The Springfield 1903

[Dirk_Pitt]

I have a question for our resident gun experts!


How fast could I shoot a 1903? Accuracy is a nonissue. Assume that we're fighting Napoleonic style. The clip would be 10 rounds and the time reference is one minute. If you need anymore info just ask!


The reason for my asking is that I'm doing research for a book that I'm writing.

The premise is total ASB, but that's why it's so much fun! The meat of the story is during the American Revolution, August of 1775 to be exact, although a team is sent back to 1770 Chicago area to build up an industrial capacity. But it starts in 2014. In this world Obama is re-elected and the economy is still in a downturn. Oh for those who scream that I'm being too political, it's only to setup the reason why my main character goes back in time. Anywho, the main character. He is an ex-army Colonel, good for running a military op, he served in Iraq for four years and Afghanistan for five. He is the CEO of a weapons manufacturer. This gives him the means to do all of this, except the time machine. That's where the scientist comes in. The main character's wife works for the scientist. Incidentally she's a Liberal. Wow a Conservative and a liberal living in the same house! Sounds like one of those damn reality TV shows doesn't it. The object of the mission is partly to capture Canada! Yeah I'm comin' for you Canada, Revolutionary style, too. Your British overlords don't stand a chance in hell! Imagine the first battle between 500 SMG and M-16 armed modern Americans versus 18th century Brits armed with state -of-the-art Muskets! Can you say massacre?! In fact I am a little worried about just that. Don't worry. I'll just have the men shoot a few rounds into them then demand immediate surrender. My character is not a cold blooded murderer!

I did mention another part to my character's glorious mission: gradually end slavery. That might seem difficult but in reality it's anything but! The condition of slavery at this point is one of decay. In is unprofitable, in fact it's slowly dying. It is considered by many, even in the south to by a necessary evil. Obviously the were racial reasons for slavery but it wasn't as integrated or organized as it was in the 19th century. That's why the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were able to push the issue of slavery under the rug, they thought slavery would end by the 1830s at the latest. But that changed with the invention of the Cotton Gin, although it was hardly over night. But by the 1830s the necessary evil became a positive good for both master and slave. To change this the first and longest step will be the gradual integration of better agricultural technology this will start after the war is won obviously. The second thing is to prevent Eli Whitney's idiotic invention of the cotton Gin. Hopefully this will lead to a gradual emancipation that prevents the bitterness of OTL after the Civil War. Of course there would be no such nonsense as a civil war in TTL. This would leave states' rights argument intact, which would then lessen the expansion of the Federal Government or at least slow it down...

I ask that you focus on the first issue before talking about my timeline. Also remember that the story is purposely ASB and any comments mentioning that fact will be simply ignored by me.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

How fast could I shoot a 1903?

IIRC, 15 rounds/min, but it might be that this rate of fire was with a 5-round clip.

 

[TemplarKnight]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

Resist joining the revolution against British Tyranny? Has a border with the US? Has a funny accent?

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

Being close, at hand?

 

[wormyguy]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

Speaks same language, basically same culture, first-world, has longest border with the US.

 

[Cash]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

Because it's easy?

 

[Cash]

I have a question for our resident gun experts!


How fast could I shoot a 1903? Accuracy is a nonissue. Assume that we're fighting Napoleonic style. The clip would be 10 rounds and the time reference is one minute. If you need anymore info just ask!

Figure with a bolt action about 1.6 to 2.3 seconds per round, depending on the condition of the rifle and experience of the shooter. Assuming a box clip that can be changed quickly, perhaps 20-24 rounds a minute working the bolt as fast as you can without regard for accuracy. If the clip has to be fed through the chamber, perhaps with a stripper clip or en bloc, then less. But IIRC there were several instances during WWI when German troops retreated from troops using the 1903 Springfield in the belief that they were facing automatic weapons. Same with the Enfield.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

Because an "independent" Canada is a historical fluke. We were far closer to gaining Canada than you think. We already had Montreal more or less solidly loyal to the cause. I think it had something to do with the fact that the people there were mostly French and didn't like being under the British yoke. I'm not exactly sure but it makes sense. In fact the Canadians were more than willing to send delegates to Philadelphia. In fact they already had delegates ready to go. Their only precondition was the capture of Quebec City so as to secure Quebec from British re-conquest. Three things would have secured victory: 1) The capture of Guy Charleton the Governor and Military leader of Quebec;2) A more Loyalist tolerant Wooster, the guy in charge of American Montreal, or his removal(the latter being more likely); and 3) If Arnold's March to Quebec had gone a bit smoother.

