Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

McCord manufacture Lot transition range

Article about: Trying to find the McCord M1 shell transition ranges for fixed/movable loops, stainless steel/manganese rims and front/rear seam. Therefore, I compiled this little list. Based on shells I ow

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote by emileverbunt View Post
    One more.

    A McCord reissued by the Netherlands: 743 C , fixed bales, stainless steel, front seam.

    Cheers,
    Emile
    Very nice, i like those around 750 range lot number I assume these are stainless steel loops (never seen any other in this range, but i have to ask) and that it does not have a punch mark inside the rim about center of the loops?

  2. #12

    Default

    Firstly i have to say i haven't seen or heard of anyone putting in this detailed information on this scale.it certainly brings many questions and talking points.it's obviously clear that there was much over running of production in otherwise while some shells were having the rim seam placed to the rear front seamed still continued,personally i've never seen front seamed running that high into the 1100 + so a first plus look at the integration from stainless to maganese rims again both running together so my theory has always been they had boxes of rims in both metals mixed and grabbed the first one to hand and wasn't that fussed which way round they installed the rim (oct/nov)1944.i've seen fixed loops up to 780 but don't own one personally,but great job this has taken time and effort to compell and upload.so yes a fantastic job well done.................

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote by ruddersrangers44 View Post
    Firstly i have to say i haven't seen or heard of anyone putting in this detailed information on this scale.it certainly brings many questions and talking points.it's obviously clear that there was much over running of production in otherwise while some shells were having the rim seam placed to the rear front seamed still continued,personally i've never seen front seamed running that high into the 1100 + so a first plus look at the integration from stainless to maganese rims again both running together so my theory has always been they had boxes of rims in both metals mixed and grabbed the first one to hand and wasn't that fussed which way round they installed the rim (oct/nov)1944.i've seen fixed loops up to 780 but don't own one personally,but great job this has taken time and effort to compell and upload.so yes a fantastic job well done.................
    I think your theory is correct about the rim metal. A box of rims, constantly being replenished, and they just grabbed one and put it on, regardless if it was stainless or manganese. Using up your stockpile and the real change occurred when the company received new supplies that a one point switch to manganese. Until stockpiles was used up, it would just be a mix.
    Theory about Front/Rear seam I too will join. If the machine is capable of handling both ends, and the only deciding factor what the final product becomes, is the man in front of the machine. The change is then really the education/change of way, of the personal. Could very well be like that.

  4. #14

    Default

    I have mentioned earlier the possibility of the 20 odd discs leftover in the stack that got draw later, thus acquiring later shell characteristics. 20 discs is of course just a number, it might be two discs only or full lot. Who knowns. I think I got such an example.

    This shell has second style McCord fixed loops; I call them square loops, which should put it after the 350-450 lot range. Still working on this range, but at least a +300-lot number. There is no indication that it has ever been repaired. It has no dot/punch mark/dimple in the center of the loops; it has the depression on the outside. Putting it after the 550-650 range. However, the lot number is 95D. I have put it under a magnifying glass, and there is absolutely no trace that there is a number in front of 95D. There should be a five or six, like 595D or 695D. It cannot be 795D, as it should not be a fixed loop shell. It cannot be 495D, as there should be a dot. Very strange.

    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range
    McCord manufacture Lot transition range

  5. #15

    Default

    Firstly to put my comments into context I must say that I do not specialise in collecting helmets so I am no expert although I do have around 50 of differing types that have somehow found their way into my collection.

    Just to play devils' advocate here I think it important to remember that the whole scenario of changes in manufacturing processes especially in wartime is dynamic to say the least.

    Whenever a change is made that amounts to a modification rather than totally new design and the end product is simply an altered version of the original there will be anomalies in the total end result.

    At any stage when a change is made there will be items that are already part way through the production line. So, if a change is made from configuration '1' to configuration '2' on a production line with processes A - G for instance, when the change occurs at process 'C' there will be items at process 'A' - 'B' so they will undergo the change at process 'C' whilst items that have passed 'C' and are at processes 'D' - 'G' will not. The volume of this anomally will depend on the number of lines and total throughput etc.
    Is it even feasible that the volume having passed the modification point would be withdrawn from the line and re-cycled at a time when production demand was rather high?

