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).
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
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.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +10
If this is my Johnson and this is my rifle, where's my gun then?
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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
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! 😢
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.
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 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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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!!!
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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
One error in this video: Theodore Roosevelt didn't send that letter as secretary of war (a position he never held), he sent it _to_ the secretary of war, as _president,_ in 1905. At some point, to show how useless it was, he deliberately snapped one off the end of the rifle, showing how fragile it really was.
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.
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.
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!
3 ปีที่แล้ว +1
If you legitimately thought that and saw absolutely no problem blaming it on "stupid Americans" then you're an asshole.
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.
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.
I once read in one of J. F. C. Fuller's accounts on the great wars that field reports on wounds showed an insignificant number of bayonet wounds - mainly accidents. Also read somewhere that the persistent use of bayonets in modern environments was due to morale, so soldiers felt that they had one more contingency thought out. Can't give reference on that one tough.
militaryhistorynow.com/2014/01/17/stickin-it-to-em-the-last-of-the-great-bayonet-charges/ [quote]In the last ten years, British troops have resorted to the bayonet to break impasses in combat both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, 2004, a detachment from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq with a bayonet charge. British casualties were light, but nearly 28 guerrillas were killed. And as recently as October of 2011, a British Army lance corporal named Sean Jones led a squad of soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. After being ambushed and pinned down by militants, the 25-year-old ordered his squad to advance into a hail of machine gun fire. “We had to react quickly,” Jones remarked. “I shouted ‘follow me’ and we went for it.” He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions. Even in an age of GPS-guided bombs, unmanned drone and network-centric warfare, 300-year-old technology - like the simple bayonet - can still carry the day.[/quote]
Found it! Fuller's chapter on the Civil War "Vicksburg and Chatanooga", he quotes eyewitness and a field surgeon, and says that when we criticize the bayonet we should remember that 50 years after the Civil War "seven out of eight" soldiers still believed in the bayonet. Aside from statistics, generals were afraid that tragedies might be blamed on the abandonment of the bayonet, and the use of it could make soldiers a bit more confident, and above all it would look very cool on parade.
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)
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. :)
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.
I had a Springfield 1903 made in 1914. I had a good one, no one ever told me they blew up sometimes, and so I shot extremely HOT loads all the time. Seems I am very lucky!
NO no no they don't blow up. I did a lot of research after I bought mine and I couldn't find a single article or story with evidence about a springfield 1903 blowing up. In fact a total of 80 blew up over a period of time from 1914-1945. Out of 2.5 million. From what Julian hatcher discovered during the investigation, it was due to poor quality ammunition, and soldiers putting in 8mm lebel and 8mm mauser amminution in it.
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.
What people don’t know is that bayonet charges still happen every now and then, and weapons like hand grenades and pistols are barely used but we see them as necessities, but then when you get to the bayonet people think it’s useless
The ability to turn a service rifle into a short spear will be obsolete when enemies are immune to stabbing. Until that day, the bayonet will be a necessary part of any soldier's kit. It doesn't hurt to expand their utility, however. For instance, instead of carrying a bayonet, scabbard, and wire cutters, the bayonet combined with the scabbard can act as wire cutters.
Considering today modern level 4 armor with Kevlar on both sides with a big plate in the middle is immune to such stabbing, they really have no combat use in any meaningful way, plus they are more geared as knifes then as bayonets. Plus with full face helmets, blast collars, deltoid and groin protectors followed by thigh and bicep protectors....well soon stabbing each other won't really work the way it used to.
Redneck Fury Kevlar does nothing to stop knives, and plate armor only covers a small portion of the body. Bayonets can be jabbed in the unarmored spaces. Besides, only first and second world armies can afford to outfit their soldiers with such protection. I doubt you've ever actually held a bayonet if you think they're like knives. They aren't sharp, because a sharp bayonet will cut into bone and get stuck. Bayonets are spear points, even the ones that look like knives are optimized as spear points first and foremost.
Paul Dalton Ever try wielding a bayonet mounted on a rifle? it's not a agile thing, its a eight to 10 or more pound spear with a knife blade on the end of it, the combat knife really is not even meant for combat anymore, they have become short and very wide, more akin to a tool then a weapon. anyways, bayonets today really don't have a use mounted to a rifle, any competent well trained military will never become susceptible to bayonet charges anymore, plus automatic weapons basically outdated this sort of tactic anyways.
Redneck Fury As if wars only take place between modern armies. Otherwise, I agree. Bayonets are a weapon of last resort. I see them as cheap insurance for when a unit has no CAS, no armor support, little to no ammo, and no hope of relief. At that point, a bayonet charge might work or it might not.
Elijah Decker Exactly as i said, you are basically using a heavy stick with a big knife on it to fight guys with guns, that seems pretty hopeless to me.....its the sort of thing use use if you are going to die anyways and have no other option.
