Webster

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)


Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Goings on at Casa De Garabaldi

 A Few things going on at Casa De Garabaldi.....


One thing that I did was buy a car cover for "My Precious", since I am not driving her as much since I am driving the Focus a lot more, I have had problems with Dead Battery, and I went to Harbor Freight looking for a "Trickle" charger and found one...


    Started the Install process,

   I like Zip Ties, Keeps things neat.

      This shows the actual plug, it matches the plug I use for my Motorcycle trickle charger.


Completed the install, Now to dig out the actual charger....


Plugged it in...


         This I did several weeks ago.

    Then we had a cold front hit, I knew it was coming, I heard Old NFO and others in the Texas area complaining about it.  And it got cold in a hurry.  So I turned on the fireplace...

       And the Dog immediately moved in.........
I had to work in the meantime....

  It was Cold........and WET.......

   Did I say Wet?..........And COLD
And I had to Work Christmas Eve and Day....

When the weather warmed up a bit, I pulled the cover off of "My Precious" so I could check the charge and saw this


    Battery was at full charge, I moved the trickle charger and cranked up the truck and let her idle for 20 minutes while I was doing some yard work and cleaning up some yard debris.  Got done and covered the truck back up.  

   

      I was trying to repair the battery jump box that I have, My son had manage to get one of the clamps broken while it was in his charge....Get it.....Charge....I will be here all week, try the veal and tip the wait staff.   Well any way I was going to try to repair the clamp...

   Well I had folded a piece of metal at work and I was going to try to see if I could use it to "Brace" the clamp over the break...

   Well it work initially.......But I then used a dremel to trim some excess metal and destroyed the structural rigidity that was necessary to make it work.....crap.    So Plan B


Yeah......Amazon.....I had gone to Harbor Freight and to several Auto Parts stores looking for clamps large enough and there were none available....Now I could have bought a Jumper Cable and destroyed it and took the clamp...but wanton destruction ain't my thing....so I went to Amazon.

    Finished it......Finally    Kept the box with the "Negative" clamp in case I need it.

     Meanwhile I had bought a oil filter for my daily driver...Remember this one..?

   Yep my Focus....Well I went to buy an oil filter for the Focus, I am having a shop I use for all my major work, they know me and all my cars since they opened do the oil change, too cold to crawl under the car right now, if the weather was warmer, different story.
but I like to use "Ford" filters. not the generic cheap filters that the shops tend to use...hey it is a quirk....my car, my quirk, so there :P but I digress
Well I go to buy a filter...

 Yeah, one of those.....I bought one of those 6 months ago and paid $7 bucks for the filter, well I bought a filter last night and it cost me dang near $10 bucks.....Jeez   "Lets Go Brandon"
  And speaking of "Brandon" we Rock banging Mechanics do have an opinion...

Saw this on the door going into the breakroom several weeks ago.....as of my last day working a couple of days ago, it is still there and there are other ways to make our opinions known...

 This was a temporary install to facilitate maintenance and we of course made sure that it was labeled appropriately so there was no doubt.

 Got rid of my Cub Cadet today, the only good thing about that mower is the motor,  I got tired getting nickel-ed and dimed by it.  I have to decide in the spring to either fork over 2 grand for another riding mower and deal with the associated maintenance cost like fuel, blades, oil, ete,ete or have a lawn service cut my grass, I have to weigh the pro's and cons, basically do a cost analysis.  In the past I thought it was strange to have someone do something that I am perfectly capable of doing, but after dealing with this lawnmower the past year, I can understand why people pay someone else.
     We went to the range today, the spousal unit had bought me gift certificates to the local range and today was "ladies Night"

                                                  laid out the .45


   Both Plastic Fantastics, Er Macks Favorite Guns  the Glocks, the Model 17 and 19

                    And the S&W .22 Pistol for the Spousal Unit :), She is shooting with me today

                                                                           The Target

   The Distance, I use this because of the unofficial Tueller Drill which I and many others have blogged before.

  The Spousal Unit firing the Smith .22 pistol, she fired that for a bit 

      This is her shooting my Glock 17 with the Holographic Sights, She liked the sights on the Glock better, easier to use, but the .22 was less recoil and less"Boom" for her. She hasn't gone shooting with me since before the birth of our son, so I was very happy to have her along.  I am hoping that she will join me more often.

   And yes this was me on New Years Day lol, I had to work both New Days Eve and New Years Day.
    What can I say...Aviation is 24/7/365.   But it pays pretty well, LOL

 

Monday, January 10, 2022

Monday Music "I Ran" By A Flock of Seagulls

 I am continuing my string of "bugaloo" songs.  This discussion was started in the "Monster Hunter Nation, Hunters Unite", back in November of 2019? it is a Facebook group with enthusiast of the ILOH "International Lord of Hate" A.K.A Larry Correia.  We were talking about what song would we use if we looked out of our window or glanced at our security camera and saw this.....

