The International Harvester M1 (a final synopsis) from Eagle One

The International Harvester M1 (a final synopsis)

from Eagle One

August 16, 1998

The postings earlier this month regarding the International Harvester story were not finalized and several asked for more information and background on this controversial story.

This is a condensation of postings, and email keeping within the limits of the Culver Shooting Page but is certainly not the whole story as I know it.

Those interested in this continuation should refresh their memories by rereading the August CSP postings between Dick Culver and Eagle One regarding International Harvester copied below. Dick Culver and I had some healthy and valid arguments regarding this. It was also undecided at the time on how to present this via the Culver Shooting Page until this format was agreed upon.

August 8, 1998

Culver Shooting Page posting from:

Eagle One:

Your excerpt copied below from "Re: International Harvester M1s" needs to be "hashed out" a little .

Culver excerpt:

"First of all, IHC did not manufacture their own barrels OR stocks, but USUALLY (emphasis on USUALLY) used barrels made by LMR, (you will OCCASIONALLY find a correct IHC using a Springfield barrel). The ones that I have seen using SA barrels were the very early ones when IHC was just getting started producing rifles. Some conventional wisdom says that they initially procured a bunch of SA barrels to get the production kicked off, and that would certainly make sense. Any time they ran short of barrels, they used whatever was available to maintain their production schedules. Even Springfield occasionally utilized LMR barrels when they ran short on their own production."

Eagle One's Commentary on the above paragraph:

I have never seen any evidence that IHC NEEDED SA barrels at the start of their production. RECEIVERS, yes!

One must understand that LMR started their barrel production about August, 1952, long before IHC ever produced an ACCEPTED M1 rifle for the government.

IHC production was halted for three months in the Spring of 1953 (about March - June) due to their "failure to feed" problems caused by Springfield Armory. Yes, it WAS Springfield Armory's fault that early production IHC rifles failed the acceptance tests and that the IHC production line ground to a complete halt.

It seems SA supplied the test firing fixture to IHC with the incorrect recoil springs and the IHC rifles just couldn't pass the acceptance standards. They couldn't get their rifles to feed properly. So, production was halted completely for three months. While IHC and SA scratched their heads saying "duh," HRA stepped in, analyzed the problem by taking high speed photographic pictures of the firing tests. It was determined by HRA that the test firing fixture was faulty and proved it by checking the recoil springs.

Sure enough, SA screwed it all up! Now I have claimed, WITHOUT PROOF, that I believe SA sabotaged it all for IHC. There was a lot of jealousy at SA with IHC (and HRA) making M1 rifle ("they are only tractor makers") and that SA really didn't want to see IHC succeed manufacturing the M1 rifle. How could SA supply a faulty test firing fixture after successfully building almost 4,000,000 rifles and was in the process of current M1 production?

The task was much easier for HRA who had a long history of gun making and SA probably knew they couldn't fool HRA (if they ever tried too).

Keep in mind that the above allegations are strictly mine ............

Now this gets to the issue of IHC using SA barrels and MAYBE some SA stocks early on in IHC production:

1. LMR had stockpiled thousands and thousands of barrels for IHC BEFORE IHC ever made a rifle. How could IHC be short of barrels?

1a. I think this last point should be clarified a little. Yes, IHC used a very few SA barrels very early in their production, but not because IHC was SHORT of barrels, but because SA supplied some of their receivers purchased by IHC with barrels, SA barrels. Most SA barrels seen on early IHC receivers were purchased from SA as an assembly, but not because IHC was short of barrels.

2. Since it was ASSUMED the production problems with IHC was the RECEIVER, IHC purchased SA receivers early on to keep their production schedule, and SA included some barrels with them.

3. I believe the same holds true for the stocks IHC contracted for from Overton (OR) and Hillerich & Bradsby (HR). These stocks were also produced and stockpiled by the thousands before IHC ever produced an acceptable rifle. How could IHC be short of stocks?

