Originally Posted by
Mk VII
The British assessed Winchester as the least cooperative, and most argumentative of all three makers. Eddystone were assessed as the most helpful and willing to make requested changes (evidence given before the Nye Committee in the 1930s).
Winchester ended up losing money on the project, and it made them unwilling/reluctant to bid for British contracts in 1940.
Rate of delivery would be contractual, but failure to perform was something the British had no control over, other than resorting to litigation. Interchangeability was certainly desirable, but if you had to wait for it, the rifles were going to be too late to be of any use.
New York, September 27, 1916. [Copy of telegram despatched 9:15 to Morgan, London) 27424. E. W. Moir requests following be transmitted to Ministry of Munitions of War:
“22931. I have investigated the situation of the rifle contracts and conferred with Col. Webley Hope, who has now visited all three firms and studied reports of Capt. Manley, Mister Reavill, and Moir's department.
“Winchester, contract B7231, November 24th, 1914, and B17–15W, March 16, 1915: Captain Manley reports that so far as he knows the model rifle was approved and accepted by Winchester Co. March 23, 1915. There is a doubt about the actual date which I have been unable to confirm as it appears that the Remington Co. say their model rifle was approved by Major Smyth Pigott in January 1915, but Major Smyth Pigott was not in the country in January 1915. The following alterations have been made since approval of the model:
“1. Checkering of stock ordered prior to April 19, 1915, was cancelled and grooved fore end substituted on May 20, 1915.
“2. Thickening of fore end ordered. Orders for checkering machinery cancelled and claims satisfied by payment 15 cents per rifle.
“3. Lengthening of ejector approved December 30, 1915. The firm bitterly objected to this but ejectors already made were accepted.
“4. Recess in face of bolt enlarged not to apply to bolts already made approved March 2, 1916.
“5. Alteration to pattern locking bolt cover plate dated April 16, 1916 made at firm's request to be allowed to make the Remington pattern on account of difficulties with their own pattern.
“6. Alteration to bolt, barrel, and extractor June 9th, 1916. Firms were told that the change was not to be allowed to interfere with production. Winchester fought this change and have only recently adopted it. Besides these changes there were several slight relaxations of specifications to assist manufacture and inspectors did everything possible to assist production. Mr. Reavill reports that he considers delays in promised supplies were due to
"1. Promises being made which even in peace time under normal conditions could not have been kept.
“2. To difficulties in obtaining machine fixings, jigs, tools, and gauges, owing to the great demand and trade disputes.
"3. To the usual manufacturing difficulty of producing a new unstandardized weapon suitable for military requirements.
“4. Want of skilled labor, the quantity in the country being totally inadequate.
“5. Owing to want of gauges, the production of unsuitable components which blocked assembly.
Sir Ernest Moir's staff report: The manufacturers installed ample buildings and machinery to produce the outputs required, but at present over 50% of the machinery in all factories is idle on account of difficulty manufacturers experience in assembling. No changes initiated by the British Government has caused delay in production, while permission to allow the manufacturers to change the materials have been a help to them. The delays in the early days were caused by lack of machine tools, difficulty in obtaining jigs, fixtures, cutting tools and gauges, and lack of skilled mechanics and craftsmen. Much delay has been caused by the manufacture of components before it was known whether they would assemble. The staffs of all three companies were ignorant of what a military rifle required. While we cannot assess any delay caused by the British Government, three months' extension would be ample to meet any claim on that account. There is no doubt that the time required to produce a military rifle was entirely underestimated by the manufacturers.
"The Winchester Company have been by far the most difficult to deal with throughout as compared with the other firms, and have objected to changes of any kind unless made to their own convenience.
* Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge Co., Ilion, contract B7235, November 24, 1914, B7-7W, February 10, 1915, B465–358W, September 27th, 1915: Capt. Manley reports date of approval of model rifle as March 24 or March 25, 1915. As in case of Winchester, I have not been able to verify the date. All alterations of pattern mentioned under the head of Winchester apply to Ilion, except number five. Mr. Reavill's remarks also apply. This firm has cooperated with inspectors to a much greater extent than Winchester and have readily made all changes asked for and have done their best to meet our requirements.
“Eddystone, contracts B67-59W, April 30, 1915, and B262-195 W dated August 2nd, 1915: Capt. Manley states alterations of pattern mentioned apply except number five, and there is one additional number seven reducing thickness of stock to enable rifles to pack in the service chests dated August 21, 1916. E. W. Moir's organization state of this firm that the spirit of energy, cooperation, and wholehearted desire to produce the best possible rifle in record time has eclipsed even that of Ilion. The main causes of their failure to realize their promises are the same as with other firms. Col. Webley Hope informs me that after going carefully into the defects and difficulties of all three firms he considers that the present design of rifle is such that it cannot be guaranteed to function with all makes of service ammunition and no one is yet in a position to say exactly what change is necessary to put matters right. This opinion entirely bears out my contention that the pattern is unstandardized. Col. Hope agrees that firms have been seriously handicapped throughout by the original trials of the rifle having been carried out by only one make of ammunition. He also agrees that full production of none of the firms can be expected in view of the pattern difficulty. It seems to me, therefore, desirable that firms should not be held responsible for late deliveries to the full extent which would be implied by cancellation in accordance with the terms of the contract. In view of difficulties of functioning of the pattern rifle it would have been impossible for the promises made to have been realized. _ The other causes of delay are clearly set forth in reports by Mr Reaville and E. W. Moir's organization. Minchin."