One of the alphabet bois lining up to take down your house...What would be your "Valhalla" song and you would set it up to play as you load up magazines set up the Tannerite Rover, turn on the water irrigation system and fill it with gasoline instead of water and prepare yourself.

 I figured it would scar the alphabet boys if they come busting in and hearing a song about people having a good time and standing up for themselves and having New Wave playing Loud will scar the Alphabet Boi's as they force the stack through the door, because they will be exposed to good music for the first time unlike the crap they listen to now sipping their soi latte's and comparing notes on the latest soyburger recipes and who wears the best manbuns in the team.

A Flock of Seagulls was started by Mike Score in late 1979 in Liverpool. According to Mike Score, the band's name was taken from the song "Toiler on the Sea" by punk rock band the Stranglers and the book Jonathan Livingston Seagull. The original line-up of the band featured Mike on lead vocals and keyboards, Ali Score on drums, and Frank Maudsley on bass. Guitarist Willie Woo was added, while Mark Edmondson replaced Ali on drums when the Score brothers fell out. Soon afterwards, Edmondson departed to make way for a returning Ali, while teenager Paul Reynolds, a close friend of Edmondson, replaced Woo at the behest of Maudsley, thus creating the band's classic line-up. The band practised above Mike Score's hair salon and then started playing clubs, eventually signing a recording contract.

They recorded sessions for John Peel's show on BBC Radio 1 in May 1981.Eventually, under the management of Harry Maguire, Tommy Crossan, and Mick Rossi, all directors of Checkmount Limited, they began to release singles through Jive Records. The group released their debut single "Talking" (produced by Nelson), on Bill Nelson's Cocteau label. They were then signed to major label Jive, distributed through CBS records, where they released their second single "Telecommunication". The single was also produced by Nelson and became a club hit. Their third release was the EP "Modern Love is Automatic". Originally released as a 4 track EP on both 7" and 12", the 12" edition was soon reissued, adding "Telecommunication". This 5 track EP was also their first release in the U.S. In 1982, the group's fourth single "I Ran (So Far Away)", produced by Mike Howlett, the former bass player of the band Gong, became a worldwide hit, reaching number 1 in Australia and the Top 10 in both the US and New Zealand. Their debut album and single "Space Age Love Song" were both successful. The track "D.N.A." won a Grammy Award in 1983 for Best Rock Instrumental Performance.  In late 1982, the band finally found major success in their home country with "Wishing (If I Had a Photograph of You)", the first single from their next album Listen, which reached the Top 10. Later, the band was praised for having broken the ground for other musical acts during the advent of the video music area,  but as it turned out, 1982 was the peak year of their commercial and critical success.




"I Ran (So Far Away)", also released as "I Ran", is a song by English new wave band A Flock of Seagulls. It was released in 1982 as their third single and it was the second single from their self-titled debut album. It topped the chart in Australia, and reached number seven in New Zealand and number nine in the United States, although it failed to make the top 40 in the band's home country (United Kingdom). However, the song was certified silver by the BPI.

In an article for Rolling Stone titled, Anglomania: The Second British Invasion, Parke Puterbaugh wrote of the impact of the song's music video on its US chart success, "Fronted by a singer-synth player with a haircut stranger than anything you'd be likely to encounter in a month of poodle shows, A Flock of Seagulls struck gold on the first try."


The single was promoted by a distinctive music video directed by Tony van den Ende in which the band members performed in a room covered in aluminium foil and mirrors. The cameras used to film the video are clearly visible in many of the background reflections, their stands also covered in foil. The video is an homage to Brian Eno and Robert Fripp's (No Pussyfooting) album cover, which was also portrayed by the Strokes in the video for their single, "The End Has No End," two decades later. The video received heavy rotation on MTV in the summer of 1982, and helped the single to become a hit.

As Dave Thompson has pointed out, the song was "punningly political at a time when Iran itself was making headlines around the clock". The song and the band were an "irresistible" package for American audiences, and by the summer of 1982, "America was clutching [sic] Flock of Seagulls to its heart". According to Maz Jobrani, the release of the song was a "disaster" for Iranian-American children like himself. They were cruelly teased by other American children with the song's misheard chorus: "I-ran, I-ran so far away."

The band toured the United States extensively to promote the single, supporting Squeeze on their 1982 tour. As well as reaching number 9 on the Billboard Hot 100, "I Ran" peaked at number 3 on the Top Tracks chart and number 8 on the Hot Dance Club Play chart. Subsequently, the album reached number 10 on the Billboard 200.

In the VH1 special 100 Greatest Songs of the '80s, "I Ran" was listed at No. 55 on the countdown, while on the VH1 special 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders of the 80s, the song was listed at No. 2.

Although considered a 1980s new wave classic, the song experienced something of a revival in 2002 as the signature theme for the video game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, being played during the game's television commercials and during gameplay as one of the songs in the playlist for radio station Wave 103.

