Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-17-2021, 08:39 PM
John Beard John Beard is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 3,539
Default

I stand corrected, at least in part, thanks to Rick the Librarian. That's what I get for not consulting my notes. We did indeed pay royalties for infringing on five Mauser rifle patents.

But the original question pertained to whether or not we copied the design of the Mauser 98. And aside from the staggered-column box magazine, most documentation indicates that we did not. The M1903 design evolved from addressing specific Krag deficiencies raised by the using services and involved a series of evolutionary experimental and prototype rifles. In the end, the corrections for those deficiencies were determined to have infringed on Mauser patents. But the infringed Mauser patents were actually issued in the early to mid-1890s (with one issued in 1897) and did not pertain specifically to the M98 Mauser.

J.B.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-17-2021, 10:47 PM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 7,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Beard View Post
I stand corrected, at least in part, thanks to Rick the Librarian. That's what I get for not consulting my notes. We did indeed pay royalties for infringing on five Mauser rifle patents.

But the original question pertained to whether or not we copied the design of the Mauser 98. And aside from the staggered-column box magazine, most documentation indicates that we did not. The M1903 design evolved from addressing specific Krag deficiencies raised by the using services and involved a series of evolutionary experimental and prototype rifles. In the end, the corrections for those deficiencies were determined to have infringed on Mauser patents. But the infringed Mauser patents were actually issued in the early to mid-1890s (with one issued in 1897) and did not pertain specifically to the M98 Mauser.

J.B.
As I recall, Ordnance was either unaware of the German Model 1898GEW or did not have access to one. I had heard they might have borrowed the magazine from captured 1893 Mausers.
__________________
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
--C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-18-2021, 02:45 AM
Atoz Atoz is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 58
Default

Great discussions about design features and patents.

I was intending to focus on the question of what was the state of the art for metallurgy/heat treatment and production controls for the receiver and bolt at the turn of the century. Did Mauser select a stronger material and/or control the heat treatment better? Did Remington/Winchester/Savage/Enfield, etc. have better controls at that time?
It appears the design of the '03 was robust enough to function with several different material selections with appropriate heat treatments.
Certainly cost/politics would enter into the equasion. Gen. Hatcher was probably the last person who knew the whole story.

Did the Model of 1917 have similar problems?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-18-2021, 01:59 PM
John Beard John Beard is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Posts: 3,539
Default

Having spent weeks at the National Archives copying and rigorously studying thousands of documents, I have the full story on the heat treatment fiasco. Suffice it to say, the Hatcher version is very seriously flawed. But rather than post what I learned and stirring more controversy, I will let the matter rest.

The M1917 rifles were manufactured from nickel steel and do not have heat treatment issues.

J.B.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-18-2021, 02:24 PM
USMC-Nav USMC-Nav is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,179
Default

Mr Beard. I understand your reluctance to give your opinion but your word is a trusted word.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-18-2021, 02:49 PM
Fenris_Bane Fenris_Bane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceresco View Post
This diameter is far too small to accept the typical 8mm cartridge neck (.349") and the bullet will be effectively crimped into the case neck. This is the major cause for the excessive pressure. The larger bullet being forced through the 30-06 forcing cone comes later and is relatively innocuous with the disaster already underway. I have not blown up a 30-06 but I have seen the effect of "neck crimping" .223 rounds excessively.
I have wondered how tight crimped the German ammunition was. There is a chance that the bullet could be force deeper into the case, especially if the shooter is trying to force the bolt closed.

As for .223, there was a Youtuber recently who blew up a .223 by accidentally shooting a 300 Blackout round through it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iSvFFwYek

Same sort of thing, squeezing a .30 cal bullet down to .223. Doesn't work.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-19-2021, 03:24 AM
Atoz Atoz is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 58
Default

Thanks John, I hope you write the story of the '03 some day.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-19-2021, 11:18 AM
olBEAR olBEAR is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Between the two Vancouvers
Posts: 35
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atoz View Post
Thanks John, I hope you write the story of the '03 some day.
I have been after Mr. Beard for years about writing his book about the 03s and 03A3s. He says he's going to write it when he retires. Yeah, like he is ever going to retire! I'll be dead and buried before that happens.

olBEAR
JK
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-19-2021, 06:19 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,178
Default

Unfortunaly at the Archives every service rifle had problems at some point with heat treatment of the barrels or receivers.

The M1917, M1903, M1 Garand, and the M14. All had issues I've found mentioned in the docs. It's just for the bolt guns the issues were exposed mostly because of defective ammo.

If you are curious about the lawsuit, here is the settlement I copied from the National Archives.

*Edit, I just realized I copied the one page twice. I will come back and fix it when I have a fuzz more time.

https://imgur.com/ya5gSl2

https://imgur.com/iEeONAY

https://imgur.com/ryMZqwP
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-19-2021, 07:56 PM
Rick the Librarian Rick the Librarian is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NW Washington State
Posts: 7,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
Unfortunaly at the Archives every service rifle had problems at some point with heat treatment of the barrels or receivers.

The M1917, M1903, M1 Garand, and the M14. All had issues I've found mentioned in the docs. It's just for the bolt guns the issues were exposed mostly because of defective ammo.

If you are curious about the lawsuit, here is the settlement I copied from the National Archives.

*Edit, I just realized I copied the one page twice. I will come back and fix it when I have a fuzz more time.

https://imgur.com/ya5gSl2

https://imgur.com/iEeONAY

https://imgur.com/ryMZqwP
Steve, a minor correction - it wasn't a lawsuit - it didn't come to that. There were negotiations and then an agreement.
__________________
"We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst."
--C.S. Lewis
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 PM.