They didn’t heat treat the receivers, they hardened them. Hardening is only the first step of heat treating. The second step is tempering. Done together, hardening and tempering make up heat treating. A properly heat treated piece of steel usually takes on the properties of spring steel. As the name implies, it’s springy and thus it is ideal for use in, you guessed it, springs. However, spring steel is also what most swords were made of. You don’t want your sword to get bent out of shape or shatter.
As I recall, didn't the rod bayonet come out of the trapdoor Springfield originally? From what I recall, it was experimented on in 1880, rejected due to faults with the retention, then fixed and redesigned into the 1884 Trapdoor, where it was accepted fully (and into the even more improved 1888 trapdoor). Then the Krag came along in 1892, which didn't have the cleaning rod, and so was adopted with the blade bayonet. So it was simply a matter of returning to previous practice with the rod bayonet on the 1903. Also, I guess I don't see how it's that awful of a design- it seems little different to me from the rod bayonets on the FG42 and Mas36....
The Hatcher's book sure has the detailed report that everyone who's interested in the technical detail should read... one point Ian might have missed in this video, is the brittleness of those receivers is also a result that the steel was "burnt" during the forging process, another result of overheating. When overheated, steel actually burns from inside, creating layer of oxidize around its crystal line. Burnt steel can not be corrected via heat treating. Interesting enough, severe burning of steel is quite visible, as the work came out of the forge/ furnace sparking. Quite a few knife making videos on TH-cam actually display such scene, how ironic.
Do ensure that you're not confused with the older forge welding process; it's basically necessary to heat it up to (or directly underneath) that temperature where such sparking starts for a short period of time. But that hardly affects the steel in such a process. Interestingly enough, whenever I've actually burnt steel in the forge, the object could under no circumstances be mistaken for anything else, nor passed off as what it once was. That process simply could not result in any sort of receiver, as it becomes a misshapen and pock marked pile of essentially iron slag. That is the carbon burning out of the steel if we're being technical. Even a mild burning would undo any precision milling to the piece, and completely fuck up any corners say; unless they did most of the milling after the heat treat, which is unlikely. I think you're rather misunderstanding what you're talking about.
farmerboy916 Quite right. Apparently my degrees in mechanical engineering and technical service taught me nothing about metallurgy over the years. The oxidation around grain boundraies is quite visible under a test sample, if you have ever done any. Needless to say mechanics of such samples. BTW although I don't want to get into details about bladesmithing, but service condition for common knives, in my opinion is never nearly as severe as firearm parts. Meaning minor burning won't cause failure during regular use, as those Springfields that passed proof but bursted during service.
I would suggest you read the Hatcher Notebook, Chapter 9 was designated to the issue. He talked in great technical detail about the actual process of those low serial receivers. I find myself amazed by how crude the earliest method was...
Don't apologise for educating us with longer and more detailed videos as far as I'm concerned (and no doubt many others) the longer the video the better
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.
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?
"We're going to go long today" yeah, like we'd be complaining Ian! Another great, informative video 👍
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?
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.
“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
"Enemy combatants on approach sir!"
"Screw 'em"
"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)
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
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."
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.
I always loved the look of the old-school military rifles with the full wood forestock
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! 😢
I really like these longer videos and the whole channel in general.
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.
Thank you for the reminder. Years ago I was told to stay away from the pre 1906 Springfields. But never knew exactly why.
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 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.
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
Great explanation of both the "Patent infringement" issue as well as the "Brittle 03s". Thanks!
Never worry about going long. :) I always prefer the longer videos, because it invariably means there's more cool stuff to learn.
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 !
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.
Go long, go long! Anytime you want to make a longer video, Ian, do it...we will watch and thoroughly enjoy!
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.
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.
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!!!
Absolutely superb review on this one Ian
Excellent episode! (Sunday mornings - we have the time to watch the longer ones :-) )
Ian, your vids are incredibly informative and fascinating! Keep up the good work, mate.
Love these longer videos with tons of historical and technical anecdotes. Keep up the good work!
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
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
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 :)
Ian is the Jay Leno of guns. Both are national treasures educating citizens about our national history.
Just want to say I enjoy the longer videos with more history and tidbits. Thanks
Great bit of history, loved the patent info and the heat treat conflict. Thanks for the insight into a great rifle.
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.
Over there over there! Love it Ian! Thank you for sharing!
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.
thank you for all this research Ian, your videos are a service to the general public!
lol "do they explode" .. real reassuring
I do like how the stock looks, specifically right in front of the rear sight. Doesn't have that weird swoop.
Tons of knowledge and history in this video. Thank you.
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
One error in this video: Theodore Roosevelt didn't send that letter as secretary of war (a position he never held), he sent it _to_ the secretary of war, as _president,_ in 1905. At some point, to show how useless it was, he deliberately snapped one off the end of the rifle, showing how fragile it really was.
