CM marked bullet guides

[Redleg]

How was such a deviation approved? It flys in the face of existing knowledge. Kuhnhausen noted no differences.

You cannot say that one is softer or harder than specs, or that one is better than the other or more or less durable--that would not be allowed.

I suspect the lab is not what it is cracked up to be.
Voodoo stuff at best.

[Ramboueille]

Jeff,

Those who never took the time, effort, or spent the money to do valid research think all war time production is set-up like nice little bowling pins all in a neat little row without any variation for millions of parts. When the unexplainable (to them) appears, many are not able to think "out of the box" because the neat little bowling pins are suddenly all askew. This doesn't only pertain to the M1 rifle, it pertains to all war time production of small arms. I'm sure Peter Laidler, Ian Skennerton and John Beard will verify that over and over gain.

All research isn't done by sitting in front of a computer on the Internet as you well know because after you read enough "Internet Legends" and don't really understand mass production, one denies valid and irrefutable proof. Doing your own research is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------

How was such a deviation approved? It flys in the face of existing knowledge. Kuhnhausen noted no differences.

You cannot say that one is softer or harder than specs, or that one is better than the other or more or less durable--that would not be allowed.

I suspect the lab is not what it is cracked up to be.
Voodoo stuff at best.

Keep in mind it's been proven the moon isn't made out of green chees either.

[Redleg]

What you are saying is that Winchester was permitted to use and experiment with any number of different composition metals to produce a weapon under government scrutiny during war time without compensation or contract changes.

1. Composition CM
2. Compositon A
3. Composition "dot"
4. Compositon unmarked.

It simply begs credulity that 3 or 4 difference non conforming non standard non approved metals would or could be used to build Garands without any Government explanation or notes by Hatcher and others. Heat treatment would be a bitch.

The fact that some guy said this or some guy said that at some substandard soils or plastic testing lab doing gratis stuff, is well, shoddy.

One metal difference is pretty wild to consider, but three or 4 different compositions during WAR time as an EXPERIMENT--plus standard WD steel is just too much. EXPERIMENTAL. John Garand would puke.

The weakist link in any evidence chain is the deviant factor--that is the so called lab's results. Many people have been sent to jail on hearsay and bogus lab results. I call BS on that lab and its source.

The gov't imply did not allow 4 different steels to produce weapons, without permission and a paper trail that is incontrovertible, especially after the 1930's development period-- and the mandated revision numbers on all 1940's parts changes and drawing numbers-- referring to drawings and changes.
Different metals would require a new drawing number ot reflect changes. At least that is what history tells us about the Garand.

You guys are far more sophisticated than to have the wool pulled over your eyes on one labs supposed results long ago.

Time for a comprehensive test based upon blind neutrals and competing labs to reveal the truth.

[Bodyman]

There is an awful lot here but don't just rely upon Kuhnhausen or even Hatcher. Both awesome but neither going over 'experiments'.

Chrome-moly was WRA's name for something developed earlier that was known as 'ordnance steel'. High in chromium and molybdenm, it had a number of desireable properties and starting in the early 20's, Winchester chose to market their own proprietary version of it (?) under their own term that we have come to know and accept as 'chrome-moly'. WRA used this both before and after WWII so they had it on hand when, say, they ran low on steel due to a lower priority rating which we see from the documentation that they complained.

Ordnance steel we developed prior to WWI ... at SA in conjunction with Ordnance ... they were all very familiar with it and I suspect SA used it in several places on the Garand themselves. Documentation has not been found but then they would not have referred to it as 'chrome-moly' as that was WRA's name for it. There are a number or reasons that I think this but I will not bother going thru them here. Instead, suffice it to say that the properties of this 'blend' of steel was not news to any of them and they were well versed in its potential uses and benefits.

As to it being approved, JCG himself would never be allowed to design such a weapon again - he just would not have used the now required standard procedures all of which would produce a document trail that you desire. He was a seat of the pants engineer, and those days are gone - back then it just didn't happen, but then one of the big reasons that the Garand is so endlessly fascinating is because of this very fact.

These trails are very hard to find and follow today and one must go to the various anthologies about these times at places like Winchester (where there is just more that has been written) in order to try to figure out what was going on. On top of that, the Garand had some rather public egg on various faces early on with things like the 7th round stoppage problem, so they were further dis-inlcined to no leave a paper trail of their resolutions of such issues (in spite of what both Hatcher and Kuhnhausen have in their texts, was the 7th round stoppage problem due to low guide ribs at all, or was that just the public answer that could be easily digested? Remember that WRA had low guide ribs on many early production rifles but never were those recievers pulled to be 'repaired' ... odd, isn't it.) - there was no upside for some of these things so we are not likely to see these paper trails that we would like to see today.

The story of how Amola came out is completely intriguing itself and if anyone from that time were to actually know what was written in those records, well, I am quite certain it would have generated congressional hearings on the subjects!!! Yes, it is THAT earth-shaking. But those records are where we learned of the use of Amola steel.