The song's apparent references to Iran were highlighted again in the fall of 2007, when the long-running American television show Saturday Night Live ran a parody version of the song that expressly mocked current Iranian policies like Holocaust denial.


Sunday, January 9, 2022

Boeing is trying a revolutionary a Revolutionary airplane design.

 

 

I snagged this from one of the articles I get in my email from work that talks about Aviation, and I thought it was facinating concept and the thought of them "using a MD80's series tail or a B 717 to finish the design  is what caught my eye.

    





 

TTBW high lift tests, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia

Researchers completed TTBW high-lift tests, including stability and control checks and ground-effects evaluations, in September at NASA Langley Research Center’s 14 X 22-ft. subsonic wind tunnel in Hampton, Virginia.

Seventy years ago, Boeing was secretly preparing to gamble on whether to spend two-thirds of its post-war net profits on a radical new jet-powered long-range transport demonstrator—the Model 367-80.

The company’s May 1952 decision to approve the project, dubbed the Dash 80, became a defining moment in aviation history. Targeting the airline and military air tanker markets, the turbojet-powered aircraft would evolve into the 707/KC-135, establishing the blueprint for virtually every modern swept-wing transport with podded engines developed to this day as well as laying the foundation for Boeing’s 700-series jet airliner dynasty.

Fast-forward to early 2022 and Boeing is once more preparing to propose a new, potentially game-changing configuration. Although the concept is not yet aimed specifically at a new product, the high-aspect-ratio transonic truss-braced wing (TTBW) is targeted instead at a NASA demonstrator X-plane intended to prove airframe technology for a future highly efficient single-aisle airliner by the mid-2030s.

While other advanced configurations, such as the blended wing body (BWB), are in the frame for the X-plane—also known as the sustainable flight demonstrator (SFD)—Boeing’s TTBW proposal is widely expected to be the front-runner. Not only has Boeing been working on the configuration with NASA for more than a decade, but it is also actively soliciting suppliers to bolster broader industry participation in its bid.

For Boeing, the timing of the competition for the X-plane has assumed even more importance than the research opportunity it presents. Hit by the 737 MAX groundings, the market downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and delays to deliveries of the 787 and 777X, Boeing has had to put near-term plans for all-new commercial aircraft development projects on the back burner. The X-plane therefore offers a chance to continue with tests of key technologies that could play a role in future single-aisle programs semi-independently of the company’s market-driven product-development strategy.

But as Boeing deliberates over its next market moves, ranging from long-term 737 replacements to a potential twin-aisle midsize family, the competition is stirring. The SFD has become increasingly timely in the face of Airbus’ plans to develop an all-new sustainable 100-plus-seat airliner in the 2030s.

TTBW showing areas of reduced drag indicated in areas of green and blueGreen- and blue-colored areas indicate areas of reduced drag in this computational fluid dynamic flow simulation of the TTBW conducted by NASA and Boeing in early 2021

 If all goes according to plan, the new X-plane—which likely will be the largest purpose-built experimental aircraft in the seven-decade-old X series—is expected to begin flight tests in late 2026 and will help mature design, structures and systems technology timed for full-scale development in the early 2030s. The X-plane also forms a key part of NASA’s Sustainable Flight National Partnership (SFNP) plan with industry, researchers and academia, which will support the push toward new airliner technology across a broader front that includes developments in smaller engine cores, electrified aircraft propulsion and high-rate composite aircraft manufacturing.

 

“In 2022, we expect to put out a request for proposal [RFP] for the design and build of the flight demonstrator, and this is really a big, big deal,” says Rich Wahls, strategic technical advisor for the Advanced Air Vehicles Program at NASA’s Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate. “When was the last time we did a transport-class [aircraft-level] architecture change?” he asks. “My mind goes back to when Boeing did the Dash 80 with swept wings and underslung jet engines. That’s what we’re looking at here—a large-scale honest-to-God, prove-it kind of aircraft that would demonstrate key aspects that you can only do in flight.”

In the run-up to the RFP, NASA awarded study contracts for demonstrator plans to five unidentified companies and is working in parallel with two others on risk-reduction studies—one for the BWB and another with Boeing on the TTBW. “We’ve had wind tunnel tests [of the TTBW] that have gone on since 2013, and there have been aeroelastic tests, high-speed performance tests and low-speed integration tests,” Wahls says. “Often you take these concepts, and as you dig down to the next layer of detail, the benefit goes away. So far, it’s not going away on the truss-braced wing or really on the blended wing. We haven’t found that thing that completely stops either yet.”

Clarifying NASA’s role in the further advancement of sustainable concepts, Wahls adds: “We’re not about product development and doing the next airplane. Industry has their next baseline airplanes on their drawing boards. We’re trying to identify those technologies that are just beyond their risk threshold, both financially and technically, then use those as demonstrations. If successful, we bring them forward into that next generation. If they had enough confidence to put them on the next airplane, then we would have to start looking beyond that. So we’re trying to accelerate insertion of advanced technology into these game-changing architectures across all these projects we’re doing.”

