Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Curio & Relic Discussion > Correct terminology

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-26-2010, 03:01 PM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

[Pardon me while I shove new clips into my Luger and the 1911, and shove a new magazine down into my Broomhandle..]

"I always love that the reason WW1 was won by the Allied powers is that the 03 was better than the 98."

Say what? As if had anything at all to do with it.. In a last minute moment of sanity even the Kaiser realized the war would be a disaster for Germany and made efforts to stop it before it began, but learned it was too late. The trains carrying troops had already left and since the forces lacked field radios the attack would occur no mater what orders he gave from the capital. Quite honestly the odds of Germany emerging victorious (whatever that would look like) from WWI were so slim the opposing forces could probably have chosen a .22 rimfire in pump rifles as their caliber and rifle of choice and still (with a few more dead) won. O3 better than the 98? Since the 98 is a rifle, you speak of rifles not calibers. Hmm, both sides still had the same rifles in their inventory 2 decades later. You would think if one was better than the other, one or the other would have changed, but they didn't. That should tell you something. Actually Germany mostly used the 88, while America mostly used the 1917. Matter of fact, the 03 essentially is a 98, just American made. Big difference were in the sights, not the gun itself. The sights made the Springfield a target rifle, while the Mauser sights made it a hunting rifle, and only the English SMLE was actually made for combat. A fast and dirty reason Germany lost? Too many enemies and too many fronts and theaters at the same time.

__________________
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 06:57 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 4,841
Liked 622 Times on 427 Posts
Likes Given: 619

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superc View Post
[Pardon me while I shove new clips into my Luger and the 1911, and shove a new magazine down into my Broomhandle..]

"I always love that the reason WW1 was won by the Allied powers is that the 03 was better than the 98."

Say what? As if had anything at all to do with it.. In a last minute moment of sanity even the Kaiser realized the war would be a disaster for Germany and made efforts to stop it before it began, but learned it was too late. The trains carrying troops had already left and since the forces lacked field radios the attack would occur no mater what orders he gave from the capital. Quite honestly the odds of Germany emerging victorious (whatever that would look like) from WWI were so slim the opposing forces could probably have chosen a .22 rimfire in pump rifles as their caliber and rifle of choice and still (with a few more dead) won. O3 better than the 98? Since the 98 is a rifle, you speak of rifles not calibers. Hmm, both sides still had the same rifles in their inventory 2 decades later. You would think if one was better than the other, one or the other would have changed, but they didn't. That should tell you something. Actually Germany mostly used the 88, while America mostly used the 1917. Matter of fact, the 03 essentially is a 98, just American made. Big difference were in the sights, not the gun itself. The sights made the Springfield a target rifle, while the Mauser sights made it a hunting rifle, and only the English SMLE was actually made for combat. A fast and dirty reason Germany lost? Too many enemies and too many fronts and theaters at the same time.
Not sure where you learned your history.
The rifle Lieutenant Rommel so expertly wielded against the French troops in the village of Bleid, was the Modell 1898 Infantry Gewehr, better known to us as the Gew 98. It was the standard front line infantry rifle of the German Army, the culmination of more than 30 years of trial and error, development and design work on behalf of Wilhelm and Paul Mauser. The Gew 98 was adopted by the German Rifle Testing Commission on April 5th, 1898. The new rifle was not issued in quantity until 1901. The Gew 98 was first used in combat in the hands of the German East Asian Expeditionary Force, which saw combat in the closing months of the Boxer Rebellion in China.

The Gew 98, as originally issued, was equipped with a Lange pattern rear sight. This is known to most collectors today as the roller coaster sight for obvious reasons. The battle sights were set for 200 meters and sight was adjustable in increments out to a range of 2,000 meters. While this extreme range adjustment may seem ridiculous to most shooters today, in 1914, troops were taught to engage large enemy formations at extended ranges with plunging area fire, delivered in volleys. This practice was eventually to be replaced by the machinegun. In 1903/04, the original loading of the 8x57mm cartridge was changed. The original 8x57mm J Patronen was loaded with a .318" 220-grain lead core, cupro-nickel-washed roundnose bullet. The new loading introduced a higher velocity .323" 154-grain, flat-based spitzer bullet at a much higher velocity. The new loading increased the velocity of the bullet from 2,100 fps to 2,822 lips. This required the replacement of the rear sight. A new Lange pattern rear sight was designed to replace the original version. The battle sight, which is the range of the lowest sight setting, was set at 400 meters on the new 1903 pattern sight. Rifles produced prior to 1903 were refitted with the new pattern sight, however, the original sight bases remained with the 200-meter setting, even though the new Lange sight could not be adjusted to the old setting.

