Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-14-2019, 08:37 AM
RHScott RHScott is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: NC
Posts: 117
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Red View Post
Reset your profile to display pics:
http://forums.thecmp.org/showpost.ph...11&postcount=1

Thank you. Worked like a champ.
Russ
__________________
You don't need to be perfect, just better than your competition.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-04-2019, 11:53 AM
Calif-Steve Calif-Steve is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: California
Posts: 2,435
Default

Hatcher published his "notes", not scientific research. This was done after he had retired and had the time necessary. He wasn't always present to observe the events he wrote about. Although the reader will not recognize this. Also, he tried to "fill in the blanks", when and where required. Not a "liar", but the reader must keep all of this in mind.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-04-2019, 01:48 PM
RC20 RC20 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 614
Default

Quote:
Another view of this was commented on by Winchester. It is not well known, but other than US Armories, WRA was on the verge of producing M1903's in 1917. They were trying to win the Government contact to produce the rifle that was first offered in 1916 to commercial makers. If the war had been postponed probably even 6 months, you would have most likely seen Winchester M1903's and not the WRA M1917's.
I think that seriously overstates the reality.

Said reality was that the 1917s could be produced immediately and if not for the commonality issue, in vast numbers.

While barrel mfg would have been an easy enough switch, the rest no.

Winchester was doing what it needed to do to cover the bases but allowing a switch to 1903s would have made the rifle shortage even worse than it was.

Winchester in fact jump the gun (pun intended) and was making 1917 before they were allowed to.

Frankly all the 1917 mgs should have been release to produce with a strike mark on the receiver to ensure they stayed in the US vs getting overseas where the commonality issue was a real issue.

Even a non firing rifle was better than no rifle and firing rifles could be shared as needed for training. The limit was how large the range was not the number of rifles.

My brother in the Navy in the 70s was an example. They were not issued rifles, they had a stack of M1's that they were randomly given at each shooting session (which the CPO proved were spot on firing a good target with a random pick)

Each firing position has a line of sailor behind it waiting to shoot.

Realist as 1942 wound down the 1903 became a zero issue as the Marines equipped with M1 (or stole them before that) and they were rear line issue for other units.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:23 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC20 View Post
I think that seriously overstates the reality.

Said reality was that the 1917s could be produced immediately and if not for the commonality issue, in vast numbers.

While barrel mfg would have been an easy enough switch, the rest no.

Winchester was doing what it needed to do to cover the bases but allowing a switch to 1903s would have made the rifle shortage even worse than it was.

Winchester in fact jump the gun (pun intended) and was making 1917 before they were allowed to.

Frankly all the 1917 mgs should have been release to produce with a strike mark on the receiver to ensure they stayed in the US vs getting overseas where the commonality issue was a real issue.

Even a non firing rifle was better than no rifle and firing rifles could be shared as needed for training. The limit was how large the range was not the number of rifles.

My brother in the Navy in the 70s was an example. They were not issued rifles, they had a stack of M1's that they were randomly given at each shooting session (which the CPO proved were spot on firing a good target with a random pick)

Each firing position has a line of sailor behind it waiting to shoot.

Realist as 1942 wound down the 1903 became a zero issue as the Marines equipped with M1 (or stole them before that) and they were rear line issue for other units.

Actually too, WRA M1917's weren't allowed to go over to France. They were restricted to being stateside only. Which WRA wasn't too happy about.

I haven't read all the in's an out's on why but looks like manufacturing errors on their rifles was the reason they weren't allowed to be sent over.

Plus the Marines were going to take possession of all WRA M1917's to replace all their M1903's. Probably because the Army didn't want them and decided to give them to the MAriens.

But yeah WRA was on the verge of producing M1903's when the war started. The govt was trying to outsource all their M1903 production. I see WRA and Colt were the two big players trying for the contract.

The war just came on too quick. If WRA would have just had a little more time. They were gearing up to produce them when war was declared, and just could produce the m1917 much faster.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:23 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calif-Steve View Post
Hatcher published his "notes", not scientific research. This was done after he had retired and had the time necessary. He wasn't always present to observe the events he wrote about. Although the reader will not recognize this. Also, he tried to "fill in the blanks", when and where required. Not a "liar", but the reader must keep all of this in mind.
I think this is one of the best ways you can describe Hatcher. Of all the testing I have seen, which at this point is a considerable amount. I don't see much of his participation.

