On binary thinking and rear sights

[5MadFarmers]

You keep mentioning "1898 bases" as though they were ALL the same.

They are not.

I have no bloody idea what they may or may not have done with the RIFLE bases. I can state that they could not have reused the CARBINE bases as they were too low. As in the apprentice carpenter's lament - "I cut the board twice and it is STILL too short!"

I'll bite. Too low for what?

It clears the wood everywhere it needs to. Handily.
It's off with the common cartridge but so are the early 1896 sights.

[Dick Hosmer]

Too low to be used with the standard 2000fps ammo - a fact of which I know you are fully aware; why do I feel I am being set up?

1898R bases could have been re-machined for use on 1902C sights, or (perhaps, dependent on sight radius and plotted trajectory) on M1903RBs, since the .30-'03 round was flatter shooting than the service Krag round.

On the 1898/1902 series the basic leaf graduations did not vary, and any necessary changes required to conform to bullet trajectory from the different barrel lengths were made via the base curvature profile. Again, I know you know this. What I do not recall (and am too lazy to take the guns out of secure storage to check) is whether it can be determined if a base is 1898 or 1902 without taking it off the barrel.

[5MadFarmers]

Too low to be used with the standard 2000fps ammo - a fact of which I know you are fully aware; why do I feel I am being set up?

No, you're not being set up. Maybe missing something that I've been pointing at.

First, let's time travel back to when they figure out the 1896 sights are off. What do they do? Start marking the new ones correctly. Do they bother recalling the old ones and chucking them? No. Do they take the opportunity to toss them during rebuild? No.

So we have our first data point on how important it is to them. "Not enough to fix a bunch which are wrong."

Now let's travel forward to 1899. As a result of the war they decided, for reasons the validity of doesn't need to concern us for this, that they wanted cartridges with more power. They made the 1898 sights and calibrated them.

Let's stop right there for a moment. There are, let's call it, 200,000 Krags out there at that point. Every one of which has sights which are miscalibrated given the new cartridge.

So we have our second data point on how important it is to them. "Not enough where making all the sights wrong bugs them."

So when it's claimed that they'd not use the 1898 bases solely due to them being off it's a stretch given their history.

That.

====

Now let's get to the carbine versus rifle thing.

Let's go to 1902. The new service rifle is ready. In fact they intended to adopt it that year. The delay to 1903 was unexpected. They advertised it everywhere as the M-1902. That rifle uses the M-1902 sight. The new Krauser-Phippsensen.

300,000 Krags exist. More or less.

The Militia has trapdoors.

They made the decision to go to the M-1902 sight on the Krags. Given that SA is getting ready to transition to the new M-1902 rifle, they get a leg up by changing over and making the 1902 sights. The new Krags get them and they'll be ready when the new rifle starts heading down the line as the sight is pretty similar.

Now let's go forward to 1903. The Dick Act is passed. The Militia will only get Krags until they too get the new rifle. Now called the M-1903. The expected life of the Krags is now much lower than had been expected.

As the new M-1903s are going out to both the Regulars and the Militia they need to keep supporting the Krags until those are done.

If you're sitting on recovered 1898 bases would you take the time to make new 1902 bases for guns not expected to be used long when you already have the other parts as a result of the M-1903 rifles? Why not just put current production 1902 tops on recovered 1898 bottoms? "They're off!" Yeah, like that bothered them before.

Fewer carbines exist and are used than rifles. So let's use the "related" thing.

If it's witnessed on rifles the same thinking probably is valid for carbines. If it is witnessed it's more likely to be witnessed on rifles due to numbers.

================

If I'm sitting at the bar and watch a guy order and drink two shots, when somebody then walks in, sits down, and tells me the guy will not take a third shot because he doesn't drink - I'm going to be a mite disbelieving...

[5MadFarmers]

Reality is stranger than science fiction.

I know why it works. The "purloined letter" syndrome. Look for a blue flashlight and the green one will bite you without you noticing it.





After making the last post I walked down to the cave to start cleaning. Sitting in the corner was a clunker I bought for parts.

Didn't plan that.

[Dick Hosmer]

OK, some good points above, but, by Farmer's First Axiom you have no right to state, unequivocably, that that sight was assembled at Springfield. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

[5MadFarmers]

Ok, let's take it to the next step.

We've made it to 1903. They know the Krags won't be around long. How many 1898 bases are they sitting on? Well, we do have some numbers don't we? At least 5,000 1898 carbine alone. 5150. Exactly how many rifle isn't clear but that number is pretty good.

How many of those can they possible use? The guns aren't heavily used. The M-1903s are going out. In 1905 they switch back to the "1901, updated" for the M-1903. Does the 1901 again become popular for the Krags? They made gobs of those for the great sight upgrade of 1901.

As the Militia turn guns in they get a once over and packed away as "war reserves." In 1917 they get issued but not used to any great extent as, as the book is clear on, that was a panic move right before the M-1917 production really hit its' stride.

