+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Eddystone manufacturing methods

Click here to increase the font size Click here to reduce the font size
  1. #11
    Advisory Panel Surpmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    West side
    Posts
    4,651
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    06:46 AM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by RC20 View Post
    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 Skennertonicon 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 "Englandicon", 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.

  2. # ADS
    Friends and Sponsors
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Milsurps.Com
    Posts
    All Threads
    A Collector's View - The SMLE Short Magazine Lee Enfield 1903-1989. It is 300 8.5x11 inch pages with 1,000+ photo’s, most in color, and each book is serial-numbered.  Covering the SMLE from 1903 to the end of production in India in 1989 it looks at how each model differs and manufacturer differences from a collecting point of view along with the major accessories that could be attached to the rifle. For the record this is not a moneymaker, I hope just to break even, eventually, at $80/book plus shipping.  In the USA shipping is $5.00 for media mail.  I will accept PayPal, Zelle, MO and good old checks (and cash if you want to stop by for a tour!).  CLICK BANNER to send me a PM for International pricing and shipping. Manufacturer of various vintage rifle scopes for the 1903 such as our M73G4 (reproduction of the Weaver 330C) and Malcolm 8X Gen II (Unertl reproduction). Several of our scopes are used in the CMP Vintage Sniper competition on top of 1903 rifles. Brian Dick ... BDL Ltd. - Specializing in British and Commonwealth weapons Specializing in premium ammunition and reloading components. Your source for the finest in High Power Competition Gear. Here at T-bones Shipwrighting we specialise in vintage service rifle: re-barrelling, bedding, repairs, modifications and accurizing. We also provide importation services for firearms, parts and weapons, for both private or commercial businesses.
     

  3. #12
    Legacy Member Ridolpho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last On
    09-27-2022 @ 11:12 PM
    Location
    Province of Alberta, Canada
    Age
    66
    Posts
    1,019
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    07:46 AM
    Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if Britishicon 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

  4. Thank You to Ridolpho For This Useful Post:


  5. Avoid Ads - Become a Contributing Member - Click HERE
  6. #13
    Advisory Panel Surpmil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last On
    @
    Location
    West side
    Posts
    4,651
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    06:46 AM
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by Ridolpho View Post
    Surpmil: This kind of unverifiable, mystery reference is the sort of thing that makes internet "research" dangerous. Surely if Britishicon 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 Skennertonicon 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.

  7. #14
    Contributing Member fjruple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last On
    10-29-2023 @ 04:38 AM
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,021
    Real Name
    Franklin Ruple
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    09:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Surpmil View Post
    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 Skennertonicon 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

  8. #15
    Contributing Member rcathey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last On
    03-27-2024 @ 11:56 AM
    Location
    St. Louis, MO Area
    Posts
    1,645
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    08:46 AM
    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.

  9. #16
    Legacy Member RC20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last On
    02-07-2022 @ 09:20 PM
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    316
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    04:46 AM
    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)

  10. #17
    Contributing Member fjruple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last On
    10-29-2023 @ 04:38 AM
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    1,021
    Real Name
    Franklin Ruple
    Local Date
    03-29-2024
    Local Time
    09:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by rcathey View Post
    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.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Primer manufacturing- Why not ?
    By Fick_2141 in forum The Watering Hole OT (Off Topic) Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-22-2009, 01:48 PM
  2. Removing rear handguards - two methods
    By Bob Womack in forum M1 Garand/M14/M1A Rifles
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-25-2009, 06:15 PM
  3. German manufacturing codes
    By hunderi in forum Book and Video Review Corner
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-17-2007, 04:42 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Raven Rocks