5MadFarmers
05-23-2016, 03:38
It's always nice to take what exists and weave it all together in non-obvious ways. Often it points out that the most obvious answer is sometimes the right one.
"When people ask me how many guns I own I tell them the answer is complex. "Do you mean guns, things which used to be guns, or bits of guns which might end up being guns again?"
The first M-1896, formerly known as M-1892, that I owned was in the middle group. The earliest M-1896 rifle I own is in the latter group. Eventually it'll be a gun again. Most of it's there. Missing a stock. Without the lumber it isn't really a gun though. Ranges. Your guns was made at this particular point in time. Assertions to make us comfortable. Eventually they're all stone cold "original." As will that M-1896 rifle when it gets inserted in lumber maybe.
So why do I have such a focus on the Magazine Rifles? That range? Because therein was the mystery. The answer, when you see it, brings forth a chuckle. The M-1896 Cadets are in there.
Ergo the Cadets couldn't have been assembled on a receiver marked "1894" as those didn't have notches and they couldn't add them. Those had been manufactured too far ahead - why they got so far ahead on receivers is a mystery.
Or is it?:icon_lol:
Mr. Porter dropped dead. The workers at SA blamed Mordecai. "Worked him too hard." On what? Getting that new furrin rifle made. After the battle that was the trials adoption and the general view that adopting an unknown furriner was a mistake what happens at SA? They can't make the damned thing. Awkward. If you take total Krag production, all of it, that is less than the number of smokeless powder small caliber rifles the Germans made before the first Krag left SA. Embarrassing.
They got ahead on receivers. Way ahead. Way, way ahead. It's late 1895 before they burn up the receivers made in 1894. Kind of points to being a year behind doesn't it? Stands to reason that does. The "new improved" M-1896 will finally solve that awful safety issue. Also it'll have the hold open pin for the bolt. The 1894 receivers were already done. Can't go back and notch them. All M-1896s, of all types, were "1895," "1896," and "M-1896" material. 23797 is "1894." Cadets start right about there. 24597 is a carbine. Doesn't leave much room for M-1896 rifles does it?
In the report for FY1895-1896 they list lions, tigers, and bears. Oh, my. M-1892 rifles, M-1896 cadet rifles, M-1896 carbines, and M-1896 rifles. 1368 of that latter. Really? They made carbines starting in March. Those continue to the following August. The carbines seem to be a relatively solid block. Sure there are rifles in that block here and there but hiding 1,368 rifles is pretty hard to do.
23797 is a Magazine Rifle. 1894 marked receiver. Everything lower than that is unqualified to be an M-1896. 24597 is a carbine. We're past the cadets, fit 500 in there, and carbines are being made. 24597-23797=800. 23797 isn't the highest "1894" and 24597 isn't the lowest carbine. "Overlap on the carbine side." Can't very well be on the other side right? 500 cadets and 1368 M-1896 rifles is hitting on 2K rifles. We have room for 800.
Bummer that.
So what's with those 1,368 M-1896 rifles in the FY1895-1896 report? The obvious answer is generally the right one. "They lied."
Lied is such a strong word. "They distorted the truth. Stretched it a bit." Better.
Do I blame them? Not really. Production was embarrassing. So what do you do? Stretch the truth but it really isn't by that much is it? The parts were mainly made. Just not assembled. Count it anyway. Magazine Rifles without sights? In fairness screwing an M-1892 sight on them would make them serviceable so count them. Issuing them with bubble gum would as well. "Chew it until it's soft, insert it where the rear sight goes, use your mess kit knife to form a nice V. Nothing to it."
The parts for those first M-1896 rifles were well along. "Count them." Production numbers get better. Some may think that they started another production line and maybe the carbines were heading down one line with the first rifles heading down another but, to me, the receivers paint that picture as unlikely. If they had two lines I'd expect major intersperse in the two lines on serials. It doesn't exist.
The earliest M-1896 rifle I own is in the latter group. Eventually it'll be a gun again. Most of it's there. Missing a stock. Without the lumber it isn't really a gun though.
