Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
#1 | |||
|
||||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 412
|
Hey Guys,
Haven't realty posted much in a while. Thought you might like to see these numbers. Exactly how many rifles Springfield and Rock Island were producing per day just 10 days after the declaration of war was declared. We always hear how unprepared the United States was for war. Sometimes raw numbers can help illustrate the severity. Enjoy your weekend! ![]() |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |||
|
||||
Purity of Essence
|
Yes but the armories had been cranking out Enfield rifles for the British and started making Model 1917 rifles on the same pattern (in 30.06) to arm more Americans with those than the 1903.
__________________
Giving "respectful, civil gun owners a bad name" since January 15th, 2006. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. Which is self evident, because my opinions are so awesome! “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.” - Will Rogers A new life awaits you on the off-world colonies! |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |||
|
||||
The M1 Does My Talking
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 17,913
|
P14 production was by private contractors, not the government armories.
__________________
. “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.” ― Ronald Reagan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZdFhG9anY8 |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The heart of the Delmarva Penninsula
Posts: 4,271
|
Quote:
The first 10,000 Winchesters that were manufactured before an official contract agreement was reached were designated not suitable for use overseas by our own people. They (WIN) did the same thing with M-1 production as well now that I think about it. None the less, the early RI and Springfield rifles were completely interchangeable from the onset and works of art that could be manufactured to an incredible number in a rapid time frame. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |||
|
||||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 412
|
Quote:
Going from .303 rimmed to a rimless .30-06 apparently caused A LOT of issues. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The heart of the Delmarva Penninsula
Posts: 4,271
|
You would have thought the English would have gone with the 3006 originally because the rimmed 303 was pretty much obsolete when the no3 rifle came to fruition. The brits played around trying to get rimmed cartridges to feed with out issue until and up to WWII with the WRS* marked rifles.
I think they really underestimated the industrial might of the US even with the ammo problems that plagued the 03's initially. To my knowledge the only major flaw regarding 03 production outside of the Low# controversy is that some of the rod bayonet bottom metal made its way through allowing the rifle to discharge with a forward movement of the trigger. And seamy barrels that affected both the m17 and 03. Thanks SEP for taking the time to post up what you discover in the way of historical documents. I know that the work you and others are doing is very important and always goes appreciated for those who are interested in vintage rifles. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |||
|
||||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 412
|
Quote:
Funny you mention that, at the start of the war (I may have mentioned this and if I have apologies for repeating myself), Maj General Leonard Wood (previously TR's C/O during SpanAm) wrote a strongly worded letter criticizing the rechambering of the M1917. His argument was Supply depots, parts depots and established ammunition trains to the front in .303 are already there to be utilized by the US Military. Very forward thinking if you think about it, almost like a NATO round almost 40 years prior that concept. Ahead of his time if you ask me. Crozier quickly put an end to that in a very harsh reply. But to my knowledge there were not many Pattern14s which suffered extractor or barrel failures that the M1917 did. I'm not terribly familiar with them either. Crozier did say they weren't adopting the .303 because of feeding issues they experienced prior (I'm assuming on the Krag). But it is obvious the US had plans to recall all M1903s from the AEF and use them stateside for training and equip all troops in the AEF with the M1917, from a logistics standpoint makes perfect sense. The USMC got 60k WRA M1917 manufactured after Jan 1, 1918. So had the war lasted longer, we might have seen more widespread standardization: 1 service arm, 1 automatic rifle (BAR), and one heavy machine gun (1917). |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |||
|
||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Frederick
Posts: 15,486
|
The Brits had tested a different caliber smaller than .303 and at least had some intention of a changeover but WWI began and made it a moot point...they already had large stocks of .303 rifles and ammunition and had rifle and ammunition factories all over the world. A changeover would have created chaos logistically and very expensive. It as echoed later when the US Army wanted to changeover to the .276 M1 Garand but huge stocks of .30-06 already inventoried plus keeping the .30-06 for machine guns was simply a non-starter logistically and financially...especially during the Depression.
__________________
Socialism is like a Jedi Mind Trick...it only works on the weak minded. TheOriginalMexican Bob I'm an American...your approval is not required. TheOriginalMexicanBob Good people do not need laws to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. Plato |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | ||
|
|||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 28
|
Very interesting
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|