sight question

I really can't understand the argument about this. It is perfectly possible to do something for multiple reasons, and it is abundantly clear from all sources that the carbine was to provide an alternative to the pistol, or the rifle, in cases where the pistol was sub-optimal but the rifle inconvenient.

A brief memo summarizing a request does not explain anything. It does not explain the rationale for any of the requirements, or the analysis that went into developing them. People spend a lot of time on these things, building a solid case for their recommendation. Otherwise you end up in a situation like this:

Congessman: So, General, you want this light rifle. Why can't people use the service rifle?
General: It's too heavy.
Congressman: OK, it's "too heavy". So what is the magic weight for this light rifle you propose?
General: Less than five pounds.
Congressman: Hmm, so between zero and five pounds. How did you hit on five pounds?
General: Well, uh, we thought that would be about right.
Congressman: I see you have thoroughly analyzed this.
Why don't you give these men pistols?
General: Pistols satisfy the weight requirement, but have inadequate range and poor accuracy.
Congressman: But yesterday you said that this light rifle will also sacrifice range and accuracy for the sake of reduced weight, right?
General: Well, yes, but not as much.
Congressman: General, with all respect, this sounds like Goldilocks. Have you done any analysis, based on the characteristics of actual engagements, the load carried by the men would use this light rifle, the actual accuracy and effectiveness of the pistol under combat conditions? Is there a real need for this light rifle, or is this just some wild idea you guys have come up with? General: Um, let me check on that.
Congressman: Good. If your staff lacks the analytical capabilities to provide an answer, we could lend you some people from the GAO to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

You should reread the first line of the 3 November 1942 document.

---

I did. (1) The memo is dated more than TWO YEARS after the original circular of October 1, 1940, which stated that "Windage adjustment is not required." (2) If Winchester could turn out a working prototype of the whole rifle in 13 days, time was obviously not the reason for failing to provide a windage-adjustable sight at an earlier date. (3) So what was the reason? Anyone have an explanation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

So the ordnance document signed by the Executive Officer of the Ordnance Department is, as you so eloquently put it, “some dufus officer's idea of what is a nice idea” but a post development Reader's Digest type account isn’t.

---

Well, if the Reader's Digest account is written by Col. Rene L. Studler, who would know more than anyone about the rationale for the carbine and its justification, I think it is worth considering. You won't get the full story from a few memos, that's for sure.

I'll break it down for you.

"At the time the Carbine, Caliber .30 M1 was standardized,..." that would be 30 September 1941 BTW, "...Ordnance Committee action contained a recommendation that development of an adjustable rear sight should be continued."

So in September 1941, months before the first contract to build carbines was ever awarded, the adjustable rear was already under development, hence why the Ordnance Committee said development of an adjustable rear sight should be continued.

At the time the M1 Carbine was standardized an adjustable rear sight was already being developed because everyone knew the carbine needed a windage adjustable rear sight. There are several reasons why the initial design spec called for a non windage adjustable rear sight, one of which was weight, the other was to get the carbine into production as soon as possible.

Here is the actual verbiage from the September 1941 document that recommended the standardization of the M1 Carbine based on Winchester’s design.

"The Chief of Infantry further recommends that the following modifications to the subject rifle be made:

f. Install a rear sight capable of being adjusted for ranges of 50-yard increments from 100 to 300 yards inclusive, sight aperture size the same as on test model. The rear sight to be adjustable for 3 points of right and left deflection."

Further on in the document it states, "In the event it is impossible to procure a rear sight which meets the above characteristics, the rocker type sight similar to the one on the model will be acceptable until the desired sight is tested and approved."

The document was signed by the Chief of Infantry. The actual Standardization document was signed by the Adjutant General to the Secretary of War in October 1941.

It sure looks like the adjustable rear sight was an afterthought doesn’t it. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

I'll break it down for you.
"At the time the Carbine, Caliber .30 M1 was standardized,..." It sure looks like the adjustable rear sight was an afterthought doesn’t it. :rolleyes:

---

I'm the one who is rolling my eyes. I asked WHY it took years to standardize something that trivial, and nothing in your post sheds any light whatsoever on that question. If you don't know the answer, just say you don't know the answer. There is no shame in that.

Wasn’t it you that said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

From what I've read it sounds like the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a "light rifle", and not just a pistol substitute for support troops. For use at longer ranges the adjustable sight definitely was a boon.

---

I think it has been shown that the adjustable sight wasn’t a result of the carbine being used as a pistol substitute for support troops now was it.

BTW the time span between the standardization of the carbine and the standardization of the adjustable sight was 16 months. I know the reason it took 16 months because it is spelled out in a series of Ordnance documents. Could it be because of the development of another weapon’s rear sight? Guess which one that was. Ironically both were recommended for standardized on the same day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

I think it has been shown that the adjustable sight wasn’t a result of the carbine being used as a pistol substitute for support troops now was it. BTW the time span between the standardization of the carbine and the standardization of the adjustable sight was 16 months. I know the reason it took 16 months because it is spelled out in a series of Ordnance documents. Could it be because of the development of another weapon’s rear sight? Guess which one that was. Ironically both were recommended for standardized on the same day.

