CM marked bullet guides

[Redleg]

With all due respect, the argument rings hollow. It does not seem to be credible, whatsoever.

I could believe that during the years from 1930-40 that John Garand may have experimented and changed metallurgy for failing components, based upon user experience and wear patterns.

I find it simply beyond the pale that Winchester had any lattitude at all in deciding what sort of metal to use, other than what was mandated. They changed nothing unless paid.

To suggest that they did what they wanted seems to be contradictory and without foundation or support from SA.

Anecdotally, gunsmiths like G fisher would have noted some sort of pattern over the years with those CM marked items; that has not shown to be true.
I suspect that in fact there is no deviation at all in metallurgy between CM, A, and punchmarked and SA items.

Only a test of all types of bullet guides, clip latches, trigger housings etc of all of them would show such a claim to be true.
That has not been done.

In any sort of scientific method there is a way to prove things and "one" does not make a trend or a truth.

The list of metals used is available in any of the above mentioned books.

Do you have a link?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Ramboueille]

Only a test of all types of bullet guides, clip latches, trigger housings etc of all of them would show such a claim to be true.
That has not been done.

Do you have a link?

That was done, a metallurgical laboratory conducted sceleroscope tests of various A marked, CM marked and unmarked WRA parts and the test showed conclusively CM marked items contained a large percentage of Chrome-Moly steel across the board. The others did not. How can you refute what you have not seen or read? It's proven metallurgically and in the WRA archive records. It's one thing to be in denial but quite another to refute valid based metallugical sceleroscope tests and WRA Archive records that state specifically what you are denying. What more do you want?

A link for what? The articles? Yes:

http://www.thegca.org/pdfs/back_issue_order_form.pdf

Winter 2006

Fall 2010

[Bob Seijas]

WRA could not get the steel it needed, but they had a large stock of chrome moly on hand from commercial production. They tried to get permission to use it, but Ordnance kept dithering. When the situation got critical and threatened to halt production, the Works Manager T.I.S. Boak sent this memo to his production head:

“Confirming our conversation this morning, you are to go ahead with the use of chrome molybdenum steel in the production of the hammer, the follower and the catch operating rod for the M1 rifle. I am taking this responsibility on my own shoulders because I fully believe we should not allow a break in production of the M1 even though the Ordnance Department fails to get us steel or give us permission to use steel which we do have.
You are only to make these components of chrome moly steel until the #3115 steel which we have on order arrives. In other words, I don’t want a lot of chrome moly parts made up – simply enough to keep us going so as not to shut down the assembly of M1 rifles.”