4. Since SA DID supply IHC and to a lesser extent, HRA, with some barrels at the END of their respective contracts (it was cheaper to buy them from SA than to instigate another "run" of barrels), how could SA be short of barrels AFTER 1952? This leads to my disagreement that SA used LMR barrels for STANDARD production rifles. It is a known fact that SA did use some LMR and an occasional HRA barrel for NM rifles, as I have a couple examples, but these are not standard production rifles.

5. LMR barrels are observed on all manufacturers of M1 Rifles but these do not necessarily imply they are ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT. Many thousands of LMR barrels were used in the rebuild process and will appear on all manufacturers of M1 rifles simply by default.

6. The key to ORIGINAL LMR barrels (and original SA barrels used by IHC) is HOW the proof punch mark was applied to the side of the barrel. Original LMR barrels used by IHC will have a punch mark immediately to the right of "LMR" whereas HRA has the punch mark immediately in the center of the loop of the "P". If these marks are not present in these locations, then the barrel is a replacement and not original to the respective rifle.

7. Coincidence could be very much evident relating to LMR and SA barrel dates for IHC rifles simply through the rebuild process, IE: a replacement barrel could, and does, easily coincide with a serial number of a rifle and it could then be assumed the barrel is original when in fact it is a replacement IF the proof punch marks are not as described above.

8. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that SA was ever short of M1 barrels after the incident of rejected steel early in 1952, at the beginning of their new M1 production, or that they used other manufacturer's barrels subsequently to the duration.

I will also agree that we may not be arguing the points above from the same evidence.

Many are quick to condemn IHC and the quality of their rifles due to the fact that several times they purchased receivers from SA because they couldn't make production schedules. Except for the late 5 million "Gap Letter" SA/IHC receivers, it was entirely the fault of Springfield Armory that IHC couldn't produce acceptable rifles early in their production.

I agree with you that IHC is a very interesting manufacturer of M1 rifles, full of interesting anomalies, and their quality was as good as any other manufacturer of the M1. Eagle One

From: Dick Culver to Eagle One, Culver Shooting Page

August 8, 1998

Responses from: Dick Culver in All CAPITALS:

DEAR EAGLE ONE,

Eagle One:

I am back again, but will keep the subject related to "Guns" etc. and not post anything political this time. This time, I AM looking for an argument!

Culver:

I DOUBT SERIOUSLY THAT YOU WILL GET AN ARGUMENT FROM ME, AS I AM ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MORE INFORMATION ON M1s OF ANY KIND, BUT MOST ESPECIALLY THE IHC VARIETY. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AN ADMIRER OF THE IHC GUNS, BUT HAVE ALWAYS FOUND IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO COME UP WITH SOLID, DOCUMENTED INFORMATION - FOR MANY YEARS THEY SEEMED TO BE THE "FORGOTTEN M1". AS A RESULT, MUCH OF MY KNOWLEDGE (OR LACK THEREOF) HAS BEEN GARNERED FROM OTHER FOLKS' RESEARCH AND BRILLIANCE (OR LACK THEREOF) ON THE SUBJECT. THEREFORE SOME OF THE OBSERVATIONS BELOW WERE SIMPLY ASSUMPTIONS THAT SEEM TO FIT THE (LITTLE) KNOWN FACTS. I OF COURSE HAVE READ (AND HOPEFULLY ABSORBED) THE WRITINGS OF DUFF, HATCHER, CANFIELD AND OTHERS, THE VAST STORE OF EXPERIENCE OF JIM MCCOLLUM (WHO IS AN ADVANCED M1 COLLECTOR, AN ARMORER, A DISTINGUISHED RIFLE SHOT AND HAS A LOG OF OVER 18,000 M1s HE HAS PERSONALLY WORKED AND RECORDED THE RESULTS). IF MAC TOLD ME THAT THE MOON WAS MADE OF BRIE INSTEAD OF GREEN

CHEESE, I'D BELIEVE HIM UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE COULD PROVE HIM WRONG WITH SOME PRETTY STRONG EVIDENCE.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, YOU SOUND LIKE YOU HAVE ACCESS TO SOME DOCUMENTATION AND FACTS THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, AND AS I SAID ABOVE, I'M ALWAYS WILLING TO LEARN.

