Poyers' '03 Springfield Book

[Mike D]

The past year I have grown quite fond of the old '03. I started out as a carbine fan, and then a brief stint with the M1. I still love 'em, and read about 'em, but the Springfield keeps calling me back. Maybe its the 40+ years of production and many variations, I don't know. Maybe I just like the way a bolt action .30-'06 feels on the shoulder when I squeeze the trigger.

Point is, between the info I find on this site and the web, the rifles I get my hands on at the shows, the ones I end up taking home , and the reference books I'm collecting, I'm absorbing all I can and would like to know what to be careful of.

Every time Poyers book is brought up, we are told to "be cautious" and "pay close attention" because of some apparent mistakes. Its even been called "trash". Why is it so bad? It HAS to be good for something, if at least, a mere list of different parts. Yeh, hes listed every difference as a "type" or "variation" and so on, which tends to get confusing, but I want to know what is just, "plain wrong". Is there really a perfect reference? I don't think so. Thats why newer editions are printed, right?

I haven't been haunting this forum very long, but I plan to. So, if some of you more "seasoned" '03 fans have a copy of Poyers' latest edition, or don't need a copy to do so, please clue me in on some of the more apparent "mistakes and falsehoods" so I can make notes for future reference. I'd really like to know. Thanks in advance, Mike D

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Rick the Librarian]

Here's the review I did on his second ed. a few years ago. I recent obtained the 3rd ed. and didn't notice any improvement. In my opinion, it does have some qualities, but it is the old story about "separating the wheat from the chaff". It would be a big mistake for a newbie to use Poyer as his main '03 source.

Part of the problem is I believe Joe Poyer uses information from "old" sources dating back to the 1940s that have been proven to be incorrect by modern research.

"The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle and Its Variations" (2nd Edition Revised) by Joe Poyer. North Cape Publications, 2004; $22.95

Joe Poyer has written several books for North Cape Publications and if memory serves me, writes for a magazine or two, as well. When he brought out a 1903 Springfield in his "For Collectors Only" series in late 2001, I had high hopes. Unfortunately, the book was riddled with errors, some even obvious to beginners and others more obvious to those with more experience collecting '03s.

A few months ago, probably in an attempt to correct some of the errors, North Cape Published a revised edition of Mr. Poyer's book and I had hoped that many of the mistakes might have been corrected.

First, the positives - the book is in a handy format and attempts a part-by-part analysis of the 1903. He has many tables and much of his history on the '03 is readable and accurate. The drawings, although not up to those used by Clark Campbell or Jesse Harrison, are adequate and well-explained.

Unfortunately, although some of the errors in the first edition were corrected (the "one off" production tables that, for example, listed 1919 serial numbers under a 1920 date - probably the result of poor editing/proofreading), there were several other errors either newly committed or left uncorrected.

Picking an area in which I have some expertise, the section on the Remington 1903, he stated that about 3,000 Remingtons were made in 1941. I accepted this as a matter of interpretation - the commonly accepted total is slightly under 6,000.

However, Mr. Poyer really gets off the beaten track when he states that a "few thousand" Remington 1903s were equipped with C stocks. No idea where this idea came from. Any Type C stock on a Remington was a replacement, not original.

He continues the dubious idea that there were two Remington 1903s - one a simple "Remington 1903" and the other a Remington 1903 Modified". Although he isn’t the only person to believe this, he states that 133,444 Remington 1903s and 214,641 Modifieds were made. Even proponents of the "two Remington theory" have not come up with an EXACT cutoff between the two. Anyone who has made a detailed study of this rifle knows there was no cutoff between the two - Remington 1903s tended to "blend" from one change to the other - with plenty of exceptions to turn any firearms historian's hair gray!

There were numerous other mistakes noted:

1) On his Remington 1903A3 production tables 373, he incorrectly has serial numbers of rifles up to the 5,005,000 range. Although numbers allocated did include 5,000,000+, there were no rifles actually produced in this range. Nothing is said about this. I see some National Ordnance 03A3 owners claiming that their rifles are "military" because "Poyer says so"!