1. Had we captured Charleton then best case scenario we could have forced a surrender of Quebec similar to how the Texans were able to secure Independence from Santa Anna. Worst case scenario it at least cuts the head off the snake. Charleton was the one who decided to simply wait out the siege until Reinforcements came. A less competent man might just decide the exact opposite: Not the most brilliant idea considering they'll be facing 1903s, M-16s, sub-machine Guns(probably Tompsons. The irony of taking out Tommies with a tommy gun!), Machine Guns, and WW1 Field Guns.

2. Wooster was a good soldier but was an idiot in Administration. He ordered the disarmament and detainment of the Loyalists in the area. That raised flags for the Pro-American residents. I Wooster were removed and replaced simply with a Pro-American local things would have turned out better.

3. Arnold's Army of 1100 man strong, considered more than enough (and they were right) the British didn't have more than 700 regulars in Quebec. I suffered from many an obstacle? Why? What were they? First the boats Arnold ordered built were poorly built and leaked the whole way ruining supplies. Secondly, the map Arnold asked for was drawn by a person of secret loyalist sympathies was correspondingly inaccurrate and caused the expedition to go twice the distance Arnold planned to. This caused the expedition to lose almost half his men. Now if Arnold had better transport and better maps then he would be far better off!


Now if any of two out of three were to go in my favor then victory is possible, especially with help from a certain time traveler.

Also as a side point the Continental Congress planned on sending an addition amount of troops numbering around 6,000-7,000 because they thought victory was certain.

@ Cash and Kurt_Steiner: Thank you for the information. God Bless the United States of America!

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Figure with a bolt action about 1.6 to 2.3 seconds per round, depending on the condition of the rifle and experience of the shooter. Assuming a box clip that can be changed quickly, perhaps 20-24 rounds a minute working the bolt as fast as you can without regard for accuracy. If the clip has to be fed through the chamber, perhaps with a stripper clip or en bloc, then less. But IIRC there were several instances during WWI when German troops retreated from troops using the 1903 Springfield in the belief that they were facing automatic weapons. Same with the Enfield.

Well assume that the shooter is the average Continental soldier during the 1775 campaign season.

 

[Readman]

Dirk_Pitt Because an "independent" Canada is a historical fluke.

Er, yeah sorry Doc, imma have ta call B.S on this assumption. I rather think the British Empire would ensure Canadian integrity if for no other reason to ensure that they didn't lose any more land than they had/would as a result of the loss of the former Colonies.

 

[dgharis]

The 1903 Springfield has a five round magazine loaded from a stripper clip or with individual rounds. It is possible to empty the magazine in three seconds and to reload it in another three seconds, so as many as fifty rounds a minute could be fired.

That, of course, assumes ideal conditions, which definitely does not apply to the average soldier in combat. IIRC fifteen rounds a minute is a good sustained rate of fire for well trained riflemen. Much more than that results in a severe loss of accuracy (and possible injury to the shooter; the rifle has a hefty recoil).

Contrary to the OP accuracy does matter; that's the point of having rifling, after all. What good is it to fire quickly if you never hit anything? The rates of fire above are for aimed shots.

BTW, given the premise, this belongs in ASB. Even if ARW soldiers were given these weapons and trained to use them properly, how are they being supplied with ammo, tools, and spare parts? Those don't grow on trees and the thirteen colonies don't have the means to replicate them.

 

[Deleted member 9338]

how come all you america-wank people (was going to say america-wankers but that wouldn't be very polite ) all want to invade Canada? What's Canada ever done to you?

Your there. And remember we show the same love to Mexico.

 

[Cash]

The 1903 Springfield has a five round magazine loaded from a stripper clip or with individual rounds. It is possible to empty the magazine in three seconds and to reload it in another three seconds, so as many as fifty rounds a minute could be fired.

That, of course, assumes ideal conditions, which definitely does not apply to the average soldier in combat. IIRC fifteen rounds a minute is a good sustained rate of fire for well trained riflemen. Much more than that results in a severe loss of accuracy (and possible injury to the shooter; the rifle has a hefty recoil).

Contrary to the OP accuracy does matter; that's the point of having rifling, after all. What good is it to fire quickly if you never hit anything? The rates of fire above are for aimed shots.

BTW, given the premise, this belongs in ASB. Even if ARW soldiers were given these weapons and trained to use them properly, how are they being supplied with ammo, tools, and spare parts? Those don't grow on trees and the thirteen colonies don't have the means to replicate them.

