On binary thinking and rear sights

[5MadFarmers]

Perhaps the paragraph that should have been included in the book. Thus the Prussian title.

Page 135 holds the seed. I didn't bother growing it. Might as well.


In moving to that loading I wonder if the ordnance officers considered the inverse?"

First, the binary thinking thing. Half the population is wired that way. It has advantages and disadvantages. "Would you like a piece of Apple or Pumpkin pie?" Binary thinking provides two choices. Given it's two bits there are really four:
1) No pie
2) Apple
3) Pumpkin
4) Both
Then the creative types start thinking outside of the box. "Neither, I want Blueberry. Do you have that?" "Yes, we do." Now there are eight, not six, choices.

It often boils down to having to be one thing. Because of binary. "They changed from the 1898 back to the 1896 sight because of the cartridge return." Accepted wisdom. In fact it's probably somewhat true. Except it's bunkus.

If the hot loading was the problem, why not just fix the 1898 bases? Make new ones?
When they went to the hotter cartridge every 1896 sight was automatically off. Did they go back and fix that?
The original 1896 sight was miscalibrated. Did they go back and fix those when they discovered that?

"They changed from the 1898 back to the 1896 sight because of the cartridge return." Is probably true. It's also bunkus. They'd have fixed the 1898s and, like seen with the 1896s, ignored the wrong ones. They already had done this once.

They dropped the 1898 because they wanted an altered "Buffington." On March 29, 1899, General Daniel Flagler shuffled off the mortal coil. His replacement? General Addlebrain Buffington.

That's the key.

In November 1901 Addlebrain moves on. Crozier is appointed. Back to the revised 1898.

In 1905, that incredible example of a human being, Blunt, moves it back to the 1901. Why did Crozier buy into that? "Rod bayonet fiasco."

In 1917 they were going to change it once again.

Regardless, rear sight soup is quite the minestrone.

Now, before we get too wedded to the 1898 base being completely wrong for the 1902, let's go back to those points:

If the hot loading was the problem, why not just fix the 1898 bases? Make new ones?
When they went to the hotter cartridge every 1896 sight was automatically off. Did they go back and fix that?
The original 1896 sight was miscalibrated. Did they go back and fix those when they discovered that?

That third point. The early 1896s were miscalibrated. In rebuild did they toss them or reuse them?

Hmmmm.

[Dick Hosmer]

As to the 1896, neither, 100% - they recalibrated the leaves, and almost certainly salvaged the bases.

The 1898C bases were toast - can't add metal - but they could have recut R ones.

[5MadFarmers]

As to the 1896, neither, 100% - they recalibrated the leaves, and almost certainly salvaged the bases.

The 1898C bases were toast - can't add metal - but they could have recut R ones.

I'm a word nazi.

"they recalibrated the leaves" isn't correct. "They calibrated the new leaves correctly." They did not recalibrate the old ones. They continued to use them. They survived rebuilds. In spite of them knowing that they were off.

That's an important distinction. It sets up the compare:

1) The early 1896 sights were calibrated wrong. They continued to use them.
2) The 1898 sights were calibrated wrong. They pulled them due to that.

Small issue there. That's set up by this:

A) "They pulled the 1898 sights due to the cartridge trajectory change."

Which doesn't make sense.

G) If it was just trajectory they'd have calibrated the new ones right. Just like the 1896s.

So, let's erase that "received wisdom" of A) "they pulled the 1898 sights due to the cartridge trajectory change" as if it was true G) would have been seen.

So let's erase it and go a different route.

N) The 1898 was unpopular with the target crowd. When Buffington took over he had the sight he'd had developed years earlier put into production. The 1898s ceased to be made and the 1901s entered production. Some rifles were held and some received 1896s as stopgaps.
O) When Buffington left the 1898 made a return as the 1902. The recovered 1898s were used, altered, in 1902 production.
P) When Blunt had his say the 1901 made a return as the 1905 on the new rifle.

Now it makes sense.

Back to the first bit:

1) The early 1896 sights were calibrated wrong. They continued to use them.
2) The 1898 sights were calibrated wrong. They altered them to 1902 format as best they could and continued to use them.

Thus we get here.

Your point, and it's commonly held, is that only part of the 1898 sight was recovered. How do you know that?

"The 1898 base was wrong. They'd not reuse them!"
Really?
"The early 1896 leaves were wrong. They continued to use them."

Hmmmm.

