World War One Rifle Question - Page 2

SigP6Carry · September 19, 2009, 01:58 PM

well, you can always expect a difference from firearms assembled during peace-time compared to firearms built specifically for an on going conflict. Even if it's not a "last ditch" rifle. Generally, during war time, manufacturers have to up their quota for the government and won't produce weapons of quite the same caliber as peace-time. This is true of any military items. If Mauser was contracted to arm a standing military in peace time, they'd have to produce... say 200,000 rifles in a couple of years. But, then war breaks out and the nation needs more rifles to arm a growing military. Mauser would then have to produce another 300,000 rifles to arm new recruits in a matter of months, and the quality will suffer, but not by a ton. Last Ditch is where it gets down to "we have to arm EVERYSINGLE CITIZEN!" and they're running out of production members and materials, then the quality takes a pretty big dip.

This is going to be evident in any military and any weapon that you look into. Generally speaking: peace-time rifles will be better built.

rbb50 · September 19, 2009, 03:43 PM

I believe you are right and when I go looking for a Mil rifle I do a lot of research just like that to find out exaclty when they were made.

An obvious case is the Ariska mod99s I have of which were made before the war started compared to ones made during or at the end of the war that were known to have a lot of dangerous defects only because production was speeded up so fast.

Not sure how that went but I can just imagine those japanese being told to speed up production with some workers being taken out back and shot for not meeting quotas

That would sure affect production standards over there and in the US I bet they had to meet a quota also where some standards suffered as a way to keep up.

Thing like, "But these recievers didn't get heat treated yet"?? with someone telling them put those damn things in the cart so our department can make the quota this week.

TEDDY · September 19, 2009, 06:09 PM

remember also that german WW1 rifles were used in WW2 and got alot of use.
there are no junk rifle issued to soldiers by any country. it seems for americans every thing is junk.the jap middle to end rifles were substitute standard as was out springfield with stamped trigger guard magazine.I had one traner the bore was from both ends and just barely met in center.the other was cast steel receiver with bolt locking into barrel.I have 5 arasakas in 7.7 and two in 6.5.couple have guards on front sight and couple dont.I would fire and do all.I know of no bad guns by any country except last of germany in WW2.I was in WW2 and was born in 1924.so I am aware of some. I had a ww1 mouser before ww2. I gave a dollar for it.guns were cheap lugers $20 in 1946 to 1950.smiths and colts were not common H&R and Ivers were.just because they are not up to your standards does not mean they are junk.I have most military arms or have had them.
the 1917 was used because we had nothing no MGs no rifles no army,no planes and were ill prepared most troops used 1917s.and we used french and british MG.and french planes.

rbb50 · September 19, 2009, 06:29 PM

Sometimes I do wish I was born about 10 years earlier so I could have got some of those good deals right after WW2 in the fifties

Some buy them for the collector value but I always look at them as a new project to keep me busy with the hobby

This was the last Arasaka project I took on and it came out so nice I get a lot of compliments at the range on it.

I know some collectors would say I ruined that rifle

All I know it will shoot exactly where I want it to as in the example where I tried to get 4 shots lined up right across the bulls-eye at 100 yards

September 19, 2009, 01:58 PM	#26
SigP6Carry Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2009 Posts: 1,086	well, you can always expect a difference from firearms assembled during peace-time compared to firearms built specifically for an on going conflict. Even if it's not a "last ditch" rifle. Generally, during war time, manufacturers have to up their quota for the government and won't produce weapons of quite the same caliber as peace-time. This is true of any military items. If Mauser was contracted to arm a standing military in peace time, they'd have to produce... say 200,000 rifles in a couple of years. But, then war breaks out and the nation needs more rifles to arm a growing military. Mauser would then have to produce another 300,000 rifles to arm new recruits in a matter of months, and the quality will suffer, but not by a ton. Last Ditch is where it gets down to "we have to arm EVERYSINGLE CITIZEN!" and they're running out of production members and materials, then the quality takes a pretty big dip. This is going to be evident in any military and any weapon that you look into. Generally speaking: peace-time rifles will be better built. __________________ -liberal gun nut = exception to the rule- -1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes- -Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-

September 19, 2009, 06:09 PM	#28
TEDDY Junior member Join Date: December 10, 2006 Location: MANNING SC Posts: 837	last ditch???? remember also that german WW1 rifles were used in WW2 and got alot of use. there are no junk rifle issued to soldiers by any country. it seems for americans every thing is junk.the jap middle to end rifles were substitute standard as was out springfield with stamped trigger guard magazine.I had one traner the bore was from both ends and just barely met in center.the other was cast steel receiver with bolt locking into barrel.I have 5 arasakas in 7.7 and two in 6.5.couple have guards on front sight and couple dont.I would fire and do all.I know of no bad guns by any country except last of germany in WW2.I was in WW2 and was born in 1924.so I am aware of some. I had a ww1 mouser before ww2. I gave a dollar for it.guns were cheap lugers $20 in 1946 to 1950.smiths and colts were not common H&R and Ivers were.just because they are not up to your standards does not mean they are junk.I have most military arms or have had them. the 1917 was used because we had nothing no MGs no rifles no army,no planes and were ill prepared most troops used 1917s.and we used french and british MG.and french planes.

September 19, 2009, 03:43 PM	#27
rbb50 Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2008 Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas Posts: 169	I believe you are right and when I go looking for a Mil rifle I do a lot of research just like that to find out exaclty when they were made. An obvious case is the Ariska mod99s I have of which were made before the war started compared to ones made during or at the end of the war that were known to have a lot of dangerous defects only because production was speeded up so fast. Not sure how that went but I can just imagine those japanese being told to speed up production with some workers being taken out back and shot for not meeting quotas That would sure affect production standards over there and in the US I bet they had to meet a quota also where some standards suffered as a way to keep up. Thing like, "But these recievers didn't get heat treated yet"?? with someone telling them put those damn things in the cart so our department can make the quota this week.

September 19, 2009, 06:29 PM	#29
rbb50 Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2008 Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas Posts: 169	Sometimes I do wish I was born about 10 years earlier so I could have got some of those good deals right after WW2 in the fifties Some buy them for the collector value but I always look at them as a new project to keep me busy with the hobby This was the last Arasaka project I took on and it came out so nice I get a lot of compliments at the range on it. I know some collectors would say I ruined that rifle All I know it will shoot exactly where I want it to as in the example where I tried to get 4 shots lined up right across the bulls-eye at 100 yards