Five rounds in three seconds? That's an extraordinary rate of fire for a bolt-action Springfield, even un-aimed, and especially for a 1775 soldier, as the OP has indicated. Agree that 15/minute is more reasonable. The 1903 was (still is) a great firearm, but it had a kick to it. After the first 20 rounds or so, accuracy even with aimed fire begins to go down as the shooter tires in a sustained-fire situation.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Er, yeah sorry Doc, imma have ta call B.S on this assumption. I rather think the British Empire would ensure Canadian integrity if for no other reason to ensure that they didn't lose any more land than they had/would as a result of the loss of the former Colonies.

Actually mate, your wrong. If you watch this video it states that Britain would have accepted the loss of Canada if the US was successful in invading Canada. Also I do have a diplomatic twist to the story. All I'mma gonna say is f*** the French!

 

[wormyguy]

Looks like this man can fire an aimed shot from a 1903 with about 4-5 seconds between shots (from a prone position though): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydyxUjb1AXs

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

Five rounds in three seconds? That's an extraordinary rate of fire for a bolt-action Springfield, even un-aimed, and especially for a 1775 soldier, as the OP has indicated. Agree that 15/minute is more reasonable. The 1903 was (still is) a great firearm, but it had a kick to it. After the first 20 rounds or so, accuracy even with aimed fire begins to go down as the shooter tires in a sustained-fire situation.

Yeah I thought five rounds every three second was a little hinky.

Also these 1903s are modified to hold a 10 round clip.

Also on the issue of supplies: there was a pre-mission expedition to 1770 Chicago, which is basically just wilderness right...? This expedition's job is to build up a small industrial center to supply the Continental Army. Anything that can't be produced on site will be sent though the portal.

 

[Dirk_Pitt]

In respect of US expansion expect by the 1850s that all of Mainland NA(except for Central America) be US territory. That's not as extreme as you think. If we had had victory in Canada during the ARW then Canada would have been in(the remnants of British Canada would fall during the War of 1812 which was much more favorable to the USA). If slaves had been emancipated gradually and voluntarily then the bitterness felt by both parties would, though still there, be less severe. But I'm getting off topic... If slavery was dead or at least in it's death throws by 1830 then we probably would have annexed Texas the first time they'd asked in doing so probably starting the Mexican-American War. And without Slavery as a major political factor then at least most of Mexico would have been annexed with a US protectorate centered around Mexico City that would probably be annexed sometime in the latter half of the 19th century. Central America will be jointly administered by the US and Britain. Spanish South America will be taken by Britain, with nominal American help(man I'm just dropping hints like crazy! Maybe I should just say it?).

A French-Canadian covertly snuck into the facility holding the time portal. at midnight, several months after the mission began. He re-calibrated the portal to Paris late May 1776 and set it to return back to it's original settings after he went through, then went through. He was a passionate French Nationalist and despised America for what they did to his beloved France. By this time Canada will shortly be completely in Continental hands. All that's needed is the surrender of General Howe's forces in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The resulting siege lasted until the 24th of July, 20 days after the Declaration of Independence was signed. On the night before our Main Character received some very troubling news: France had betrayed America and declared war on us! This would decide how he would deal with Howe...

The next day when Howe finally surrendered and offered his sword, the main character declined, citing that Howe's men had fought bravely and with honor so there was no need to surrender his sword. Later in that evening the main character asks for Howe. In that meeting the Main Character convinced Howe that the war was over. He had cold hard facts on his side: Britain plain and simple didn't have any armies in North America and and any troops she did have were only fit for garrison duty. Of course they did have Bourgoyne. Even then there was no way they could stand up to America's superior fire power. Howe would order John to stand down to prevent further slaughter. Then the main character told him about the declaration of war from France and the possibility of a declaration from Spain. That's when Howe suffers a moment of madness: We could return next campaign season with a bigger army and with the help of the French and the Spanish crush the rebellion! That's when I explained to him that if the French and the Spanish betrayed America then they could easily betray Britain. Besides the declarations worried the main character beyond the obvious. Like what would they have to gain? Same for the Spanish. What was their motive? Howe was finally fully convinced. It's good to have an ally within the British Government. It turns out that the British Government went through a change: the war party: The Tories was out and the party of peace: The Whigs were in. Peace Negotiations began. But even before the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed war coordinations began almost immediately after the Howe's meeting with the main character and even during that meeting there was talk of a general strategy.

The announcement of the French Declaration of War and the meeting of the main character and Washington with Howe would be the end of Novel one.

It's all ASB fun isn't it?

 

[Kuamong]

Shouldn't this be in ASB then?

Otherwise 15/sec. sounds reasonable.

 

[Lectruck]

French backstabbers

Is the French time traver going to try and stop the French Revolution or is he a supporter of it. A lot of people have supported a position only to have their head off in the actual reality.

Don