Following a planned first flight in late 2026, NASA says the SFD research campaign will last six months and be completed in 2027. Design, ground test and flight research data from the SFD will be used to measure the winning contractor’s “vision system” performance relative to a set of midterm performance objectives set out by NASA for future subsonic transport aircraft in the 2025-35 time frame.

These targets call for technology readiness levels of 5 to 6 (ready to transition to production development) for an aircraft capable of cumulative noise levels of 32-42 dB below Stage 4 and landing and takeoff nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions 80% below the International Civil Aviation Organization’s CAEP/6 standards. The requirements also call for cruise NOx emissions to be 80% lower relative to a 2005 best-in-class benchmark, and aircraft fuel and energy consumption levels to be 50-60% lower relative to the same 2005 standard.

As its name suggests, the TTBW configuration is all about maximizing wing efficiency and at the same time opening the aperture for a wide variety of potential future propulsion options, ranging from advanced turbofans and open rotors to hybrid engines and even a tail-mounted boundary-layer-ingesting fan. First developed in 2010 under the Boeing and NASA Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research program to study ultraefficient airliner concepts for the 2035 time frame, the TTBW has continued to evolve into a flexible and practical configuration.

Despite many tweaks over the past decade, the design continues to hinge on the benefits of a high-aspect-ratio wing to minimize drag. The increased span lowers lift-induced drag because the wing is slender, while its reduced thickness ratio decreases profile and transonic drag due to its thinness. The wing is braced by trusses to minimize the weight penalty of the longer span.

The X-plane was originally designed with an unswept wing to cruise at a fuel-saving speed of Mach 0.75, but Boeing is basing its X-plane proposal on a revised wing configuration revealed in early 2019. The newer design is optimized around a 20-deg. swept wing to enable a higher Mach 0.8 cruise speed more typical of current jet airliners. The increase in sweep angle necessitated a redesign of the truss, which has increased chord at the fuselage and forward sweep at the trailing edge and tapers toward the junction with the wing. A small jury strut that connects the truss to the wing has also been moved farther outboard and closer to its junction with the wing. The changes have allowed the truss to generate lift, further maximizing performance.

 


With an aspect ratio of 19.6, the 170-ft.-span wing of any production TTBW version also will incorporate a 777X-like wing-fold feature. The fold, which is positioned outboard of the truss attachment point, is designed to enable the TTBW to use smaller gates, like those used by the 118-ft.-span 737. For the SFD bid, Boeing expects to modify the fuselage of a donor MD-80 or 717, but it is unclear if these precise wingspan dimensions will be reproduced for the demonstrator, which is also unlikely to include the folding feature.

Boeing is, meanwhile, canvassing industry for potential risk-share involvement in the modification of the T-tail fuselage into the X-plane. The company declined to comment on details of the plan, saying it would be premature to discuss its proposal prior to NASA’s RFP. Boeing did add, however, that it “enthusiastically supports NASA’s vision for a public-private partnership to enhance aviation sustainability under the umbrella of the Sustainable Flight National Partnership, which focuses industry and government on the critical challenges for products being introduced in the 2030s.”

Details of the proposed modification plan seen by Aviation Week show that a significant number of changes and additional systems and structure will be required to transform a McDonnell Douglas-heritage fuselage into the basis for the new X-plane. The biggest of these will involve the design and build of a composite wing with full-span slats and single-slotted flaps. The wing, which will be joined at the centerline above the fuselage, also will incorporate low- and high-speed ailerons.

To meet the required design length of the demonstrator, Boeing plans to remove an unspecified number of fuselage frames as well. This suggests the preferred donor fuselage may be from an MD-80 rather than the shorter DC-9-30-series-size 717. The fuselage will be reinforced with internal bracing from the wing to the existing structure, too, and will utilize the in situ carry-through torque boxes for the nose and main landing gears. The existing gear will be supported by a new pylon and enclosed in a new fairing.

Other changes will include the relocation of the tail-mounted engines to an inboard underwing mounting, where they will be attached with a new pylon and enclosed in purpose-built nacelles and inlets. The engine’s existing thrust reversers will be locked out while the nacelle will feature a purpose-designed anti-ice system.

Several key system changes also will be required, including the development of a fly-by-wire flight control system for the wing-control surfaces. Flight control functions will be hosted in a triplex vehicle management system controlled from a two-crew flight deck that will be modified with an additional flight control computer interface. Among the system changes will be the rerouting of the engine bleed air ducts through the fuselage to the environmental control system packs and the addition of an extra central hydraulic system to augment the existing configuration.

Changes to the interior will include installation of a full flight-test instrumentation suite and accommodation for flight-test personnel as well as provision for a set of pallets for center of gravity ballast.