1919. The guns get dumped. The parts get dumped.

For the following half century, maybe longer, the guns are in the hands of cheap people. People buying surplus guns because they're cheap. They buy cheap aftermarket receiver sights and put those on. How many of those cheap buzzards would bother ordering a sight from a surplus dealer? The surplus dealers are sitting on gobs of parts but why bother buying a bad barrel mounted sight when receiver mounted ones are all the rage?

Dogs. The dogs hold the key. Very few people would bother ordering a rear sight and hand guard. The hand guard is the key. If they buy a surplus gun having the 1896 or 1901 they have the wrong hand guard.

Loose sights don't count. The surplus dealers were sitting on tons of parts. There is no way they could have even made a dent in burning up the 1898 bases. The hand guards tell the story though. Nobody would bother removing an 1896 to install the 1898 if it meant buying a hand guard. I just can't see people taking the time to buy the 1898 or 1902 to replace an existing 1901 for the same reason. In fact most would prefer the 1901.

Dogs. The dogs hold the key.

[5MadFarmers]

OK, some good points above, but, by Farmer's First Axiom you have no right to state, unequivocably, that that sight was assembled at Springfield. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

True. Conversely you have no right to state what you've been stating repeatedly: that they couldn't. Progress?

I do have two examples. Not enough to go on. One I'd consider a decent sample whereas the other I'd put in the questionable category.

As I've been mentioning - a review of guns would need to be made. Anyone having a strong opinion without doing a review is simply showing bias in one direction or the other.

[Dick Hosmer]

We both have the right to state whatever we wish (for a little while longer, at least). The proof of the pudding is whether or not a statement is factually correct.

A small but important point, I never said they "couldn't" (because, obviously, they - or anyone else - could) but rather that I did not believe that they did. World of difference, Herr Bauer.

One thread that seems to run through your suggested course of events, is that they were perfectly OK, and quite comfortable with, grossly mis-sighted weapons. I do not buy this for a minute. These were not 'flat-shooting' guns, and in some cases, the difference could conceivably cause a complete miss.

[5MadFarmers]

We both have the right to state whatever we wish (for a little while longer, at least). The proof of the pudding is whether or not a statement is factually correct.

I suspect on sights not enough data is going to exist for it to ever be more "preponderance of evidence" as they simply didn't leave enough. On other stuff they did but on this they were not helpful.

A small but important point, I never said they "couldn't" (because, obviously, they - or anyone else - could) but rather that I did not believe that they did. World of difference, Herr Bauer.

Fine.

One thread that seems to run through your suggested course of events, is that they were perfectly OK, and quite comfortable with, grossly mis-sighted weapons. I do not buy this for a minute. These were not 'flat-shooting' guns, and in some cases, the difference could conceivably cause a complete miss.

Let's first set "they" aside and substitute "this group and that group." We even know the players. At least some of them.

This group: Flagler, Mordecai, Phipps.
That group: Buffington, Blunt. We could add Bull but he doesn't matter much.
Unknown group: Crozier. I suspect he was a "this group" based on the WW1 evidence but I don't know that. Maybe he was "that group" until the reality of WW1 forced his change. Again, simply don't know.

"This group" obviously was the "battle sight" crowd. We can agree on that right? The appendix to the CoO report has Blunt, channelling Mordecai, laying that out. The letter I included from Buffington is the counter. It's likely Blunt was "that group" based on records I have and the 1905 board so it must have irked him greatly to serve under Mordecai.

Flagler let Mordecai have his way in spite of Buffington. So perhaps "softly" in "this group." Flagler seemed the pragmatic type from what I can see. Not too bright but pragmatic. Mordecai was bright. Lissak was bright. Many others were pretty dim bulbs.

So the target group and the battle sight group. The 1896 was a result of the battle sight group as was the 1892. Also the 1898. The 1901 is target as is the 1905. 1902 is battle.

Given that it makes sense that they had the "great 1901 re-sighting" program. Buffington. The number of 1901 sights they made was incredible. He fully intended to upgrade them all from what I can see. Then he's done.
The M-1902 rifle appears with the 1902 sight. Not the 1901. So Crozier was either of the battle sight crowd or didn't care. Myself I suspect the latter as he was more artillery. Which leaves us with the M-1902's papa. Krauser-Phippsensen.

Phipps.

So, no, I don't think they were all uncomfortable with mis-sighted weapons but I suspect some have very strong feelings against and others didn't care so much. Battle sight. Needs to be accurate to, say, 300 yards. Beyond that is kind of pointless. Volley fire at best.

Assuming I'm correct, and I suspect I am, Phipps in at SA when the entire 1902 sight thing went on. Given his selection of the 1902 sight (battle) to replace the 1901 (target) I'd not suspect they were overly concerned. Blunt likely was. Buffington would be. Phipps not so much.

A survey. Preponderance of evidence. Do they exist in the wild. Not on the loose. On dogs.

[Dick Hosmer]

Excellent response. Thank you.

It should also be noted that most (all?) of the "non-corrected sight issues" would produce a low shot, which at the longer ranges was always preferable due to the possibility of wounding by ricochet, since a wounded soldier is a greater burden to your (civilized) adversary than a dead one.