Talk:M1903 Springfield

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mauser clone[edit]

The Springfield is pretty much a Mauser clone under the surface. AllStarZ 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Yeah except Springfield created the rifle before Mauser did.

So the 1903 Springfield was created before the 1893 and 1898 Mausers? Interesting. Was time travel involved somehow?
The 1903 Springfield was heavily based on the Mauser action, to the extent that (as noted in the article), the US government actually paid royalties to Mauser. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No time travel needed. I *think* I understand what he's trying to say, though.

There's a lot of Errornet mythology that states the M1903 Springfield was an American copy of the 1898 Mauser. Nothing could be further from the truth, if you just dig a little bit into the developmental history of the M1903. (Hatcher's Notebook being one source) It's more correct to say that the M1903 Springfield is a combination of features from the 1893 (Spanish) Mauser and U.S. Krag series of rifles. I base that on these factors:

1. The documented capture and study by the U.S. military of 1893 Mausers from Cuba. The 7x57mm Model 1893 Mausers were a rude awakening for U.S. troops during the Spanish-American War, and were the subject of much research to come up with a solution vs. our obsolete Trapdoors and Krags.

2. Obvious carryovers of features like the magazine cutoff mechanism from the Krag. That's not a Mauser feature.

3. The locations of the 3rd locking lug on either the 98 Mauser or 1903 Springfield bolt bodies. They're totally different.

4. The fact that 99% of all 98 Mausers manufactured were made after January 1st, 1899. The folks at Mauserwerke Oberndorf held their new darling rifle very close to the vest, having upped the ante considerably in the small arms race. Uncle Sam didn't have access to them in decent numbers for quite some time.

5. The the fact that the M1903 was already in shootable prototype form as early as 1900. If you know anything about weapons development, even if the U.S. Springfield Armory managed to snag a 98 Mauser specimen sometime in 1899, they weren't going to have it copied and prototyped for trials by 1900.

6. The M1903's forward receiver ring diameter is 1.305", compared to the 98 Mauser's 1.410" receiver ring diameter, and the older Small Ring (93-96 Mauser) 1.300" receiver ring diameter. Why didn't the U.S. Springfield Armory copy the larger 98 Mauser diameter?

Obviously, this is too much information to place in a Wikipedia article about the M1903 Springfield, but it does add perspective to the What, Where, and When of the item in question.

66.188.103.67 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe we should clean up the first sentence in the "Background/History" paragraph to correct the Mauser 98 reference, based on evidence that the prototype M-1903 Springfield rifles were already in shootable form by 1900, while the Gewehr98 rifles were only just starting to see distribution. Dimensionally and historically, there's very little to support the notion that the M-1903 Springfield rifle was a Mauser Gewehr98 derivative or variant. See my previous talking points above dated 12 March 2009. Seo122 (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

infobox[edit]

is there any chance we could add an info box Uber555 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

Good start on a B-class. Weapon infobox (see Project page) needs added.--Oldwildbill 07:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be cleaned up in it's layout. I think the best "template" would be the M1 Garand. The layout, order and organisation of the information on this page are optimal and relevant to the historian and the gun buff. Currently this article is more suited to the former. Veritas Panther 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The weapon is also still in service as a drill rifle at the US Merchant Marine Academy... Approximately 400-600 rifles (I didn't count but the leftovers after the issue of some 330 rifles pointed to a number in this range). In addition, once WWII was over, it has been speculated that several walled in sections on the "zero" deck may contain other stores of functional rifles in cosmolene or similiar preservative, as information on the war years at the academy point to a cache of the out-dated rifles and other war material being stored there. But there has been no conformation of this to my knowledge, though study of the walls and history readily verify the presence of additional spaces on the zero deck, the last of which were sealed prior to the end of the Vietnam War. --Pyrewyrm (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Sand?[edit]