Eagle One:

Your excerpt copied below from "Re: International Harvester M1s" needs to be "hashed out" a little .............

Culver:

PLEASE NOTE I USED "OCCASIONALLY" AND "USUALLY" A LOT AND ATTRIBUTED MUCH OF THE INFORMATION TO "CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" -

("CONVENTIONAL WISDOM" USUALLY TRANSLATES TO "SEA STORIES"). I'D SURE LIKE TO GET MY HANDS ON THE RECORDS OF IHC AND TALK TO A BUNCH OF THE OLDTIMERS WHO WERE THERE DURING THE PRODUCTION DAYS.

Eagle One:

I have never seen any evidence that IHC NEEDED SA barrels at the start of their production. RECEIVERS, yes!

One must understand that LMR started their barrel production about August, 1952, long before IHC ever produced an ACCEPTED M1 rifle for the government.

Culver:

EARMARKED STRICTLY FOR THE IHC M1s. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE LMRs WERE TRUE, BUT THE LMR BARREL PRODUCTION WAS NOT INITIALLY INITIALLY TO BE USED AS REPLACEMENT BARRELS, BUT EVENTUALLY BECAME THE PRIME SUB-CONTRACTOR TO IHC FOR THEIR RIFLE PRODUCTION.

Eagle One:

Culver:

I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF THE "H&R CONNECTION" PULLING IHCs CHESTNUTS OUT OF THE FIRE, BUT I'M WILLING TO BELIEVE IT.

Eagle One:

Culver:

YOU'VE GOTTA' REMEMBER, SPRINGFIELD HAD NO SAY IN THE MATTER OF WHO WAS SELECTED TO PRODUCE M1s. IHC WAS SELECTED TO DIVERSIFY THE LOCATION OF OUR PRODUCTION OF SERVICE RIFLES.

HAD THE ATOMIC BOMB NEVER BEEN INVENTED, IHC WOULD PROBABLY NEVER HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO PRODUCE RIFLES - BUT... ONCE THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR LOOMED ON THE HORIZON, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GOT A BIT "ANTSY" ABOUT HAVING ALL THEIR ARMS PRODUCTION CONCENTRATED WITHIN ONE DAY'S DRIVE OF EACH OTHER IN NEW ENGLAND. IHC WAS SELECTED MORE FOR THEIR LOCATION THAN THEIR EXPERTISE, AND OF COURSE SPRINGFIELD WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP GET THEM IN PRODUCTION.

IT IS POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, THAT SA DID DEVELOP A BIT OF JEALOUSY IN THE

PRODUCTION OF A RIFLE THEY CONSIDERED TO BE THEIR BABY, BUT ON THE OTHER

HAND H&R WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN LOOKED UPON FAVORABLY EITHER (AND PERHAPS

WASN'T?).

Eagle One:

The task was much easier for HRA who had a long history of gun making and SA probably knew they couldn't fool HRA (if they ever tried too).

Keep in mind that the above allegations are strictly mine ............

Now this gets to the issue of IHC using SA barrels and MAYBE some SA stocks early on in IHC production:

1. LMR had stockpiled thousands and thousands of barrels for IHC BEFORE IHC ever made a rifle. How could IHC be short of barrels?

Culver:

DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION ON THE PRIOR ACCUMULATION OF LMR BARRELS? I'M TRULY INTERESTED, NOT TRYING TO ARGUE THE POINT.

Eagle One:

1a. I think this last point should be clarified a little. Yes, IHC used a very few SA barrels very early in their production, but not because IHC was SHORT of barrels, but because SA supplied some of their receivers purchased by IHC with barrels, SA barrels. Most SA barrels seen on early IHC receivers were purchased from SA as an assembly, but not because IHC was short of barrels.

