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

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Hey I don't mean to beat a dead horse. But I recently spoke to an advanced collector of M1903s.

Now I don't want to get into the safe vs safe. Debate because that's a bit over done...

But while talking with this gentleman he brought up a very thought provoking point.

We all know the numbers of rifles produced as well as how many documented receiver failures there were documented in various sources including Hatcher's notebook.


Wouldn't there be a good cause to politically blow up this issue before the public in the WWI post war years? Typically during peacetime, especially following a war the military sees a significant reduction in funding for their budget due to the need the threat of war has been removed.

If you want to maintain your war production capabilities and justify funding in the post war peacetime era, how do you justify it to the Congressmen and Senators? You create a problem, crisis that needs immediate attention....

You need to completely revamp the whole production process which is going to require tooling, personnel, training and most importantly a non-stripped budget. So that way you don't lose your factory and workers.


Now I don't know if this is a dated argument or been done before. I haven't heard it before. But everything in government goes back to money. Could this LN debate been started by the War Department trying to hang onto its budget when the Armistice was signed?

I thought it was a thought provoking argument, I'm don't know if it holds water.

[mhb]

Actually...

the problem was identified DURING the war, and the corrective measures were implemented at that time. SA introduced the new heattreatment in 1918, at around SN 800,000, and RIA actually ceased production for about six months (!) during the war, before re-commencing manufacture with the improved heattreatment at around SN 285,000.
All this is explained in 'Hatcher's Notebook', by MG Julian S. Hatcher, who was there at the time. If you have not read this book, you should certainly do so, because all the points of debate in the following years (until the present, in fact), are explained in such detail that there should really be no remaining reason for doubt.

mhb - Mike

[Col. Colt]

You guys are projecting the Modern Politicians (Liberal, Progressive, Lying, etc.) EVIL on people of a MUCH more honorable time. It was not a post war issue, as mhb points out.

If it wasn't a REAL problem, and it was decided to be a serious one by the using Service - the UNITED STATES ARMY ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT (not civilian politicians) - you sure as hell would not cut down the supply of rifles during a hot shooting war.... Lives were at stake - and everybody knew somebody who was involved. That would have been Treason. The problem was solved during the War, fixes implemented, production resumed and we moved on, nothing left to see here. No longer an issue, post 1918. CC

[Rick the Librarian]

It was actually an embarrassment for the Ordnance Depart, right in the middle of the time they needed rifles so desperately. Had M1917 production been ramping up, they would have REALLY been in a pickle.

[louis]

Politicians were not so honorable even back then but I happen to agree with Mike Rick and Colt

[Southron]

Well, lets think this thing through-

IF the "Low Number Springfield Rifle Blow Up Scandal" was a plot by either the Ordnance Department OR the U.S. Army to insure more funding from the Congress for both Springfield and Rock Island after the end of World War I, then it would have been a very, very "Counterproductive" political ploy.

WHY? Well, the heat treating screw up would have been the best argument for closing down both "Government Owned and Operated" Springfield Armory and Rock Island and turning over all small arms manufacturing responsibilities to private armories. After all, Winchester, Remington and Eddystone produced millions of U.S. M1917 Rifles WITHOUT any "lousy heat treatment, rifles blowing up" problems compared to Springfield and Rock Island.

Most professional officers in the military services during World War I realized that when the war was over, all the military services would be shrunk back down to their Peace time strength and appropriations from the Congress would be limited.

What no one anticipated was the post war Senator Nye and his Senate Committee investigations of the "Merchants of Death." This was a Conspiracy Theory that alleged the J.P. Morgan bank and all the arms manufacturers had conspired together to get the United States involved in World War I so they could reap huge profits off of war time contracts with the government.

Matter of fact, DuPont was so "burned" by Nye's reckless allegations in the 1930's about their role in World War I; when they were approached secretly to work on the Manhattan Project [the development of the Atomic Bomb] during World War II, they only reluctantly agreed and then insisted in the contract for their participation in the Manhattan Project that their profit would be limited to $1.00!

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/merchants_of_death.htm

[John Beard]

If low number rifles were so dangerous as most have alleged, then why didn't the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps scrap and replace their low number rifles as well during overhaul? Surely their rifles were no stronger or more reliable than those in the Army.

If low number rifles were so dangerous as most have alleged, then why did Army Ordnance suspend scrappage of low number receivers a full year before Pearl Harbor and U.S. entry into WWII?
Are we to suppose that time cured the problem and strengthened the receivers?

Food for thought.

J.B.

[PhillipM]

You guys are projecting the Modern Politicians (Liberal, Progressive, Lying, etc.) EVIL on people of a MUCH more honorable time.

Study the reason Crozier didn't allow our Army to be equipped with the Lewis gun and get back to me.

[Major Tom]

If any of you have LN 1903 rifles you are afraid of shooting......send them to me, I'll pay the shipping cost.

[louis]

It truly makes one wonder why the Marine Corps accepted these rifles and fired them on Guadalcanal, rifle ranges etc. with no problem. I personally have no problem with them especially since I collect USMC 03's

[Fred]

Man, I'd like to see photos of your USMC 03's

[jgaynor]

Hey I don't mean to beat a dead horse. But I recently spoke to an advanced collector of M1903s.

Now I don't want to get into the safe vs safe. Debate because that's a bit over done...

