LN1903 Debate question (NOT for the reason you're thinking)

[5MadFarmers]

Going to hijack the thread I am.

The government owned the rifle making machinery at most of the "expansion" plants. This includes the equipment used to make '17s, Nagants, etc., Don't think the equipment was special as it really wasn't. A nice Pratt & Whitney catalog from that time shows the equipment. Rifling machines, lathes, etc., So "tools and jigs." The tools weren't anything specific - outside of designed to make rifles. The jigs were model specific of course. That equipment, and it was about 10 times what SA had, was all pretty much new. More importantly it was designed to deal with machining nickel steel. Which SA needed something terribly as they didn't have the modern tools for that.

"Dear Army,
The war has ended. We note that you own all of this machinery sitting here in our building. Please either remove it, as per contract, or start paying rent.

Sincerely,
Midvale Steel."

What else would the Ordnance Department do with it? Sell it? To whom? It was moved to the Armory and Arsenals and stored. "Reserve." No doubt they did sell some but they retained a lot of it. Which brings me to that thread jack. As mentioned it was about 10X what SA and RIA had. Combined. A lot of rifling machines. Just your generic run of the mill new P&W rifling machinery. Probably still stored when WW2 started. Ever notice that it took about 3 years, yes three years, to get barrel making into shape during WW1? No such lead time was seen during WW2. In spite of them needing machine gun barrels wholesale.

In a real sense those "foreign" contracts for rifles, made during War 1, went a long way in winning War 2.

Just food for thought.

====

If you want to shoot your LN '03s, at least be informed. Heat treatment wasn't really the problem.

[John Beard]

Which would be a good view if the decision wasn't already made while the war was still on to return to the Springfield after it ended.

Any such decision made during the continuation of hostilities during WWI would have been extremely tentative at best.

J.B.

[John Beard]

Going to hijack the thread I am.

Hijack the thread?

Are you challenging Slamfire in a race to the bottom?

If you're going to hijack the thread, please do us all a favor and get your facts straight first.

Thanks!

J.B.

[5MadFarmers]

Any such decision made during the continuation of hostilities during WWI would have been extremely tentative at best.

J.B.

Government is quite predictable. The methods of these types of things have repeated themselves for better than 200 years. 1918-1919 budget. Appropriations. "How much does the Army want and for what?" So the various branches work out a list. That's culled and massaged. Then it's presented to sub-committees. There it's poked apart. Then, after that, it's voted on. Then that goes to the other house. Where it's voted on. They worked out the budget for 1918-1919 in the fall of 1918. They appropriated the money for Springfield to make the rifles. "Why do you need rifles? Aren't we going to have a lot of them?" An expected question. They were ready.

I know, with a war on one would think that maybe doing the 1918-1919 budget is premature. Except it doesn't work that way. They did in fact do that budget. They did in fact question post-war rifle production. The Ordnance Department was clear that they were going to keep producing '03s after the war. "But what about the war?" The war was, and isn't, funded via that budget. "Emergency appropriations" are an entirely different thing.

So, no, it wasn't tentative. They knew in the fall of 1918 that when the war ended they were going to keep SA making rifles. 1903s. They explained why. In detail. The best source for what happened, and why, is those hearings. Taken under oath. The entire M-1917 story is contained in hearings. The Nagants are covered. A lot is covered in much detail. What they did with the equipment. Why.

The story of the problems with the M-1903 are covered in War Department Document 901. At least much of it. "Report of tests of metals and other materials." Watertown Arsenal. They did the "test of metals" back into the 1800s. Always a fascinating read. When one is wondering about problems with metals that'd be the first place it look. Unlike Hatcher's book it's official. It's detailed. It's quite clear on what was going on.

[11mm]

Eddystone was never an arsenal. Eddystone was a city in Pennsylvania that was the site of the Baldwin Locomotive Works. The Baldwin Locomotive Works were cleared out and re-tooled into a rifle factory, which later became the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co.

Your credibility goes downhill from there. You should quit before suffering further loss.

J.B.

With greatest respect to John Beard, I believe nobody ever "cleared out" the Baldwin Locomotive Works. Even though (by heritage) I am an American Locomotive Company fan, I know that Baldwin was always the No. 1 US producer of steam locomotives and during WW1 produced great quantities at Eddystone for both US (USRA during the war) and foreign governments. They were producing probably 60% of the domestic and maybe foreign steam locomotives at that time, and as American had seven plants competing against the one Eddystone plant, they were doing quite well. The Baldwin plant at Eddystone had basically been completed in 1912, replacing much of their Philadelphia downtown factory. I know the rifle production was located there in Eddystone in newer facilities, but they kept pumping out locomotives at a high rate, also. The rifle plants were, again I believe, built on Baldwin land, but the locomotive production continued in parallel. I believe the rifle works were pretty much secondary at that location. The steel tonnage of one medium sized steam locomotives equals an awful lot of rifles.

[5MadFarmers]

Hijack the thread?

Are you challenging Slamfire in a race to the bottom?