Culver:

THIS COULD CERTAINLY BE ONE EXPLANATION, AND I WOULD NOT DISPUTE A HYPOTHESIS THAT MAKES SENSE... AGAIN HOWEVER, DO YOU HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION, AS I WOULD SURE LOVE TO SEE IT. IT WOULD BE ONE LOGICAL EXPLANATION, IF IN FACT IHC HAD "BUNCHES" OF BARRELS IN STOCK. I HAVE AN "ARROWHEAD" (OBVIOUSLY A SA/IHC GUN) THAT HAS AN SA BARREL THAT I AM CONVINCED IS CORRECT FOR THE GUN, BUT AGAIN AS YOU SAY, IT COULD HAVE COME WITH THE RECEIVER.

Eagle One:

2. Since it was ASSUMED the production problems with IHC was the RECEIVER, IHC purchased SA receivers early on to keep their production schedule, and SA included some barrels with them.

Culver:

AS I SAID ABOVE, THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE ONE EXPLANATION. HOWEVER IHC BOUGHT SA RECEIVERS ON TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND ONE FINAL BATCH OF SEVERAL THOUSAND IHC RECEIVERS WERE MADE BY H&R (SUPPOSEDLY SERIAL NUMBERS 5,214,000 - 5,216,000).

Eagle One:

Culver:

I WOULD SURELY LIKE TO SEE SOME DOCUMENTATION. IF SOME (OR ALL) OF YOUR ASSERTIONS ARE TRUE, IT WOULD MAKE IT A LOT EASIER TO FILL IN THE BLANKS IN IHC HISTORY. MAC SAYS THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME EARLY IHCs CORRECT WITH SA STOCKS (USUALLY WITH THE "Serifs" ON THE CIRCLE P). AGAIN, I WOULDN'T ARGUE THE POINT, AND I'M SURE THAT IF ANY ORIGINAL IHCs DID HAVE NON-"OVERTON" OR H&B STOCKS, THEY WERE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

BYE THE BYE, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE STORY THAT THE "OR" AND "HR" STOOD FOR AN OVERTON STOCK MADE ON RICHARDSON (VERTICAL) LATHES (LIKEWISE THE HRs)? JUST LEGEND, BUT A FASCINATING ONE, EH WHAT?

Eagle One:

Culver:

YOU ARE ENTIRELY CORRECT THAT H&R DID USE SA BARRELS AT THE END OF THEIR PRODUCTION, MOST ESPECIALLY ON THE FINAL400 GUNS PRODUCED IN 1956 IN THE 6,034,330 -6,034,729 SERIAL NUMBER RANGE. I AM ALSO SURE THAT IHC ALSO DID THE SAME. AS YOU SAID, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH CHEAPER TO SIMPLY USE SA BARRELS RATHER THAN START UP THE PRODUCTION LINE AGAIN.

SPRINGFIELD DID HAVE OCCASIONAL BATCHES OF BARRELS THAT WERE REJECTED, EVEN AFTER 1952 (ALTHOUGH NOT TO THE SAME EXTENT) AND IN THE SCRAMBLE, THEY SUPPOSEDLY (OCCASIONALLY) USED LMRs (THE MOST COMMONLY AVAILABLE REPLACEMENT BARRELS) TO FILL IN AND MAINTAIN PRODUCTION... WHEN THEY WERE HAVING BARREL PRODUCTION PROBLEMS, IT IS NOT INCONCEIVABLE THAT THEY HAD STOCKED UP ON SOME LMRs IN THE EVENT OF UNFORESEEN PROBLEMS. THIS IS JUST A GUESS HOWEVER...

WHILE I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY "NM" GUNS WITH LMR OR H&R BARRELS, I WOULD CONCEDE THAT IT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE. I KNOW THAT H&R GOT THE NOD TO BUILD THE 7.62 MM BARRELS FOR THE NAVY, AND IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THEY ALSO GOT A CONTRACT TO BUILD SOME "NM" BARRELS FOR THE FINAL PRODUCTION (REBUILDS?). I OWNED AND SHOT A NATIONAL MATCH SPRINGFIELD WITH AN LMR BARREL, BUT IT WAS A REPLACEMENT AND NOT MARKED "NM" - THAT WAS PROBABLY THE MOST ACCURATE RIFLE I EVER SHOT. THE "LMRs" WERE REMARKABLE BARRELS!

Eagle One:

Culver:

THIS IS, OF COURSE, TRUE.

Eagle One:

Culver:

THIS IS AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION. I, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE SEEN "SA BARRELS" ON SPRINGFIELD M1s (ESPECIALLY M1Ds) WITH THE "P" CENTER PUNCHED IN THE CENTER OF THE LOOP. I HAD NOT HEARD OF THE PUNCH MARK TO THE RIGHT OF THE "LMR" ON IHCs, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION TO THE CONTRARY, I'M WILLING TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. MY QUESTION (AGAIN OUT OF CURIOSITY) IS WHERE SUCH DOCUMENTATION CAN BE FOUND? I'M TRULY FASCINATED!

Eagle One:

Culver:

IF YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS CORRECT, THE ABOVE OBSERVATION WOULD FOLLOW. PURELY BY CHANCE, SOME OF THE BARREL DATES COULD (WOULD?) COINCIDE WITH THE ORIGINAL RECEIVER MFG. ERA. SORTA' LIKE THE ROOM FULL OF MONKEYS WITH A ROOM FULL OF TYPEWRITERS EVENTUALLY TURNING OUT SHAKESPEARE'S WORKS! NOT TERRIBLY LIKELY, BUT SURELY POSSIBLE.

Eagle one:

Culver:

QUITE POSSIBLY NOT, BUT IF THEY HAD LAID IN A STOCK OF LMRs JUST IN CASE OF ANOTHER DISASTER, THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT ABOVE USING THEM IF THEY WERE AT HAND. DURING THE LAST DAYS OF PRODUCTION, THERE WERE MANY M1s PUT TOGETHER AT SPRINGFIELD OUT OF LEFTOVER PARTS. THE INSENSITIVE "DOLTS" DIDN'T THINK OF ANY OF US COLLECTING THE DARNED THINGS SOME 40+ YEARS LATER! HEE, HEE, HEE...

Eagle one:

I will also agree that we may not be arguing the points above from the same evidence. Many are quick to condemn IHC and the quality of their rifles due to the fact that several times they purchased receivers from SA because they couldn't make production schedules. Except for the late 5 million "Gap Letter" SA/IHC receivers, it was entirely the fault of Springfield Armory that IHC couldn't produce acceptable rifles early in their production.

Dick:

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IHC IS A VERY INTERESTING MANUFACTURER OF M1 RIFLES, FULL OF INTERESTING ANOMALIES, AND THEIR QUALITY WAS AS GOOD ASANY OTHER MANUFACTURER OF THE M1

BEST REGARDS,

DICK

Email to: Dick Culver from Eagle One

August 10,1998

I have duly noted your use of "usually" and "occasionally," - use them all the time to keep myself from getting "crunched." Some of my statements on this subject on the CSP are from observations from "hands on" experience. I don't hold a lot of faith with government documentation for I have seen flagrant errors in them. Don't forget that people wrote the files and we all make mistakes and some are very evident in "official" records. There is a fellow in Texas who knows the M1 rifles well but has a bad habit of using "never, always and not" in his writings. Bad mistake!

Government records often create more questions than answers and many times it is what they don't tell you. As you can see, I am skeptical of government documentation.

I have long said that one should "Never say never, never say always, and expect the unexpected." Good advice to myself and all others...........

With that said, the iron itself does not lie. It shows you what it is but it is up to the observer to disseminate the data. Such data interpretation is called "hard data." This is where the problem begins. Thousands of serial numbers do not an expert make. Of course, computers have helped to make the difference by extrapolating data into patterns by asking the computer the proper questions.

On to our "arguments" and I think this is a "healthy" argument and not an antagonistic one:

LMR was originally meant to be used as replacement barrels but the OCO(Office of the Chief of Ordnance) asked LMR if they would be interested in supplying barrels for two commercial contractors of the M1 (IHC and HRA). LMR jumped at the offer, added a second shift at their plant and quickly increased production to 24,000 barrels a month.