 It will be interesting if Boeing is able to pull this off, I have seen one of their X planes,not this one mind you, but a different kind when I was in California, she was in Storage.  I want Boeing to pull this off because it can revolutionize the aviation industry...again.

 

 

 

 

Friday, January 7, 2022

The Forgotten U.S. Infantry Rifles of WWI

 

I ran across this article on American Rifleman and it was very informative, I knew about the "American
Mausers" and they were used by the "Polar Bears" , but not about the other rifles.  I thought it was a heck of a good article.



The American Doughboy, immortalized in photo, film and statuary, is almost exclusively depicted wielding either the classic M1903 Springfield or the quickly adopted and fielded M1917 bolt-action rifles. While other iconic weapons of the era certainly loom large in the American consciousness, such as the M1911 pistol and M1897 shotgun, the two rifles have a special place in the hearts of historians, collectors and sportsmen the world over. This is perhaps because World War I was arguably the last rifleman’s war, during which the rifle’s place as the most lethal arm on the battlefield was completely eclipsed by artillery, machine guns and all manner of other technological contraptions.

While the M1903’s total production numbers reached 914,625 by Nov. 30, 1918, the 587,468  M1903 rifles on hand when hostilities started (as tallied by the Ordnance Department after the war) were woefully inadequate to supply the vast number of men that would eventually be drawn into service during the war. Famously, this caused Brig. Gen. William Crozier, the U.S. Army’s Chief of Ordnance, to request authority to being the “[e]mergency procurement of small arms other than of U.S. design." This led to the adoption of a slightly modified British P14 Enfield rifle, re-chambered for the U.S. standard Model 1906 cartridge (.30-'06 Sprg.) and designated the Model of 1917.

Four largely forgotten infantry rifles that were used in some capacity by the U.S. during World War I. From top to bottom: Springfield Trapdoor, Krag-Jorgenson, Ross Mk II*** and an American-made M1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle.

But this was not a painless or fast process, and between military and bureaucratic tangles along with serious parts interchangeability issues, the first production rifles didn’t start rolling off the line until September – approximately five months after both the decision was made to adopt it and the official US entry into the war. While the fielding of the M1917 is rightly regarded as an impressive industrial feat by the three commercial factories tasked with its production (indeed more M1917s saw field service than M1903s), the fact remained that in the meantime more rifles were still desperately needed to train recruits, guard stateside infrastructure and even deploy overseas.

“Very serviceable weapons, although not of the present standard model for the United States Army”

The first and most obvious choice to supplement the shortfall of “modern” rifles was the Krag-Jorgenson pattern of rifles, produced between 1894 and 1903 by Springfield Armory. While not quite as excellent as the M1903 that replaced them (the Krag lacks a charger loading system, utilizes a ballistically inferior cartridge and is overall longer), they were still very suitable weapons for use by an early 20th century military, as they fit the mold of small-bore and smokeless powder that had become the practical requirement.

After the adoption of the M1903s, Krag rifles remained the primary arm of many state military units as the M1903s slowly trickled out to the entire force. In addition, many were disbursed to various organizations that had a need for a recently obsolete military rifle for marksmanship training, drill practice or ceremonial use. A majority, however, were simply recalled to and stored in government arsenals awaiting either future use or disposition.  

Men of the New York Guard standing at attention with their Krag-Jorgenson rifles.

In a May 17, 1917, memorandum from the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, they report that, “there are in in the possession of Educational Institutions 44,708 Krags and in the possession of Rifle Clubs 7,421." Because the shortage of rifles was apparent early on, Brig. Gen. Crozier stated that even though “it is not necessary that troops shall go into campaign armed with the [Krag] rifle, it is possible that some of these rifles may be required for drill and target practice," and he recommended that the issue of Krag rifles to groups “other than federal forces be suspended." Almost certainly acting under this advisement, the Secretary of War cut off rifle clubs, schools and colleges in an order dated May 9, 1917.

One would think that the rifles held by the federal government would be the easiest to put into immediate service, since they just needed to be brought out of storage – yet they weren’t always in “fighting ready” condition. In the same May 17 memorandum, the Ordnance Department reported that, “There are on hand approximately 210,000 Krag rifles and carbines, of which 102,000 are serviceable," and that, “The unserviceable guns and ammunition require overhauling and putting in shape." 

A comparison between the four rifles' actions.

A rapid series of messages back and forth between the Ordnance Office, and the commanders of both Springfield Armory and Watervliet Arsenal details some of this process. In the correspondence, the three parties work out the particulars of sending some 88,952 unserviceable Krag rifles and carbines, along with Springfield’s supply of spare parts, to Watervliet for overhaul. This included not only the M1898 rifles, but also approximately 2,500 M1892 and M1896 rifles as well as "bayonets and appendages."