Relying upon one source for the information to draw conclusions is really just drawing upon a narrow sample - you just don't know how naarrow the sample may have been for the author so it is even harder to judge how much weight to give statements like this. Other sources for example would be actual 'fossil evidence' like the very rifles produced - we know they used 'chrome-moly' at WRA starting in the 20's, but they used THE VERY SAME "CM" stamp on Model 94's both before and after WWII. With all of this, the use of Chrome-moly at WRA on the Garand is not that much of a stretch and begins to look quite reasonable. The metalurgy just proved it.

Sorry if I was a bit flippant in my initial response, but it really is a well settled idea that is now being used to build upon for further ideas in this area.

CM = chrome-moly.

[Redleg]

Thanks for the info!
Is the Amola steel a type, or a Mfg?

[Bodyman]

Heat treatment would be a bitch.

Exactly why they had to mark them.

John Garand would puke.

Probably did, or at least spit on the floor when the name Winchester was mentioned. Winchester felt the same way.

I call BS on that lab and its source.

OK. Now what?

and the mandated revision numbers on all 1940's parts changes and drawing numbers-- referring to drawings and changes.
Different metals would require a new drawing number ot reflect changes. At least that is what history tells us about the Garand.

You mean like when SA sent WRA the old, outdated drawings for the receiver - you mean that would never happen? Or when they sent WRA the wrong drawings for the clips - drawings that used different dimensions than SA, dimensions that had NEVER been used at SA and that had never been tested at SA and that SA had NEVER even considered using in their design that would surely make the rifle malfunction and did causing the well documented 'clip interchange program' that is all over the SRS database - you mean like that would never happen? Or like later when SA didn't like anyone else swimming in their little chamber pot so they sent IHC test fixtures that virtually guaranteed the rifles would misifre and that it was only found when HRA was sent in to help with all the production problems and they found it because SA had done the same to them? Or when Overton was being derrided for sending a whole shipment of stocks to SA that were all out of spec and only found it because they immediately set out from Michigan and drove all night only to find the entire load of unfinished wood being stored outside in the rain ... None of this stuff is in Hatcher, or Kuhnhausen, excellent though they are.

SA did many things that caused those around her to question the status-quo and they did, regularly. SA had a higher material rating than WRA and WRA ran out of steel to make things like trigger housings (way back in the day a few painfully original WRA's turned up with SA housings ... yup) the steel was at WRA and ordnance knew it was still within spec for the uses so why is it surprising that it was used? After all, as you say, there was a war on. Were I a betting man, I would bet that WRA made a few bucks more by using it, especially if they had it sitting on a shelf and it wasn't making them money there. The fact that both chrome-moly and Amola were used is in WWII production WRAs is really past the moment of debate.

If you are so certain that it was not, then why not send a few of your parts off and disprove it? I await your results.

In the end, how does it help us determine the originality of a given rifle? We already know the parts are original to WRA production and the eras are relatively well established, the rest is really little more than interesting dicta ....

Best all.

[Ramboueille]

Thanks for the info!
Is the Amola steel a type, or a Mfg?

Redleg,

I don't see anything you presented as factual, it's your opinion based on hearsay and misinforation. There is no need to cast insults on valid documentation by calling it "voodoo" and "BS" inless you have your own facts to refute. I gave you links for where the documentation can be found. I'm not posting copyright articles here.

[Rick B]

It has also been shown the Springfield marked some of their parts with a A showing most probably that they dabbled in this early on. Rick B

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

I have seen this A on numbered and unnumbered. I also have a double stamped WRA housing.

I forget whose picture this is at this time. I think it was Rick Hamby's. Rick B



---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

A marked Springfield Op rod catch.



---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

[Rick Cummelin]

Redleg,

I don't see anything you presented as factual, it's your opinion based on hearsay and misinforation. There is no need to cast insults on valid documentation by calling it "voodoo" and "BS" inless you have your own facts to refute. I gave you links for where the documentation can be found. I'm not posting copyright articles here.

I think Redleg must feel comfortable and safe with his opinion and of course, he is welcome to have an opinion, regardless of the facts presented to him in this thread.

Some people simply cannot accept new things--it's not in their nature to do so.

Unless Redleg actually presents the facts supporting his opinion as Ramboueille has asked him to do, there's little more to say in this thread.

So sad.

[Claven2]

FWIW, I work in the defence industry and I can tell you that material substitutions happen quite regularly. The buzz words are "fit, form, function". If/when a contractor experiences a material shortage or can demonstrate that a substitute alloy is "fit, form and function" to the relevant technical authority at the relevant defense department, a deviation (from spec) is quite regularly granted - it's standard practise. Usually an identifier marking is required. these days, the part would be stamped with an alternate NSN or other identifier. In the ways of Garand production it would have been another marking - maybe even CM.

Specifications are guidelines that are to be adhered to, but they are not always set in stone. The can be deviated from if the client will accept the change. In the case of chromoly being used for bullet guides or whatever, the change would be inconsequential in the function of the firearm and a no-brainer for the test engineer at DoD to approve. Been there, done that.