In fact how we nicknamed the gas vent hole in the receiver the Hatcher Hole. He had no part in that either.

I see the names Borden and Woodworth on the actual testing in 1930 and 1936 that created the Hatcher hole.

I think everyone has assumed Hatcher was heavily involved with this low number issue. If he was, I'm not seeing much evidence of it.

Last edited by cplnorton; 08-05-2019 at 07:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:55 AM
JimF JimF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
. . . . .In fact how we nicknamed the gas vent hole in the receiver the Hatcher Hole. He had no part in that either. . . . . .
Hold on there, Cpl. . . . . .

Somewhere in my heap of documents here, I have an old letter from Julian Hatcher himself . . . .

Back when dirt was young, and I was a “snot-nosed teenager”, I wrote to the American Rifleman magazine about the gas escape hole on the RIGHT side of the ‘03 receiver, and how I thought it was near useless as the extractor, in spite of the hole therein, cut off the easy flow of escaping gases.

Though they did not see fit to publish my observation in the “Dope Bag” section of the magazine, I DID get a type-written letter from Mr. Hatcher . . . .hand-signed, no less . . . explaining how he recognized this flaw in the ‘03 design and in 1936, personally ordered the drilling of a hole in the LEFT side of the receiver.

Naturally, I cannot find that letter now, but I know it is here . . . .someplace!!
__________________
--Jim
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:19 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimF View Post
I DID get a type-written letter from Mr. Hatcher . . . .hand-signed, no less . . . explaining how he recognized this flaw in the ‘03 design and in 1936, personally ordered the drilling of a hole in the LEFT side of the receiver.
I just posted the whole string on this. He's never named. It was actually a Col T.J. Smith that actually approved the Lt Col Borden testing of the gas escape hole.

He maybe signed something way up, but he had no part in this like he claims from what I can see in the report.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread....18#post1856418
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:50 AM
SmokeEaterPilot SmokeEaterPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
Actually too, WRA M1917's weren't allowed to go over to France. They were restricted to being stateside only. Which WRA wasn't too happy about.

I haven't read all the in's an out's on why but looks like manufacturing errors on their rifles was the reason they weren't allowed to be sent over.

Plus the Marines were going to take possession of all WRA M1917's to replace all their M1903's. Probably because the Army didn't want them and decided to give them to the MAriens.

You mean M1917s produced prior to Jan. 1, 1918 correct?

And interchangeability is a big thing. It's bad enough having two standard rifle spare parts depots. Now throw a "third" rifle into into the mix.

Very cool post Steve!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:04 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 1,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeEaterPilot View Post
You mean M1917s produced prior to Jan. 1, 1918 correct?

And interchangeability is a big thing. It's bad enough having two standard rifle spare parts depots. Now throw a "third" rifle into into the mix.

Very cool post Steve!
You are 100% correct as usual about the rifles produced prior to Jan 1st having interchangeability problems. It says something about they were in a hurry to manufacture them and parts wouldn't change to other rifles.

But they still withheld them even into June/July 1918. It was some correspondence from WRA to Army Ordnance like why do you continue to hold our rifles from going over seas. They state interchangeability and then withholding for the Marines.

I havent read into the final months of the war yet to see if they ever lift it. I'm hoping to read them in the next couple days and see how it all played out.

Andrew is pulling the complete WWI collection that is tens of thousands of pages. I am pulling the cliff note version of a few thousand.

Though I am extremely jealous of all the serials he will find of doing it the long way. lol
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:33 AM
SmokeEaterPilot SmokeEaterPilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Maryland
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post

Andrew is pulling the complete WWI collection that is tens of thousands of pages. I am pulling the cliff note version of a few thousand.

Though I am extremely jealous of all the serials he will find of doing it the long way. lol
This ground has already been covered by Frank Mallory. So the majority of the numbers are already published in the SRS

But you and I both know that the most important discoveries come not in the serial numbers found but in the issues being discussed. As in this case, which you posted. The story is far more interesting than the numbers associated with rifles. But they are important. (I'm biased though that's all I collect anymore.)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01 PM.