[Dick Hosmer]

I grant you the semantic "error" in my statement that the 1896R leaves were recalibrated. Of course, new ones were made with the proper graduations. I'm sure the intent was that they be replaced on all 1896 sights in service, but am equally sure that did not happen for any number of reasons, meaning that at least some of the surviving early versions are accidents as opposed to intentional continuation. I would note in this context that some of your comments seem to violate your own first rule - which is a most excellent one - that no one can say with 100% certainty that ANY rifle or carbine is correct/original, etc. as found today after passing through use, repair, upgrading, and 100+years of multiple owners, some of whom had zero interest in preserving any sort of authenticity.

However, with the 1898C base, no salvage was possible. We KNOW that some other 1898 bits were physically modified as the world is full of reshaped 98/02 eyepieces.

Please be careful to not put quotes around my words which are not direct quotes. I'll take responsibility for what I say, but not for what others say I said (or by manipulating words, implied) if it isn't accurate.

In that vein, they didn't pull the 1898 sights because the trajectory (FWIW "cartridges" don't have trajectory - "bullets" do) changed. They pulled the 2200fps ammunition becuase it was deemed potentially unsafe under certain conditions. I can be a word nazi too.

This neccessitated a change in the sights, which in the case of the 1898 design would have meant new bases. Politics then produced the 1901, so the issue was moot until different politics produced the 1902, with different bases having in addition to new curvature, a different (simpler/cheaper) spring mounting arrangement. I'm sure that many competent tinkerers have, over the years, produced almost any combination of 98/02 parts they wished, and which upon being found today can be offered as "proof" of almost anything.

Welcome back.

[5MadFarmers]

I grant you the semantic "error" in my statement that the 1896R leaves were recalibrated.

The distinction is important. Due to the next bit:


Of course, new ones were made with the proper graduations. I'm sure the intent was that they be replaced on all 1896 sights in service, but am equally sure that did not happen for any number of reasons, meaning that at least some of the surviving early versions are accidents as opposed to intentional continuation.

They didn't pull the old ones. They didn't remark them. They kept using them.


I would note in this context that some of your comments seem to violate your own first rule - which is a most excellent one - that no one can say with 100% certainty that ANY rifle or carbine is correct/original, etc. as found today after passing through use, repair, upgrading, and 100+years of multiple owners, some of whom had zero interest in preserving any sort of authenticity.

Which is really why I broke this thread off from that gun. On that gun I'm suspicious. What I really didn't want wedded is the "reused 1898 bits" and "that gun." So on that gun I'm suspicious but that doesn't alter the idea that I'm not sure they didn't reuse the 1898 bases at all. I have no evidence that they pulled them and, given the 1896 example, it would seem more likely that they in fact had an interest in using them.

So, distilled: that gun probably wrong but the 1902/1898 mash-up not automatically wrong due to that.


However, with the 1898C base, no salvage was possible. We KNOW that some other 1898 bits were physically modified as the world is full of reshaped 98/02 eyepieces.

That bit. "no salvage was possible." What makes you sure of that? The 1896 example argues against it. Why not just burn them up in use?


In that vein, they didn't pull the 1898 sights because the trajectory (FWIW "cartridges" don't have trajectory - "bullets" do) changed. They pulled the 2200fps ammunition becuase it was deemed potentially unsafe under certain conditions. I can be a word nazi too.

Which is a good point and goes further along in what I'm trying to illuminate. The cartridge and the sight issue are not bound together. That the 1898 sight was calibrated for cartridges which were discontinued is happenstance to sight stew. Once those two are divorced the replacement of the 1898 sights becomes much more clear. It wasn't replaced due to miscalibration.

In summary, ignoring that gun, what I'm looking at here is the assumption that they never reused the 1898 bases. We have no evidence that they didn't. If I was at this spot 5 years ago I'd have paid more attention to rifles, bog standard guns, having the 1902 sights. Simply to start looking for reused 1898 bases. Statistical probability being my friend. I didn't look for that. Which is a bummer. Hard to rewind that. I doubt I'll be paying much attention to bog standard 1898 rifles in the future as I have more than I need. So if somebody wants to unhinge part of the book - I'd start with that bit.


Welcome back.

Gives people something to read in the morning no? :icon_lol:

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, a couple of English muffins, a mug of coffee and some Krag theory - great way to start the day.