    So, with helmets like these there will be an unknown number that appear to collectors of the present day as "hybrids" when in reality, at the time of manufacture these minor alteration made little or no difference to the end product depending on whether we are talking about the scientist / designers or the chap who ended up with it on his head.

    As for a correlation between changes and lot/heat stamp numbers I think the emerging understanding that stock rotation of the material used to make the shells was less than precise, means that any compilation of data will only produce a rough guide at best.

    I know some M1 collectors will howl with outrage at my suggestion but in any automated production line that ever existed this would happen when the only "indicator" in play is a material batch number the only purpose of which is to trace a particular batch of material regardless of when exactly it passed through the production line. When the process involves tens of thousands of "blanks" stacked on pallets in a warehouse the stock / batch control process would need to be absolutely rigid and evidence appears to suggest that it was not.
    This cannot be seen as a flaw in the production system as the lot number was of no relevance at all until that batch of steel was found to be defective and that might occur at any stage from the first draw, through ballistic testing of samples even to the possible detection of consistent failure in the field (by which time recall and disposal would be impossible anyway).

    As I say, the lot number issue in general seems to be a post internet phenomenon and, correct me if I have misunderstood, the data used so far to compile a timeline is mostly based on observation decades after the event. For my money at least, condition and the old favourite "provenance" are better yardsticks.

    I am under the impression that die-hard helmet collectors would take a dim view of scouring away the paint to dig out the lot number anyway?

    M1 afficionados should feel free to tell me that I am talking out of "the wrong'un" but I enjoy debating such things and am always as happy to be proved wrong as I am to be proved right. After all we are here to explore, investigate and learn are we not?

    Regards

    Mark
    Last edited by Watchdog; 11-27-2020 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Typo
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

  6. #16

    Default

    I not in disagreement with any of it. As you say, there are a 100 ways lots may be drawn out of sequence. I fully expect one or many samples, whole lots, even whole lot ranges, to be out of sequence. However unless the manufacture plant (McCord) received all 1300+ lots of discs in one go, and simply spend 4 years drawing discs, there must be some form of correlation between lots and shell characteristics, as shells evolved.

    Something like fixed loops to movable loops must require a manufacturing line machinery change/setup. You now have three weld vs. two weld. At some point, the change must have been made. Now when the change occurred, the plant might have had 200 lots in storage, which then would produce “old” lots with a new shell characteristic. All fine. But new lots coming in, would no more be able to acquire old characteristic. Future generations looking at sufficient number of samples, would spot that a change occurred in this and that lot range (never mind that it happened 200 lots previously). Point is, you can spot it, and thus there is a correlation between lot number and shell characteristics.

    Point of little excise of mine, is to find these changes. With enough samples, I think it is possible. So far, I have 109 in the 700-1300 range and 86 in the 0-700 range. I interested in neither when lots 649F was draw, nor if 634K was drawn before that. I will never know. But I will be able (with enough samples) to identify if all samples after 649F has gold rims and all previous have not – and thus extrapolate that pre-649F lots numbers are draw earlier – with one or two odd lots number sticking out wrong.

  7. #17

    Default

    Yes I agree the the smaller and more frequent the supply of blanks the more likely a noticeable trend or change point would be.

    As for the welding set up I don't know enough about the specifics of the machinery involved to make a really accurate judgement but I believe there was much more manual involvement in the welding in the period (it was done on a manually - foot pedal controlled spot welder I think so it would be less reliant on jigs etc. I would be a case of the operator performing a different sequence / number of welds rather than changing the machine set-up (from the only photo / video evidence I seen).

    I hope you can indentify the change through compiling a database that shows division in configuration. That would be a useful authentication tool more than anything.

    I think it might take a while though, good luck

    Regards

    Mark
    PS The last helmet you showed appears to have a red oxide primer coat. Is that a WWII feature as I thought that only started with KW era refurbishment onwards?
    "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares more about than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature with no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. NSKK chained transition dagger

    In SA Dienstdolch
    05-25-2018, 07:57 PM
  2. 07-11-2017, 08:16 PM
  3. 12-21-2014, 06:42 AM
  4. 07-15-2013, 06:54 PM
  5. M18 Transition helmet

    In Steel Helmets
    05-29-2012, 03:06 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •