Fascinating history. Appreciate you both taking the time to share all of that information.
Printable View
Fascinating history. Appreciate you both taking the time to share all of that information.
Well done fjruple! Great expansion. :thup:
I'll stick with a central theme, that without Remington as an established, equipped and knowledgeable arms manufacturer, the Eddystone subsidiary would have not flown. Technically, Eddystone was separate, but practically the smarts, capability and management came from the Parent company. But learning a little more about its history beyond just the WWI contracts is great!
I'll draw a similarity of the exercise of the Eddystone plant establishment by Remington, with that of the Australian Small Arms Factory Lithgow being established by cooperation and observation of the RASF Enfield. And, we did it with US made Pratt and Whitney machinery, too. (And that in itself adds another intriguing misalignment between English speaking countries all using a different datum!)
I've not heard anybody talking about ERA rifles produced by the Remington factory in Delaware. That's a new one to me. In intriguing wander down one of Alice's rabbit burrows that... :rolleyes:
The detailed description of how the Baldwin Loco works was used and changed is insightful. As you rightly point out, the Loco Company was shrewd in getting others to pay for expansions, which they sold off in any case.
Out of interest, the manufacturing equipment that went to RIA, are you aware of what become of that in later years? Was it established again for WWII? Much of the equipment would have been fine for building the M1903A3 and other weapons. The specific tools and gauges for the Patt 14 and M1917 wouldn't have been of much use.
Does anyone recognize this faint marking near the stock disc?
Attachment 107616
An associated problem that arose with Lithgow No1 productions was the spectre of the "Pratt and Whitney Inch", as opposed to the "Enfield Inch".
The entire Lithgow production plant, tooling and gauging were manufactured by Pratt and Whitney. When the first rifles rolled off the line at Lithgow, samples were sent to Britain for "evaluation" and this is where the fun started. Whilst the lithgow rifles were pretty much interchangeable among themselves, there were "issues" once the Enfield gauges came out.
There used to be a chart at the Lithgow factory that showed a graphic representation of the difference: it was tiny, but with tolerance "stacking", problems could arise. Those early Lithgow rifles were built SLOWLY, at first, on brand new machines, using brand-new fixtures, tooling and gauging. ONE factory; ONE product, (two if you count the bayonet). And all to the Pratt and Whitney Inch!
What I found interesting is that when the US contractors tooled up for the P-14, it was with all the weird "Enfield" thread sizes and forms that had been designed into the P-13. All this occurred just scant years after the US had settled on a series of "standardized" threads and metrology standards across industries. The burgeoning car-building business had a lot to do with that.
Mk VII -- Quite true. The US military found that out early just before our involvement in WWII (1941). When the UK requested arms from the US besides the Model of 1917 rifle (the red stepdaughter of US Ordnance), the early BAR Model of 1918 automatic rifles and Browning Model 1917 Machineguns were provided to the UK as they were obsolete and surplus to US needs. The US Army wanted newer designs and upgrades to these weapons.
Cheers Kiwi! It did remind me of the S^A stamp I've seen on Ishapore 2a's. Looks like it was checked over in 62. The barrel is marked '16 yet shows very very little use so maybe I got lucky with how it was treated over there. Coming from a month of cleaning out a horrendous Ishapore bore, this surprised me.
Another question for you all. Was it common for P14's to have a mismatched makers between bolt and receiver. My receiver/barrel is a Remington but the bolt is marked E for Eddystone. I understand there were all sorts of interchangeability issues so just wanted to make sure this was an appropriate swap so long as headspace checks out.
Now to find a 303 Field gauge....
Im curious if a bolt should close on a spent casing. I took a 303 shell and fit into the chamber and tried to close the bolt but it wont budge. Is there something about a casing without the bullet that makes a bolt unable to close on it?