If they reused 1898 bases, how do you account for the existance of "correct" M1902C sights, having a slightly higher base? If it was common practice to just soldier on, why go to the trouble of making new bases for a limited issue. And, on that facet of the mess, I would question your point stating (paraphrasing) that they had to be M1902 because of the date of the publication. The sole word printed was "sights", so any further ID would be speculation.

[5MadFarmers]

Yes, a couple of English muffins, a mug of coffee and some Krag theory - great way to start the day.

Thus the first casualty of the Brexit is encountered. No more breakfast croissants - it's back to muffins which taste like recycled cardboard.

I miss German breakfasts.


If they reused 1898 bases, how do you account for the existance of "correct" M1902C sights, having a slightly higher base?

Same way I account for the existence of 1896 sights having the right calibration? :icon_lol:


If it was common practice to just soldier on, why go to the trouble of making new bases for a limited issue.

Strange angle? "M-1903s." Let's not ignore them. The 1902 sight isn't limited issue as it's in full production at both SA and RIA. Until 1905 anyway.

Krag carbines get slings, BoOaF rifles get snipped barrels, the Krags get 1902 sights. They're making the Krag ever more common with the new service rifle.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/m1902.png

Started with the same barrel even.


And, on that facet of the mess, I would question your point stating (paraphrasing) that they had to be M1902 because of the date of the publication. The sole word printed was "sights", so any further ID would be speculation.

Want me to sneak it out? What I suspect that modification was?

"Adding the peep."

I don't know that though. I just know they altered carbine sights after the '03s were in production. Unlikely to be the 1896 or 1901 which leaves the 1898 and 1902. Which isn't, as you mentioned, specified. Which means it's not impossible that they're 1898s.

Rifles would be the key. If bog standard Krag 1898s are seen with those bases it's a sign. Not random sights on odd guns or loose sights - sights on bog standard guns nobody cares much about.

[Dick Hosmer]

If you cannot find a German breakfast (or at least the ingredients therefore) where you live, you're not trying very hard.

[5MadFarmers]

If you cannot find a German breakfast (or at least the ingredients therefore) where you live, you're not trying very hard.

True.

The bus to Berlin. There are two editions of that. It originally hit me due to an experience in New York City. Two of us were heading up to central Manhattan after getting off the USCG ferry down on the tip of Manhattan. As we were heading down into the subway, as we'd done repeatedly, he took off running after the subway. Nothing for it but to run after him. He jumped on and I followed. As the door was closing I mentioned that we were on the wrong train. Off to Brooklyn we went. I guess we could have debarked in Brooklyn and declared that is where we had intended to go all along. The other edition.

If I didn't board that stupid bus to Berlin as often as I have I wouldn't notice it. We're wired to board that stupid bus. Hard to fight that. So I looked at the reasons why that bus exists. "Rats in a maze" as much as anything. Patterns.

Am I claiming they made 1902 sights using 1898 bases? No. I'm not. I'm claiming we don't know that they didn't. Not the same thing obviously. That door was slammed. Somebody decided ages ago that the 1898 sights were removed and the bases not reused. Received wisdom was due to that cartridge change. Which is bunk. So with that reverted the door is no longer slammed shut.

On the sling swivel thing it was slammed shut while I found the key to open it and lock it in the open position. Now it cannot be locked shut again. That was handy as it was very fixed. From locked closed to locked open.

On the 1898 bases it's not the same. Not going from locked shut to locked open. Just unlocked and opened. With it open again the next step is to see what happens with that premature closing and locking undone.

Which sets up a problem with the bus. Humans are wired to form opinions. Which they then alter reality to fit. We all do it. "I don't feel they did" will result in "proving" that. Conversely, "I feel they did" will result in "proving" that. Only if it's truly open, not locked open or locked closed, can it really be examined. The fancy terms are "positive bias" and "negative bias" right? If I believe that people in Oregon have larger feet than those in the other States it's somewhat likely I'll prove it. My bias will cause it. Thus double blind studies and such.

Regardless I do not know if they reused them or didn't. I don't really have a bias either way that I can tell. That I'm not really interested in doing the work to find out is a sign.

From what I can tell Mook got wedded to the 18K range for the Cadets. I've seen the results. Mallory either already had an opinion or simply was smart enough to not follow Bill down that bunny hole.

Which is really the point. I don't know if they reused the 1898 bases or not. Nobody does that I'm aware of. Thus somebody can poke at it without having to first undo a reality formed on opinion. Premature opinion. A result of a bus trip.