The 1903,
The War Department had exhaustively studied and dissected several examples of the Mauser Model 93 rifle captured during the Spanish-American War, and combined features of both the U.S. Krag Rifle Models 1894-1898, and the Mauser Model 93, to produce the new U.S. Springfield Rifle, Model 1903. Still, the 1903's used so many design features from the German Mauser that the U.S. government paid royalties to Mauserwerke.

P14/M1917,
Before World War I developed, the British Empire realized that its battle rifle, the Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) was already nearly obsolete. Compared to the German Mausers or US 1903 Springfield, the SMLE's .303 rimmed cartridge, originally a black powder cartridge, was underpowered. Additionally, the rear locking, dual lug design in the SMLE caused receiver stretching which required ever larger replacement bolt heads to be installed over the service life of the arm, and was not ideal for accuracy at shorter combat ranges. Great Britain began development of a new rifle and cartridge copying many of the features of the Mauser system. This development included a front locking, dual lug bolt action with Mauser type claw extractor as well as a new, powerful rimless cartridge of .276 caliber. However, the onset of World War I came too quickly for the UK to put it into production.
As it entered World War I, the UK had an urgent need for rifles and contracts for the new rifle were placed with arms companies in the United States. They decided to ask these companies to produce the new rifle design in the old .303 caliber for logistic commonality. The new rifle was termed the "Pattern 14." In the case of the P14 rifle, Winchester and Remington were selected. A third plant, a subsidiary of Remington, was tooled up at the Baldwin Locomotive Works in Eddystone, PA. Thus three variations of the P14 and M1917 exist, labeled "Winchester," "Remington" and "Eddystone."

The difference in sights are an inverted V for the GEW, Barleycorn for the 03, and post for the Enfield. All are combat sights. The 1903 is not a target rifle by design.
So basically the 1903, P14, and M1917 were all products of the GEW98.

The '88 commission rifle was not a front line weapon. The Germans realized the issues w/ them and only support troops used them w/ a new .323
re-barrel.

My intent w/ this thread was to, as another member stated, shows a lack of respect, for many firearms. As far as tossing in the anti-gunners, I am curious as to what that has to do w/ terminology. In this day and age of LOL, OMG, a simple M44, 91/30 is not that difficult. They are shorter than Mosin. You can call your rifle Marge for all I care. When talking fire arms the model matters.

superc, if you would like to borrow a few books, or purchase some I have a few I would recommend. The 2 major ones are copy-write, 1920's.
__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.

jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 08:51 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
General_lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Lumpkin,Georgia
Posts: 1,268
Liked 17 Times on 9 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumminor2nd View Post
"Such as 91/30, M44, M38, 91/59, M39.... all of which are Mosin Nagants...Why are they always called a Mosin?"

I think you answered your own question. They're all the same design, same caliber and same operating procedure. Just with different barrels and sights (or bayonets).

"I love it when folks talk about the .30 ought 6. I ask them what year the cartridge was accepted. Most have no clue. 1906 you moron!"

Would you rather them be anti-gunners? At least they take an interest. This kind of ivory-tower attitude does nothing but turn new people like me off of guns and gun owners. It makes you sound like a hippy going on about their Prius .

"I always love that the reason WW1 was won by the Allied powers is that the 03 was better than the 98. The 03 is a copy that the U.S. paid a license fee to Germany to produce!"

No, a gun design the Springfield Armory stole from the Germans and got sued for didn't win the war. First off, there were more M1917s fielded, so the argument is moot. Secondly, we had superior tactics and fresh troops ready to go at a time when the German people were eating rats and shoes for lack of regular food.

BTW, I think Gen. Patton said it best with "Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country."

I'll have to agree with you on some things.

I do believe that correct terminology is important but, not to "Grammar Nazi" extent. I know the difference between a clip and a magazine, it does irk me when people get the two mixed up but, it happens.... I have been guilty of that myself. I know the difference between a 91/30 and a M38... however, I still call them "Mosin Nagant". It doesn't bother me if you refer to a WASR-10 as an "AK", It is after all, a variant of the Kalashnikov design.
A little slang is acceptable, as long as you don't refer to a gun as a "gat" or "choppa". If you come in my store and ask for a "choppa", I will politely tell you that we do not sell helicopters here.
__________________

Last edited by General_lee; 06-26-2010 at 08:55 PM.
General_lee is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 08:54 PM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Books. Think I may have a few of those things. May have even opened one or two of them..

