Air Service Rifle....kinda

[mhb]

Yes, it's probably best that you just pick up your ball and go home.

You referred several times to Hatcher, as if you understood what he had to say: if you haven't read his book, what in the world are you doing in this discussion?

Finally, as you were already invited to take up the discussion point-by-point (and having dodged repeatedly, relying on mere - well - sniping), I repeat the invitation for you to take up any or all errors you see, and make your case, if able.

But I don't expect you will. Maybe you can tell us a few good sea stories....

mhb - Mike

I was going to go through your post point by erroneous point, but I will just repeat what I said before - BS. Learn to read and comprehend what you read without adding your own perspective to what was written. For example, exactly where did I say I read Hatcher's report and understood same? Just more BS on your part. As you stated, if this is the best YOU can do in debate, YOU need to study-up.

Is that all you got, dude? Take a good look at the "little chart" and see if you spot something odd. If you can't handle it, maybe you can get one of your little soldiers to do it for you.

jt

[Rick the Librarian]

Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.

[PhillipM]

2. He didn't say so but presumably PM's conclusion is "why didn't both arsenals just switch to nickel steel immediately" as it was being used for P14/M1917? Good point. Switching materials would seem to be such a simple and elegant alternative if it was viable at the time one wonders why it was not done. Perhaps it just wan't an option. I won't speculate on the reasons but the ordnance guys were not stupid.

Just to recap:
1. Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone had been producing service rifles out of nickel steel since 1914.
2. RIA stopped production for 6 months and scratched their heads.
3. Started production back at 285,607
4. At 319,921 changed to nickel steel

So for six months they scratched their heads and came up with DHT to produce 319921-285607= 34,314 DHT rifles at which point they moved to nickel steel. There is more to the story, just has to be, but to shut down production for 6 months in a war so they could save 34,314 rifle's worth of stock steel just does not wash. At worst they could have sent it back to be smelted into another alloy for some other type of arm.

For the rifles that blew up during proof firing due to burnt or improperly heat treated steel, I would think they would have enough sense to test the fragments and figure out there was problem then, instead of waiting to act when troops are maimed by their own rifle.

[mhb]

Good points, but I don't think there is a good answer.

However, nickel steel was not introduced into RIA manufacture until sometime in 1919, after the end of the war - perhaps the supply of nickel steel became available only then. Also, RIA would have had to obtain Ordnance approval for the material change, taking some unknown period of time. And SA did not commence use of NS until 1927, beginning with RIA forgings, IIRC.

As to failures in proof testing, it is likely that there were not many, due to the controlled circumstances and use of specially-manufactured ammunition which was designed and intended not to undergo case failure, which contributed to many of the in-service incidents.

Only one proof shot was fired in each rifle, which, in the absence of case failure, proved only that the rifle could stand that amount of stress once.

mhb - Mike

[mhb]

You are certainly right that such discussions often shed more heat than light on the subject.

However, at bottom, it is still very much a safety issue.

It was really resolved properly long ago, but the passage of time (and the passing of those who knew the facts), plus the continued survival of large numbers of the suspect rifles has opened it up to continued discussion, often by those who don't know or understand what the problem was or how it was finally corrected, and, I suspect, by some who just like to argue, or who have some axe to grind.

So, whenever such a discussion occurs again (as it all too frequently does), those of us who do recognize the seriousness of the risk, and the potential consequences to those who choose to ignore those risks, or don't know about them, should always be willing to step up and state the facts in no uncertain terms.

I don't care that individuals may decide for themselves that the risk is acceptable - each of us has an absolute right to go to hell in his own peculiar way. But I do object (every time, and forcefully) to any contention that the risk is very small, or doesn't exist at all. And I will take exception any time such a contention is made, so that anyone who really doesn't know the facts, or who might be misled by misstatement of those facts, can make an informed decision.

mhb - Mike

Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.

[Jeff L]

Uh, gentlemen ... maybe it is time to end this discussion or take it off-line. Like EVERY other shoot/not shoot discussion on the LN M1903, this is NOT going to be settled to anyone's satisfaction. JMHO.

I think we're done here.