Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,256
How Come M1-Type Rifles Cost so Much?
- Thread starter Swifty Morgan
- Start date
- Status
This is going to be way off topic, but you know, there is never enough money to do a job properly, never enough time, never enough everything. So if the Navy underfunded a torpedo development program, not only does underfunding happen all the time, it remains the responsibility of the funding agency.
These are some articles on this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_14_torpedo
http://www.historynet.com/us-torpedo-troubles-during-world-war-ii.htm
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...kwood-the-mark-14-and-the-bureau-of-ordnance/
If you examine the provided links, the stories tell you something about the behaviors of large organizations. They never accept responsibility for their failures. They are incapable of admitting fault. Change only comes through external stimuli. In this case, the Chief of the Bureau of Naval Ordnance was perfectly willing to let the Japanese sink the American submarine fleet, sweep the Pacific clean of American surface ships, allow Japan to win the war in the CBI, invade California, have the US lose the Pacific war, rather than admit that a Bureau of Naval Ordnance torpedo was a POS. Luckily, there were some people above the BuOrd who did not BuOrd looked stupid, they wanted to win the war, and they forced the BuOrd to fix their torpedo. It would not have happened without pressure from above, you can only have a Master/Slave relationship with psychopaths and narcissists. Notice, it was the submarine fleet that "found" the failures. They finally had the resources to run tests in Australia. How did the Bureau of Naval Ordnance react?
From Mark XIV Torpedo Case Study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a550699.pdf
In Western Australia, however, Rear Admiral Charles Lockwood took his submarine captains’ complaints seriously. On June 20, 1942, outside the harbor in King George Sound, in southwest Australia, RADM Lockwood test fired torpedoes against moored fishing nets. Although more than 800 torpedoes had been fired in combat, this was the first controlled test since1926. The firing proved to Lockwood’s own satisfaction that the Mark XIV was running on average 11 feet deeper than set. Washington ridiculed the test. The immediate reaction from the Bureau of Ordnance was that you did not have the torpedoes trimmed right. The weight distribution wasn’t right.....
This is called denial, what the Bureau of Naval Ordnance did, was denial. They created their own reality around themselves, everything that supported their glorious self image of themselves was accepted, and regardless of objective facts, evidence, data, everything else was rejected. And they went to great lengths to preserve their perception of self perfection. This behavior is true of all large organizations and is why they are incapable of self investigation. They always prove themselves perfect.
Also, luckily for the United States, the Japanese leadership was even more psychopathic than ours, and the Germans, well Adolf was a totally incompetent psychopath. In a way, he was our Ace in the Hole. I am glad we did not go to war with Russia after WW2, because even though Stalin was paranoid, he was a very competent paranoid. He also shot non performers. He had over 200 Admirals and Generals shot for various reasons, mostly for losing. Had they been Russian, I am pretty sure those peevish careerist US Admirals responsible for covering up the torpedo problems would have ended up in front of a Soviet firing squad. Stalin was not about letting fools put his life in jeopardy. A war against the USSR might not have gone as easily as they had against Italy, Japan, and Germany.
Last edited:
forward observer
Member
Well, here's one that most might find a bit pricey: It's Springfield's serial number 1,000,000 manufactured in 1942, but presented to John C. Garand upon his retirement in 1953. low estimate $200,000---high estimate $375,000.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...ield-armory-john-garand-presentation-m1garand
https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...ield-armory-john-garand-presentation-m1garand
CapnMac
Member
LoL.
I was condensing the five books I currently have, and the reams of stuff I collected on this, as it wa a case study for one of my theses.
@Slamfire does a good job of collecting some of the good, terse, info out there.
We humans have this craving for simplicity, so we cleave to simple answers, often to our detriment. Like wanting a simple answers for why old service rifles are expensive. Many factors enter into the answer for that question. Most have been touched upon above.
Here's a thought to consider; note the number of springs in a Garand.
I have been wanting to research the Iowa Turret explosion, just have to get a couple of books through interlibrary loan. You know the story, turret blows up, Navy claims it did nothing wrong and blamed the victims. Sound familiar?, looks like a pattern? But I have too many books to read right now. Going through a good book on the War of 1812, can't wait to see who wins. And then I have a book of first hand accounts of the Crusades.
CoalTrain49
Member
Back in the 60's surplus rifles were everywhere. K 98's, Enfields, Springfields, you name it. My dad bought an Enfield for less than $20 from an ad in a magazine. Came in the mail packed in cosmoline and it took forever to clean it up. He didn't have a lot of money so he bought the cheapest surplus bolt rifle he could find to hunt with. A lot of people hunted with surplus rifles. I remember seeing several in our deer camps when we hunted with friends.
One friend of mine showed up with a model 600 Remington one year and that was pretty special. We didn't have any new rifles. I bought my first new rifle when I was 20.