Not travelling in the ruts that already exist is hard.

[Dick Hosmer]

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!"

[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.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1898-02_rifle-1.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1898-02_rifle-2.jpg

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.

[5MadFarmers]

No problem.

It always boils down to the dogs. The honest guns. The ones nobody wants. Those tell the story. Nobody corrects dogs. Nobody spent money on dogs.

Two last points before I close this thread down for me.

1) "Of the pattern as made at Springfield." Muskets. The ways they specified the gun tells the model. It's in the book. That last one never had model listed. Why? "Current." When reviewing the manufacturing reports if no model is listed they are likely referencing the latest. So "1,260 rear sights" will likely be what's current. Else they'll typically specify.
2) "Good enough prevents the purchase of what's wanted." If somebody doesn't have a hammer you can probably talk them into a nice Estwing. If they have a crappy wooden handle Chinese hammer it's harder. "I already have a hammer. That one is nicer but not nicer enough to spend money." So when somebody has something they're a lot less likely to spend coin on new. If they have nothing then they will. New boat? "The one I have sucks but it does the job." A sight which is slightly off is better than no sight at all. Why bother upgrading? Value to that is low. 1898 bases aren't perfect but they existed. Spend for new when you have one which is close? "Don't bother." This also affects the dogs. If somebody buys a crappy military rifle out of a barrel they're unlikely to upgrade from one barrel mounted sight to another - even if it's "better." A receiver mounted one maybe but not a different barrel mounted one. Unless it's free anyway. Frugal 101 right? Make due.

[madsenshooter]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking, but mightn't all that would have been needed in order to use the 1898 bases have been a thicker on the bottom range slide? Maybe not be exact on the trajectory change, but close enough to have made use of them rather than make all new 1902 bases.

[Dick Hosmer]

VERY interesting theory, Bob.

[5MadFarmers]

Correct me if I'm wrong in my thinking, but mightn't all that would have been needed in order to use the 1898 bases have been a thicker on the bottom range slide? Maybe not be exact on the trajectory change, but close enough to have made use of them rather than make all new 1902 bases.

Yes, that would work. It's also quite smart.

Let's get down to brass tacks on the impact just to illuminate what we're talking about though. Page 60 of the DRM, 1901 edition, has ordinates of trajectory. Let's deal with battle ranges. The sight resting on it's base generally will give us that as they were clear in the 1905 board that the sights in the resting position had a "blank space" of 500 yards easy. In other words aim the gun at a target at 500 yards and you'll hit anyone between.

Ordinates for 500 yards:
100: 2.36
200: 3.82
300: 4.12
400: 2.98
500: 0

That's for the 2,000fps cartridge. So 2200fps would result in a maximum variation of what? 4 inches at extreme? Normal bullet drift for the rifle exceeds that for 500 yards.

The difference is perhaps mathematically significant but from a practical point of view?

The other gun in the inventory at that time:
100: 5.1
200: 7.9
300: 8.4
400: 5.7
500: 0

Then we get to powder quality in the 1890s and early 20th century. Variation in velocity between lots is likely enough to make two rifles with bog standard 1902 sights vary the same amount as the 1902 top on the 1898 bottom.

Mountains out of molehills.

Which really does illuminate why they simply didn't get worked up the first two times sights were wrong. They're weren't wrong in any fashion that was going to matter. Blunt would get worked up. Mordecai? Look at the 1892 and you really do get the answer. Phipps? Mordecai school.

I already have a sample size of two. The only way to tell is to take a look at what is out there. Theory and books aren't going to help. Either they're observed in numbers or they are not. If they are seen, it happened. If they're strangely absent, that's telling. Then we'll see if the two I have are corner cases.

Interesting sidebar: ever seen the yellow sticker on the butt of a Swedish Mauser? Guess what that is for....

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/rl.jpg
http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/rr.jpg

Which is which?

[Dick Hosmer]

Which is which WHAT?

[5MadFarmers]

Which is which WHAT?

One of those is on the 1898R base. The other is on the 1902R base. Both sitting on a glass counter as is the camera. I reversed them in the second photo just so perspective was equal.

So I'm wondering if anyone can even tell which is which?

Would this be a bad time to mention that the height difference on the 1902/1902 between the U and the peep is considerably in excess of the height difference in the U notch on the two sights?