If you're going to hijack the thread, please do us all a favor and get your facts straight first.

Go ahead, pick one. Any one. Read WDD 901 yet? Read the appropriations hearings? Didn't think so.

I've actually been wondering to myself for a few years if I'd do this one in the end. Kind of 50/50 on it. Already gathered the material. A lot of material. Volumes really. So I guess I will. The WW1 contract rifles with coverage of the '03s tossed in for good measure.

Lot's of material was reviewed.

Eddystone was never an arsenal

Outside of that it was anyway. New building. All the equipment was purchased from the Brits. By the U.S. Government. Government equipment in a privately operated factory. No different from Lake City during WW2 really. But what do I know? Why not check the first deficiency appropriation for 1919? Say page 1182? "Eddystone Arsenal." Says who? General Newcomer.

The good Senators and their questions are always an entertaining read.

Not going to bother debating it. I'll just do it as a book. People can have fun with it that way. Sources listed.

Cheers.

[John Beard]

With greatest respect to John Beard, I believe nobody ever "cleared out" the Baldwin Locomotive Works. Even though (by heritage) I am an American Locomotive Company fan, I know that Baldwin was always the No. 1 US producer of steam locomotives and during WW1 produced great quantities at Eddystone for both US (USRA during the war) and foreign governments. They were producing probably 60% of the domestic and maybe foreign steam locomotives at that time, and as American had seven plants competing against the one Eddystone plant, they were doing quite well. The Baldwin plant at Eddystone had basically been completed in 1912, replacing much of their Philadelphia downtown factory. I know the rifle production was located there in Eddystone in newer facilities, but they kept pumping out locomotives at a high rate, also. The rifle plants were, again I believe, built on Baldwin land, but the locomotive production continued in parallel. I believe the rifle works were pretty much secondary at that location. The steel tonnage of one medium sized steam locomotives equals an awful lot of rifles.

I do not disagree in the least. I am not familiar with the intricate details of the transaction. All I know is that the property and facilities were pre-existing, were owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and were leased by the British for the purpose of rifle production. And I certainly do not suggest that Baldwin terminated locomotive production.

Thanks for your clarification!

J.B.

p.s.,

Have you seen the huge steam locomotive in the Henry Ford Museum? I have a 1912-dated photo of a locomotive much like that one surrounded by its crew on my desk at work.

[5MadFarmers]

All I know is that the property and facilities were pre-existing, were owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and were leased by the British for the purpose of rifle production.

In 1915 two facilities were built by Baldwin Locomotive specifically for rifle (1) and munitions (2) production. The buildings were then leased to Midvale Steel and Ordnance and the Eddystone Munitions Company for said activities. Baldwin took a one time charge of $3,462,125 for the facilities. "The plants leased to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company and the Eddystone Munitions Company were so designed that the buildings could, at the expiration of the leases, be utilized as locomotive shops."

Cheers.

[butlersrangers]

Eddystone-worker.jpgeddystone rifleplant.jpg (Young woman doing machine operation on front-sight assembly, note "U.S." marking on Machine Bed).


FWIW: (From "The Eddystone Story" by Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.)

"The war activities of the Baldwin Locomotive Works also included the construction of two large plants on their property at Eddystone for the manufacture of rifles and ammunition.....

On April 30, 1915, the British Government placed a contract with the Remington Arms Company of Delaware for 1,500,000 rifles to be manufactured in one of the plants mentioned above......

The main building of the Rifle Plant covered 14 acres of ground, and had a length of 1,040 feet and a maximum width of 816 feet. Great difficulty was experienced in obtaining delivery of equipment and machinery in time to meet the terms of the British contract, and some idea of the extent of the installation may be had from the fact that 10,000 machines, 40,200 feet of shafting, and 424,000 feet of belting were required......

Soon after the United States entered the war, April 6, 1917, and in view of its prospective rifle requirements, cancellation of the British contracts, after the completion of 600,000 rifles, was arranged. Later, the British-owned machinery and equipment passed by agreement to the United States Government who continued the British arrangement with the Remington Arms Company for its operation in the manufacture of rifles for the United States Army.....

On January 2, 1918, the Remington Arms Company of Delaware was absorbed by the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company (Eddystone Rifle Plant). The latter Company operated the plant until after the close of the war.....

Operations at the Plant ceased on January 11, 1919, at which time nearly 300,000 rifles were in process of manufacture. The Government then leased the premises for a storage plant.....

The total number of rifles manufactured in this Plant was 1,959,954, in addition to spare parts equivalent to 200,000 rifles. The greatest production exceeded 6,000 rifles per day, and the maximum number of employees was 15,294......"

(from "History of The Baldwin Locomotive Works 1831-1923", company history reprinted in "The Locomotives that Baldwin Built" by Fred Westing, Bonanza Books, New York, 1966).

[John Beard]

Butlersrangers

Thanks for your posting!

Dr. Kuleck's account is interesting and informative, but not complete nor entirely accurate. Nevertheless, thanks for your contribution!

J.B.