Rather than simply quote and red mark your whole post let me save a little bandwidth. You seem to be disputing:
a) how many GEW 88s saw combat vs. how many Gew 98s? [How did the adventures of E. Rommel creep into this?] Lots of old front line photos show both were present at the front in WWI. The velocity of the Spitzer cartridge vs. that of the predecessor cartridge and what Germany carried during the Boxer Revolution has little to do with point a). Couldn't care less if one called it a Lange sight or a roller coaster sight. Either way it was a horrid design prone to bouncing or changing settings during fire. Possibly why the US had abandoned a similar sight design decades before WWI and didn't look back. The effective range of the Spitzer cartridge is also irrelevant to the question of how many (S marked) 88s saw combat in WWI vs. 98s.

b) is the finished Springfield 03 a copy of the Mauser 93, or did it wind up being a copy of the Mauser 98? As you yourself say, either way, "the 1903's used so many design features from the German Mauser that the U.S. government paid royalties to Mauserwerke." As most shooters know the most significant difference between the Mauser 93 and the Mauser 98 is the presence of a third locking lug on the Mauser 98. If as you imply the Springfield was merely a copy of the Mauser 93, then only the two locking lugs of the Mauser 93 would be present. This being a slow Saturday I have just taken the bolts out of my Mauser 93 and my Springfield 03 and photographed them below for you. Oh look. A third locking lug in the middle of the Springfield bolt (bottom)! Yup, Mauser 98 design, independently derived or not.

c) "The 1903 is not a target rifle by design." Irrelevant. It still nevertheless, because of the better sights, was considered to be much more accurate and it was indeed the preferred platform for many post WWI target rifle matches.

d) "Before World War I developed, the British Empire realized that its battle rifle, the Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) was already nearly obsolete." Yuh, so what? Come WWI there weren't enough P-14s on hand, so they went to war with the SMLE (won't get into MK#s here). Indeed even by WW2 they were still using the "old" .303 in Lee-Enfield pattern rifles.

e) anti-gunners? Where in this thread did I even mention them? Is that aimed at someone else?

I think if you limit your reading of history and historical events to books written only a few years after an event, while there is some value in accounts written by participants while the events are fresh in memory, you will also find yourself getting lots of one sided opinions. Sometimes it is better to include some books written 20 or 40 or even 80 years later in your readings. Those tend to include not previously released govt archive records and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. You will get a much better perspective, than if you cherry pick only the books that support a prior belief. Face it. Germany was doomed to lose WWI before the first soldier even stepped off the troop train.



__________________

Last edited by superc; 06-26-2010 at 08:59 PM. Reason: added 1 word and corrected one
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2010, 09:47 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 4,841
Liked 622 Times on 427 Posts
Likes Given: 619

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by superc View Post
Books. Think I may have a few of those things. May have even opened one or two of them..

Rather than simply quote and red mark your whole post let me save a little bandwidth. You seem to be disputing:
a) how many GEW 88s saw combat vs. how many Gew 98s? [How did the adventures of E. Rommel creep into this?] Lots of old front line photos show both were present at the front in WWI. The velocity of the Spitzer cartridge vs. that of the predecessor cartridge and what Germany carried during the Boxer Revolution has little to do with point a). Couldn't care less if one called it a Lange sight or a roller coaster sight. Either way it was a horrid design prone to bouncing or changing settings during fire. Possibly why the US had abandoned a similar sight design decades before WWI and didn't look back. The effective range of the Spitzer cartridge is also irrelevant to the question of how many (S marked) 88s saw combat in WWI vs. 98s.

b) is the finished Springfield 03 a copy of the Mauser 93, or did it wind up being a copy of the Mauser 98? As you yourself say, either way, "the 1903's used so many design features from the German Mauser that the U.S. government paid royalties to Mauserwerke." As most shooters know the most significant difference between the Mauser 93 and the Mauser 98 is the presence of a third locking lug on the Mauser 98. If as you imply the Springfield was merely a copy of the Mauser 93, then only the two locking lugs of the Mauser 93 would be present. This being a slow Saturday I have just taken the bolts out of my Mauser 93 and my Springfield 03 and photographed them below for you. Oh look. A third locking lug in the middle of the Springfield bolt (bottom)! Yup, Mauser 98 design, independently derived or not.

c) [COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]"The 1903 is not a target rifle by design." Irrelevant. It still nevertheless, because of the better sights, was considered to be much more accurate and it was indeed the preferred platform for many post WWI target rifle matches.
[/COLOR]
d) "Before World War I developed, the British Empire realized that its battle rifle, the Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) was already nearly obsolete." Yuh, so what? Come WWI there weren't enough P-14s on hand, so they went to war with the SMLE (won't get into MK#s here). Indeed even by WW2 they were still using the "old" .303 in Lee-Enfield pattern rifles.

e) anti-gunners? Where in this thread did I even mention them? Is that aimed at someone else?