Let's look at this:

When LMR began production of their barrels in about 8-52 after testing preliminary barrels at SA in June, it coincided almost exactly with IHC's serious M1 production and the timing was right for the OC. request (not the preliminary tooling plans or contracts, etc, but when it all started to come together). LMR was making 12,000 - 13,000 per month and they did make about 500,000 barrels overall from 1952 to 1955. HRA purchased 100,000 from LMR for their own use and this is why we see them on HRA rifles.

They did not make them specifically as NM barrels and neither did HRA. SA simply used their (IHC & HRA) barrels if they gaged to NM standards and marked them themselves as they produced NM rifles.

So, with five months production ahead of them before IHC provided any acceptable rifles, that would leave about 60,000 LMR barrels without receivers, more than enough to get IHC rolling. The marking of the "P" punch mark still holds as evidence. I will grant that IHC used some SA barrels in the "Arrowhead/Postage Stamp" SA/IHC receivers very early on but it was not because IHC was short of barrels. It would seem logical that SA included some of their barrels with receivers to IHC to cover their ass in case the barrels (LMR) were faulty, only to say "see, OUR barreled receivers work!"

When IHC was shut down, LMR inventory began to build. Do I have any official evidence of this? No. Do I need it? No. Common logic prevails here. Do you think LMR stopped their barrel production just because IHC was shut down? Of course not. They had their own contract to meet and so they did for the duration of LMR barrel production. IHC could have gotten all the barrels they wanted from LMR at any time they needed them.

I still insist that when IHC used some SA barrels early on it was not because IHC ran out of barrels due to the logic above.

Some old IHC employees had been contacted and interviewed over the years....... a long time ago. Most have passed away now, many did not know the "insider trading" of what happened at IHC. Those that did know are not talking and shed some of the questions posed to them like the plague. This is where I began forming the opinion, based on circumstances from a wide ranging area of people and incidents that I mentioned in my last posting. Some serious things happened at IHC during their production and I am sure SA had much to do with it. The placing of M1 production far from Nuclear shores is irrelevant.

So, even if SA and IHC records could be found, I am not convinced they would tell the whole truth as there is too much evidence of incompetence on someone's part ............or gross mismanagement to say the least, either by IHC, SA or both. IHC production problems would be excusable (to a point) as they were directly under SA guidance and engineering drawings to produce the M1.

Since IHC received the engineering drawings for M1 production from SA, and all IHC parts seemed to pass inspection (generally and within acceptable limits), then why the hell wouldn't IHC rifles function? SA FUBARED it all with the faulty test firing fixture. Would SA be prompt to acknowledge this? Hell, no! Would IHC be anxious to point the finger at SA, the "inventors, experts, and Godfather of the Garand?" Hell, no. Would YOU? Hell, no.

Was it intentional by SA? I am not sure it was but SA sure found out what roast crow tasted like.......

HRA bailing out IHC/SA during the early production problems is factual and carved in stone. It happened!

The jealousy of SA of IHC is also factual. A few of those people who worked at SA were quoted as saying IHC "was only tractor makers" when problems arose and were quick to point the finger at IHC until the evidence was discovered by HRA. Then, everyone "clammed up."

IHC bought receivers on three different occasions from SA:

4,440,000 to 4,445,ooo range (Arrowheads and Postage Stamps and unknown quantities)

4,638,ooo to 4,659,999 (4 mil "Gap Letters" and approximately 22,000)

5,198,035 to 5,213,034 (5 mil "Gap Letters" and about 13,250)

From HRA: 5,213,034 to 5,217,000 (about 5,000 I believe as IHC shipped rifles in lots of 5,000)

I am not aware of the story regarding the OR and HR with the "R" indicating Richardson Lathes but it is a valid assumption and is a good possibility.

So, what I am explaining here is that generally I don't have much government "official" documentation, just "hands on" experience from handling and seeing a lot of "iron" over the years. This is better research than any government documentation will ever be. If you throw out what is false, then what remains must be true? Actually, I think I can prove the "official" OCO accepted production figures for IHC are incorrect but that would make another story.................

Eagle One