Andrew Jackson York has no idea what rifle his father used.

I read John Beard's post in another thread about a phone conversation that C.S. Ferris had with Sergeant York's son Andrew concerning whether or not Alvin York used an M1903 or an M1917 in WWI. I'm here to tell you that Andrew York has no idea. No first hand knowledge on the subject.

In July, 2001 my wife and I visited the York home and museum in Pall Mall, TN. Upon arrival it was interesting to find that Andrew was the park ranger at the site. My wife and I were the only visitors at the time so I had Andrew all to myself for about an hour. I specifically brough the rifle subject up and the bottom line is that he had no idea which rifle his father used for sure.

He had John Perry's book "Sgt York - His Life, Legend & Legacy", a biography of Alvin York for sale along with other books on a table on the back porch of the house which serves as sort of the visitors center. Since I already owned the book, I pointed out to Andrew that the book says that the M1917 was used. He then asked me what rifle was used in the movie. I told him it was an M1903. He then said that if the M1903 was used in the movie, then that was the one that his father used because his father was an advisor on the film and if it was in the film, then that's the one he used. He then sat down at his desk there on the back porch and started looking for some documents that might help answer my question further. He couldn't find anything that might help.

I thanked him for his time and then started to tour the house. When I was in the living room, Andrew approached me and told me that he thought the rifle used 30-06 ammunition. I explained that both rifles used 30-06 so the ammunition itself could not pinpoint one rifle over the other.

It sounds like Andrew changed his tune a little in the Ferris conversation or Ferris mistook Andrew as being an expert on the subject because he is Alvin's son but again I assure you that Andrew has no first hand knowledge on the subject. No father/son passed on knowledge.

Here are some pictures my wife snapped at the time. She just happened to take a shot of Andrew and me as he searched through his desk and again in the living room when he approached me on the ammo question.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...k0720012-2.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0720011u-2.jpg

Which rifle was on issue to the 328th Infantry at the time?

The 328th (along with the rest of the 82nd Division) was probably equipped initially, (during training with the British) with the SMLE; later, when it went into the line as part of the American Army, it carried M1917s.

So much for dependence on "solid secondary evidence". Actually, I would love to see some evidence of York using the 1903, and in my mind, I always see York with a 1903. They seem to fit together somehow. His actions in combat will always be celebrated, and are not diminished in any way by which rifle he used.

Jim

lots of great info...hasnt this cat been kicked hard enough in the past???
i recall more then a few banters over what rifle he used in the past 4 years, both on Jouster and this forum..
until someone comes up with a picture of York with said rifle...the truth may never be known...yea yea,,,iv seen the picture of him with a 1903...{after his service}
no matter what wood and steel he used,,,he had brass ones for sure.
as for Nick Ferris..??id bet at his age, he has forgot more about 1903,s 1917,s and Krag rifles, then any of us will ever know...
Nick is first class all the way, a true gem to us collectors, one of the few that will talk with just about anyone..very friendly, soft spoken, and always has a grin and a handshake...

I'm with Chuck. The Germans he killed could not care less what rifle he used. The debate has been going on for years and will continue to do so.:dunno:

His rifle was stolen on the troopship while coming home, early 1919(?). He "forgot" the serial number and rarely spoke about the rifle. I'd guess that was because someone (the thief) had that particular rifle and York didn't want to help the thief sell it off. Now, nearly 100 years later we don't even know what type of rifle he carried.
Let me add this: in Viet Nam you could carry a Thompson SMG, a Grease Gun SMG, AK-47, SKS, Garand, US Carbine, or heaven forbid, an M16. I suspect WWI was very similar to RVN. We didn't salute in the field and no one hassled you about anything. York was an NCO back when that meant something. He could have carried just exactly what he wanted and nobody would have said a word.

Let me add this: in Viet Nam you could carry a Thompson SMG, a Grease Gun SMG, AK-47, SKS, Garand, US Carbine, or heaven forbid, an M16. I suspect WWI was very similar to RVN.

What? A Marine serving as a grunt in Vietnam carried, as his primary weapon, what he was told to carry be it an M-14, M-16, M-60 or M-79. True, there was some 'freelancing' with shotguns, captured enemy weapons, M-1 carbines but they were in addition to, not instead of. Vietnam was not a free-for-all.

I am with you, Scarface. Any Marine had better have his primary weapon at hand and on demand. Carrying an AK47 could be very dangerous to our health, as the sound of it drew fire from any Marine I served with, including me.

Jim

Absolutely agree about the response to the sound of an AK-47. Dropped in a Force Recon team or two that would occasionally carry them but if the team stepped in it and they had to be used the rest of the team would know who was where and firing what.

Semper Fi Jim!

Semper Fi, Scarface! Went to Quantico a couple of weeks ago. It has changed, but not too much. Saw a lot of officers jogging with artificial legs (half a dozen or so - IED's?). I guess the Corps changed their policy on amputees. They should have.