As discussed above, and as envisioned by Ordnance officials at the time, the Krag saw heavy use training the ever-growing body of American fighting men as they prepared to deploy to Europe. The broader population had become aware of the rifle shortage, however, and many wrote to their elected officials to express their concern that their sons might be forced to drill with broomsticks or wooden rifles. The Krag was often used to allay these fears, with Brig. Gen. Crozier pointing out to one worried mother that, "There have been for some time at each cantonment of the National Army 55,000 Krag Jorgenson rifles for training; these were soon after their supply followed by an additional 2,000 of these rifles, which are very serviceable weapons, although not of the present standard model for the United States Army."

Krag rifles being carried by men of the American Expeditionary Force during World War I.

Some Krags did see limited service overseas during the war, with at least the 14th United States Engineers carrying them all the way into France. By July 1918 however, they had been switched out for M1903 rifles and the II Corps Ordnance Officer reported disbursing 1,157 M1903s in exchange for at least 972 Krag rifles. The stated reason for the switch was to ensure ammunition standardization in whatever area the unit was assigned to.

“When will they be put on Flintlocks”?

Even older US military rifles were brought back into service to help alleviate the acute shortage of functional weaponry. On Aug. 23, 1917, an officer from the Small Arms Division of the Ordnance Department instructed the commanding officer of the Rock Island Arsenal to "put into good condition" the 2,927 unserviceable Trapdoor Springfield rifles on hand at the arsenal. This action, along with the work on Krag rifles and carbines, earned the scorn of some of the workers – as reflected in one anonymous complaint written to U.S. Senator G.M. Hitchcock and forwarded to the Chief of Ordnance:

Dear Sir:

Of my own personal knowledge I know that there is a force of men at work at R. I. A. on worn-out Krag-Jorgenson rifles used in the Philippine campaign of ’99 and 1900 – also another force on caliber .45 Springfields discarded at that time.

It’s a standing joke among these employees as to when they will be put on Flintlocks.

Now I don’t know if this will put me in jail, but I think it should be asked of Mr. Baker [the Secretary of War] if this can in any way assist in arming our men to defeat the Huns.

Despite this anonymous worker’s skepticism about the usefulness of Trapdoors to the war effort, they were actually in high demand by a number of states which wanted rifles for stateside security use. New York in particular, while angling to acquire more modern arms from Canadian sources, articulated a need to guard "lines of transportation and communication over which are sent Federal Supplies" and that the "Prospect of [a] shipping strike on water front N.Y. makes [the shortage of rifles] serious." Brig. Gen. Crozier, somewhat tersely, reminded the writer that "the governor of the State of New York was authorized to requisition guns from educational institutions and rifles clubs of New York," and that he had not drawn all that he was able.

The muzzles of the four rifles compared. From left to right: Springfield Trapdoor, Krag-Jorgenson, Ross Mk II*** and an American-made M1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle.

Additionally, he stated that the governor was issued 500 Trapdoor Springfields on Aug. 11, 1917, and that, "There are on hand, not already allotted to state organizations, 7,979 rifles of caliber .45. The demand is very heavy for this character of equipment for use of home guard organizations; about 30 states have not as yet been supplied, and no more rifles can properly be issued to this state. The former Adjutant General was fully advised as to this."

So even though the Trapdoor was thoroughly out of modern military fashion by 1917, being not only a single-shot breechloader, but also blackpowder and large bore; thousands of them still played a role in the process of getting American fighting men and their equipment safely across the country and loaded onto ships bound for France.

“War Department has no objection to State of New York purchasing rifles from Dominion Government”

While Trapdoors were useful in certain roles, there still existed a stateside need for “modern” rifles more akin to the M1903 and M1917 rifles that were to be used against the Hun (and the RIA workers were, after all, not going to be tasked with refurbishing flintlocks). As mentioned above, New York was especially interested in obtaining additional rifles, particularly since its harbors were a key point of embarkation. Fortunately, America’s neighbor to the north had a number of older pattern Ross Rifles that they were willing to sell across the border to help Uncle Sam.

A closer look at the features of the action on the Ross Mk II*** rifle.

These took the form of Ross Mk II*** rifles, also known as the Model 1905. Featuring a straight-pull action, the Ross fires the .303 British cartridge from an internal magazine. While the later Ross Rifles were charger fed, the Mk II*** featured a follower depressing lever on the side of the rifle that allows the user to “dump” the cartridges into the rifle, instead of inserting them singly. Even though the Mk II*** was already obsolete by Canadian standards, Ross Rifles as a species also ran into problems in the harsh fighting conditions of the trenches. This, combined with tight tolerances better suited for a target rifle and loose British ammunition tolerances, resulted in a majority of Ross Rifles being withdrawn from frontline service in Europe and replaced by the Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield.