In fairness to me counting it as a gun as is would be ok. I mean, it did start life that way....
"When people ask me how many guns I own I tell them the answer is complex. "Do you mean guns, things which used to be guns, or bits of guns which might end up being guns again?"
The first M-1896, formerly known as M-1892, that I owned was in the middle group. The earliest M-1896 rifle I own is in the latter group. Eventually it'll be a gun again. Most of it's there. Missing a stock. Without the lumber it isn't really a gun though. Ranges. Your guns was made at this particular point in time. Assertions to make us comfortable. Eventually they're all stone cold "original." As will that M-1896 rifle when it gets inserted in lumber maybe.
So why do I have such a focus on the Magazine Rifles? That range? Because therein was the mystery. The answer, when you see it, brings forth a chuckle. The M-1896 Cadets are in there.
Ergo the Cadets couldn't have been assembled on a receiver marked "1894" as those didn't have notches and they couldn't add them. Those had been manufactured too far ahead - why they got so far ahead on receivers is a mystery.
Or is it?:icon_lol:
Mr. Porter dropped dead. The workers at SA blamed Mordecai. "Worked him too hard." On what? Getting that new furrin rifle made. After the battle that was the trials adoption and the general view that adopting an unknown furriner was a mistake what happens at SA? They can't make the damned thing. Awkward. If you take total Krag production, all of it, that is less than the number of smokeless powder small caliber rifles the Germans made before the first Krag left SA. Embarrassing.
They got ahead on receivers. Way ahead. Way, way ahead. It's late 1895 before they burn up the receivers made in 1894. Kind of points to being a year behind doesn't it? Stands to reason that does. The "new improved" M-1896 will finally solve that awful safety issue. Also it'll have the hold open pin for the bolt. The 1894 receivers were already done. Can't go back and notch them. All M-1896s, of all types, were "1895," "1896," and "M-1896" material. 23797 is "1894." Cadets start right about there. 24597 is a carbine. Doesn't leave much room for M-1896 rifles does it?
In the report for FY1895-1896 they list lions, tigers, and bears. Oh, my. M-1892 rifles, M-1896 cadet rifles, M-1896 carbines, and M-1896 rifles. 1368 of that latter. Really? They made carbines starting in March. Those continue to the following August. The carbines seem to be a relatively solid block. Sure there are rifles in that block here and there but hiding 1,368 rifles is pretty hard to do.
23797 is a Magazine Rifle. 1894 marked receiver. Everything lower than that is unqualified to be an M-1896. 24597 is a carbine. We're past the cadets, fit 500 in there, and carbines are being made. 24597-23797=800. 23797 isn't the highest "1894" and 24597 isn't the lowest carbine. "Overlap on the carbine side." Can't very well be on the other side right? 500 cadets and 1368 M-1896 rifles is hitting on 2K rifles. We have room for 800.
Bummer that.
So what's with those 1,368 M-1896 rifles in the FY1895-1896 report? The obvious answer is generally the right one. "They lied."
Lied is such a strong word. "They distorted the truth. Stretched it a bit." Better.
Do I blame them? Not really. Production was embarrassing. So what do you do? Stretch the truth but it really isn't by that much is it? The parts were mainly made. Just not assembled. Count it anyway. Magazine Rifles without sights? In fairness screwing an M-1892 sight on them would make them serviceable so count them. Issuing them with bubble gum would as well. "Chew it until it's soft, insert it where the rear sight goes, use your mess kit knife to form a nice V. Nothing to it."
The parts for those first M-1896 rifles were well along. "Count them." Production numbers get better. Some may think that they started another production line and maybe the carbines were heading down one line with the first rifles heading down another but, to me, the receivers paint that picture as unlikely. If they had two lines I'd expect major intersperse in the two lines on serials. It doesn't exist.
The earliest M-1896 rifle I own is in the latter group. Eventually it'll be a gun again. Most of it's there. Missing a stock. Without the lumber it isn't really a gun though.
In fairness to me counting it as a gun as is would be ok. I mean, it did start life that way....