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

[rebound]

Good will? A soldier used what he was told to use.

If I remember correctly the saying was....(when given an order) - Yours is to do or die, Not to reason why.........

[Southron]

Well, I fired a lot of rounds of cheap World War II surplus .30-06 G.I. ammo in a Low Number Rock Island '03 a friend of mine gave me in the 1960's.

Didn't even know anything bout how dangerous Low Number '03 rifles were. But the receiver of mine must have been forged on a day when the sun shone and the smith pulled the receiver out of the furnace before the steel became burnt.

That being said, I would not fire a Low Number '03 nowadays. I am too old and too wise.

[John Beard]

I have one comment with respect to slamfire's discourse. If I interpret his words correctly, he lays the blame for stirring up the low number controversy squarely at the feet of Springfield Armory. This was not the case. While Springfield Armory did indeed have a strong vested interest in the outcome of the debate, Army Ordnance at the highest levels had inserted themselves into the controversy. But one must recognize that many Ordnance officers in Washington had served at Springfield Armory. So they were looking out for their buddies left behind in Massachusetts.

J.B.

[Southron]

A cousin of mine was drafted into the army in World War II and sent to Fort Stewart, Georgia for training.

He told me that they were issued Model of 1917 Enfields (in 1943) and one or two blew up on the range when the G.I.'s were qualifying.

Yet, no one ever hears anything about "defective: M1917 Enfields, or somne of them blowing up. I do wonder why.

[slamfire]

A cousin of mine was drafted into the army in World War II and sent to Fort Stewart, Georgia for training.

He told me that they were issued Model of 1917 Enfields (in 1943) and one or two blew up on the range when the G.I.'s were qualifying.

Yet, no one ever hears anything about "defective: M1917 Enfields, or somne of them blowing up. I do wonder why.

I am of the opinion that the same problems that the Government Arsenals had, so did some of the manufacturer’s of P17’s. That is, forge shop workers paid piece rate with little to no oversight, and/or little to no temperature instrumentation used in production. I read a post from a gentleman who claimed to have met an Eddystone Forge shop worker. They were paid piece rate and by cranking up forge temperatures, the forge shop workers were able to stamp out parts faster. The factory therefore had created a perverse incentive by paying workers piece rate. The phenomena of burnt steel components was well known back then. The topic is in my 1914 first edition Machinery’s Handbook.

I have heard a number of accounts of brittle Eddystone receivers, from P.O Ackley blow up tests, to others. I have talked to gunsmiths who cracked Eddystone receivers removing barrel which indicates to me a metallurgical problem.

Unlike low number Springfields, the M1917 does not have a published failure database. I don’t believe the Army wanted to create one nor would they have wanted to. The Army wanted to withdraw the M1917’s as soon as possible and have the battle memory of the rifle also disappear as quickly as possible. I have read the Arms and the Man of the period and it turns out the M1917 was an excellent battle rifle. Its features totally overcame any initial skepticism about the rifle. There were more 1917's than 03’s even though they were only made from 1917 to 1918. The 03 Springfield was made up to 1939. It is my opinion that as long as the Winchester, Remington factories were viable, the Army did not any attention drawn to the M1917. If an adult had been in charge, a serious look at the 03 rifle might have permanently shut down the 03 production lines. But this would have effected Government budgets and Government Arsenals. It is historical fiction as to what might have happened, but at the end of WW1 there were at least 1,000,000 03’s of suspect quality, the M1917 was the issue rifle for the vast majority of Americans in Europe, the Army was familiar with the rifle, the 03 was an inferior battle rifle to the M1917, and there were a lot more M1917’s around than there was 03’s. Any attempt to quantify the number of defective M1917’s might have raised questions about the number of defective 03’s if anyone outside the Ordnance Department knew there were any. I don't think anyone of importance did. No one has found any contemporary history or analysis on defective M1917’s. What is in history books is the procurement history, from a British design to an American service rifle. M1917 books retell the same procurement history and copy data from issue service manuals. Beyond this, in the public domain there is very little new or value added information about the M1917. The rifles were made at commercial concerns, whatever records were tossed in the trash a long time ago. However, General Hatcher had personnel experience with the failures of low number Springfields, he was there at the very beginning, had all the reports, and he never provided a peep about burnt receivers prior to his retirement. Once he had retired, and the 03 Springfield was out of service, then and only then did he divulge the big picture. And because of that, we definitively know that low number 03’s are risky, that they are made out of inferior plain carbon steels, and that they were produced on production lines that did not have temperature instrumentation whenever heat was applied.