The rifle's bullet penetrated dry sand better at the longer distance? Madmaxmarchhare 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an anomaly, but is true. On certain materials, like wood, dry sand and water, at high velocity (close range), the bullet will upset more and have less penetration than at moderate velocity (longer range). A chart showing penetration of different material at 25, 50, 100, 200 yards would actual show a few more counterintuitive results. Penetration of wood at 200 yds is greater than that at 50 yds. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation found for M1903A1[edit]

I have a source that supports that, if some one will help me set it up it would be much appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.157.59 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I found a source in Google Books that could help this article. http://books.google.com/books?id=vb3dDN9FiekC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=springfield+1903+combat&source=bl&ots=M9ZhMwDYy2&sig=eGPhSDodZrYFJH_FDWyXbLGFEuw&hl=en&ei=-AEuSpu9L4nsyQWnldCBDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PPA186,M1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.201.107 (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The recent move[edit]

I would like to ask Esskater to please explain the reason for his undiscussed move of this article from M1903 Springfield rifle to M1903 rifle. Moves such as this one should usually be discussed prior to their occurrence, and in this case I think it should be discussed if this move should stay, as the rifle in question is very frequently referred to as the M1903 Springfield rifle.--LWF 17:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im fine with you changing back im was under the impresion that other made this weapon also. sry if i did this under false pretenses. im very sry. ive been getting into the habit of asking fro peopole opions on moves. (Esskater11 04:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Although Springfield was the original manufacturer most people refer to it as, "The Springfield rifle" which is why it is a good idea to have it as M1903 Springfield rifle. Since we still need the designation, it is only fitting to have it as M1903 Springfield rifle. By the way, something that would really help us all would be if you were a little more careful about spelling and capitalization. Some of the things you've written have been hard to understand because of your spelling, and it can be hard to tell when some of your sentences start or end because of the lack of capitalization. It's also a good habit to get into when editing the encyclopedia, because when people go there, they expect it to be without typos, and written with proper English grammar. Also, when writing something in the talk pages, you need to skip a line after the last persons comments, or else they run together and become hard to read.--LWF 15:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sry i have really bad grammer im gona start asking people to change things that i know are wrong, due to my bad grammer.(Esskater11 02:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Penetraion of various materials[edit]

Wouldnt the whole write up on how far its capable of penetrating various materials go better on the .30-06 page than on this page? EO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.180.196.202 (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The penetration chart appears to be from millitary training materials used with the Springfield rifle and military issue .30-06 ammunition. Other .30-06 rifles and bullet types would give different performance. --Naaman Brown (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Service[edit]

Mention could be given to the thousands sold to Britain after Dunkirk in WWII , they were used for Regular Army and then the Home Guard afetr supplies of Lee Enfields matched demand Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of the US M1917 Enfield rifle, which was sometimes called a Springfield in error; 734,000 of these were purchased by the UK in 1940 and 1941. Alansplodge (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel and action[edit]

Yesterday I got a Springfield Leader Stock. (Obviously made for the Springfield action). I am going to chamber it in .270, 30-06, or 7.62x51mm NATO. If I chamber it in 30-06 could I just go to Cabela's and pick up a 22" Barrel, M1903A3 Action and install them without the help of a gunsmith? All of the Names were Taken July 21 13:05

USE THE MILITARY NAME OF RIFLE[edit]

Like many weapons, this has many different names attached to it. Grandpa called it 'the rifle' (as opposed to our Winchester 1894) or the " '03' " or the " '06' " Referring to either the year or the caliber. There were three models produced, during the war, just like the M-16 of Vietnam, several companies made the same designed rifle. Some shot better than others. Springfield Armory made some, but Colt made some as well, as well as companies which no longer exist except as memories. The OFFICIAL NAME is the M-1903, and the various (?) improvements (?) were then sub-named A-1, A-2 and the A-3. While Springfield WAS the company of origin, just as the Armalite corporation was the company of origin for the M-16, Colt ended up buying out Armalite, and keeping it as a subdivision for many years before it spun it off again - so many of the AR (Automatic [also Armalite] Rifle) 14, 15 and 16's were made by Colt, would you look under Armalite or under Colt for the factory of Origin. Often the company just adds prestige to a name - such as the "SAA" -- Single Action Army can also be the "Peace Maker" or the "Colt Peacemaker" or simply "the 45" and later with the addition of Browning's Automatic Pistol, Colt (APC) it became a "45 Long" or "Long 45" -- the military name was the M-1903A-1, M-1903A2 or the last version, the M-1903A3, which was often reserved for 'sniping' because it had extra groves and lands thus spinning the bullet faster, sooner, and making it more accurate. This also went along with the inventions for more uniform and higher tolerance bullets and casings. M is the destination for a military weapon, thus the M-16 and not the AR-16, though both are correct, as is the Colt M-16 or even the Colt-AR-16.

