View Single Post
  #16  
Old 02-06-2018, 05:59 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,005
Default

The Marines stance on the low numbers changed a lot in about 10 years, from 1928 to 1938. At first they thought the Army was making it up, to justify having work. Remember around 1928 when the Army started with the low number debate, the depression was starting and they had to create work or people were out of jobs at SA.

But then their position changed. They went from where they thought the Army made it up, to low number rifles shouldn't fire rifle grenades. But they considered them safe otherwise. At first they thought all RIA receviers were safe, regardless of serial range, even for rifle grenades. Then they changed their stance that no low number, SA or RIA, should fire rifle grenades. Then in the mid 30's they talked about scrapping low numbers as they came back for rebuild. Then they had problems with both high and low numbers and they tried to figure out a way to reheat treat low and high numbers. That basically failed, and then you see them say screw it, just enlarge the gas hole in the bolt, and drill a hatcher hole and it's good to go. And you don't see any debate on low numbers after that. lol

So honestly you see as much debate back then as you do today, and not really any firm evidence either way. As one study conducted says they aren't safe, then another one says they were.

It was the same way at SA. The last study at SA I read during WWII, said low numbers were safe.

But this is a Marine doc from 1928, where the Marines take a swipe at the Army low number regulation of scrapping low numbers. I love that last line. lol

Reply With Quote