Detail mill tool mark worn blade issue (from: page 12 THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND)
This notation from page 12 of the 1998 copyrighted volume, THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND, details the analysis of machinists, industrial engineers, and photomicrographic technicians regarding this phenomenon, observed mainly in the over two million wartime rifles, intermittently.
In particular, Nicholas Gaal of Mesa showed us how this milling machine effect transpires. Interesting lesson in applied production techniques, not to mention forensic & scientific examination. He did precision mill work and machining for half a century.
The others contacted, including retired SA personnel contacted in the 80's, verified. Glenn Lilly, machinist, engineer, and process analyst, was also in the since-deleted footnotes. Van Miller worked at Springfield Armory 1939-55 or so.
The production engineering consultants agreed, and so did the surviving staff. Microscope tracking of the marks and stress photography verified.
It was not seen as a defect, and in fact, as noted in the analysis, the receivers were probably a tad stronger in that "horseshoe" area than others.
This was discussed with other machinists and production engineering/applications specialists, and surviving firearms manufacturing personnel of that place and period.
Verification and corroboration was universal. And unanimous.
All the expert testimony, of course, means nothing to Internet gods and omnipotent experts who weren't even born twenty or thirty years after this happened. They "know" stuff because they "hear it" from...whoever they hear their untest insane malarkey from.
This happened very intermittently at the very height of production. The forgings, of course, had been detail inspected, long before this eventuated. It is not a fault or void, that was established even before the instrumentation was assembled.
Interesting sub-factoid: The rifle on the right was received with a fabric strap with G.I. buckles, but the material was apparently off some other U.S. government strapping setup, and while 1 1/4", bore a stock number suggesting it was never intended for rifles. If I recall, it was for a very large duffel-style equipment cover of some type. However, it was very sturdy material, heavier than that seen on canvas straps for rifles. It was re-purposed and stitched in a non-regulation manner, that frayed end never having received the metal fitting. Eventually a crush fit "tongue" was installed, and it was given away. It was very long.
Another amusing note: Rifle #44702, the next unit left, still bore a very badly worn barrel from September of 1940 and its original butt stock, plus several other very early parts. In the research ongoing on the time, that was an interesting signal of sorts: the gas trap configuration was being dumped and reversed within a few months of manufacture. Fitted with a "replica" barrel, surmarked "RSB", correct short pinion/flush nut rear sight setup, and a few other restoratives, that old rifle, still accompanied by its old original tube separately, was passed on to a friend in federal law enforcement. No idea how or why the original replacement 1940 barrel was still mounted, as the receiver had undergone the procedures to obviate the "seventh round stoppage" issue, and the prevailing theory among the collectors who saw it was that POSSIBLY (no, not "definitely"--there is a difference!!) the change-outs would've been done simultaneously with the removal of the shorter "gas trap" barrel rig.
This might've been the "feature" shot of that shipment, in which case those T105 rear sights were on 44702 when unpacked. However, the last smatterings of detailed notes I have from the time said, "Damaged flush nut sights on rifle but not secure." I am not sure at what point I purchased the other set of flush nuts, or swapped out the parts. I handled so much material at that time it was a blur within a few weeks. Main point being, RESTORATIONS ARE EXPENSIVE and not a lot of fun.
The 'smith who did the measuring and metallurgical workups had some other fascinating observations, too, on both of these rifles. He worked on them 1938-62, and was light years ahead of any of us on the minute details. Even further ahead of the published literature!!!
However, no hard tracks of this seem to remain at the armory, apparently, and the industrial historians seem never to speak with mere "ordinary" factory workers, either vintage ones or those who have done similar operations. I did, as best I could, and a lot of times did not understand what I was being told. This made sense, generally, much later, when the student in me re-read the notes.
These things are continually attacked.
I never could figure out why, and lately, am uninterested in knowing.
Since doing the missives, and especially since 2008, I've been tossing notes and targets and the flotsam and jetsam of a half century of what, essentially, has been sadly wasted time I could've spent doing something productive. And the paperwork on this critter is part of that cleanup.
If I'd known this entire sillyassed adventure ended with throwing out half a ton of notes as late as forty years after taking them, and not generate any respect or income worth discussing, I'd have spent my time looking out the window instead.
The move in 2020 involved hauling another half ton of notes and targets to the dumpster, along with the manuscripts and synopses of books and other research that will never be published or distributed
Annoying assertions in "whacko world" are held, as Azimov so wisely remarked some forty + years ago, in esteem by some as if they were information, knowledge, logic, or analysis. How sad.
Copyrighted. All rights reserved.