The correct name is the M-16 if you are speaking of a military issue weapon. If you are speaking of a civilian issue weapon, for example, a 'sport' version (hunting version) using exactly the same parts except for the frame -- would be the 1903 Springfield. Just as the semi-automatic version of the M-16 is generally called the AR-16 when issued as a civilian or Semi-automatic rifle.

This can cause some problems since the M-1 can refer to either the M-1 Garand rifle, a heavy 30-06 chambered weapon, or the M-1 CARBINE which is a small 30 caliber carbine meant to take the place of the more expensive Automatic Colt Pistol (M-1911 [in general the A-1 version] if issued by the military or simply the 1911 or 1911A1 (or any of it's many configurations) if bought as a civilian side arm) to the M-1 Abrams -- a reasonably massive Long Range Battle Tank in all IT'S configurations M-1-A1, etc. I don't think it would be called a '1', though the M-1903 is well known as the civilian issue 1903 (A1-3) and the Colt 45 Long Single Action Army as simply the "SAA".

The same can be said of the 45-70 -- some add 'government' to the end, and this may be that the cambering on the government issue is from one (or two) to a fractional thousandths of an inch off of the original 45-70 Sharps barreling and exactly WHICH 45-70 you are using (steep wall, carbine, rifle, etc), which is a fractional (or few fractional) thousandths off modern 45-70's. If you go to several different reloading books you will see the +- in some, and an absolute value in others. It all get's very confusing. And then you get into the introduction of more powerful powder concoctions and the caliber stays the same, but the chamber where the initial explosion occurs, and the thickness of the brass changes by just a few fractional thousandths of an inch as metallurgy changes. It gets very complicated as you can see.

For example take the 308 caliber and the 7,62x51mm NATO cartrage. They are CONSIDERED TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME. HOWEVER: The difference is ARGUABLY in the thickness of the brass, and the diameter of the bullet. Both are considered to be the same in the 'real world', though shooting a .308 in a 7.62 or the other way around will result in a difference of pressures and includes the percentage of re-usable brass. And accuracy of a SPECIFIC rifle. I do have to stress the word 'ARGUABLY' since I have been reading extensively on the subject for a few years and the amount of RELIABLE information is quite dirth. Though the amount of REPEATED information is extensive. And some is simply personal preference between the two rounds. The difference seems to be mainly among re-loaders of precision rounds and then the EXACT signature of each action, barrel, and shooter comes into play. Though if one plows through military jargon one does see differences pop up here and there, and they are 'real world non-applicable'.

I am a long-range target shooter, not bench rest, but close, and can pull down any of perhaps 8 books which give different loads for different manufacturers of power and brass and bullets. I know what shoots neat perfection out of my rifle, but it might not even get on the paper out of your rifle, and the same is true of your load, my rifle might not be able to punch paper at 200 meters out of it's barrel. MY loads are written in the margins as they change with humidity, temperature, number of rounds shot, age of power, etc -- so even something as scientific as an approved printed book of tables can be wrong -- and right -- at the same time. So, to even the playing field, every 'field load' comes out just a little different -- buy Remington in it's various grades, do the same for Winchester, UMC, Speer, etc -- and put your rifle in a bench-rest vice and shoot away and each bullet-power-cartrage load will punch holes in a different place on the target. Off the shelf Remington 150 grain caliber 270 will shoot all over the target out of my Remington 700 at 200 yards -- I might even miss the paper. But put in a 130 grain load and I will punch out the center of a small arms target at 200 yards. HERE is where you can be picky and not just say Remington 700 caliber 270 - suddenly the little things make a difference -- and my precision rifle is NOT the Remington, that's my hunting rifle.

