involve bring the steel to a prescribed temperature and holding it at that temperature for a certain period of time. And then letting the steel cool slowly. Over heating the temper will make the steel too soft for the intended use. And under heating will leave the steel harder and more brittle than the specification call for. Unfortunately the Rockwell Hardness tester was not invented until well after the Springfield '03 production started which would of allowed for spotting the problem early on.
From what I understood reading about the rock island arsenal and the Springfield arsenal, they employed extremely experienced gun and metal working smiths, these men had been making rifles for the better part of their lives and they knew and understood and could see by eye what the temperature is in the steel. I suspect another element to this problem came from the fact that the PSI incurred by smokeless powder was unseen up until recent decades and blackpowder was far more forgiving. I don't buy the BS about lower serial number rifles being dangerous. Any rifle that was going to have a problem would have blown up with proof testing and with 2 world wars being fought. Those service rifles that remained in use after they withdrew would have already blown up if they were problematic.
The rifles had to be rechambered because the neck of 30-03 is longer than 30-06.
30-03 is the parent case for 270.
The original 1903s had a rod bayonet too. This was updated around the same time the rifles were being updated in 1906.
Bayonets may be obsolete for their initial use but a knife is always a useful tool to have around
It's a Friday night and I'm into a half a fifth of bourbon I could listen to you talk about heat treating receiver all night long, Ian.
Stellar video. I'd purchase another low serial number just for the great story..
I had heard about the Mauser patent issue but I was unaware of the details (and had no idea that DWM was also involved).
Awesome video! Would love to show people who are just dead set that the low serial number guns shouldn’t even be touched. I have a 1909 made rifle that was rebarreled in 1941 so I think it’s safe to say it’s fine.
Very nice and informative video however, I had been wondering about the story behind the 1903's patent troubles (often mentioned, but rarely explained, in my expirience)
Coming back to this episode after Othais' new video to refresh my memory on this casual near dumpster fire of an idea
Ian is the Jay Leno of guns. Both are national treasures educating citizens about our national history.
man, the craftsmanship of this rifle is absolutely flawless, something you'd expect from a sporting arm not a military rifle
Very good video. I have duffs book on the 03, but I still don't own an actual rifle yet.
So, a cleaning rod that can poke you while cleaning.
Do you think that you would ever do a test with these early guns failing receivers like you did with the Ross rifle reverse bolt?
Hi Ian. I was wondering if anyone from Dice contacted you for information on the weapons used in Battlefield 1. I recently picked up the game, and some of their historical info in the weapon descriptions is almost word-for-word things you have said in your videos!
Rewatched this since I just got an early serial rock island 1903. Was worried about not being able to go to a range to fire it, luckily mine was completely rebuild after ww1 with the proof being that it has a C-Stock and bolt handle is angled towards the stock meaning its a post war bolt.