Springfield Armory XM1905/06 #52

[Spathologist]

I recently acquired Springfield Armory M1905/06 Experimental #52. It has a 32" standard point blade and came with a very rare pigskin officer's scabbard.

 

The saber has a lot of dark on the blade, as is common for these sabers as some were tested in the Philippines and Cuba and the leather-over-wood scabbard retained a lot of moisture. This one came very sharp, sharp enough to easily cut skin if handled carelessly. The guard is browned, the shagreen grip is 98% intact, the wire is all there but was broken and "field repaired" with the broken ends twisted together.

 

The scabbard is very faintly marked "RIA over "1906" on the left side near the top. It is completely intact except for the leather over the top ring band, and has the leather "drag" that is often missing. Wear over the ring bands was a common complaint with this scabbard. Someone, somewhere put sticky vinyl lettering on it, why I cannot fathom.

 

This one joins #132 in my collection, along with an example from Ames.

 

The M1905/06 Experimental was developed in response to President Theodore Roosevelt's famous letter to Secretary of War William Taft questioning design decisions on rifles, bayonets and sabers. Chief of Staff Adna Chaffee ordered the creation of two boards; one a joint Army-Navy board which confirmed the desirability of a usable saber for both services, and a Special Committee that came up with the design for this saber. It was based on the blade from the M1902 Officer's Saber, but the unique birds'-head grip was the design of one of the last of the freelance industrial-society geniuses, A.C. Cunningham. The Army published a set of provisional drill regulations for the experimental saber, but what is less known is that Mr. Cunningham drew up a parallel drill for the Navy, anticipating the adoption of the design.

 

A total of 1316 of the sabers were produced for testing between Ames and the Springfield Armory, and were widely distributed for testing between 5 cavalry regiments, 6 infantry regiments, 3 artillery regiments, and a scattering of Engineer, Signal Corps and Staff units. Testing began about August of 1906 and continued until November of 1908, and further testing of sabers incorporating modifications recommended during the trials was authorized by the Acting Secretary of War in August 1909. Though several prototypes with various of the recommended changes were produced, the program died out in early 1910.

 

[robinb]

I have one of those M1906 swords, but I don't see a serial number on mine. Just where is it located?

[Spathologist]

There are three types of saber out there with 1906 date stamps.

 

One is the light cavalry saber that is basically identical to the M1860 cavalry saber, but with iron hilts, made by Ames. They are marked A.S.Co and have no serial number.

 

The other two are the M1905/06 Experimentals. They will have the grip design shown in the pics above; it's unique to this model.

 

If it's marked A.S.Co. over 1906 on the right side of the ricasso, it's an Ames-made saber and will not have a serial number.

If it's marked S A over 1906 on the right side of the ricasso, it's a Springfield Armory-made piece, and will have a serial number on the left side of the ricasso. I'd like to know the serial number, if I can.

If it's marked S A over 1906 on the right side of the ricasso, and has no serial number on the left side, then I would be a very motivated buyer.

[robinb]

Good explanation. Mine's an Ames 1906, so no number is correct.

[robinb]

Just re-read my own post, and I need to clarify a little. I actually own both Ames 1906 types. The M1860 made in 1906, and the 1906 experimental. Niether have serial numbers.

[Oldcop]

Good get. I'm jealous. Dave

[SARGE]

A very nice find! These swords are hard to come by in any condition.

[Spathologist]

Just re-read my own post, and I need to clarify a little. I actually own both Ames 1906 types. The M1860 made in 1906, and the 1906 experimental. Niether have serial numbers.

 

Do you have a scabbard for the experimental? I'd be interested in the markings if you do.

 

I bought my first XM1905/06 just to fill a hole in my collection and to provide an example for study for my monograph. It really grew on me, though, so I bought an Ames for comparison and when this one with the officer's scabbard popped up, I had to have it as well.

 

These sabers are light and quick, very handy, and a good compromise for a cut-and-thrust design. I initially remarked the close similarity to M1902 blades, and this was confirmed when reading the original 1905 board report.

 

These are just very neat sabers.

[robinb]

I didn't get a scabbard with mine.

[Spathologist]

After seeing a tantalizing mention in Farrington's new book on Army swords and sabers, I sent for a copy of Amoskeag's catalog for their 14 January 2006 auction, and found this entry on #52.

 

I bought the saber from an online dealer with no mention of its prior history...

