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?

[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?

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.



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.





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.