-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
RC20
Lets see, I knew a guy who knew a guy who new a guy that was on the far side of the moon who knew a guy that was in Triton who knew this guy who was on the 4th shift who knew a buy in the first shift and they were paid by the piece.
Real evidence would start with how workers were paid.
Something like 3 million rifles built and lord knows how many modified and the cracks are direly related to the wrong tools used in remove a barrel (that is from Chuck in Denver who has done hundreds of barrel changes on a 1917 of ALL makes )
Now that you can take to the bank.
The original poster of that information referred to how the workers were paid: piece-work rates.
"The US Enfield" by Skennerton mentions the enormous turnover in the workforce at Remington, something like 100% every three months; not conducive to high QC.
QC probably got better when the M17 was being built, rather than rifles for "England", whom a fair proportion of the workforce had no sympathy for. The production rate for what was essentially the same rifle suddenly jumped 500% when the M17 came on line.
Of course, the original post doesn't specify whether the incidents referred to happened during P14 or M17 production, or both.
Last edited by Surpmil; 10-14-2018 at 05:48 PM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same.
-
-
10-14-2018 05:40 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if British Govt. documents exist that document serious safety issues with original Pattern 14 production someone else would have stumbled onto them by now and been able to share them with us all. Maybe this thread should be an invitation for anyone with well documented cases of failure of P14/ M1917 rifles (in their original, un-bubbafied form) to bring them forward.
Ridolpho
-
Thank You to Ridolpho For This Useful Post:
-
-
Advisory Panel
Originally Posted by
Ridolpho
Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if
British Govt. documents exist that document serious safety issues with original Pattern 14 production someone else would have stumbled onto them by now and been able to share them with us all. Maybe this thread should be an invitation for anyone with
well documented cases of failure of P14/ M1917 rifles (in their original, un-bubbafied form) to bring them forward.
Ridolpho
The story is offered for what it is. Each must make up their own mind. I suspect it is largely truthful, possibly entirely so.
I haven't opened "The US Enfield" by Skennerton for some time, but you'll find he documents quite a number of defects and production problems with the P.14. I recall he mentions that those problems were of such a magnitude that consideration was given to cancelling all of the contracts for the rifle, but political needs naturally intervened.
A book worth having for those interested in the breed.
Some 60,000 of the early ERA rifles were DP'd from new. Not likely to have been done without a reason was it?
Last edited by Surpmil; 10-30-2018 at 01:49 AM.
“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”
Edward Bernays, 1928
Much changes, much remains the same.
-
-
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by
Surpmil
The story is offered for what it is. Each must make up their own mind. I suspect it is largely truthful, possibly entirely so.
I haven't opened "The US Enfield" by
Skennerton for some time, but you'll find he documents quite a number of defects and production problems with the P.14. I recall he mentions that those problems were of such a magnitude that consideration was given to cancelling all of the contracts for the rifle, but political needs naturally intervened.
A book worth having for those interested in the breed.
Some 60,000 of the early ERA rifles were DP'd from new. Not likely to have been done without a reason was it?
Surpmil--
I suspect that the reason for "DP" of the early ERA "Eddystone" was related to the EY designation for the MKI rifles with the shorter bolt lug. I have not seen the documentation but with the early MKI's there was a problem with reliable feeding of the rimmed .303 cartridge into chamber, not a good thing to have happen in combat and the MKI were "EY"ed and later DP. As with any history the original reason is probably lost in time and hidden in piles of old paperwork in a national archive somewhere.
Cheers
--fjruple
-
-
Contributing Member
Replying to no one in particular:
Hatcher, in his Notebook, was quite forthcoming on the defects and dangers of the low number Springfield 1903s.
If he was so upfront about the actual standard issue rifle of the time, I have no doubts he'd tear into the 1917 if had even an inkling of a problem.
He's not the be-all-end-all on the subject but I think you get what I'm saying.
-
-
Legacy Member
The people resource issue would have been after the US got into WWI.
The Brits simply did not demand parts commonality and therefor they would have had erratic standard of production.
Differences in mfg aside, that was a tough call. US went with commonality and lacked rifles initially in WWI (and we dug out 1903s, 1917s and made more 1093s as well as 1917 barrel in WWII!)
Personal I think the demand for full commonality initially was a mistake. Simple remedy was to mark Ws (who jumped the gun) with a star, then post star would be common. That would get you guns and so what if it failed and could not be repaired easily during training, you make enough of em it done matter.
By the time they got to combat they could issue the commonality guns and good to go.
If your gun failed in combat did you walk back and get it repaired or did you grab a dead or wounded mans gun and carry on? Sometimes things get over thunked.
One of the verified stores of WWII was that the Brits were amazed at the US having standard pre built gasket sets for their equipment (engines and all he rest and initially seen in aircraft). The Brits had what were called Artificers whose sole specialty was to hand make any gasket needed on an engine out of the raw material (head gaskets would be a bugger). Two very different approaches to mfg. Not right or wrong but during a war........
To make a consistent part, you need a reference "pattern". For each part. That acts as the master. If you use a pattern of a pattern you get variation creeping in until nothing works.
It takes very hard approach and discipline.
Brits got backup rifles and the SMLE made enough for front line combat. While the P-14 was a much better sniper rifle the SMLE is a better general combat rifle.
And the hardening process is a problem for anyone, variation in light is a touch one.
People think they can anneal cases by that look but they are so quick past the right point its impossible.
I don't even know if the 1917 was or had to be case hardened as they used the nickle mix and they may not need it (Chuck can likely answer that one)
-
-
Contributing Member
Originally Posted by
rcathey
Replying to no one in particular:
Hatcher, in his Notebook, was quite forthcoming on the defects and dangers of the low number Springfield 1903s.
If he was so upfront about the actual standard issue rifle of the time, I have no doubts he'd tear into the 1917 if had even an inkling of a problem.
He's not the be-all-end-all on the subject but I think you get what I'm saying.
rcathey--
You have to look at both of these rifles separately. The P14 is not the M1917. The US Army Ordnance Department was watching closely the developments of the P14 and saw many of the problems associated with foreign contracts. The commonality of parts, lack of proper drawings, poorly written contracts and a well defined set of inspection standards were the basis for the problems with the Pattern 1914. When the US entered the war in April 1917 the US Army Ordnance knew at the time they could not produce the weapons they needed quickly. Little or no effort or planning was made to spin the production of the Model of 1903, this was a poor decision of the part of the Commanding General of the US Army Ordnance which he was quickly fired and replaced. Cooler heads at a lower level in the Ordnance Department prevail and properly executed the Model of 1917. Did the M1917 have problems, yes, all new firearms do if they are mass produced. If you look at the Model of 1917 production it was the first mass produced rifle (over a two million rifles) in a short period of time, 4 months short of two years by three major private contractors. That success would pay off in the follow on to the Great war.
-