 

 

[reschenk]

Nice to have recovered the history - odd that it was lost in the few years between the Amoskeag sale and your acquisition since associations like this add to the value of a piece, especially if provenance can be documented. I have a couple of the Ames, but no Springfield. I regret not bidding on one in the recent Poulin sale where one went for a very low price.

 

I wonder if the colonel had this sword during the Villa expedition? I know most of the literature indicates the test period was relatively short and the implication is these swords were taken out of service at the end of the test, but the degree of wear, especially the miserable state of most of the surviving scabbards, seems inconsistent with such a short service life.

[Spathologist]

Nice to have recovered the history - odd that it was lost in the few years between the Amoskeag sale and your acquisition since associations like this add to the value of a piece, especially if provenance can be documented. I have a couple of the Ames, but no Springfield. I regret not bidding on one in the recent Poulin sale where one went for a very low price.

 

I wonder if the colonel had this sword during the Villa expedition? I know most of the literature indicates the test period was relatively short and the implication is these swords were taken out of service at the end of the test, but the degree of wear, especially the miserable state of most of the surviving scabbards, seems inconsistent with such a short service life.

 

The experimental saber was actually quite popular with some of the testing units. At least two units requested and received permission to continue using the sabers after the test was ended, and Farrington in his book shows a unit photo of the 7th Cavalry with a trooper displaying a lone experimental saber. So the sabers definitely continued in service after the test was ended.

 

As to whether Col. Tompkins *had* the saber during the Battle of Columbus...very possible. Tompkins commanded one of the testing units, Troop G of the 11th Cavalry (the 13th was also a testing unit). One of the entries in the test report (a very favorable one) is from the C.O. of Troop G on 27 Nov 1908...Tompkins. We know he was issued the saber, he liked the saber, and we know he kept it beyond the test period. So while a case can be made that this saber was at Camp Furlong during the battle, it's highly improbable that Tompkins would have carried it in his pursuit of Villa's forces...

[reschenk]

The scabbard on one of my two Ames experimentals has some interesting unit markings. It is stamped “(T)roop C.5/40”; the “40” appears to have been stamped over a previous lightly stamped number “75”(?); below that “21” is stamped at right angle to rest of inscription. I presume the first line means Troop C of the 5th Cavalry, but I'm not sure what the other numbers mean. I presume they are some type inventory number, but why did it change three times? Were the swords items of individual issue and the numbers changed each time it was transferred to a new trooper, e.g. it was issued first to trooper 75, then trooper 40, then trooper 21? Or is there another explanation?

 

It appears to be too much metal showing over the top of the leather. I doubt leather shrinkage could explain this - somehow the throat piece seems to have been pulled up. It is firmly in place where it is.

[Spathologist]

Troop C of the 5th was one of the testing units, and its commander, CPT N. F. McClure, left a positive review in the test report.

 

I have not seen a reference for the "rack numbers" as they are sometimes called. I know that in a modern Army arms room, and at least as far back as the Korean War era, each weapon is marked with an individual number based on its position in the rack. Much easier than trying to read a serial number to determine where it goes, and much easier to inventory quickly at the end of the day. Some posit that the numbers corresponded to an individual trooper's number on the unit roster, but I never saw anything like that during my, admittedly more modern, service. Numbers painted or etched on weapons were for rack position. There would be several reasons for a rack number to change...damaged or retired weapons changing a rack order, or weapons transferred between units are a couple that come immediately to mind.

 

And yes, it looks like the throat has pulled out of the end of your scabbard somehow. There looks to me to be no shrinkage of the leather around the mouth.

[reschenk]

If these are rack numbers, and I suspect you are right about that, the fact this sword''s number was changed twice would support the theory that it was kept in service beyond the testing period. It is hard to imagine they would have needed to change its position in the rack that frequently in so short a period.

[Spathologist]

Gunderson currently has #128 for sale with another C Troop scabbard, rack # 42. It first popped up in my records as the property of a Bob H. over at Swordforums back in 2013, then in a Poulin auction in 2014.

[reschenk]

Interesting to note Gunderson's rack number (42) appears to be stamped in the same font as my rack numbers (46/21). Must have been marked at about the same time

 

 

 

 

 

I also note there is a lot of metal exposed at the throat, although not as much as on my scabbard. Was it made that way or has the throat slipped out a bit? I notice your SA does not have this characteristic, Nor does Gunderson's other SA (#124)

[Spathologist]

I have a mint example of an enlisted scabbard, and the throat metal protrudes only about a half inch above the leather. It is very common on these scabbards for the leather to shrink and expose siignificant throat metal.