[John Beard]

I am of the opinion that the same problems that the Government Arsenals had, so did some of the manufacturer’s of P17’s. That is, forge shop workers paid piece rate with little to no oversight, and/or little to no temperature instrumentation used in production. I read a post from a gentleman who claimed to have met an Eddystone Forge shop worker. They were paid piece rate and by cranking up forge temperatures, the forge shop workers were able to stamp out parts faster. The factory therefore had created a perverse incentive by paying workers piece rate. The phenomena of burnt steel components was well known back then. The topic is in my 1914 first edition Machinery’s Handbook.

I have heard a number of accounts of brittle Eddystone receivers, from P.O Ackley blow up tests, to others. I have talked to gunsmiths who cracked Eddystone receivers removing barrel which indicates to me a metallurgical problem.

Unlike low number Springfields, the M1917 does not have a published failure database. I don’t believe the Army wanted to create one nor would they have wanted to. The Army wanted to withdraw the M1917’s as soon as possible and have the battle memory of the rifle also disappear as quickly as possible. I have read the Arms and the Man of the period and it turns out the M1917 was an excellent battle rifle. Its features totally overcame any initial skepticism about the rifle. There were more 1917's than 03’s even though they were only made from 1917 to 1918. The 03 Springfield was made up to 1939. It is my opinion that as long as the Winchester, Remington factories were viable, the Army did not any attention drawn to the M1917. If an adult had been in charge, a serious look at the 03 rifle might have permanently shut down the 03 production lines. But this would have effected Government budgets and Government Arsenals. It is historical fiction as to what might have happened, but at the end of WW1 there were at least 1,000,000 03’s of suspect quality, the M1917 was the issue rifle for the vast majority of Americans in Europe, the Army was familiar with the rifle, the 03 was an inferior battle rifle to the M1917, and there were a lot more M1917’s around than there was 03’s. Any attempt to quantify the number of defective M1917’s might have raised questions about the number of defective 03’s if anyone outside the Ordnance Department knew there were any. I don't think anyone of importance did. No one has found any contemporary history or analysis on defective M1917’s. What is in history books is the procurement history, from a British design to an American service rifle. M1917 books retell the same procurement history and copy data from issue service manuals. Beyond this, in the public domain there is very little new or value added information about the M1917. The rifles were made at commercial concerns, whatever records were tossed in the trash a long time ago. However, General Hatcher had personnel experience with the failures of low number Springfields, he was there at the very beginning, had all the reports, and he never provided a peep about burnt receivers prior to his retirement. Once he had retired, and the 03 Springfield was out of service, then and only then did he divulge the big picture. And because of that, we definitively know that low number 03’s are risky, that they are made out of inferior plain carbon steels, and that they were produced on production lines that did not have temperature instrumentation whenever heat was applied.

You overlook perhaps the most important factor in your discourse. The M1917 rifle was indeed an excellent battle rifle and the Army did indeed have more M1917 rifles than M1903 rifles. But you fail to consider the money! When the war ended, money dried up almost immediately. But the Army still needed a service rifle, albeit in modest quantities, and replacement parts to keep those rifles shooting. Had the Army adopted the M1917 rifle after the war, they would have had to move all the machinery from Eddystone to Springfield and re-train the Springfield work force to make M1917 rifle parts. And very simply, there was no money to do that. Period. The Army was forced by budget restrictions to retain the M1903 rifle and the existing parts production facilities at Springfield. And, I might add, the new double heat treating process then in use solved the weakness/brittleness problem.

J.B.

[oldtirediron]

Eddystone M 1917 Enfields were made at Baldwin Locomotive works in Eddystone Pa, Unfortunately Remington (Owned the plant) Probably hired some locomotive workers who overtorqued the barrel into the receiver, If you have ever tried to get the barrel off of one of these monster's you will need a barrel vise on a milling machine and a receiver wrench with a 6 foot bar on it! I once tried one of these and struggled with it until the barrel came loose with a lock crack, thought I broke the receiver!! After that I used the lathe method where you cut the barrel with a cut off tool directly in front of the receiver-- No more enfield barrel jobs for me, I will only install them , no more removal jobs!