I vote to continue to use the MILITARY ISSUE name for military weapons Even if the M-1 is both a carbine and a battle tank. A simple branch can take you to the weapon system you are researching. It should not be difficult to tell the difference by either a photo, or simply looking at the weight or size of bullet fired from ANY barrel of the tank. It is VERY doubtful that any GI in or around an Abrams Battle Tank will be armed with an M-1 30 caliber carbine.

Sometimes the ONLY difference between a military weapon is the serial number. An example for the Sig-Sauer P-226 used by the navy starts with the letter 'U'. Any Sig-Sauer P-226 used by the Navy Seals, has an USN anchor stamp and a lanyard attachment on it. The Military Designation for this weapon is MP-2267 -- Military (or) Police 226, the Sig-Sauer is understood, and if issued to the military the serial number is different and they might have a fancy stamp (like the seals stamp of crossed anchors) or the lanyard attachment.

Stick with M-1903 as the original issue THEN you can talk about the differences between the A-1, A-2 and A-3 models. A 1903 is a civilian rifle, an M-1903 is a military weapon. And you can only tell if Springfield made it by looking at the proofing stamps on the barrel, receiver, bolt, etc. It's possible you have a Springfield barrel, a Colt Bolt, and an Ithaca receiver and the wooden frame from Greer and Laing and a Bannerman firing pin! which part is most important?

68.126.134.26 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know the history of a specific rifle according to the serial number??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.182.249 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine service[edit]

The M1903 rifle began to be used by the Philippines when it was an American colony. During World War II, it was used by the Philippine Constabulary, the Philippine Army and by guerrillas. After the American colonial period, the M1903 rifle was used primarily by ROTC units. Presently, it's still used by some ceremonial units.

It is noteworthy that Philippine-made wooden variants of the M1903, known as dummy rifles, were extensively used by high school cadets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.156.11 (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The M1903 is said to have been used also by the Second Philippine Republic's Bureau of Constabulary.

Weapon of silent death?[edit]

The characteristic allegedly responsible for subject appellation (a bullet remaining supersonic at the point of impact) was typical of most military rifles of the period, and all weapons firing the .30 caliber 1906 cartridge. It may not be intuitively obvious those on the receiving end of supersonic rifle fire may hear each bullet generating a sonic shock wave sounding like a "snap" as it passes; and that snap, since it originates at the bullet rather than the firing weapon, can be perceived prior to the arrival of the deeper "boom" sound generated by powder gas emerging from the muzzle of the firearm. That sonic shock wave makes silencers relatively ineffective on weapons firing supersonic ammunition. I have requested a reference citation, and feel the statement should be removed unless a reference specific to the M1903 rifle is provided.Thewellman (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a reference citation, I removed the statement.Thewellman (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine cut-off[edit]

Did early versions of the M1903 incorporate a magazine cut-off? If so I would like to incorporate it into the article, but it is not mentioned in mainspace, and as this is a mature well-written article I would assume it would have been incorporated before. Any thoughts? Irondome (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Range[edit]

The maximum range on this rifle should be fixed. The article claims over 5km range which is simply ridiculous, seeing as the longest range shot ever is 1.4km less than the claimed range, and was accomplished with far superior equipment. the M1903 never had any sights attached that would allow it to achieve such a range, and could only potentially hit a target at that range when used as part of a squad volley fire with no wind. Thus, this range is not a capability of the rifle, but of a bunch of rifles used together.

Here is the source for the purported range of 5km that was cited on the M1917 Enfield page, page 31-33 [1] You can clearly see the range cited is in reference not to the rifle, but to the cartridge. This claim of range should be moved to the .30-06 Springfield article and not be linked to a rifle that clearly couldn't make a shot at that range.

