03A3 pinned stocks

[tinydata]

would it be best to just bed it before it happens?

Bedding would not help unless you’re talking about a Weatherby style bedding job where a threaded rod/bracket are encased in a milled channel filled with bedding compound.

I have a very limited engineering background so perhaps a professional can chime in. I suspect that the traditional bolt/nut combination differs in three respects. First, it adds a slight compressive force or at least prevents material from bulging and splitting under recoil. Secondly, the traditional bolt is simply thicker than the pin and will flex less under recoil. Lastly, the flat surfaces of the nut and bolt head add some additional bearing surface against recoil that a pin doesn’t have. I am quite unsure of the third point, as I have seen pictures of Mauser 98 stocks where a crack propagated from the cap/bit of the crossbolt.

Larry Potterfield made an interesting claim that Remington traditionally uses the threaded pin in an old MidwayUSA how-to video. A quick online search shows that some older (up to at least the 90s) Remington 700 rifles do indeed use a single “pin” just forward of the trigger pocket.

It’s not particularly difficult to find an original 03A3 S stock with cross bolts. We do, however, live in somewhat of a golden age for as-issued 03 shooting as the Minelli stock is quite decent and readily available. There are a few minor inletting issues to correct but overall they are pretty well designed and the CNC machining is very precise and consistent across multiple Minelli stocks I’ve used/examined. You can use surplus crossbolt and either a GI bushing or a McMaster Carr spacer (“ Slotted Unthreaded Spacers 21/64" OD, 1" Long”) in the rear action screw hole. For the latter I cut through the slot and expand the spacer until it fits snugly inside the Minelli stock’s screw hole.

[John Beard]

Mr. Beard, is the design purpose of the grasping grooves written out somewhere? The 1918 edition of the bayonet training manual instructs soldiers to place “the left hand, palm against side of rifle, at the most convenient position in front of the rear sight, so that the left arm is only slightly bent” in the guard position. The 1940 edition has it slightly different as “at the most convenient position in front of the balance.” Both manuals have drawings that show the soldier grasping the rifle just forward of the lower band.

The short guard position places the left hand “just in rear of the stacking swivel.”

In both cases it does not seem like the left hand is doing much with the grasping grooves.

It would be very interesting to see a detailed account of the process of going from type S to B to C.

I do not have the book you describe nor do I consider myself an expert on bayonet usage and combat. I'm only repeating what I had been told by someone far more knowledgeable than me.


Bayonets were normally used by rear echelon troops for guarding prisoners. It was safer than flying bullets and had a more profound psychological effect for subduing prisoners. The modes you describe fit that application.


If I were reduced to using a bayonet in combat against a bayonet-armed charging adversary, however, I wouldn't be grabbing the stock in front of the lower band. Indeed, I would want to get my hands as far to the rear as possible. In that case, grasping grooves would come in handy. REAL HANDY!


And that's my 2c worth.


J.B.

[togor]

John is correct. If one looks at enough military stocks of that era (Japanese Type 99's especially for some reason), nicks in the stock foreend from bayonet practice are typically on the right side ahead of the lower band.

[ZvenoMan]

A major cause of cracked 1903 stocks today is a missing bushing in the rear receiver bolt hole, or use of the copper tube “replacement” that comes with many new stocks. It’s an odd size (you can’t just buy a piece of pipe from home depot and cut to length) and many people assume the thin tube that accompanies new stocks is Ok, it is not!
Numrich has these in stock for less than an arm and a leg, probably some other suppliers as well.

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/products/516410

That bolt must be immobilized by the bushing, if it can move in the hole you are asking for a crack.
Jh

[ken792]

John is correct. If one looks at enough military stocks of that era (Japanese Type 99's especially for some reason), nicks in the stock foreend from bayonet practice are typically on the right side ahead of the lower band.

I do not have the book you describe nor do I consider myself an expert on bayonet usage and combat. I'm only repeating what I had been told by someone far more knowledgeable than me.