I think if you limit your reading of history and historical events to books written only a few years after an event, while there is some value in accounts written by participants while the events are fresh in memory, you will also find yourself getting lots of one sided opinions. Sometimes it is better to include some books written 20 or 40 or even 80 years later in your readings. Those tend to include not previously released govt archive records and the conclusions that can be drawn from them. You will get a much better perspective, than if you cherry pick only the books that support a prior belief. Face it. Germany was doomed to lose WWI before the first soldier even stepped off the troop train.
We really disagree, I'll leave it at that. The Marines that used the 1903 in Beleau wood made it what it is known as. A rifleman's rifle. It has Battle sights.

The U.S. paid a fee!!! Does that not tell you it is a copy! Please post your record findings. The 1903 still did not have a full case head support of the 98, but similar to the '93. The third lug on a '98 is at the rear of the bolt.
__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.

jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2010, 12:12 AM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
superc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winchester
Posts: 341
Liked 15 Times on 9 Posts
Likes Given: 8

Default

Where we agree..
You know what? In the interest of breaking off for something more important (i.e., dinner), I will cede to an error. Germany did principally use the 98, it was Austria that used the 88. A very important difference to those who love terminology.

The US Springfield 1903 was a copy of a German Mauser design. We both agree Mauser claimed patent infringement and (assuming you agree on the amount) about $200,000 compensation was paid to Mauser by the US.

Where it falls apart.
You believe the rifle is a plagarization of the Mauser 1893 and the placement of the third lug on the bolt, being slightly different than that found on the Mauser 98 proves it can't be a Mauser 98 design.
I, on the other hand, maintain the presence of a third locking lug, regardless of how far forward or rear on the bolt body it is placed, is enough to make the bolt a plagarization of the Model 1898 rather than the Model 1893. Smith in "Small Arms of the World," second edition, agrees with me and calls the 1903 a modification of the 1898 action. This becomes important to your claim (which completely ignores issues of resources and manpower) that the reason the Allied powers won World War I is because the 03 was better than the 98. This was like saying brown eggs are superior to white eggs even if they both came from the same hen. It also elevates the importance of either firearm to undeserved heights as it was, the machine gun when employed with barbed wire, advancements in artillery, the airplane, radio, the truck and the tank that dominated that war and resonated down to the next one.

BTW, the adage, "In the Great War the Germans brought the best "Sporting Rifle" (Mauser 98)
The Americans brought the best "Target Rifle" (1903 Springfield)
but The British brought the best "Battle Rifle" (SMLE)" isn't mine. It predates me by quite a few years, decades even.

I am not sure why you are dragging the bloodiest day in USMC history into this, but the standard issue sights on my own 1903 are both windage and elevation adjustable. Not so on my Mauser 98.

__________________

Last edited by superc; 06-27-2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason: added and amended 2 sentences
superc is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2010, 01:26 AM   #27
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
pandamonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,601
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default

You guys are GOOD! No really!

You say tomato



I say vodka!

__________________
GUN CONTROL, I GOT THAT

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. Thomas Jefferson
pandamonium is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2010, 02:13 AM   #28
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
jpattersonnh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South central,NH
Posts: 4,841
Liked 622 Times on 427 Posts
Likes Given: 619

Default

The 1903 had no windage adjustment, the 1903A3 did.

__________________

Freedom is not free. The best of us always leave too soon.

jpattersonnh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2010, 08:44 AM   #29
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TXnorton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Katy,Texas
Posts: 1,376
Default

superc an jp - keep at it, I am learning a few new things in this exchange!

I have a 1903 Mk 1 (1920 manufacture date) and a 1903 A3 (1943 manufacture date). I also have a 1938 vintage K98k. Now I see that I also need a Gew 98! Yahoo, another reason to get another rifle!

BTW, the 1903 Mk 1 does have windage adjustment. The rear sight base rotates around a front pivot point to move the battle sight/sight ladder right or left. My buddy's earlier manufacture date 1903 has the same rear sight set up.

__________________

TXnorton

TXnorton is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2010, 09:06 AM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
DrumJunkie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Here in the holler....
Posts: 4,823
Liked 1616 Times on 944 Posts
Likes Given: 1894

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawg View Post
What eeveeeeeerrrrrrrrrr.
Heh..I've had that gif collecting dust for a while. I just had to do it
__________________

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

DrumJunkie is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Correct Zero Range? DougG Competition Shooting 10 09-21-2010 11:58 PM
Did I take the correct action? jwhirl413 The Club House 21 10-01-2009 07:24 PM
How To Get An Automatic And Correct Flash Sight Picture + ...... 5shot Semi-Auto Handguns 3 09-11-2008 01:21 PM
How to be politically correct when talking about women Chester The Club House 11 05-09-2008 11:07 PM
Glock Terminology ChiefWiggums Glock Forum 2 08-07-2007 12:28 AM