Jim

Guys, all of you all- Viet Nam Vets? Anybody smelled gun smoke in the morning? Armchair commados? I carried an M16 as I wanted to set the example. I was wounded one night and was in the field the next day. Officers and NCO's set the example, sorry but you combat vets know this true. Sgt York also set the example. Shaved, clean and he didn't stink. OK? Got it? So what weapon do you guess he carried? M1917, yes. He set the example. I was an Advisor in RVN and we carried ANYTHING we wanted. Just as long it was in the field. OK??? Again, I carried an M16.

To add more confusion...
(Or maybe just add to Hollywood's contributions to authenticity)

In the movie, Sgt York used a 1903 and also picked off several Germans with a Luger.

I've read that 'Sgt York' used a Luger in movie version, only because they had a Luger set up that would cycle consistently firing blanks. From what I read (long ago) was they had a M1911 that was supposed to be used in the movie but it didn't function consistently firing blanks, so they used the Luger they had on set that happened to function better.

(Only what I read!) :surrender:

The movie was just that, a movie. Very few movies honestly depict war. "Porkchop Hill", not bad, "Saving Pvt Ryan" was OK, but the concept was weak. Just hard to make a war movie that is honest. Hollywood has very few vets in the industry, only after WWII were any vets around.

My opinion (not much) is kinda like what Steve said. York didn't think of himself as anything special, and I doubt he acted like it. I'm sure he thought if he was given a m1917 to use, than it was for a reason, and he used it.

Besides, it has better combat sights than a 1903 and it holds an extra round, if you want it to. I think a guy like York would grow to appreciate those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calif-Steve

The movie was just that, a movie. Very few movies honestly depict war. "Porkchop Hill", not bad, "Saving Pvt Ryan" was OK, but the concept was weak. Just hard to make a war movie that is honest. Hollywood has very few vets in the industry, only after WWII were any vets around.

---

Hi Steve,
Have you ever seen 'Battleground' made just after WWII?
I'm not sure of the authenticity of all the facts, but the GI's in the movie acted more like you'd think real GI's would act.
(I love that movie, regardless)

The GI's were scared and miserable, but they fought anyway, more for their buddies than a noble cause, and they griped etc throughout the movie.

~ Harlan

I have read reference by Mr. Alvin York that they had the " English" rifle. Could this have been in reference to the M 1917 or the SMLE?? I have read that excavation of the site where the famous action occurred is currently underway or has been recently completed. Does any one have more info ??

I lost the original post of this thread while trying to edit it, so I'm going to try to type it out again as I remember it. There was a man who wrote to the National RIfle Association about something that his father had told him years before. His father, a member of York's platoon, had been admitted to a field hospital near the front just before York earned his reputation taking out the German Machine guns. York visited the man the day before where the man was having his wound treated. Upon leaving, York asked if he could take the man's 1903 Springfield and did so with the man's permission. The 1903 was one of several that had been taken earlier by a man or couple of men who saw them in stacks behind a mess tent. When nobody was around or looking, The man or men grabbed an arm load of Springfields and took off with them back to their platoon. The hospitalized man told his son that until his visit from York at the hospital that day, York had used a 1917 Enfield. He said that York had been growing fond of the 1903's for awhile while observing the several in the posession of the men who had disgarded their 1917's for them earlier. The man told his son that he believed that the rifle that York left the hospital with that day was very likely the same one that he used in his exploits. The man's son had never forgotten what his father had told him and upon reading of York's heroic story in an American Rifleman, was reminded of what his father had said. The National Rifle Association listed the details of the story in one of their American Rifleman magazines where I read it. In response to anyone who insists that a well trained soldier of that time wouldn't have stolen rifles or weapons in that manner or used another type other than what he was issued, I have to tell you here and now that that just ain't necessarily so in every case. Personal experience there. Also, My grandpa's best friend, Fred Smith who went to war as an infantryman in WWI, told my gramps that the men who served with him, whenever they came across a 1903 Springfield, would drop their Enfields and pick up the Springfield. Gramps was proud of the fact that he'd qualified as an Expert Rifleman with the 1903 during the war and thought highly of it. I guess that Fred Smith and many others did too, in spite of the better battle sights of the 1917.
Here's a picture of my grandpa, James Mett Shippee, in 1917 at Camp Logan, Great Lakes Naval Training Center before he shipped off to the North Sea on the U.S.S. Wadsworth.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...herange1-1.jpg

That's very intersting, and it remains only to be confirmed that US soldiers took their rifles with them when they went into hospital. And that only because I don't know myself of course.

Beats me what the circumstances were of that man's admittance into the field hospital. Maybe he just walked back there and took his rifle with him, was ordered to remain and there he stayed. Could've been an infected wound that required treatment. I'm going to throw in with the account though. Something about it rings of the truth to me. If accurate, it explains what York was doing with a 1903 on that particular day. By the way, as per the information in Yorks personal diary, the serial number of his 1911 was 254648. It too was stolen from him while he was on the transport ship coming home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

That's very intersting, and it remains only to be confirmed that US soldiers took their rifles with them when they went into hospital. And that only because I don't know myself of course.