I was just doing research on these things a few weeks ago. Thanks for the upload.
and shutouts to Teddy.
Great video Ian... full of some very interesting information. Well worth the time to tell it.
Your lectures are so educational. Thank you!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
man, the craftsmanship of this rifle is absolutely flawless, something you'd expect from a sporting arm not a military rifle
Good video,i learn a lot about firearms history with this channel.
i love these long ramble videos :D keep it up mate :D
"Press here pull forward to were it snaps" Fitting description
Dang, great video man, so cool, love the story telling.
"We're going long here, hope you guys don't mind." Have we ever!? Keep 'em commin'!
fantastically educational. Thank you, Ian!
cool information! I learnt a lot from this; great video as always Ian.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
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.
Stellar video. I'd purchase another low serial number just for the great story..
Great video, Ian, very informative as usual. Thanks.
"One to keep it company in the safe"
Oh how Droll.
I once read in one of J. F. C. Fuller's accounts on the great wars that field reports on wounds showed an insignificant number of bayonet wounds - mainly accidents. Also read somewhere that the persistent use of bayonets in modern environments was due to morale, so soldiers felt that they had one more contingency thought out. Can't give reference on that one tough.
militaryhistorynow.com/2014/01/17/stickin-it-to-em-the-last-of-the-great-bayonet-charges/
[quote]In the last ten years, British troops have resorted to the bayonet to break impasses in combat both in Iraq and Afghanistan. In May, 2004, a detachment from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders surprised a force of 100 insurgents near Al Amara, Iraq with a bayonet charge. British casualties were light, but nearly 28 guerrillas were killed. And as recently as October of 2011, a British Army lance corporal named Sean Jones led a squad of soldiers from the Prince of Wales Royal Regiment in a bayonet charge against Taliban fighters in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. After being ambushed and pinned down by militants, the 25-year-old ordered his squad to advance into a hail of machine gun fire. “We had to react quickly,” Jones remarked. “I shouted ‘follow me’ and we went for it.” He was awarded the Military Cross for his actions. Even in an age of GPS-guided bombs, unmanned drone and network-centric warfare, 300-year-old technology - like the simple bayonet - can still carry the day.[/quote]
Found it! Fuller's chapter on the Civil War "Vicksburg and Chatanooga", he quotes eyewitness and a field surgeon, and says that when we criticize the bayonet we should remember that 50 years after the Civil War "seven out of eight" soldiers still believed in the bayonet. Aside from statistics, generals were afraid that tragedies might be blamed on the abandonment of the bayonet, and the use of it could make soldiers a bit more confident, and above all it would look very cool on parade.
Yet another great video, I ,ove learning new things, especially about war and weapons of all sorts.:D
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
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. :)
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.
Thanks Ian. Very informative!
Superb rifle, those woods ! I think this version looks better than the later rifles, very sleek.
I had a Springfield 1903 made in 1914. I had a good one, no one ever told me they blew up sometimes, and so I shot extremely HOT loads all the time. Seems I am very lucky!
NO no no they don't blow up. I did a lot of research after I bought mine and I couldn't find a single article or story with evidence about a springfield 1903 blowing up. In fact a total of 80 blew up over a period of time from 1914-1945. Out of 2.5 million. From what Julian hatcher discovered during the investigation, it was due to poor quality ammunition, and soldiers putting in 8mm lebel and 8mm mauser amminution in it.
@@89tonstar Correct, most people who say "Hatcher said dont shoot low serial 1903's" have never actually read the research he did on the failures
Ian...you NEED this rifle!
Really good video here Ian. Thanks.
Very good presentation, I enjoyed it, thanks.
I had heard about the Mauser patent issue but I was unaware of the details (and had no idea that DWM was also involved).
Bayonets are completely obsolete...until you need one. Then suddenly a need arises.
*thumbs up* Keep doing the things with the stuff. Don't worry how long the video is, just keep doing your thing.
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
What people don’t know is that bayonet charges still happen every now and then, and weapons like hand grenades and pistols are barely used but we see them as necessities, but then when you get to the bayonet people think it’s useless
I have this Rifle... I am very Happy he went long on the History ... Its a very important weapon in history
Huh, never expected the National Armory Department to formally adopt "stab them with a screwdriver."
EDIT: Well crap, Ian made the same joke.
The ability to turn a service rifle into a short spear will be obsolete when enemies are immune to stabbing. Until that day, the bayonet will be a necessary part of any soldier's kit. It doesn't hurt to expand their utility, however. For instance, instead of carrying a bayonet, scabbard, and wire cutters, the bayonet combined with the scabbard can act as wire cutters.
Considering today modern level 4 armor with Kevlar on both sides with a big plate in the middle is immune to such stabbing, they really have no combat use in any meaningful way, plus they are more geared as knifes then as bayonets.