--142.167.27.183 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum "Sight Range" is 1200 yards. The maximum horizontal range at a bore angle of about 45 degrees is ~5 km, less at sea level, more on the Mount Everest. -- hmaag (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When this rifle was designed, volley fire at long ranges was still a tactical doctrine. The idea was to have enough men firing enough bullets that something 'might' hit, until the enemy formation closed to a range where aimed shots could be made. As hmaag stated, 5km would have been the maximum range that volley fire from any firearm chambered in .30-06 could be potentially used at. − Bardbom (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bardbom, but when the M1 ball was created the volley fire had fallen out of use so that point is moot. The M1 wasn't designed for volley fire but for use in the indirect fire role by MGs. As the article states, the volley fire sights were up to 2850 yds, do you honestly think that when volley firing they would stand there blindly firing in the air in order to get past 2850 yds? Or use a protractor or plumb bob to ensure they get a 45 degree angle?

It's nonsensical to use this as the "maximum range" of the rifle, as anyone could hand load a .30-06 round (or any round for that matter) as close as possible to the weapon's tolerances then fire it at a 45 degree angle and claim it as the "maximum range". Then they could fire it from the top of the Berj Khalifa in order to get even more distance. 2850 yds should be used as the maximum range with an asterisk to denote volley fire. That is, unless there was some sort of optic sight commonly mounted that was capable of being sighted for greater distances.

--142.167.27.183 (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur with above comment that maximum range should be defined by affixed sighting mechanisms, rather than by maximum range of the cartridge (which is actually obtained at an angle less than 45 degrees because of differing air resistance as the projectile slows from supersonic to subsonic velocity.) Volley fire had been a useful doctrine with muzzle loading firearms when justified to either engage exposed artillery positions or allow infliction of additional casualties before attacking forces advanced into the effective range of the firearm, at which point reloading time severely limited the number of shots which might be fired before the troops were forced to resort to the blades, bayonets, and blunt weapons used by earlier generations. Military adoption of cartridge firearms was initially restricted by the costs of the individual cartridges which discouraged volley fire under the assumption aimed fire and the sweep of machineguns over flat ground would be sufficient to disable the number of troops who could simultaneously attack a given point. Use of volley fire from cartridge firearms was not a widely accepted combat doctrine until the first world war, when technology reduced cartridge costs and improved the effectiveness of artillery attacks beyond rifle range. Although similar military campaigns might theoretically have been possible at the time of adoption of the M1903, the few engagements between major powers during that period prevented recognition of the situation by most military planners. Thewellman (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1903 Springfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standard issue?[edit]

The following statement can be found in the introductory paragraph: "However, the M1903 Springfield remained in service as a standard issue infantry rifle during World War II, since the U.S. entered the war without sufficient M1 rifles to arm all troops [emphasis added]." I'm wondering if it might be more accurate to say "substitute standard," "limited issue," or "second-line issue" but I want to get input before I make the edit as it may have been more widely issued during the war than I realized. Alternatively, it could be specified that while the 1st Marine Division carried it on Guadalcanal, few, if any, large units maintained the M1903 as their primary issue weapon. Thanks in advance--I look forward to your input! --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptually, I can see both descriptions as accurate. Can you find a reputable source for the version you propose? Thewellman (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one Table of Organization and Equipment for the Marine Corps showing the M1 Garand as the standard issue rifle; there are a ton of TOE tables for the Army and Marine Corps throughout the war that would show the same thing (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/OOB/Regt-TOE-F/). Beyond that, the M1 Garand was issued on a far wider scale (https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/6/8/the-remington-m1903-rifles/) than the M1903 in WWII. One school of thought holds that a major US advantage in WWII was that the US issued semi-automatic rifles on a far wider scale than any other nation--but that's getting off topic.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Aperture sight"?[edit]

