Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
Huck Riley said
Here’s my 66 that had the thong on the ring. There is not wear in the nickel from the ring so I think I’ll put it back on.
That is a fine looking ’66 SRC. With no sign of any nicks from the ring, I can see why you thought that thong had been on there since the very beginning.
Offline
Thanks. Warehouse 83, shipped 98. A gift from a client and friend that I did some pro bono work for. A dad bought it for his son in SLC and his son gave it to his childhood friend who gave it to me. It’s full nickel. The nickel is nice on the receiver but rougher on the barrel, magazine, etc. Wood is a little rough by the butt plate. Bore is nice. You can tell some boys used it. LOL!
Huck Riley said Nobody ever said Winchester put them on the civilian market guns to persuade the military to buy some.
Bill Hockett said
The ring was added to carbines to make them suitable for U.S. military contracts.
Nobody? Seems to me verification of that proposition is where the burden of proof should fall. No goal-post moved that I can see.
Huck Riley said Do you have records showing cowboys complaining; writing Winchester and saying “Hey, take these stupid, noisy things off the gun!”
The many guns that have had their rings removed (which took some effort–they couldn’t simply be unscrewed) is testimony as valid as records.
clarence said
Bill Hockett said
The ring was added to carbines to make them suitable for U.S. military contracts.Nobody? Seems to me verification of that proposition is where the burden of proof should fall. No goal-post moved that I can see.
Verification of that proposition is found in the thousands upon thousands of those guns shipped to fulfill both foreign and U.S. military contracts, Winchester and Springfield and etc., many of which were cited to you. Rings were obviously wanted by the military. And please remember that word “verification” and “burden” in my next post below.
And what make you think they were originally civilian market guns? If you crank out a bunch of material hoping for a military contract that doesn’t come through, companies routinely sell the material on the civilian market.
clarence said
The many guns that have had their rings removed (which took some effort–they couldn’t simply be unscrewed) is testimony as valid as records.
Please accept the burden of proving this with verification at least as good as that which you seem to demand whilst placing the burden on others. Have you a survey? And what do you mean by “many”. Sounds pretty subjective to me. Is “many” more or less than all the military sales of carbines of many makes and models which had rings on them. Or weren’t those rings mil spec and all those companies put them on because, well, they were stupid?
Huck Riley said Verification of that proposition is found in the thousands upon thousands of those guns shipped to fulfill both foreign and U.S. military contracts, Winchester and Springfield and etc., many of which were cited to you.
The original assertion I had disputed pertained to US, not foreign, military contracts. Which of those US military contracts specified the inclusion of a saddle ring? I cited no military contracts I can find in my previous posts. Example?
Huck Riley said
Is “many” more or less than all the military sales of carbines of many makes and models which had rings on them.
In the foreign sales summary you provided, I count a total of 10,000 SRCs, vs about 100,000 rifles. These were emergency, off the shelf, war-time procurements, comparable to the emergency in Britain during WWII when Americans sent the improvident Brits all sorts of civilian sporting arms; they accepted them, but is it reasonable to assume these were the guns they would have preferred, had the circumstances been different?
clarence said
Huck Riley said Verification of that proposition is found in the thousands upon thousands of those guns shipped to fulfill both foreign and U.S. military contracts, Winchester and Springfield and etc., many of which were cited to you.
The original assertion I had disputed pertained to US, not foreign, military contracts. Which of those US military contracts specified the inclusion of a saddle ring? I cited no military contracts I can find in my previous posts. Example?
I don’t recall you specifying US, not foreign military contracts. Regardless, even if that is what you meant, neither I, nor anyone else so limited ourselves in proving the error of your “thought” process.
There were no US military contracts for the 66 or 73 that we are discussing here. Saddle rings (misnomer or not) ARE INDEED required by military contracts, both foreign and domestic. Witness all the other non-Winchester military carbines. Doh! So why, pray tell, would they not be anticipated by Winchester? There are barrels on every other carbine that any military ordered, both foreign and domestic, of any manufacture, be it Winchester, Springfield or etc. Same with stocks. Same with sights. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Or would you demand proof these things were in the contract?
Or are you now going to say the military does not modify contracts (or have any mil specs), and the US military accepted all those other carbines with rings simply because, well, they didn’t want to bother the manufacturer with removing the stupid things that nobody wants?
You are right, Winchester is wrong, and so are all the other manufacturers who put them on. Shame on Winchester for not taking them off when selling to cowboys, even though thousands of them were going to contracted, mil spec military use overseas, and proving themselves in ways that dinosaurs at the War Department couldn’t figure. All while those same dinosaurs didn’t like the 66, they sure did like saddle rings. Hmmm.
This all started out because you, in your subjective opinion, think saddle rings are stupid. So, after defeating your argument at every single turn, and having you continue to turn, until you find yourself (and I following you) in a circle that is as stupid as you would find the ring, I cede the field to you. I shall place a leather strip between you and I; you are wearing away my finish.
Huck Riley said
Or are you now going to say the military does not modify contracts (or have any mil specs), and the US military accepted all those other carbines with rings simply because, well, they didn’t want to bother the manufacturer with removing the stupid things that nobody wants?
What other “carbines with rings” are you saying the US military “accepted”? Only ones in regular service were manufactured by US armories, not commercial manufacturers.
Huck Riley said
Shame on Winchester for not taking them off when selling to cowboys, even though thousands of them were going to contracted, mil spec military use overseas, and proving themselves in ways that dinosaurs at the War Department couldn’t figure.
Purchases by foreign govt’s in wartime emergencies (I’m referring to those you cited) are not in the category of contracts built to “mil spec”; such purchases are a case of taking what can be procured in the shortest possible time, with the usual mil spec standards suspended.
FWIW about saddle rings and the military:
In a personal letter to me by Eugene Myszkowski, author of the book, the Remington-Lee Rifle, we discussed my Chinese contract saddle ring carbine, he refers to it as having the saddle ring and saddle ring bar for the cavalry sling.
Also, in the book, Lever Action Magazine Rifles, all of the carbines with this feature, be they Burgess or Whitney Kennedy, are referred to as military carbines.
Hope this helps.
James
1 Guest(s)