Adds a bit of real world view to the theory. That's the massive difference in height between the two.

My curiosity increased, I took two 1896R sights (both graduations), an 1901R, the 1902/1902R, and the 1898/1902R and set them all for 1600. Which is about max difference. That proved very interesting. Give it a try. Even just with the two 1896R sights and a 1901R.

Madsens solution would work. The point I'm making is? Why bother?

====

Yes, this has been done to death. Now the dogs need to be examined.

====

Madsen, that was smart. I gave that some thought. A small brass washer on the front screw below the sight. It'd pretty much be dead on at every elevation.

Why bother though. It didn't bother them in reverse when they hopped up the round and that "invalidated" a lot more sights.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

So I appreciate you playing devil's advocate. Makes me use the noggin.

Context. One of the things I wanted to do in the book is include context. Without that it gets real myopic on the technology and technology rarely drives decisions. Money drives decisions. Politics drives decisions. Technology only after those are met.

1861. The private makers were eliminated. 1 of 2 armories is gone immediately. The shortage of guns was keenly felt. On both sides. Fremont is well known for doing whatever he could to arm his troops. The O.D. had kittens but he was effective. After all was said and done Justice took a hit for the gimpy arms he tossed together in a hurry but a review of the documents at the time paints an entirely different picture.

Let's not for a moment forget that the unpleasantness of 1861-1865 was ever present. Most of those in senior positions had experienced it.

The SpanAm War shows serious weaknesses in the U.S. military establishment. More specifically the Army. The Navy came out of that war smelling like a rose. The Army? Not so much. The food thing really crimped the QM and the Krag/Trapdoor thing really crimped the O.D.. The States were heard from. That their boys were given altered muskets which, due to the smoke, they couldn't even use rankled. Especially when the regulars had smokeless powder arms. Effectively that seriously reduced the number of troops on our side given many were told not to shoot the old Long Toms.

The Mauser, rightly or wrongly, came as a shock. The truly obscene history of the board which selected the Krag was still in people's minds. I know this as it came up. Repeatedly. Washington grilled the O.D. and the Army in general. Wholesale changes were in order. One of the items they focussed on was the "hidebound" old officers. During the reorganization of the Army hearings Addlebrain Buffington testified. While he's trying to tell Congress that it's hard to get rid of old inefficient officers he's completely oblivious. No social skills. No self-awareness. This gets ahead but WW1 was a carbon copy in many ways and, I chuckle, the first thing they did at the start of War 2 is retire the ancient ones. Right out of the gate. Yes, I know you're old. As am I in many ways. I still chuckle. Send the foggies out to pasture.

So the O.D. was under great pressure. They lost their independence in so many ways. The 1905 field gear was selected by the General Staff, not the O.D.. A direct result.

No let's get back to the bipolar nature of the O.D.. On one hand, every regular is supposed to be a crack shot out to 15 miles. On the other hand they know that "volunteers" are going to be the panicky type and probably break their guns. "In the panic they'll mistake the sighting notch!" The main problem with the 1898. Which is, and I know this, why they rejected sight ears in 1905. So on one hand are the target school wanting guns accurate to unspeakable ranges. On the other hand are those wanting them to have arms which are not confusing and put out a useful volume of fire. Cuba right? The Gatlings, with garbage for sights, are what finally decided it. Volume of fire. Thus the Parkhurst and charger clips.

Now let's return to those State troops. Who, presumably in the eyes of the O.D. as the regulars can do no wrong, panic. Need basic guns they cannot break. Guns which cannot be any kind of a challenge for the dumb ones. That wasn't restricted to the U.S., as the Brits all but soldiered the box magazine to the Lee, as it was commonly accepted by the "Professionals." Ego.

Step #1? Get them Mausers. The method was interesting: mandate that they get the same gun as the regulars. The regulars are going to get Mausers? So do the Militia.
Step #2? Get them Krags to replace the Long Toms and do it quick.

So along comes Addlebrain Buffington. His main idea? Spend all the time and effort on making new target sights for the Krag. Can you imagine the rolled eyes that caused? Salt in an open wound.

The 1902 sight is adopted. The 1901 is passe.

The Mauser goes into production with the 1902. A simple sight the "panicking troops" will not confuse easily. Yes, I get in 1905 that was undone. The baleful eye had moved on.