[slamfire]

You overlook perhaps the most important factor in your discourse. The M1917 rifle was indeed an excellent battle rifle and the Army did indeed have more M1917 rifles than M1903 rifles. But you fail to consider the money! When the war ended, money dried up almost immediately. But the Army still needed a service rifle, albeit in modest quantities, and replacement parts to keep those rifles shooting. Had the Army adopted the M1917 rifle after the war, they would have had to move all the machinery from Eddystone to Springfield and re-train the Springfield work force to make M1917 rifle parts. And very simply, there was no money to do that. Period. The Army was forced by budget restrictions to retain the M1903 rifle and the existing parts production facilities at Springfield. And, I might add, the new double heat treating process then in use solved the weakness/brittleness problem.

John: You live in a Springfield centric world, and I believe, so did the pre 1968 Ordnance Department. From my books, (The US Enfield by Ian Skennerton) Eddystone Arsenal was totally, 100%, owned by the US Government.

From page 68

Some moves were made towards payment of royalties to Newton and Carnegie by the United Statdes for the use of patents incorporated in the Model 1917 rifle, but the US Government refused on the grounds that they bought the plant, manufacturing rights and therefore the patents, “lock, stock and barrel”.

It does not make sense to move Eddystone equipment to Springfield unless Springfield Armory is the center of the universe. But, outside the Ordnance Department, Springfield Armory is not the center of the universe, and the adoption of the M1917 would have been a real risk for the shutdown of Springfield Armory. Someone might have asked, why is Springfield Armory around when we have this modern factory with a huge industrial capacity in Eddystone PA, building the most modern battle rifle of the era?. Therefore the question of rifle adoption was a life or death issue for Springfield Armory. Luckily for Springfield Armory, they were able to bury the little problem of 1,000,000 defective rifles , and they had low friends in high places. Their buddies obviously closed Eddystone down, and as quickly as possible, to preserve Springfield Armory.

It can be seen, that in the 1960’s, that when the M16 became the standard issue rifle, that Springfield Armory day’s were numbered. The M16 was being produced by Colt, the Army did not have the drawings nor the manufacturing package and had zero intentions to manufacture the thing. The M16 and its variants have always been manufactured by Commercial concerns and so will be the rifles that replace that. The M14 rifle, designed by Springfield Armory, many made at Springfield Armory, when that rifle was shelved in 1964, it was only four years later that Springfield Armory was closed, and it is not a coincidence either.

And, I might add, the new double heat treating process then in use solved the weakness/brittleness problem.

The double heat treatment did not fix the brittleness problem, because the brittleness problem was due to lack of temperature control in the forge rooms. Something was done after, better process control and better instrumentation, but those double heat treat receivers are made out of low grade materials with unpredictable, call it erratic, hardening depths. They can be quite brittle on their own even when properly forged and heat treated.

This receiver was used for a 35 Whelen rifle. The owner had case separation problems, primarily because the guy does not use case gauges in setting up his sizing dies. It is obvious to me that he set the shoulders to far back. Anyway to remove a separated case, he poured Cerrosafe in the chamber and let it harden. Then he stuck a rod down the barrel, touching the Cerrosafe, and placed a brass drift against the recoil lug and hit it. The recoil lug sheared. It is my opinion the metal is too brittle. The receiver number is 823,6XX.

[5MadFarmers]

It does not make sense to move Eddystone equipment to Springfield

You mean outside of the fact that it was in fact moved to Springfield Armory right? Stored there. The equipment from the machine gun plants was stored at RIA.

The double heat treatment did not fix the brittleness problem, because the brittleness problem was due to lack of temperature control in the forge rooms.

Which would be all fine and good but heat treatment was never the real problem. Do not use Hatcher as your source unless you're able to get past his lies of omission. Which people have seemingly been unable to do since it was printed. I did. Wasn't difficult. Go to the official sources and it's starkly clear what was the problem and why.

When the war ended, money dried up almost immediately. But the Army still needed a service rifle, albeit in modest quantities, and replacement parts to keep those rifles shooting. Had the Army adopted the M1917 rifle after the war

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.

Cheers.

[John Beard]

John: You live in a Springfield centric world, and I believe, so did the pre 1968 Ordnance Department. From my books, (The US Enfield by Ian Skennerton) Eddystone Arsenal was totally, 100%, owned by the US Government.

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.