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

[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.

[5MadFarmers]

Going to hijack the thread I am.

The government owned the rifle making machinery at most of the "expansion" plants. This includes the equipment used to make '17s, Nagants, etc., Don't think the equipment was special as it really wasn't. A nice Pratt & Whitney catalog from that time shows the equipment. Rifling machines, lathes, etc., So "tools and jigs." The tools weren't anything specific - outside of designed to make rifles. The jigs were model specific of course. That equipment, and it was about 10 times what SA had, was all pretty much new. More importantly it was designed to deal with machining nickel steel. Which SA needed something terribly as they didn't have the modern tools for that.

"Dear Army,
The war has ended. We note that you own all of this machinery sitting here in our building. Please either remove it, as per contract, or start paying rent.

Sincerely,
Midvale Steel."

What else would the Ordnance Department do with it? Sell it? To whom? It was moved to the Armory and Arsenals and stored. "Reserve." No doubt they did sell some but they retained a lot of it. Which brings me to that thread jack. As mentioned it was about 10X what SA and RIA had. Combined. A lot of rifling machines. Just your generic run of the mill new P&W rifling machinery. Probably still stored when WW2 started. Ever notice that it took about 3 years, yes three years, to get barrel making into shape during WW1? No such lead time was seen during WW2. In spite of them needing machine gun barrels wholesale.

In a real sense those "foreign" contracts for rifles, made during War 1, went a long way in winning War 2.

Just food for thought.

====

If you want to shoot your LN '03s, at least be informed. Heat treatment wasn't really the problem.

[John Beard]

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.

Any such decision made during the continuation of hostilities during WWI would have been extremely tentative at best.

J.B.

[John Beard]

Going to hijack the thread I am.

Hijack the thread?

Are you challenging Slamfire in a race to the bottom?

If you're going to hijack the thread, please do us all a favor and get your facts straight first.

Thanks!

J.B.

[5MadFarmers]

Any such decision made during the continuation of hostilities during WWI would have been extremely tentative at best.

J.B.

Government is quite predictable. The methods of these types of things have repeated themselves for better than 200 years. 1918-1919 budget. Appropriations. "How much does the Army want and for what?" So the various branches work out a list. That's culled and massaged. Then it's presented to sub-committees. There it's poked apart. Then, after that, it's voted on. Then that goes to the other house. Where it's voted on. They worked out the budget for 1918-1919 in the fall of 1918. They appropriated the money for Springfield to make the rifles. "Why do you need rifles? Aren't we going to have a lot of them?" An expected question. They were ready.

I know, with a war on one would think that maybe doing the 1918-1919 budget is premature. Except it doesn't work that way. They did in fact do that budget. They did in fact question post-war rifle production. The Ordnance Department was clear that they were going to keep producing '03s after the war. "But what about the war?" The war was, and isn't, funded via that budget. "Emergency appropriations" are an entirely different thing.

So, no, it wasn't tentative. They knew in the fall of 1918 that when the war ended they were going to keep SA making rifles. 1903s. They explained why. In detail. The best source for what happened, and why, is those hearings. Taken under oath. The entire M-1917 story is contained in hearings. The Nagants are covered. A lot is covered in much detail. What they did with the equipment. Why.

The story of the problems with the M-1903 are covered in War Department Document 901. At least much of it. "Report of tests of metals and other materials." Watertown Arsenal. They did the "test of metals" back into the 1800s. Always a fascinating read. When one is wondering about problems with metals that'd be the first place it look. Unlike Hatcher's book it's official. It's detailed. It's quite clear on what was going on.

[11mm]

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.

With greatest respect to John Beard, I believe nobody ever "cleared out" the Baldwin Locomotive Works. Even though (by heritage) I am an American Locomotive Company fan, I know that Baldwin was always the No. 1 US producer of steam locomotives and during WW1 produced great quantities at Eddystone for both US (USRA during the war) and foreign governments. They were producing probably 60% of the domestic and maybe foreign steam locomotives at that time, and as American had seven plants competing against the one Eddystone plant, they were doing quite well. The Baldwin plant at Eddystone had basically been completed in 1912, replacing much of their Philadelphia downtown factory. I know the rifle production was located there in Eddystone in newer facilities, but they kept pumping out locomotives at a high rate, also. The rifle plants were, again I believe, built on Baldwin land, but the locomotive production continued in parallel. I believe the rifle works were pretty much secondary at that location. The steel tonnage of one medium sized steam locomotives equals an awful lot of rifles.

[5MadFarmers]

Hijack the thread?

Are you challenging Slamfire in a race to the bottom?

If you're going to hijack the thread, please do us all a favor and get your facts straight first.

Go ahead, pick one. Any one. Read WDD 901 yet? Read the appropriations hearings? Didn't think so.

