WW1 Shortage of '03 Springfields

[butlersrangers]

A close up of the Naval Reserve marking on Krags: (p.s. - Sorry Rick. I've added rifle ID to my captions).
BrklynNR-ed2.jpg

[Rick the Librarian]

The sailors in the 1908 picture appear to be using Krags.

[fjruple]

It makes one wonder what the US military was thinking up to including WWI. I know there was a powerful peace movement in the US at the time. But did anyone in the US military fully understand the butchery that was taking place on the Western front? I would think that the US had military attaches attached to the French and British forces at least to observe what mass scale butchery was taking place before the US gets involved in WWI especially the technical advances in aircraft, artillery, automatic weapons and poison gas to name just a few. I know that the Chief of Ordnance was relieved for his arrogance and incompetence. If it was not for the US Pattern 1914 production at three major rifle makers the US Army could not field an expeditionary force before 1919 or later. By then it was possible the Germans could have won WWI. With the Model of 1917 Rifle, the US was able to meet the multi-million man army demand for rifles. As the US military expanded M1903 Springfield rifles were allocated to Regular and National Guard division troops. The new National Army divisions were allocated the M1917 Rifle. The US Navy and Marines still retained the M1903 Springfield as their standard rifle. Some M1917 Rifles were provided to the US Navy and Marines probably just used as training rifles. I have read that many of the pre-existing M1903 Springfield Rifles required a re-build due to their poor condition and the lack of funds in the pre-war years for spare parts. There are several excellent books on the US Ordnance Corps in WWI including one written by General Crozier as rebuttal to his being relieved (fired) as the Chief of US Ordnance.

Cheers

--fjruple

[5MadFarmers]

So in the first photo it's listed as New York Naval Militia.
In the Brooklyn photo it's listed as New York Naval Reserve.

Two different things.

Which, without any real knowledge of it, not having encountered it before today, I'd say both are actually Militia.

"Does that matter?" Yeah, in some strange ways it does. Mainly funding.

What leads me to believe they're Militia instead of reserve? That anchor marking. In OP's photo it's clearly there. That photo was used in the National Geographic April of 1917 edition. The credit is to the American Press Association.



Sea Power of March 1917 had a story.



Part of the same set?



Which makes that one too?

Which would explain the almost new equipment. "Paid for by the State of New York." Reserves would likely still be waiting for Navy trickle down stuff. Months after those photos were taken the 12th Engineers were in London with Krags and round canteens.

State money.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Keep in mind that there were sufficient M1903s, so that Rock Island ceased production in 1913 and Springfield reduced their production significantly. For example, in Fiscal Year 1916, with war raging in Europe, exactly 11,299 M1903s were manufactured.

Corrected figure
FY16 - 13,631 M1903 rifles were produced at Springfield Armory

[blackhawknj]

Perhaps someone connected with that unit had "pull"-cf. how TR procured Krag Carbines for the Rough Riders.
A Declaration of War changes everything when it come to military budgets and procurement processes.
I have 2 M-1 Garands. One, serial number in the 300,000 range, September 1941, the other, 600,000 range, May 1942. Boosting production not always that easy, especially in that day when it required more skilled workers. Cf the problem of the Low Number M1903s. Plus the M-1 was meant for infantrymen, rear echelon and support types would have carried M-1 Carbines. IIRC we had about 600,000 M1903s on hand in 1917, more than enough for our peacetime establishment.

[Rick the Librarian]

Corrected figure
FY16 - 13,631 M1903 rifles were produced at Springfield Armory

2,000 more??? Well, that makes things ALL better!! LOL!! (I went by Brophy's "Arsenal of Freedom" book, but I'm assuming the corrected figure is the result of your archives research?) Did the higher number include NM rifles? Brophy had them separated out and the smaller number I quoted were just "service" rifles.

[bruce]

If Remington and Winchester and Eddystone had been tasked to produce 1903's rather than M-1917's, the total output of rifles would have been dramatically beyond anything produced by SA and RI. Remington and Winchester as well as Eddystone were simply better capable of industrial scale production. Got to wonder what they could have done had the tooling, etc. been in their hands. Notably none of the M-1917's ever had a issue with cracking from improper heat treating. Sincerely. bruce.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

2,000 more??? Well, that makes things ALL better!! LOL!! (I went by Brophy's "Arsenal of Freedom" book, but I'm assuming the corrected figure is the result of your archives research?) Did the higher number include NM rifles? Brophy had them separated out and the smaller number I quoted were just "service" rifles.

I wasn't commenting on the status of production, merely quoting a string of correspondence between the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory and the Small Arms Division. The document conflicted with that number. I tend to trust primary sources of published works. Authors do make mistakes.

The C/O of Springfield after WWI was requesting a brief but detailed history of the M1903 Service Rifle as well as production numbers up until US Declaration of War. It lays out the production numbers by month within each FY.

[5MadFarmers]

I wasn't commenting on the status of production, merely quoting a string of correspondence between the Commanding Officer of Springfield Armory and the Small Arms Division. The document conflicted with that number. I tend to trust primary sources of published works. Authors do make mistakes.

The C/O of Springfield after WWI was requesting a brief but detailed history of the M1903 Service Rifle as well as production numbers up until US Declaration of War. It lays out the production numbers by month within each FY.

You didn't actually answer Rick's question. Yes, Authors do make mistakes but Brophy's number is actually accurate - depending what you're after. As is your number.

To answer Rick's question:
11,299, the number you received from Brophy, is standard service rifles.
1,811 were star gauged rifles.
521 were star gauged and specifically for the national matches.

Total is as Smokeeaterpilot provides - to included all three groupings.

But your point remains Rick that 13,631 versus 11,299 isn't going to materially affect arming an army of 3,000,000 thereabouts.

6 rifles were altered for .45acp so lose those but, in addition to the 13,631, they made 165 receivers. Given the other spare parts that takes it to over 13,700 so perhaps Pershing felt better.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

"But 5, you skipped the other 9 receivers listed separately!"

Yikes!

====

If the topic is of interest to you, you may wish to check out the post I'll be making momentarily in "books and videos." The questions to above are addressed.