Despite these issues, the rifles were certainly suitable for stateside use, and more importantly, were actually available for transfer south in September 1917. New York was so eager to get their hands on these rifles that they actually started negotiations directly with Canada and secured the ability to purchase 15,000 Ross Rifles and ammunition for them, with the purchase price recorded as being $12.50 for the rifle, bayonet and scabbard. Their plans hit a snag however, as the rifles would be subject to an import duty of 35 percent, making a relatively good deal suddenly less appealing.

Men of the New York Guard armed with Ross Rifles. 

New York requested either an exemption to the tax, or reimbursement for the fee through the federal government. Instead, Brig. Gen. Crozier informed the Adjutant General for New York that he was already in talks with the Canadians for rifles, and that he would be able to sell some quantity of the procured rifles to the state. In the end, the ordnance department was able to procure some 20,000 Ross Rifles for use, with 10,000 of them going to New York and the difference being used for training troops in federal service.

The rifles acquired under this contract are identified by a “U.S.” stamping on the underside of the wrist, and “flaming bomb” stamps in the wood both fore and aft of the trigger guard and magazine assembly. Additionally, a new inventory or serial number was also added to the underside of the wrist. This broke from the Canadian practice of marking model, serial number, and unit assignment on the right side of the buttstock, and many of the rifles feature multiple struck through markings denoting the rifle changing hands.

New York Guard markings painted over older Canadian service stamps on a Ross Mk II*** rifle.

The rifles that made it to New York primarily found themselves in the hands of the New York Guard (not to be confused with the New York National Guard). Since the New York Guard was a purely state organization, it was not subject to being called into federal service and was used by the state for protecting infrastructure and other critical internal security roles. As the pictured rifle and period unit photograph shows, rifles distributed to the NYG often received painted on unit markings done right over top of the original Canadian stampings.

“The rifle will be known as the Russian 3 Line Rifle”

While the government looked across its northern border for the Ross rifle, they didn’t have to look nearly as far for another foreign service rifle to supplement their supply of rifles. That is because two U.S. firearm makers – the New Remington Rifle Company in Bridgeport, Conn., and New England Westinghouse in East Springfield, Mass. – had been hard at work producing Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifles. Both of the companies were subsidiary organizations to their more famous parent companies, and had been designed almost exclusively to handle the massive Russian contracts.

On June 6, 1917, the vice president of Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company wrote to the Ordnance Department with a proposal. The company had "been successful in adapting the Russian type of military rifle to the use of U.S. ammunition, with very slight changes." All of the existing forgings could be used, with the goal to "develop a military rifle of about the same length as the Springfield rifle and one which [the company] experts feel could in an emergency be usefully employed by our own troops." Ten days later, a polite but lukewarm response was composed by a major from the Small Arms Division, stating that "it is not deemed advisable to have a third model of rifle in the service, at the present time," although he did suggest that the rifle could be sent to Springfield Armory for further evaluation.

A left-side view of a New England Westinghouse manufactured Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle, which was commonly referred to as the "Russian rifle."  

In the closing days of 1917, however, the War Department circled back to the idea of using the Russian rifles – albeit in their original caliber of 7.62x54 mm R. The new Soviet government had entered into an armistice with the Central Powers on Dec. 15, 1917, and began formal peace negotiations on December 22 at Brest-Litovsk in Ukraine. It was likely at this point that American War Department and Ordnance officials felt safe in assuming that the new Russian government’s demand (and willingness to pay) for the rifles would be greatly reduced as they exited the war and turned their attentions inward.

The loss of this contract would economically harm the companies of course, as they had been created almost exclusively to handle the Russian contracts. The U.S. decision to order Russian rifles has sometimes been framed solely as a “too big to fail” bail out of sorts, designed to prop up floundering US companies. However, primary source documents from the era reveal a bit more nuance and show that there were serious war material production concerns at stake as well. The New England Westinghouse Contract is particularly interesting, because the ultimate plan was to convert the factory over for the production of 15,000 heavy machine guns — something indispensable on the modern battlefield. 

Men of the U.S. Guards armed with Model 1891 rifles.

In order to, "insure production it was found necessary to provide means of preserving the organization of [N.E.W.] until such a time as the manufacture of the machine guns could be started." As one could imagine, the loss of skilled laborers, managers and inspectors would have an extremely harmful effect on the ability of the company to transition over to an entirely new set of weapons. While the companies certainly benefited from government picking up their contract for Russian rifles, the government war effort was at least an equal beneficiary.

Losing no further time, the Secretary of War placed an order with the New England Westinghouse Company of Springfield Massachusetts on Dec. 29, 1917, for "the manufacture of 200,000 Russian rifles on the basis of cost without profit to [the] company," which equated a contract price of $15 per rifle. Hedging their bets a little bit, it was "stated that an option was given to the Russian Government until May 1, 1918, to purchase such Russian rifles as [produced by N.E.W.]." The plan was that the company would continue manufacturing the Russian rifles, and the government would pay New England Westinghouse $600,000 per-month until May 1918, at which time $3 million would be expended and the machine gun production lines were scheduled to be operational.