---

I said "the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a 'light rifle', and not just a pistol substitute for support troops".

As I noted, the original specifications of October 1, 1940 called for the flip sight without windage adjustment, consistent with what you would expect from a defensive weapon intended among other things as a pistol substitute for support troops. If you want to argue the pistol substitute point, argue it with Col. Rene Studler (using a Ouija board), Larry Ruth, or numerous others, not me. You might also take a look at sources other than a few cursory memos from the Ordnance Board.

You cannot explain why it took sixteen months from carbine standardization (and 28 months from the original carbine specifications) to the standardization of the adjustable sight. You can just observe from a series of documents that it DID take sixteen months. That is not an explanation for the delay. If the perceived need were urgent, it would have been done in a few weeks.

And practically it took a lot longer than sixteen months. You are surely aware that although standardized in February 1943, adoption was very slow, and many contractors finished production having used the adjustable sight only small quantities, if at all. For something as trivial as an adjustable sight, this is really amazing.

Finally, it should be noted that none of the memos regarding the development of the sight and its testing, and even its standardization, really mean anything, since many things were developed and tested and then rejected, and not everything standardized was manufactured or issued. A decision to develop and test something was never a decision to use it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

I said "the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a 'light rifle', and not just a pistol substitute for support troops".

---

No matter how you slice it, that is still incorrect. Well before the first carbine contract was ever awarded, before the carbine was even standardized, and before the initial design specs went out to contractors, the Infantry Board wanted an adjustable sight. There is no denying that fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

You cannot explain why it took sixteen months from carbine standardization (and 28 months from the original carbine specifications) to the standardization of the adjustable sight.

---

Sure can,it is all there, or should I say here, in a series of a dozen or so Ordnance documents. But according to you the actual Ordnance documents are just obscure bits of paper that don’t have any value, but to the rest of us they tell the whole story on the development of the M1 Carbine and it’s parts. Ever here of the Carbine Cal. .30, M1A2? You’re probably thinking that was a select fire carbine in an M1A1 stock but that is incorrect. The M1A2 was the first design carbine with an adjustable rear sight. It got scrapped so back to the drawing board. I guess you could say ther ewas some time wasted on a bad idea. Fortunately another weapon had just come up for standardization and the rear sight was modified and adopted for use on the M1 Carbine.

Why did it take so long to develop the M2 Carbine? It was part of the revised requirements way back in October 1940. Although the requirement was dropped in June 1941 it was soon added back in.

You have still not provided any information whatsoever about why, if the desire for an adjustable sight was so clear and urgent, it took years to get one standardized and put into use. Cripes, Winchester was still installing the flip sights in the summer of 1944. So what is the explanation for this glacial pace? Wanting to use up some barrels of cheap flip sights to save money? Manufacturing difficulties? Stupidity and incompetence? I'm talking about the real reason, not one given in CYA memos by ordnance hacks.

It took the Manhattan project three years to develop and deploy an atomic bomb, which is a labor of Hercules compared to designing and manufacturing a rinky-dink carbine sight. If the desire had been urgent and sincere, and managed by competent people, the carbine would have had an adjustable sight from the beginning.

I don’t think anyone here ever said that the thought of putting an adjustable sight on the carbine was something that only occurred to people years after the carbine was standardized. Obviously anyone considering the matter would think of from the start.

The question was why it took so long to implement. Still don’t have an explanation for that.

Maybe one of the problems we are having here is my being an engineer and knowing how product development proceeds. It usually works like this:

1. Requirements are assessed. These usually include a “wish list” containing many things known to be unlikely candidates for a final design, but which would be desirable if they could be provided.
2. A candidate design is created meeting the requirements.
3. Additional requirements are added.
4. A new candidate design is prepared.
5. Cost estimates are prepared.
6. Features are discarded if they have an unacceptable cost-to-value ratio or involve unacceptable delays.
7. Design is finalized.
8. Testing and adjustments of design are performed.
9. Design is “standardized”
10. Production
11. Data is collected on actual use, QA issues, usability, user feedback.
12. Go back to step 1 using the data obtained. This involves fixing defects, adding new features, and of course it may involve adding in features that were earlier discarded.

Sometimes you have products where features are discarded at step 6 because of bad data, poor analysis, laziness, or stupidity. Sometimes however a feature is dropped from the original design and added in future versions because of time constraints. This allows high-value functionality to be delivered quickly.

Problem with applying this analysis to the windage-adjustable sight is that it is such a trivial thing it’s hard to see how including it from the beginning could possibly have introduced delays. That leaves bad data, poor analysis, laziness, or stupidity.