I've actually been wondering to myself for a few years if I'd do this one in the end. Kind of 50/50 on it. Already gathered the material. A lot of material. Volumes really. So I guess I will. The WW1 contract rifles with coverage of the '03s tossed in for good measure.

Lot's of material was reviewed.

Eddystone was never an arsenal

Outside of that it was anyway. New building. All the equipment was purchased from the Brits. By the U.S. Government. Government equipment in a privately operated factory. No different from Lake City during WW2 really. But what do I know? Why not check the first deficiency appropriation for 1919? Say page 1182? "Eddystone Arsenal." Says who? General Newcomer.

The good Senators and their questions are always an entertaining read.

Not going to bother debating it. I'll just do it as a book. People can have fun with it that way. Sources listed.

Cheers.

[John Beard]

With greatest respect to John Beard, I believe nobody ever "cleared out" the Baldwin Locomotive Works. Even though (by heritage) I am an American Locomotive Company fan, I know that Baldwin was always the No. 1 US producer of steam locomotives and during WW1 produced great quantities at Eddystone for both US (USRA during the war) and foreign governments. They were producing probably 60% of the domestic and maybe foreign steam locomotives at that time, and as American had seven plants competing against the one Eddystone plant, they were doing quite well. The Baldwin plant at Eddystone had basically been completed in 1912, replacing much of their Philadelphia downtown factory. I know the rifle production was located there in Eddystone in newer facilities, but they kept pumping out locomotives at a high rate, also. The rifle plants were, again I believe, built on Baldwin land, but the locomotive production continued in parallel. I believe the rifle works were pretty much secondary at that location. The steel tonnage of one medium sized steam locomotives equals an awful lot of rifles.

I do not disagree in the least. I am not familiar with the intricate details of the transaction. All I know is that the property and facilities were pre-existing, were owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and were leased by the British for the purpose of rifle production. And I certainly do not suggest that Baldwin terminated locomotive production.

Thanks for your clarification!

J.B.

p.s.,

Have you seen the huge steam locomotive in the Henry Ford Museum? I have a 1912-dated photo of a locomotive much like that one surrounded by its crew on my desk at work.

[5MadFarmers]

All I know is that the property and facilities were pre-existing, were owned by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, and were leased by the British for the purpose of rifle production.

In 1915 two facilities were built by Baldwin Locomotive specifically for rifle (1) and munitions (2) production. The buildings were then leased to Midvale Steel and Ordnance and the Eddystone Munitions Company for said activities. Baldwin took a one time charge of $3,462,125 for the facilities. "The plants leased to Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company and the Eddystone Munitions Company were so designed that the buildings could, at the expiration of the leases, be utilized as locomotive shops."

Cheers.

[butlersrangers]

Eddystone-worker.jpgeddystone rifleplant.jpg (Young woman doing machine operation on front-sight assembly, note "U.S." marking on Machine Bed).


FWIW: (From "The Eddystone Story" by Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.)

"The war activities of the Baldwin Locomotive Works also included the construction of two large plants on their property at Eddystone for the manufacture of rifles and ammunition.....

On April 30, 1915, the British Government placed a contract with the Remington Arms Company of Delaware for 1,500,000 rifles to be manufactured in one of the plants mentioned above......

The main building of the Rifle Plant covered 14 acres of ground, and had a length of 1,040 feet and a maximum width of 816 feet. Great difficulty was experienced in obtaining delivery of equipment and machinery in time to meet the terms of the British contract, and some idea of the extent of the installation may be had from the fact that 10,000 machines, 40,200 feet of shafting, and 424,000 feet of belting were required......

Soon after the United States entered the war, April 6, 1917, and in view of its prospective rifle requirements, cancellation of the British contracts, after the completion of 600,000 rifles, was arranged. Later, the British-owned machinery and equipment passed by agreement to the United States Government who continued the British arrangement with the Remington Arms Company for its operation in the manufacture of rifles for the United States Army.....

On January 2, 1918, the Remington Arms Company of Delaware was absorbed by the Midvale Steel and Ordnance Company (Eddystone Rifle Plant). The latter Company operated the plant until after the close of the war.....

Operations at the Plant ceased on January 11, 1919, at which time nearly 300,000 rifles were in process of manufacture. The Government then leased the premises for a storage plant.....

The total number of rifles manufactured in this Plant was 1,959,954, in addition to spare parts equivalent to 200,000 rifles. The greatest production exceeded 6,000 rifles per day, and the maximum number of employees was 15,294......"

(from "History of The Baldwin Locomotive Works 1831-1923", company history reprinted in "The Locomotives that Baldwin Built" by Fred Westing, Bonanza Books, New York, 1966).

[John Beard]

Butlersrangers

Thanks for your posting!

Dr. Kuleck's account is interesting and informative, but not complete nor entirely accurate. Nevertheless, thanks for your contribution!

J.B.