Plus with full face helmets, blast collars, deltoid and groin protectors followed by thigh and bicep protectors....well soon stabbing each other won't really work the way it used to.
Redneck Fury
Kevlar does nothing to stop knives, and plate armor only covers a small portion of the body. Bayonets can be jabbed in the unarmored spaces.
Besides, only first and second world armies can afford to outfit their soldiers with such protection.
I doubt you've ever actually held a bayonet if you think they're like knives. They aren't sharp, because a sharp bayonet will cut into bone and get stuck. Bayonets are spear points, even the ones that look like knives are optimized as spear points first and foremost.
Paul Dalton Ever try wielding a bayonet mounted on a rifle? it's not a agile thing, its a eight to 10 or more pound spear with a knife blade on the end of it, the combat knife really is not even meant for combat anymore, they have become short and very wide, more akin to a tool then a weapon.
anyways, bayonets today really don't have a use mounted to a rifle, any competent well trained military will never become susceptible to bayonet charges anymore, plus automatic weapons basically outdated this sort of tactic anyways.
Redneck Fury
As if wars only take place between modern armies.
Otherwise, I agree. Bayonets are a weapon of last resort. I see them as cheap insurance for when a unit has no CAS, no armor support, little to no ammo, and no hope of relief. At that point, a bayonet charge might work or it might not.
Elijah Decker Exactly as i said, you are basically using a heavy stick with a big knife on it to fight guys with guns, that seems pretty hopeless to me.....its the sort of thing use use if you are going to die anyways and have no other option.
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.
They didn’t heat treat the receivers, they hardened them. Hardening is only the first step of heat treating. The second step is tempering. Done together, hardening and tempering make up heat treating. A properly heat treated piece of steel usually takes on the properties of spring steel. As the name implies, it’s springy and thus it is ideal for use in, you guessed it, springs. However, spring steel is also what most swords were made of. You don’t want your sword to get bent out of shape or shatter.
Excellent information, Thank you.
Coming back to this episode after Othais' new video to refresh my memory on this casual near dumpster fire of an idea
As I recall, didn't the rod bayonet come out of the trapdoor Springfield originally? From what I recall, it was experimented on in 1880, rejected due to faults with the retention, then fixed and redesigned into the 1884 Trapdoor, where it was accepted fully (and into the even more improved 1888 trapdoor). Then the Krag came along in 1892, which didn't have the cleaning rod, and so was adopted with the blade bayonet. So it was simply a matter of returning to previous practice with the rod bayonet on the 1903.
Also, I guess I don't see how it's that awful of a design- it seems little different to me from the rod bayonets on the FG42 and Mas36....
It was brittle and broke easily. That's why they decided to get rid of it and switch back to Blade Bayonets.
The Hatcher's book sure has the detailed report that everyone who's interested in the technical detail should read... one point Ian might have missed in this video, is the brittleness of those receivers is also a result that the steel was "burnt" during the forging process, another result of overheating. When overheated, steel actually burns from inside, creating layer of oxidize around its crystal line.
Burnt steel can not be corrected via heat treating.
Interesting enough, severe burning of steel is quite visible, as the work came out of the forge/ furnace sparking. Quite a few knife making videos on TH-cam actually display such scene, how ironic.
Do ensure that you're not confused with the older forge welding process; it's basically necessary to heat it up to (or directly underneath) that temperature where such sparking starts for a short period of time. But that hardly affects the steel in such a process.
Interestingly enough, whenever I've actually burnt steel in the forge, the object could under no circumstances be mistaken for anything else, nor passed off as what it once was. That process simply could not result in any sort of receiver, as it becomes a misshapen and pock marked pile of essentially iron slag. That is the carbon burning out of the steel if we're being technical. Even a mild burning would undo any precision milling to the piece, and completely fuck up any corners say; unless they did most of the milling after the heat treat, which is unlikely.
I think you're rather misunderstanding what you're talking about.
farmerboy916 Quite right. Apparently my degrees in mechanical engineering and technical service taught me nothing about metallurgy over the years.
The oxidation around grain boundraies is quite visible under a test sample, if you have ever done any. Needless to say mechanics of such samples.
BTW although I don't want to get into details about bladesmithing, but service condition for common knives, in my opinion is never nearly as severe as firearm parts. Meaning minor burning won't cause failure during regular use, as those Springfields that passed proof but bursted during service.
I would suggest you read the Hatcher Notebook, Chapter 9 was designated to the issue. He talked in great technical detail about the actual process of those low serial receivers. I find myself amazed by how crude the earliest method was...
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!
Don't apologise for educating us with longer and more detailed videos as far as I'm concerned (and no doubt many others) the longer the video the better
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.
Love the longer video
Very good video. I have duffs book on the 03, but I still don't own an actual rifle yet.