A document comparing production numbers of the M1903, M1917 and M1891 rifles from their various manufacturers. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

The New Remington Rifle Company of Bridgeport, Conn., wasn’t far behind, with the Acting Chief of Ordnance placing an order on Jan. 7, 1918 for 78,950 already produced rifles. The cost would be set at $30 per rifle, for a total contract price of "$2,368,500 to be paid […] upon delivery and acceptance of said rifles." Remington did continue to make rifles for the Russian government as well, but downward adjustments to the contract by the Russians caused Remington to reduce the number of men on the job. As in the case of New England Westinghouse, the purchases made by the U.S. government appear to have been made to allow the company "to keep a substantial portion of its organization together until it can be gradually diverted from work on the Russian rifles to work on the United States Government’s orders."

Regarding nomenclature, there seems to have been some attempt by the Ordnance Department to give the M1891 in U.S. service the name “Russian 3 Line Rifle,” although in the vast majority of official correspondence they are simply referred to as “Russian rifles." When it comes to weapons produced primarily for U.S. service, you perhaps would think that rifles of the same type would have the same inspection process when it came time to certifying their suitability for use. This was not the case with the Russian rifles.

A closer look at the receiver markings of a Westinghouse manufactured M1891 rifle.

In general, Remington took a relatively minimalist approach and usually chose to simply stamp a flaming ordnance bomb and maybe an eagle head over “U.S.” on the bottom of the stock, just forward of the magazine. The inspection team at New England Westinghouse, on the other hand, must have decided to put their inspectors to work, as the rifles produced during this contract run are covered by a bevy of eagle head stampings on both the wood and the metal.

Documents drafted shortly after the war indicate that many thousands of these rifles were shipped across the United States for use as training weapons and stateside guard duty, with 12,954 being issued to the National Guard, 41,705 to various Home Guard organizations and approximately 25,000 to the U.S. Guards (a Federal military internal security organization composed of men aged between 31 and 40). On Governor’s Island in the New York Harbor for instance, the 300 men of the 9th U.S. Guards stationed at that post were armed exclusively with “266 Russian type rifles.” Post-war, Camp Logan, Texas, reported it had “532 Rifles, Russian”, along with an equal number of M1898 Krags that it wanted to divest itself of.

An eagle head inspection stamp in the wood of the Westinghouse manufactured M1891.

The largest number of Russian rifles were shipped to schools and colleges with programs of military instruction. Many of these had been forced to give up their Krags or other weapons during the early days following the U.S. entry into the war, and would likely have welcomed brand new (although non-standard) firearms into their arms rooms. Student Army Training Corps (S.A.T.C.) detachments received a staggering 109,700 rifles, while Reserve Officer Training Corps (R.O.T.C.) programs received 5,597.

That’s not to say they were always received with open arms however, and the Commanding Officer of the 5th Battalion, U.S. Guards stationed at Fort Robinson, Neb., had some critiques:

Subject: Russian Rifles

Stating a few apparent defects in the construction of Russian rifle, due perhaps to lack of knowledge of its nomenclature:

Can be safety locked only by pulling back knob of cocking piece with fingers and turning it to the left which makes it impossible to pull trigger or open chamber.

Examination has failed to reveal a cut off.

Apparently there is no provision for stacking arms.

Sailors from the U.S.S. Olympia's shore party armed with M1891 rifles during the U.S. intervention in the Russian civil war in September 1918.

Despite its inferiority to the M1903 and M1917, the Russian rifles did actually see combat service with the United States military. A large portion of the U.S. soldiers and sailors tasked with the controversial intervention in the Russian Civil War were armed with American made Mosin-Nagants, something that undoubtedly simplified logistics when it came to spare parts and ammunition. Those rifles didn’t sail home with the troops in June 1919, however, as a telegram from Brig. Gen. Wilds P. Richardson, the man tasked with organizing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Russia, reported that the Russian rifles had been turned over to the British by the departing “Polar Bear” personnel.

All Pulling for Victory

Although not designed as a military rifle like the others, an honorable mention should also go to the 1,800 Winchester Model 1894 lever action rifles chambered in .30 W.C.F. that were put into service in the Pacific Northwest guarding the pine forests. These so called “Spruce Guns” were used by the U.S. Army Signal Corps to secure this critical national resource from possible work stoppages or sabotage.

Although the vast majority of the non-standard rifles detailed above did not see overseas service, they did free up a staggering number of M1903s and M1917s for service abroad. They further provided security for the home front, not only guarding physical places and things, but also providing peace of mind to a nation newly at war. While they may not be enshrined in small town statues or immortalized in film being held by the square-jawed doughboy, they allowed the United States to quickly mass critical resources overseas and help bring about the end of World War I.

A special thanks is owed to Archival Research Group for providing high quality scans of the primary source documents used to write this article.