On binary thinking and rear sights

[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]

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!

[jon_norstog]

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

jn