[reschenk]

Varangian,

 

Thanks for the feedback. I have a couple more questions about the scabbards on the Gunderson examples.

 

- Do you believe scabbard on the SA #128 is original to the sword? I find it difficult to differentiate the two different leathers, officer and enlisted, especially in photos. It seems odd to me that an officer's saber would have a rack #42. As I understand, officers were issued a particular sword individually, and it seems peculiar one would even have a rack number, much less something like #42 vice 1 or 2.

 

- What do you make of the break about 3" below the second ring in the Saber #124 scabbard? Has the lower portion of the scabbard been replaced?

 

Dick

[Spathologist]

Dick;

 

As with any issue scabbard, unless there is a period photo to prove it, it's really not possible to say if it's "original". The best we can usually do is say if it's "correct". And the scabbard is correct.

 

There were no differences between officer and enlisted sabers in the testing correspondence, though if I understand Dusan's comments on the saber in his recent book, the Springfield examples were all referred to in the production correspondence as "officer's sabers". This may have been due to the blade being based on the M1902, however. The longer lengths were for mounted personnel, but the only differentiation in the testing correspondence was the scabbard. The pigskin officer scabbard is usually pretty easy to identify; it has large pores in the leather where the enlisted leather scabbard has a smooth texture. For a good image of the pigskin texture, see the excellent but ridiculously priced example on Ebay 310957629635, particularly the photo of the drag.

 

I don't think the lower portion of the scabbard for #124 has been replaced, I think the upper portion has been re-covered and the lower restored and re-stitched at the drag. The stitching on the lower part is correct, apart from near the drag, but that of the upper part is not.

[reschenk]

Thanks for the info. I had seen the ebay example - truly a beautiful example, but what a price! I can easily see the scabbard is pigskin with the prominent pores, but on neither of the Gunderson examples is the difference all that plain, at least to me. The leather on both looks like relatively smooth, but aged, leather. If they weren't on SA sabers, I'd tag them as enlisted scabbards, especially the one with rack numbers. Maybe in the flesh the difference would be more obvious than in the photos.

 

When I first looked at the #124 scabbard, I thought there was a sleeve on the top part, but on looking further, I changed to thinking it was the bottom that was replaced. After reading your note above and looking yet again, I believe you are probably right about the upper portion being recovered. It doesn't look like anything done recently - perhaps a repair made during the saber's service life?

[Spathologist]

The scabbards on the sabers for sale at Gunderson's are both the enlisted version. I have 3 SA sabers that came with scabbards, only one was pigskin, so I don't know that the SA sabers were reserved for officers...

[reschenk]

Was interested in your comments on the number of SA XM1905s found in enlisted scabbards. I have an Ames example in what appears to possibly be a really ratty officer's scabbard. I'm not certain, but it does have prominent pores similar to what one would expect from pig skin. What do you think?

 

 

I really don't know if SA-manufactured swords were reserved for officers and Ames were exclusive to enlisted troops or not. From what Farrington has reported, it would appear the folks at Springfield did refer to the arsenal-produced swords as officer swords. Whatever the case, at some point it would appear the scabbards got interchanged. Perhaps after the test period those elements which continued to use the swords consolidated all swords, enlisted and officer, into the arms room for issue out as required.

[Spathologist]

Definitely an officer's scabbard.

 

My personal opinion is that they were referred to as officer swords at the Armory because they *were* "officer swords"...M1902s. The XM1906 blade is simply a modified M1902 blade. So they would most likely have been made on the "officer sword" shops.

 

Plus, looking at the reports on the fielding, there were more officers with sabers than Springfield made. Some officers had to have been issued Ames sabers. And the method of manufacture and shipment meant that the sabers and scabbards were not mated until they arrived at the unit. The sabers were assembled and shipped from Springfield or Ames and the scabbards were manufactured and shipped from Rock Island. This is shown by the fielding of the XM1911 and the M1913 where there were several instances of units getting sabers for which they had received no scabbards.

 

There may have been some "natural selection" at play, where the officers snagged the SA sabers for themselves because the perceived quality of the arsenal product was superior. But I don't think there was ever a plan to field the SA sabers solely to officers.

[reschenk]

Your case is convincing. I had not done the math on the number of officers vice the number of SA swords produced. If Farrington ever produces an up-dated version of his book, which from his solicitation of new information seems possible, I hope he includes clarification that SA-production does not necessarily imply officer issue.