2) He states that Springfield receiver production went to the 1,592,000 range and in the table to 1,548,000, when most experts state that any serial numbers over the 1,536,000 range are fakes, errors or misstamps. Poyer states that "...as many as 60,000 spare receivers" may have been manufactured as spare parts as late as 1944 - in error. The last receiver made was in 1941.

3) Other smaller errors- CC is still stated as "Chrysler Corp." and CCT as Commercial Controls; the fictitious END stamp is still stated as being correct for early Remington 1903s.

I would not recommend this book for a 1903 "newbie" - there is too much chance for he/she to get the wrong information. Yes, it does have some positives. However, you must wade through a fair amount of misinformation to use it.

There is a real need for an inexpensive book on the 1903. Unfortunately, this is not it. The book buyer would be wise to save another $30-40 and buy either Bruce Canfield's new book or Clark Campbell's latest edition.

[Chuckindenver]

i like how Poyer book is laid out, too bad his Ego keeps him from listening and getting the info right..
maybe if he asked some of the collectors here {again} and actually listened..
he would finally get it right??

[jarrodeu]

How would you rate the information in Jesse Harrison's guide?

Jarrod

[Bill Ricca]

I cannot comment on the Harrison 03 book, but his Garand book is close to a disaster. He has lots of errors, but having researched Grenade Launchers, one instantly comes to mind.

He has a gas cylinder lock screw listed as prototype, which was a fantasy item which was never produced or existed.

I have the development history and Remington Patent information of that item and my guess is his book stated that to justify one on his rifle.

[Calif-Steve]

Rick: I heard this old story years ago; "Poyer states that "...as many as 60,000 spare receivers" may have been manufactured as spare parts as late as 1944 - in error. The last receiver made was in 1941." This tale was de-bunked a long time ago. The story that Springfield geared up to produce M1903's for China in 1944 just will not die. Poyer isn't helping at all. Springfield was in a huge production effort to make Garands for combat troops. They didn't have the production space or desire to make M1903's during 1944. Story will not die. Thank you Mr. Poyer.

[Rick the Librarian]

It might have grown out of the story that Springfield assembled 50,000 M1903s for China from spare parts kept in stores. However, I don't believe Springfield had anywhere near 50,000 spare receivers - maybe some, but not near that many.

As far as Harrison's book, like Poyer, it has some good points - I especially like the pictures and the "ring binder" that allows the book to be laid flat. However, it does have a number of errors. RIA is stated as "Rock Island Armory" and Harrison has come up with a bunch of bogus "Models": "Model of 1941", "Model of 1942", etc.

Like Poyer, I would not recommend the book for a newcomer.

[Calif-Steve]

The China story is interesting. I think Springfield picked through their inventory and selected every low number '03 in-house. Also, Mk1's went to China. I happened to go through a pile of Mausers and '03's in Vermont 20 years ago. All freshly out of China. Piles of low number and piles of NO NUMBER '03's.. The Red Guards had neatly removed all English alphabet from the rifles. I honestly don't think Springfield even assembled very many '03's as they would have had a large inventory on hand to ship. By the time these reached the USA in the mid-1980's they were beat, to say the least.

[Jim Tarleton]

I have an A3 stock with a large Chinese brand on the outside of the buttstock, which according to the Chinese Embassy personnel means "People's Army". What makes the stock unusual is that it is a scant stock with an A4 bolt cutout. No other cartouches are present. Which Chinese Army did we lend rifles? The Nationalists?

Jim

[Kirk]

I have an A3 stock with a large Chinese brand on the outside of the buttstock, which according to the Chinese Embassy personnel means "People's Army". What makes the stock unusual is that it is a scant stock with an A4 bolt cutout. No other cartouches are present. Which Chinese Army did we lend rifles? The Nationalists?

Jim

Jim:

It would have been the Nationalists . . . first. The ChiComs just inherited everything.

I read the biography of one GI who'd fought in China during WWII and then in Korea. He said that one day he was watching a column of North Korean POWs pass when he recognized a Chinese soldier whom he'd worked with in WWII. He called out to him and then asked him why he'd thrown in with the ChiComs. The soldier shrugged his shoulders & replied "they feed me".