---

Of all the pictures I have seen of WWI hospitals, none show any rifles. After every engagement, scavenger squads would police the battlefields for weapons and equipment. I can see no reason why a soldier would take his rifle to a hospital, nor why the stretcher bearers would bother to carry the extra weight. Since replacements did not arrive with weapons, the scenario doesn't make sense.

The story sounds great, but it's BS,:thdown: as York's location is known for the the previous day of 7 Oct 1918 (his diary - he lay in a hole alongside the road "all day").:runaway: So he wasn't at a hospital, which were many miles behind the front lines. The triage stations were nearest the lines, and they were kept out of artillery range (usually).

Great story, but just that. York's own words refute the story - period.:thup:

Jim

Jim, is it possible that the wounded man was visited at a station close to the front (not a hospital) and that the son mistook the visit to be the preceeding day when the father had said that it was "just before the event? I wouldn't be ready to claim it was all bunkum and bosh without knowing the seed of truth behind the account. I'm going to be cautious about dismissing it alltogether without really knowing for certain about all of the actual facts, whatever they might be and however long it takes to divulge them. How can anyone KNOW for certain what exactly took place? I certainly don't and I'm going to be cautious in making any definite conclusions from 90 plus years away from the events. Not saying that you haven't brought some very important facts into focus. Well done. Why don't we look into it further then and see what we can see as far as we're able to from what we can gather. I think that the story warrants further invfestigation and to conclude, at this point, that the story is just BS is unsound.

Fred,

There is another problem. What Division did the wounded man belong to that was equipped with a 1903 (they weren't near the Marines)? I know of no Divisions in the immediate area that were so equipped. How did York know a man from another Division was wounded, much less which hospital he would be in (there were many hospitals)? Check out the Marines at Belleau Wood and you will see that their wounded were in hospitals from Paris to gosh knows where (Marine Muster Rolls). The story has a lot of issues, but anything is possible.

I might point out that if the story is true, and you know the name of the wounded man, we should be able to ascertain the serial number of the rifle (not cheap).

It is a great story, but it is most likely not factual.

Jim

Jim, please look carefully at my post again. I never said that the wounded man was of another division. I said that he belonged to the same unit or even platoon as York. Now I'll have to submit to the NRA for another copy of the magazine with the exact story in it to get all of the details for you, but it'd be worth it.

You are right. Sorry.

Jim

But Jim as you said if we could get the name of the wounded man from the article, and I believe it's available, then maybe, the number of the rifle could be obtained too! Now THAT's interesting!

Fred

Not to come into this discussion late but that gentleman who recounted that story in the American Rifleman about Alvin York and the 1903 is a member of my local rifle Club. He's a retired AF Colonel and has been a competitive shooter for many years, still shooting on the Bald Eagles Palma Team, so very familiar with any firearms that might have been discussed or used by York. His Dad served in Sergeant York’s platoon and as a youngster, John had actually had met Alvin York during family visits. John's Dad recounted how the troops were issued 1917s but that some liberated 1903's were available for the platoon to use. John's Dad was whom York visited in hospital and due to his wounds wasn't involved in the brave action. I think some of the confusion in this thread is the fact that York didn't "borrow" the 1903 at the hospital but used what was available to the platoon. John's Dad always indicated York had used one of those liberated 1903s to capture the German machinegun nests recounted in the citation and in the movie. I think John would be willing to discuss this further, but I would have to respect his privacy until he agrees to some forum to chat about this.

SAJTU

Satju, Wow, that's incredible! Thank you for joining in on this discussion! Isn't it a small world? I'm thrilled to hear that John is still alive and well and about his father being the man from Yorks platoon. I will certainly respect John's desire to remain unidentified if he so desires. If there is any light on this subject that John would be willing to share through you, I for one would be extremely thankful and delighted to hear of it! I'm certain that there would be many others who would be grateful also. It would clear up a great deal about the matter and would be of immense bennefit to history! Would you please ask John if he would be willing to assist us in knowing more clearly what happened? It would be tragic beyond description if the information that his father passed on to John became lost and forgotten, never to be known again.
Thanks ever so much for your thoughtful response on this subject! Fred Gaarde

I hope to see John at the next monthly Club meeting in a couple weeks and will ask if he's willing to discuss his father and Alvin York on the forum or through some email contacts. He's an older gentleman, very friendly...still competitive both in smallbore and Palma but starting to have trouble getting up and down in position. He probably has additional WWI stories from his father that may be of interest and actually is a very interesting shooter in his own right, having competed all over the U.S., as well as, in Canada, England, and New Zealand for Palma competitions. I’ll keep everyone posted.

Thank you, Sajtu.

Jim

Thank you Sajtu, we'll be looking forward to hearing from you both! Fred

One of the more remarkable things about this discussion is that, during his lifetime, I'm sure York was asked literally hundreds and hundreds of times about the rifle he used in his daring exploits. Amongst his friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and those who interviewed him, this information was common knowledge. I'd bet that, with a little digging, a published interview could be found where York clearly stated what rifle he used. With a lot of digging, someone might even be able to find the serial number of it. There seems to be no doubt that he used a Colt M1911. I'm confident that the uncertainty about the rifle he used could, likewise, be easily resolved.

I look forward to Satju's reply.

J.B.