Bayonets were normally used by rear echelon troops for guarding prisoners. It was safer than flying bullets and had a more profound psychological effect for subduing prisoners. The modes you describe fit that application.


If I were reduced to using a bayonet in combat against a bayonet-armed charging adversary, however, I wouldn't be grabbing the stock in front of the lower band. Indeed, I would want to get my hands as far to the rear as possible. In that case, grasping grooves would come in handy. REAL HANDY!


And that's my 2c worth.


J.B.

Except the 1940 US training manual for bayonet fighting literally says to grasp ahead of the lower band. Earlier manuals, including those with M1903s in the illustrations, depict the same thing. Period photos depicting US bayonet training show troops doing it as the manual specifies, not holding the grasping grooves.

The left arm needs to be straight enough to guide, while bent enough to parry and react. Grasping the grasping grooves doesn’t give the fine motor control needed.

https://archive.org/details/bayonettrainingm00scho/page/18/mode/1up

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/FM23-25/index.html

[tinydata]

John is correct. If one looks at enough military stocks of that era (Japanese Type 99's especially for some reason), nicks in the stock foreend from bayonet practice are typically on the right side ahead of the lower band.

I cannot find many photos of the Japanese Army in training or combat but none of photos I did see show a soldier holding the grasping grooves on Arisaka rifles. There is a well known photo of a Japanese soldier bayoneting a Chinese prisoner for practice. His right hand is on the small of the stock, his left hand is forward of the grooves near the band. I've refrained from posting that photo (or another showing a Japanese soldier using the same technique to spear an infant) here.

Back to US doctrine. Here's a 1938 training film if you don't believe us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjeZ...nel=WarFilmsTV

In a long thrust, the right hand delivers power whereas the left hand controls the point. The slight bend in the left arm provides some snap and unpredictability. If you put your hand just forward of the 1905 rear sight, not only are you not really engaging the grasping grooves, but you have now bent the arm at almost a 90 degree angle.

It is more difficult to effectively parry with your left hand aft of the "balance" or center of gravity. You need to have the left arm and hand out there to control the bayonet tip. In the man to man combat that John talks about, if you don't effectively parry, the enemy soldier is going to run you through with his bayonet. Proper technique is going to beat timidity.

Finally, the bayonet was not designed or issued with guarding prisoners in mind.

From the provisional 1907 manual: "The infantry soldier relies mainly on fire action to disable the enemy, but he should know that personal combat is often necessary to complete the success and he must therefore be instructed in the use of the bayonet."

From the 1940 manual: "The will to meet and destroy the enemy in hand-to-hand combat is the spirit of the bayonet."

[togor]

Thread drift from A3 stocks, but.....Remember the bayonet was originally a thrusting weapon. The Germans liked the long bayo on the long G98 specifically because it gave them reach with a specifically taught thrusting motion. Later they came to understand that this tactic was obsolete in trench warfare and they came around to carbines. The point is, reach matters in a bayo fight. Gotta think both offensively and defensively. Can't get your left hand disabled in the first parry.

[cplnorton]

The Marines viewed the bayonet as one of the most important weapons for combat. So a lot of their training was bayonet training.

I've also heard urban legends that the finger grooves on the stocks were made to trust bayonets, but I found just like Tinydata and Ken said, this wasn't correct.

This is from the personal Scrap Book of the Commanding Officer of the Marine Infantry School that prepared the Marines for France. The big emphasis of this training was the bayonet and then trench warfare. So I have a lot of pics of them practicing with bayonets and then also even bayonet training in mock trenches.

Here is just a small sample, where they took pics of all the movements. I found these so fascinating when I found them.

I don't want to hijack this thread too much, but if you guys want to see some of this stuff, it's truly amazing.

[cplnorton]

As I said the Marines viewed the bayonet as one of the most important tools for combat. On one spectrum they trained for 1000 yard shots, on the other they trained how to kill up close and personal with a bayonet, against a bayonet equipped opponent.