But while talking with this gentleman he brought up a very thought provoking point.

We all know the numbers of rifles produced as well as how many documented receiver failures there were documented in various sources including Hatcher's notebook.


Wouldn't there be a good cause to politically blow up this issue before the public in the WWI post war years? Typically during peacetime, especially following a war the military sees a significant reduction in funding for their budget due to the need the threat of war has been removed.

If you want to maintain your war production capabilities and justify funding in the post war peacetime era, how do you justify it to the Congressmen and Senators? You create a problem, crisis that needs immediate attention....

You need to completely revamp the whole production process which is going to require tooling, personnel, training and most importantly a non-stripped budget. So that way you don't lose your factory and workers.


Now I don't know if this is a dated argument or been done before. I haven't heard it before. But everything in government goes back to money. Could this LN debate been started by the War Department trying to hang onto its budget when the Armistice was signed?

I thought it was a thought provoking argument, I'm don't know if it holds water.

It doesn't hold water. I have a copy of a report prepared by the individual responsible for all ordnance procurement in ww1. Ordnance was canceling munitions contracts before the ink on the armistice was hardly dry.

Besides there was no need to focus on the low numbers. Ordnance and the Army had their eyes on a semi auto MBR by the mid 20's at which point ALL the bolt action rifles would become, at best, substitute standard.

[Col. Colt]

Gentlemen, it is a problem that is NOT a problem - until YOUR Low Number grenades in your hands. And it may never do that - or it might with the next round. Thus people get fatalistic and choose to pretend there is no problem. And the US pre-WWII and WWII military establishment could not afford to throw away what might be good rifles just at the start of the next World War. The Marines overhauled LN rifles, and directed that they not be used for firing rifle grenades.

Go to the section in Brophy's Springfield book and read about the overall LN heat treatment problem - and look at the pictures of the fractured recievers vs. the bent but unbroken double heat treated units in testing. Read in Hatcher's Notebook - Hatcher tells of striking the reciever rail of a LN and the reciever breaking "like Glass"! I remember one account of someone dropping a LN reciever - and it shattered.

This is NOT a phony, manufactured problem. It was scientifically investigated, proven, and a fix instituted. The Armory System did not fail - it just relied on ancient "eyeballing" methods of heat treating too long instead of changing to using instruments until a problem was identified with the old method. If fixed that. End of discussion. Private companies have Labor strikes at inopertune times, and cut corners to make more money. The lack of a US Army controlled Armory Test routine caused the initial failure of the M16 in Vietnam. Colt reengineered the M16 on the fly, to their credit. The US Armory System built a LOT of Excellent guns during it's life.

Most LN M1903s are undoubtably fine and strong - but there is simply NO WAY of KNOWING the condition of any individual LN reciever. As with life in general, proceed on your own Judgment, at your own Risk! CC

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Wait a second. Not diminishing the safety of the LN1903s. Now what I was throwing out there....

I may be looking into the wrong area but.... I can't find in my copy of Hatcher's notebook where it covers the number of personnel in the post war years. Consider this... in the pre-war years 97 officers worked for the ordnance department. By the end of the war 5,800 officers and (72,720 civilian clerks). Following every war a stage of demilitization follows. The Defense department and war munitions funding sees a drastic reduction. If you're in the military do you want to go back to the pre-war years? The problem of LN1903s was solved. BUT how many much of a reduction in personnel and funding did the Ordnance Department see. The board that recommended scrapping all LN recievers, I read came from a Springfield Amory board. If you scrap those rifles, you need to replace them (ie manufacture new ones, furthermore "you need us to make new ones!")

The point I was getting at is with anything regarding the government is a giant chess match of obtaining Congressional funding. Since the people who made their recommendations came from the Ordnance Department (not a third party and to me that's HUGE) they had a vested interest in justifying their existence and their funding to solve the problem so they would not see a reduction. I'm sure they saw a reduction, but did this issue help prevent a scaling back even further. Did it protect their interests as employees at Ordnance Department?

Hatcher's notebook covers the mellurgy in detail. But there's gotta be more to the story. Politics and the chess match.

Put yourself in a high ranking ordnance department official or General's position....

Are you gonna say "nah we got this. Go ahead and scale us down, the war is over, we'll just crank out whatever we can and start replacing units as we can with whatever you give us." Or are you going to a serious issue worse to maintain your Congressional funding? Again on Capital Hill with a Budget committee this is a giant chess match as I see it.


Now I don't have the numbers with respect to how far back the Ordnance department was scaled after WWI.

But if I did, whether or not this argument holds water would come from what was recommended in their initial budget/funded positions and what they ended up with after this investigation.

On a personal note I'm a government worker. We do this all day long. Whenever there's a budget problem, you have to play games with government officials so you don't lose funding. Hatcher's notebook to me leaves much to be desired in my eyes. I'm sure there's more to the story...


Again, I'm not coming up with a conclusion. It was a fascinating argument I have yet to see anything that really addresses the motivation behind it and if it holds water.

[Johnny P]

The total number of receivers that failed will never be known. The failures occurred from the first rifles manufactured right up through the time the new heat treatment was put into use. The failures had been occurring for years before Hatcher was assigned the job of determining the cause. It was not a failure of the design, but a manufacturing defect, and being a manufacturing defect there was no way of knowing which receivers were brittle and which ones were not until they failed.