Printable View
OT, but I found the stock bit for the "Standard Modell"- never owned the rifle but somehow got the wood...Fancy figure isn't often found on military stocks for this very reason:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff007-2.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff004-2.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff005-2.jpg
Not that I'm a packrat or anything!
Ouch!!! That breaks my heart man... It's like the awful stock my k43 came in
Quote:
Originally Posted by m4a3sherman
Please inform Robert W.D. Ball, author of the standard work "Mauser Military Rifles of the World" that he is in error. And please cite your authority for that statement. If you cannot quote an accepted source, and the statement was based on hearsay, I respectfully suggest we all go along with Mr. Ball's nomenclature. The rifle described as a Turkish Model 1903 is described on Page 337 of the 3rd Edition, which also includes a good photo in the color section. And please take a look at P.205, which presents a list of Mauser production data for export contracts from 1887-1914. This specifically lists a 1903 contract model for Turkey. A contract for 200,000 rifles is not a "rag-bag of hand-me downs", although they may certainly look like that now!.
There is also a picture and a description of a Turkish Model 1903 on P.138 of "Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson (also 3rd Edition), although this looks a bit different (no take-down ring, nosecap spring at side) So that makes two internationally recognised experts who are wrong, according to your unnamed source who claims there was no such thing as a Turkish 1903.
BTW, one of my pet hates is the kind of person who says they know better than what is in the book. If you then ask them if they have actually taken the trouble to pass on the information to the author, the response is likely to be silence. The appropriate English expression for this situation is "put up or shut up". Please note, this remark is not directed at you, but at whoever fed you this opinion.
Patrick
:wave:
I did not mean to offend, and I hate to pass on information heard as absolute truth which is why I framed my statement in "As I understand it." I am absolutely OK with being wrong and corrected as such; it's one way to learn. The issue of model designation was one that I had seen mixed reports on several different forums and from a number of people, some of whom agree with Mr. Ball and others who suggest an Importer origin for the models. As Mr.Ball's book is the go to source for information, let me express my apology for expressing an ill informed statement about the subject.
So, it looks like the general consensus is some variety of 1903 Turk. Well, there we have it, mystery stock no more. Thanks to all who have helped.
It seems that if the Turks didn't call them "1903s" (Or some translation thereof), then there actually ISN'T a Model 1903 Mauser. It's a term of convienence. And subject to change when the next "more" authoritative book comes out.
Something along those lines happened to US pre-civil war military arms. It's still a little confusing when folk from different schools attempt discussion but the matter SEEMS settled.
I've learned that even our published authors who frequent this site have had to make changes to their work just because they published- making them easy targets for those with contrary or additional facts. It's all an odd educational process...
Hey, so long as knowledge gets furthered in the process, I am all for mistakes and rewrites; that's why there are what? Four editions of Ball's book out now? Mine is the Second Edition and is lurking in a moving box somewhere... I am not aware of a book dedicated to Turkish Mausers but one would be paramount in for this discussion.
I was in the French Army Museum "Les Invalides" in Paris 15 years back. They have a very nice WWI collection/display that is open to the public. In the museum in the Gallipolli section they have a near mint Turk M1903 rifle on display. It reminded me of the Argentine Mausers that came in to the US 30 years back. New walnut, superb bluing and in the 7.65mm caliber, the very best pre-war work the Germans could produce. The beaters we see today are a far cry from what the Germans shipped out in 1903. Les Invallides and the museum at Verdun are 2 must see visits in France.
That supports my point - if someone has better, verified information with checkable sources then they should pass it on the the author, so that the next edition may be improved. But that which one can only describe as hearsay should be left in the bar where one heard it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Let us agree that the expression "Model 1903" is a handy tag for "The 200,000 or so rifles made by Mauser in fulfilment of the 1903 contract made with the Turkish Government, in caliber 7,65mm, later altered to 7,92mm (you know, that caliber which is always referrred to as 8mm, although it's not really) based on the Gewehr 98 but with a few detail alterations made to the specification, so Mauser may well have called it the 1903 Turkish Contract Rifle etc etc blah blah blah ..."
So how many of those who have one shoot a "U.S. Rifle Model of 1917"**, like it says on the receiver***. Nobody. We all shoot P17s over here - not even M1917s.:madsmile:
I worry about how the things shoot, not the label. The label is identification, not holy writ.
So m4a3sherman, whatever the Turks called it, you made a great find:thup:. Better get back to those sales and see if you can find the rest;)
Patrick
:wave:
** Actually, of course, it says U.S. RIFLE MODEL OF 1917 - all capitalized
*** No it doesn't. It's U.S. MODEL OF 1917 - see how one can get very basic facts wrong if you don't check! :o Especially when writing after midnight!
I just can't help thinking that someday someone will translate the appropriate Turkish documents and it'll end up being thereafter renamed (in shorthand) M1902 or something equivalent for the English speaking infidels. What would the Ottomans be using for an official date? Islamic dating back then? Secularization came rather later to Turkey- did they start a new calendar? Lots of nuances. At least the Japanese put the type right on top in big symbols. Italians ran two dates for a while-ooh, me poor teeny brain!:runaway:
Actually, around here we shoot the P14 and the Model 1917 :p To be fair, the people I shoot with tend be sticklers about nomenclature and such discussions are commonplace. Take, for example, my friend Sht_lee, who often reminds me that SMLE doesn't refer to certain rifles that most of us would call SMLE. Or that No.1 Mk. I isn't a proper designation for the first model Lee Enfield... Sigh... What a precarious world we live in