one more time--new pictures

[dave]

401204012140122 These should be clearer, the single line stitch is the 1903 box while the other is the 1904 box, which I think has been modified. They should both be the same I should think but clearly they are not! Maybe its the 1903 box that is the odd ball?

[Dick Hosmer]

Can't speak as to which is "right" or "wrong", or to who did either, but certainly DO agree that those two boxes have, for some reason, different stitching!

[butlersrangers]

'dave' - My "Rock Island 1904" box is stitched like your first photo. This seems to be the common stitch pattern for these boxes. The loops in my box will hold .30-40 rounds easily.

I don't see anything, related to the two stitching patterns you have shown, that would prevent either box from holding .30-40 or .30-06 rounds. IMHO - Your 'stitching variation' is not 'Bubba' work.

Maybe the fabric of the loops, in your 1903 and 1904 boxes, is 'tight' and was never 'stretched' by holding .30-40 rounds or it has just stiffened and became brittle over the last 110-plus.

"5madfarmers" observation, that these cartridge boxes were not issued with the Krag, is enlightening.

I cannot recall having seen a period photograph of a U.S. soldier or National Guardsman with a McKeever Cartridge Box and a Krag rifle. I have seen at least one photo of three uniformed men with 1903 Springfield rifles and 'open' McKeever boxes. (I no longer have that photo).

You have photographed your McKeever box holding the '1897' Krag tool. I have tried this and found it to be a very "unsecure" fit. It seems unlikely that this tool (or worse a 1903 tool) was intended to be carried in the McKeever boxes.

4013440133

[dave]

Box #1---will take a 30-40 round but the bullet will not project out the bottom of loop, while a '06 round will. A '06 round will project out the bottom of both box's, a 30-40 only on box #2. Dick is correct when he said it was unnecessary to modify the box for '06 rounds. The box's are designed to fit down as far as the tapered shoulder on the cartridge, the Krag round in box #1 will not go that far down (the bullet will be even with bottom of web loop) the 06 will do down to the shoulder. The webbing has not shrunk, needs to be stretched, or any such thing. If they were never used (Note; I did not say 'issued') then why were they ever made like #2 or even made before the 06 round was issued? Or where they made for the 03 round The extra stitching at the bottom (#1) defiantly forms a taper at the bottom, it can be plainly seen in the pics! Even the stitch like #2, straight down the center, can be seen.
The tool in mine is hardly insecure, its very tight, was in there when I got it. I was joking about 'Bubba', he gets blamed for every thing doesn't he?

PS: Where is a blue print for the box showing #2?

[dave]

40131 Here is a pic of a 03 round, dated 2-06 and a Krag round in the single stitch box, #2. dated 03. Would be interesting to see pics of box's dated earlier.

[70ish]

Just a thought, but I wonder if we might be overthinking this. I have a 1904 box which seems to have a little bit of each type of stitching, though most of it seems to be the single. Having spent 40 or so years in the needle trades I can make a couple of guesses as to the quality of the stitching. But first, does anyone know what equipment was being used at the various arsenals to sew up belts, boxes, etc? Again, I can guess, and I would guess that the machines were for the most part operator controlled as opposed to automatic feeds. That means that the individual boxes were, in effect, hand sewn. That means then that operator skill and experience comes into play and that means that each will be a little different. Years ago, a good line manager could look at a finished product and sometime tell which of his people made which parts.

To complicate things, each operator's work can vary with the time it was performed. Moods, daydreaming and health could all impact the sewing. But the biggest variable could come with the nature of the product being sewn. Canvas, duck, webbing and the like are the hardest to sewn and the type of available machines can effect the outcome. If an operator let's a needle get too dull, the result will be backstitches and quick re stitching. If they are being paid piece work rather than hourly, they are sometimes slow to replace a dull needle because of the time involved. There are many personal factors that will effect the end results.

Finally, by 1904 I imagine that the number of people who are used/familiar with the particular item has diminished as new products come on line. That will also mean that experience has declined and quality or consistency will follow. Even concern about quality will potentially suffer a little when folks know the item is 'on the way out'.

[5MadFarmers]

Just a thought, but I wonder if we might be overthinking this. I have a 1904 box which seems to have a little bit of each type of stitching, though most of it seems to be the single. Having spent 40 or so years in the needle trades I can make a couple of guesses as to the quality of the stitching. But first, does anyone know what equipment was being used at the various arsenals to sew up belts, boxes, etc? Again, I can guess, and I would guess that the machines were for the most part operator controlled as opposed to automatic feeds. That means that the individual boxes were, in effect, hand sewn. That means then that operator skill and experience comes into play and that means that each will be a little different. Years ago, a good line manager could look at a finished product and sometime tell which of his people made which parts.

To complicate things, each operator's work can vary with the time it was performed. Moods, daydreaming and health could all impact the sewing. But the biggest variable could come with the nature of the product being sewn. Canvas, duck, webbing and the like are the hardest to sewn and the type of available machines can effect the outcome. If an operator let's a needle get too dull, the result will be backstitches and quick re stitching. If they are being paid piece work rather than hourly, they are sometimes slow to replace a dull needle because of the time involved. There are many personal factors that will effect the end results.

Finally, by 1904 I imagine that the number of people who are used/familiar with the particular item has diminished as new products come on line. That will also mean that experience has declined and quality or consistency will follow. Even concern about quality will potentially suffer a little when folks know the item is 'on the way out'.

Interesting post.

To answer the points you raised.
1) I probably could tell you what make/model machines they had but it'd take digging into stuff I've not processed yet. That would be in the "Letter to vendors" set.
2) The boxes were both hand and machine sewn.
3) They were paid piece work. In addition to the inspector (Carroll, Kelsey, and Schmitten on those) the items normally have the harnessmaker's initials.

Given a set of initials and year it can be determined who the harnessmaker was. Complete list will be in Farmer's Notes, Volume 2 when I finish that.

[70ish]

Points one and two are telling just as you've given them. The third point, however, raises another discussion. Doing "piece work" means that the 'harnessmaker' was actually not likely to have been the person who performed many, if any, of the manufacturing steps. That was likely a job title for the person who did the final inspection of the finished product before approving the item for distribution. When working "piece work", operators are generally more expert for one or sometimes a few to the operations used to produce a given item. It often means someone who is more proficient with one or more of the machines used in the production process rather than making an item from start to finish. Piece workers will resist switching from one operation to another unless they feel that they will be successful in making a better wage. 'the good of the company' is not high on their list of goals for doing their particular job unless it is under duress. And better operators, like star-athletes, can often name their work stations.

I guess it all shows that human nature is fundamental in similar situations such as a manufacturing line regardless of the era or the product. Whether that characteristic is acceptable will often drive the search for more machines and fewer people - a constant struggle then and today. I feel complimented that you consider my points as interesting. Coming from you, that means a great deal.

i apologize for waiting 14 months to reply. I saw your comment when you posted it, but time "just got away from me". I thought I had responded previously. That was a professional level brain freeze!

[sdkrag]

Joe, I have your book Farmer's Notes Vol. 6, U.S. Military Krags. Question I have is what other books have you published and what do they cover? Where can i find a list?

[pickax]

Joe, I have your book Farmer's Notes Vol. 6, U.S. Military Krags. Question I have is what other books have you published and what do they cover? Where can i find a list?

Joe has a website with other interesting subjects along with a forum. Registration includes an email to join.
http://www.5madfarmers.com/phpBB3_5mf/index.php?sid=209d5c0ec024f488e546eb705e275d20