clarence said

Saddle rings are awesome?  Can you explain their purpose?  

The ring was added to carbines to make them suitable for U.S. military contracts.   All carbines used by the U.S. Army during the frontier period up to about 1890-1900 had the ring.  Note I do not refer to it as a “saddle ring.”   I can’t find that nomenclature in any period U.S. Army documents.  The ring allowed the carbine to be carried over the left shoulder by the means of a sling.  All carbines that were purchased by the U.S. Army or made by Springfield Armory (such as the Model 1873 “trapdoor” style had the ring.   See photo below of a Texas ranger circa 1875 with a surplus Army Sharps .50-70 converted carbine using it with the sling.   The whole point was to keep the weapon with the trooper at all times.  It was not meant to be hung from the saddle.  The Army even had specific mounting and dismounting commands that moved the carbine to a position that would not hinder getting on/off the horse.  If you have ever tried to mount or dismount a horse while handling a rifle/carbine you know how tricky it can be.   Imagine doing it on rocky ground under fire.  Almost guaranteed to end up in a rodeo.

I won’t claim that Winchester or other carbines were never carried by attaching to the saddle.  It seems from period photos that many Winchester rifles and carbines were carried in scabbards in the old West.  It protects the weapon better although it does not stay with the rider.  Probably was considered adequate for civilian use.

The U.S. Army finally started issuing short carbine boots during the 1880’s and later full length scabbards.  They never totally gave up on wanting to the have the carbine attached to the trooper.  Prior to the late 1880’s U.S. Army saddles had a small socket on the right side where the barrel of the carbine went.  It didn’t support any weight, it just kept the barrel from flopping around.

Bill Hockett said

The ring was added to carbines to make them suitable for U.S. military contracts.   All carbines used by the U.S. Army during the frontier period up to about 1890-1900 had the ring.  Note I do not refer to it as a “saddle ring.”   I can’t find that nomenclature in any period U.S. Army documents.  The ring allowed the carbine to be carried over the left shoulder by the means of a sling.  All carbines that were purchased by the U.S. Army or made by Springfield Armory (such as the Model 1873 “trapdoor” style had the ring.     

This is something we (i.e., those interested in US military weapons) don’t require instruction on; the ring to which the sling was attached was called the “swivel ring” by the Army, & the bracket to which it was attached the “swivel bar.”  But Winchester adding the ring to “make them suitable for U.S. military contracts” is a claim you’ll have to document before I’m able to believe it.  If that was the company’s intention, it was a gross misjudgment of US Army small-arms doctrine, as the Army had no serious interest in repeating rifles before the trials leading to adoption of the Krag in 1892.

Huck Riley said

jwm94 said
Huck, as you would know, the Marines did improve their qual scores with the M-16, especially in prime weather conditions, however, the least little bit of wind caused scores and unit averages to plummet.  

 

James  

True.

On the one hand, I always thought that if I had the A-2 (heavier and stiffer) I would have done better than I did with the A-1.  But then I remember, that is no excuse because, on a level playing field, guys like you and Rivera, et al, still were Experts with the A-1.  Oh well, the older I get, the better I was. 

I do remember I always shot possible at 500.  It was off-hand and kneeling that got me.

I wonder how a 16 would look with a crescent butt?  No, never mind.  

C’mon – think SWISS butt  

I can attest to the fact that reading about the WWI Ross rifle saga that occurred in Canada is quite interesting, fascinating and colorful.  Rife with politics, technical aspects, emotion, etc.  Of course when it comes to performance in the field, a rifle is only as good as the ammunition provided.  During trials, the ammunition provided is controlled.  Once it’s out in the field, and ammunition is ordered from various suppliers, a great deal of variability is introduced.  I will say that sometimes, the more sloppily build (e.g. less than precise tolerances) the better a rifle will function in the field.  A rifle built to close tolerances can be a nightmare in the field.  

I assume Winchester’s contract with Russia for nearly 300,000 M1895 muskets was a big deal.  Their largest military contract order?

Bert – yes indeed, what a sprawling factory it must have been during that time.

Bert H. said
As Bill mentioned, Winchester was always looking to acquire new contracts for arms to the U.S. Government/military. 

That was also the company’s fond but fruitless hope for the original design of the 52, esp. after Ordnance cancelled further purchases of Winder muskets after WWI; which makes it all the more incomprehensible that in designing a possible trainer for Army purchase, it was made to cock on closing, opposite from the way Krags & Springfields worked.  First 52 I ever acquired was a 2nd yr slow-lock; I was incredulous that it cocked on closing, as I’d never heard that about it–alright for the Brits, but ain’t the American way.

Houze’s 52 book doesn’t mention this curious design decision at all.