I remember seeing barrels full of Lee Enfields at a K Mart. Some had receiver dates from WW1. I was broke and a $12.00 rifle was not cheap. Wish I could go back and buy a couple of those barrels. I would do it by buying krugerrands in the early 1970's, just when it became legal to own gold again, and then figuring out how to convert that to 1960's cash.
A bud of mine, his Dad was smart. He saw an ad in a 1970's National Geographic, krugerrands for $35.00. Dad bought $30,000 worth of krugerrands, around 870 coins, at $35.00 each. They are now going for $1300 to $1500 each. Too bad my time machine is broke.
CapnMac
Member
Wow, $50 Lahti--there's some time machine bait.
Wonder if it would break the space-time continum if you took back some M-249 and got them NFA registered . . . ? [
]
Wonder if it would break the space-time continum if you took back some M-249 and got them NFA registered . . . ? [
]
One reason they cost so much is because they are by a generation that made weapons here
in America by American owned companies for American Forces.
Can't say that for many things now.
American made, used to mean so much more.
Now assembled in America is as close as some get.
in America by American owned companies for American Forces.
Can't say that for many things now.
American made, used to mean so much more.
Now assembled in America is as close as some get.
michaelc246
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2017
- Messages
- 27
Speedo66
Member
Why do something like actual shooting that requires you to take your face out of a screen?
I remember the ' cheap' surplus rifles in card board barrels at Woolworths Variety stores sporting goods department. Carbines were $89 and Garands were $99 if I remember correctly. This was probably 1974 ish. They'd let us 14yr olds pull them out and look at them - go figure. I think back on how cheap they appeared in today's world but that was 40 YEARS AGO. If money doubles every 10 years $100 / 40 years ago would be $1600 today. May be they weren't so cheap and that's why we all didn't buy a dozen.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
FN will sell you a semi-auto M249 now, Cap'n, but they aint cheap!Wow, $50 Lahti--there's some time machine bait.
Wonder if it would break the space-time continum if you took back some M-249 and got them NFA registered . . . ? [
On the other hand, some of the young fellas I work with know a thing or two about Garands, Carbines and the like thanks to WW2 video games like Call of Duty. Indeed, even the reloading procdures, magazines, and ammunition are accurately depicted.
Flatbush Harry
Member
M1 Garands and M1As/M14s cost so much for the same reason divorces cost so much...because they're worth it!
(In the interests of full disclosure, I'm still married to my first wife, with whom I've been together for 48 years but that's what my friends tell me about divorces. If you want a small fortune, start with a large one and get divorced a couple of times.)
Dave DeLaurant
Member
I remember back in the early 1980s the local Woolworths had refurbished M1 Garands and Carbines on display in the store window -- in California, no less! I think the Garands were in the sub-$500 range, but at the time that was two month's rent for an undergrad working part-time at the university library.
Last year I finally found an M1 in good condition at a price I could afford without wincing: $750. The stock was a loose-fitting beater, and the op-rod spring was in two pieces, but except for the outside of the gas tube, the mis-matched Parkerizing was in great shape and none of the metal was pitted. Got a new replacement stock and spring from Sarco for about $65 and am one happy boy.
Last year I finally found an M1 in good condition at a price I could afford without wincing: $750. The stock was a loose-fitting beater, and the op-rod spring was in two pieces, but except for the outside of the gas tube, the mis-matched Parkerizing was in great shape and none of the metal was pitted. Got a new replacement stock and spring from Sarco for about $65 and am one happy boy.
Last edited:
FlSwampRat
Member
Is it greedy to take the money someone is offering for something you own. Something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Look at the prices of cell phones, they start out crazy high and in less than a year they're precipitously lower.
Last edited:
Well, they cost so much because most were made during WWII, shipped to Europe, carried by brave men all over Europe, including in many battles, including D-Day at Omaha beach, Italy, and Germany. Then, they were stored for some 70 years, transported from storage at bases to the disposition center, cleaned, some may have had parts replaced, then stored, marketed, then shipped to buyers. Seems that they should cost about a hundred thousand dollars each! How much are they selling for???
Garandimal
member
Well...
Given an M1 Garand production cost of $85/pop in 1942?
Present value of that sum is $1,335.45
At the current $750 for a near new Service Grade?
(This one was even less a while back)
Not too bad at all.
GR
Given an M1 Garand production cost of $85/pop in 1942?
Present value of that sum is $1,335.45
At the current $750 for a near new Service Grade?
(This one was even less a while back)
Not too bad at all.
GR
P5 Guy
Member
Ah yes, dreaming of the time the Greek return Rack Grades were $295 plus shipping.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
The crazy thing about the Garand is that nearly all the complexity is driven by the need to put the piston under the barrel. Put the piston in a straight line over the barrel and you basically have the AK, which is no one's idea of an expensive gun to make.
- Status