So while they're working overtime to crank out M-1903s, to include installing new plant at RIA, they're pushing the Krags out and getting the Long Toms recalled and junked. They also know that Krags won't be out long. The M-1903s will be made in two plants and all troops will get them. What of the Krags? "War reserves." They'll be issued to the "levy en mass" if it is needed. "So we should spend much time and effort making sure they have pristine target sights. Perhaps impact M-1903 production."

Binary. In the O.D. there were two schools.
Binary. As it moved forward in time it changed. "Let's put 1901s on all of them!" Then "Put a basic sight that the mentally deficient will not muck up on them."

It was anything but binary. Some wanted to keep the Krag obviously. Efforts to improve it were legion. While that group was trying its' best the other group was developing the Krauser-Phippsensen. The latter group obviously won. On the "battle sight versus target sight" front as well. Until 1905 anyway.

Myself, if I was getting Krags returned in 1908 and was going to just clean and repair them for war reserves I'd be unlikely to spend the coin to make shiny new bases for them. I'd toss them together to get them out the door.

Did I mention that in 1898 Blunt sent an order to SA for both 1879s and Buffingtons? Then, with delivery delayed, he followed up with "I don't care which. Send sights for damn's sake."

[Fred]

This is all really interesting information. Thank You! :1948:

[jon_norstog]

So the bottom line is that nobody cared whether or not the infantryman could hit his target?

jn

[5MadFarmers]

So the bottom line is that nobody cared whether or not the infantryman could hit his target?

jn

Given that the drift error on the 1892 and 1896 sights is greater than the elevation error on that combination out past 500 yards, and isn't correctable, I guess the answer is "no."

That does assume that they've discovered time and again that effective infantry fire exceeds 300 meters. Which, from at least 1861 to 1945, wasn't the case.

Take a good look at the standard Brit WW2 rifle rear sight. Then look at the WW1 edition.

Cuba, P.I.. I guess they learned something. Forgotten soon enough but learned again in 1917. Then again in 1942.

War is a heck of a school for reality. All the theory goes out the door immediately. Then the professionals take over again after and the drift returns. The next war again hammers home the lessons of reality. Rinse and repeat.

https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/20/62120-004-E10A6CF3.jpg

What do you figure the range is there?

Reality. I doubt they missed their targets.

[jon_norstog]

My own take on this issue is that in the Philippines, troops were firing at enemy targets that might have been as far away as 65 yards; kind of like the ranges we have to deal with hunting elk in the mountains. There were cases otherwise; for instance the 71st NY Vols engaged in a rifle duel with the Spanish at about 300 M after Kettle Hill was taken and when the artillerymen needed cover to move their pieces to a less exposed spot. For those who believ3e the 71st NY was unsoldierly or lacking in military virtue, the companies on the line took 20% casualties in less than 5 minutes in that exchange. But the artillery got off and relocated to the dismay of the Spanish.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

I've detected a pattern of the history of the guns ends in 1903 to most. Sling swivels right? School guns.

School guns? Wee guns for wee kids. The demand, circa 1910, was for short rifles. Grinding down the end of the barrel and remodelling a rifle stock did the trick. Carbines. Think they made new sights? Why bother?

====

Guns are the result if experience. Today it's long range in the desert. That's not the norm.

http://www.metaldetectingworld.com/ww2_military_relics/fresh_russian_troops.jpg

https://www.mca-marines.org/sites/default/files/styles/magazine_slideshow_initial/public/importedFiles/files/okinawa1.png?itok=jJIzIyHO

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d4/0b/bf/d40bbffa41b64d70b6d16dd08273c4d0.jpg

Shotguns were shipped to the P.I.. Strange how the Ladrones could get close enough for bolo action when all the troops could pick them off at 1,500 yards with a Krag.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, presumably, they considered the barrel length and then issued/sold them with carbine sights, usually the M1901C, as being the most appropriate.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm going to be done with this thread. I will go back to the first post. First part of it in fact:


Perhaps the paragraph that should have been included in the book. Thus the Prussian title.

Page 135 holds the seed. I didn't bother growing it. Might as well.

From the good book, page 135:

"In moving to that loading I wonder if the ordnance officers considered the inverse? Yes, the M-1898 was calibrated for it but all the existing Krags were not."

Bold added. Somehow throwing all the 100,000+ Krags off by moving to the hotter loading is just peachy but any move in the opposite direction is verboten.

Those that have moved past that illogical thinking are why this thread was started. For those that cannot move past it - I cannot help you.

Cheers.