Detail mill tool mark worn blade issue (from: page 12 THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND)
This notation from page 12 of the 1998 copyrighted volume, THE COMPLETE M1 GARAND, details the analysis of machinists, industrial engineers, and photomicrographic technicians regarding this phenomenon, observed mainly in the over two million wartime rifles, intermittently.
In particular, Nicholas Gaal of Mesa showed us how this milling machine effect transpires. Interesting lesson in applied production techniques, not to mention forensic & scientific examination. He did precision mill work and machining for half a century.
The others contacted, including retired SA personnel contacted in the 80's, verified. Glenn Lilly, machinist, engineer, and process analyst, was also in the since-deleted footnotes. Van Miller worked at Springfield Armory 1939-55 or so.
The production engineering consultants agreed, and so did the surviving staff. Microscope tracking of the marks and stress photography verified.
It was not seen as a defect, and in fact, as noted in the analysis, the receivers were probably a tad stronger in that "horseshoe" area than others.
This was discussed with other machinists and production engineering/applications specialists, and surviving firearms manufacturing personnel of that place and period.
Verification and corroboration was universal. And unanimous.
All the expert testimony, of course, means nothing to Internet gods and omnipotent experts who weren't even born twenty or thirty years after this happened. They "know" stuff because they "hear it" from...whoever they hear their untest insane malarkey from.
This happened very intermittently at the very height of production. The forgings, of course, had been detail inspected, long before this eventuated. It is not a fault or void, that was established even before the instrumentation was assembled.
Interesting sub-factoid: The rifle on the right was received with a fabric strap with G.I. buckles, but the material was apparently off some other U.S. government strapping setup, and while 1 1/4", bore a stock number suggesting it was never intended for rifles. If I recall, it was for a very large duffel-style equipment cover of some type. However, it was very sturdy material, heavier than that seen on canvas straps for rifles. It was re-purposed and stitched in a non-regulation manner, that frayed end never having received the metal fitting. Eventually a crush fit "tongue" was installed, and it was given away. It was very long.
Another amusing note: Rifle #44702, the next unit left, still bore a very badly worn barrel from September of 1940 and its original butt stock, plus several other very early parts. In the research ongoing on the time, that was an interesting signal of sorts: the gas trap configuration was being dumped and reversed within a few months of manufacture. Fitted with a "replica" barrel, surmarked "RSB", correct short pinion/flush nut rear sight setup, and a few other restoratives, that old rifle, still accompanied by its old original tube separately, was passed on to a friend in federal law enforcement. No idea how or why the original replacement 1940 barrel was still mounted, as the receiver had undergone the procedures to obviate the "seventh round stoppage" issue, and the prevailing theory among the collectors who saw it was that POSSIBLY (no, not "definitely"--there is a difference!!) the change-outs would've been done simultaneously with the removal of the shorter "gas trap" barrel rig.
This might've been the "feature" shot of that shipment, in which case those T105 rear sights were on 44702 when unpacked. However, the last smatterings of detailed notes I have from the time said, "Damaged flush nut sights on rifle but not secure." I am not sure at what point I purchased the other set of flush nuts, or swapped out the parts. I handled so much material at that time it was a blur within a few weeks. Main point being, RESTORATIONS ARE EXPENSIVE and not a lot of fun.
The 'smith who did the measuring and metallurgical workups had some other fascinating observations, too, on both of these rifles. He worked on them 1938-62, and was light years ahead of any of us on the minute details. Even further ahead of the published literature!!!
However, no hard tracks of this seem to remain at the armory, apparently, and the industrial historians seem never to speak with mere "ordinary" factory workers, either vintage ones or those who have done similar operations. I did, as best I could, and a lot of times did not understand what I was being told. This made sense, generally, much later, when the student in me re-read the notes.
These things are continually attacked.
I never could figure out why, and lately, am uninterested in knowing.
Since doing the missives, and especially since 2008, I've been tossing notes and targets and the flotsam and jetsam of a half century of what, essentially, has been sadly wasted time I could've spent doing something productive. And the paperwork on this critter is part of that cleanup.
If I'd known this entire sillyassed adventure ended with throwing out half a ton of notes as late as forty years after taking them, and not generate any respect or income worth discussing, I'd have spent my time looking out the window instead.
The move in 2020 involved hauling another half ton of notes and targets to the dumpster, along with the manuscripts and synopses of books and other research that will never be published or distributed
Annoying assertions in "whacko world" are held, as Azimov so wisely remarked some forty + years ago, in esteem by some as if they were information, knowledge, logic, or analysis. How sad.
Copyrighted. All rights reserved.