What is this about "aperture sights" on original M1903s? All the rifles I've ever seen were given a normal notch-style rear sight, up until the 03A3, which has a aperture right over the rear receiver bridge where you'd expect it too be. Obviously a aperture mounted where the old rear sight was would be useless, so what's all this about "aperture sight mounted too far forward to be any good". This can't be the A3, and I have a hard time believing they ever mounted an aperture sight on the forward rear sight base. How would you even use it? It certainly wasn't standard on all 03s, which is what this seems to suggest. AnnaGoFast (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The standard M1903 rear sight mounted on the barrel forward of the receiver had two positions. The battle sight with the notch you observed was used when the aperture sight frame was folded down along the barrel. The hinged aperture sight frame containing a vertically adjustable aperture could be unfolded upward for precision shooting. As you suggest, it is difficult to find the target within the sight picture of an aperture this far forward. The M1903A3 rear sight was intended to reduce that difficulty. The M1903 aperture sight frame was more fragile than the battle sight, and civilian owners of the rifles you have seen may have removed what they considered an unnecessary feature. Thewellman (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam war[edit]

photo of Captured VietCong m1906 and m1 carbine in 1965 Danang svn. https://www.flickr.com/photos/13476480@N07/28612430007/in/dateposted/

North Vietnamese Army Soldier 1958-75 book by Gordon L. Rottman Osprey Publishing page 21 has a photo of village self-defense militia caption says These girls, members of a village self-defense militia, work the fields armed with .30-cal. m1903 springfield rifles in case they called out to search for downed american flyers. these rifles may have been provided by china, as the nationalist chinese recived them in world war 2 as past of land-lease program.

Use in Philipine[edit]

How could the weapon have been used in the Americano-philipine war when that conflict ended in 1902 and the weapon started being used in 1903 ?

Maxime12346 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield payments to Mauser[edit]

The article cited for claiming that Springfield had to pay $250,000 to Mauser Werke for patent infringement claims that the amount is a myth. The article states that Springfield did pay for Mauser patents. In the book American Rifle, https://books.google.com/books/about/American_Rifle.html?id=DgdRTPAvoOQC, it is stated that an agreement between Springfield and Mauser was reached that amounted to four checks totally $200,000 for patent use. DWM sued Springfield for the use of a spitzer shaped bullet that amounted to $250,000. A suit was later filed that amounted to $300,000, for unlawful seizure of patents during the Great War. It was eventually ruled that the US government owed DWM $300,000 plus interest for the unlawful seizure of patents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostsan (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in M1903 Springfield[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of M1903 Springfield's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Congo":

  • From FN Model 24 and Model 30: Abbot, Peter (February 2014). Modern African Wars: The Congo 1960–2002. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 45. ISBN 978-1-78200-076-1.
  • From M3 submachine gun: Sicard, Jacques (November 1982). "Les armes de Kolwezi". La Gazette des armes (in French). No. 111. pp. 25–30.
  • From Vickers machine gun: Byrne, Ciaran (July 27, 2016). "The True Story of the Heroic Battle That Inspired the New Netflix Film The Siege of Jadotville". Time.com.

Reference named "Smith":

Reference named "Davis":

Reference named "Chaco":

Reference named "TG":

Reference named "Gazette":

Reference named "Davies":

Reference named "Jones":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Warning Against Firing M1903?[edit]

It seems to me this article should mention the warning from the Civilian Marksmanship Program: "CMP does not recommend firing any Springfield rifle with a 'low number' receiver... CMP also does not recommend firing any Springfield rifle, regardless of serial number, with a single heat-treated 'low number' bolt." Does anyone disagree? For more info, click here. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem to fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. Loafiewa (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that recommendation is covered in the first two paragraphs of the World War I and interwar use section of this article. Another widely circulated warning was the danger of firing 8x57mm cartridges in these rifles because the cartridge had a similar base to the .30/1906 but had a larger diameter bullet; but I agree these warnings would be inappropriate in this article. The internal ballistics article discusses some of the large number of variables potentially causing unsafe ammunition/firearm combinations with any firearm. The headspace (firearms) article describes another of the potential problems arising from exchanging bolts from similar firearms. Thewellman (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1903_Springfield&oldid=1208650056"