But even when I was in the late 90's, we trained a lot on bayonet fighting such as this.

It was honestly really neat for me to see this stuff as these pics were taken in 1918/19, but it wasn't much different than when I was in.








WWII is the exact same too. They just didn't use the finger grooves.

[John Beard]

Except the 1940 US training manual for bayonet fighting literally says to grasp ahead of the lower band. Earlier manuals, including those with M1903s in the illustrations, depict the same thing. Period photos depicting US bayonet training show troops doing it as the manual specifies, not holding the grasping grooves.

The left arm needs to be straight enough to guide, while bent enough to parry and react. Grasping the grasping grooves doesn’t give the fine motor control needed.

The book you refer to was written in 1940. The Springfield rifle dates to 1903 and was a successor to the Krag which has grasping grooves and goes all the way back to 1892. Bayonet fighting was very predominant in those days and perhaps was a bit different from 1940, especially when adversaries had much longer rifles.



Again, I make no claim to being an expert at bayonet fighting. But speaking from personal observation, I would want my hands as far to the rear as I could reasonably control the rifle.


J.B.


p.s.,


I will point out that a bayonet fighter can engage his adversary's hands before entering his adversary's dangerous space. If he could quickly inflict a wound on an adversary hand instead of going for the kill in his dangerous space, then that would give him immediate advantage. Again, I make no claim to being an expert at bayonet fighting.

[tinydata]

Mr. Beard, the 1907 provisional manual specifies “left hand just above the lower band.” This rough hand placement didn’t change through the service lives of the M1903, M1, and M14. There are pictures of bayonet drill with the M14 grasped just aft of the ferrule/gas piston assembly. This is a remarkably long time for technique to remain mostly unmodified.

The experts’ instructions on the matter are pretty clear. I have not engaged in bayonet fencing but I will say that epee fencing provides some insights. There are techniques taught that engage an opponent’s foot and sword hand, but these risk an unblocked strike to your body. In a sport where the first touch scores, this works. Scoring a non-vital wound does not do much for you if momentum behind the opponent’s bayonet runs through your throat or chest.

Since we are discussing anecdotes, if the grasping grooves are designed for bayonet fighting, why would Springfield Armory retain them on some of the Type B stocks seen on M1922 training rifles?

[ceresco]

I recall an instructor of English literature advising the class to "avoid the obvious" in creative writing. However, since the various grooves and checkering on everything from 1886 Lebels, Evans Repeating rifles, 1895 Winchesters, 1903s, 17 Enfields, No 4s to my Ruger #1 are located where my left hand falls when firing.... I will embrace the obvious here and conclude that the various modifications to the wood are to improve my grip when firing (or possibly carrying) the piece. I can't recall much from my brief experience in Army ROTC bayonet training other than being told that, the spirit of the bayonet was "kill kill" and "don't go through the dummy into the tree", which I managed to do anyway.... Good Shooting...

[ZvenoMan]

Well said Ceresco.
Lacking any specific documentation (sigh....) I suggest that it may be as simple as:
Some Shooters found value in grasping grooves.
Some Bayonet users found use in grasping grooves.
Shooters AND bayonet users who didn't care for the grasping grooves found they did not get in the way.
We had been using the grasping grooves and simply kept using them until we didn't.

Many of us familiar with governmental decision making, as well as military decision making, from the top down, may recall more than a few decisions to continue doing something, and/or stop doing something that seemed to make no sense whatsoever, they just "did".

JH

[BobJ50]

I recall bayonet training with the M1 Garand in the early 1960's. Our instructor, Sgt. Sanchez, told/showed us what "The Book!" said. He then proceeded to tell us to fight dirty, as dirty as possible, and kill our opponent. If the bayonet couldn't be pulled out of the dead guys body, shoot!..So we wondered, "Sarge, why not just shoot the guy to begin with?" He was not amused.
*The Garand stock did NOT have a grasping groove..at least ours didn't.