The Development of the Royal Small Arms Factory (Enfield Lock) and Its Influence Upon Mass Production Technology and Product Design C1820-C1880
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Middlesex University Research Repository An open access repository of Middlesex University research http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk Lewis, James H. (1996) The development of the Royal Small Arms Factory (Enfield Lock) and its influence upon mass production technology and product design c1820-c1880. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. [Thesis] This version is available at: https://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6706/ Copyright: Middlesex University Research Repository makes the University’s research available electronically. Copyright and moral rights to this work are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners unless otherwise stated. The work is supplied on the understanding that any use for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. A copy may be downloaded for personal, non-commercial, research or study without prior permission and without charge. Works, including theses and research projects, may not be reproduced in any format or medium, or extensive quotations taken from them, or their content changed in any way, without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). They may not be sold or exploited commercially in any format or medium without the prior written permission of the copyright holder(s). Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author’s name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pag- ination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award. If you believe that any material held in the repository infringes copyright law, please contact the Repository Team at Middlesex University via the following email address: [email protected] The item will be removed from the repository while any claim is being investigated. See also repository copyright: re-use policy: http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/policies.html#copy AWARDING BODY: MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY COLLABORATING ESTABLISHMENT: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PATTERN ROOXr NOTTINGHAM THESIS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROYAL SMALL ARMS FACTORY (ENFIELD LOCK) AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON MASS PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCT DESIGN C1820-C1880 JAMES H LEWIS DECEMBER 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2. ABSTRACT 3. INTRODUCTION 1-27 4. THE GREAT MECHANISATION DEBATE 28-49 5. THE "ORDNANCE" CONTRACT SYSTEM AND THE "VIEW" 50-99 6. LOVELL'S ROLE IN SHAPING "ORDNANCE" AND THE IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR 100-133 7. TRANSATLANTIC DIFFERENCES AND THE INFLUENCE OF THE GUN STOCK UPON "ORDNANCE" MANAGING INNOVATION 134-178 APPRAISING THE EFFECTS OF THE CRIMEAN WAR, "ORDNANCE" FAILINGS, THE TRADE UNION AND PUBLICITY UPON THE ENFIELD FACTORY 179-216 9. THE QUEST TO EQUIP ENFIELD AND INTERCHANGEABILITY RE-EXAMINED 217-245 10. WHAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DELAYING THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW METHODS OF WEAPON MANUFACTURE IN BRITAIN ? 246-291 11.19TH CENTURY TECHNOLOGICAL DIFFUSION AND THE INITIATING FORCES 292-324 12. CONCLUSION 325-344 13. BIBLIOGRAPHY 345-367 14. DIAGRAMS (Figs. 1-31) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While there are many people and institutions who have contributed both consciously and unconsciously to the research for this thesis, I should like to pay a special tribute to Herbert Woodend, MBE. and his helpful and enthusiastic staff at the Ministry of Defence Pattern Room, Nottingham. Through the ongoing commitment and dedication of the Pattern Room team to collecting, displaying and recording both documents and artefacts, the life of the researcher has been made considerably easier. In my quest to discover samples of 19th century machine tools I was privileged to be allowed to examine an original Ames gun stock lathe by Michael Wright, Curator of Machine and Hand Tools, Science Museum, London. Likewise I am indebted to Brian Patterson, Curator & Keeper of Historic Boats, Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust for demonstrating some early examples of Maudslay block making machines. I am also grateful for the help received from the staff of the following establishments: - House of Lords Record Office, Westminster, London; Public Record office, Kew, Surrey; British Library, Holborn, London; Royal Armouries, London; American Precision Museum, Windsor, Vermontr USA and the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House, Birmingham. I would like to take this opportunity to ihank particularly the following gun making personnel for allowing me to take them away from their successful commercial enterprises to demonstrate techniques and answer questions: - Roger Mitchell of Holland & Holland, London; Piers Crump of John Rigby & Co., London; Roger Hale of Parker Hale Ltd., Birmingham and Bob Turner of Turner Richards Gunmakers, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. Also I am indebted to Ray Tuthill, the Honorary Treasurer of the Royal Small Arms Factory Apprentices Association, for putting me in touch with many skilled tool room personnel and fitters who have added much to the writer's knowledge and understanding of mechanical manufacturing techniques and processes. I should like to thank my director of studies, Professor Tim Putnam and my supervisors, Dr. Keith Burgess and Dr. Roger Whitaker, for their guidance, help and advice. Finally I owe a great debt of gratitude to my wife and family, who at times appeared to have sacrificed as much as the writer in the preparation and construction of this document. Without their love and support. this thesis could not have been completed. Although information and advice has been freely given by many generous people which has contributed greatly to the formulation of this thesis, it should be clearly understood that the writer takes full responsibility for any inaccuracies or errors of interpretation. ABSTRACT Through a study of the Royal Small Arms Factory (Enfield Lock) and its influence upon product design and development, we examine an apparent anomaly. While accepting that Britain was the seat of the industrial revolution, several historians have claimed that American engineers held the technological advantage in the manufacture of small arms in the first half of the 19th century. Accounts of this disparity in the main have sought economic answers but this thesis examines technological change in relation to the weapons procurement system for the British armed forces operated by the Board of Ordnance. Attention is focussed upon the political interplay between the public and private sectors of the gun trade, which was particularly influential in delaying the progress of the British military small arms industry towards the standardisation of weapons through a mechanised system of manufacture. As a result, reliance by the private sector upon traditional labour intensive methods of production remained perhaps longer than would otherwise have been the case. In addressing these issues it is argued that Britain's seeming hesitancy in maintaining her earlier rate of technological progress was the result of a veritable cocktail of events, with several factors at play. The investigation draws on primary documents and secondary accounts complemented by interviews with representatives of established small arms manufacturers, skilled craftsmen, weapons and machine tool experts and an examination of relevant artefacts, the results of which have cast doubt on some aspects of received interpretations of early part interchangeability. This study re-appraises the important role and character of one of the most influential and controversial "Ordnance" figures of the period, George Lovell. It sets the Board of Ordnance method of weapon procurement against the methods of other purchasing agencies, notably the East India Company. The results of the inquiry indicate that Britain's seeming technological pause in the field of small arms manufacture was more due to political influence and the administrative structures than to a lack of technical expertise on the part of its engineers, entrepreneurs and craftsmen. INTRODUCTION Reading the many standard works which attempt to trace the history and development of the manufacture of small arms it would be a simple matter to gain the impression that the entrepreneurship, manufacturing technology and inventiveness which arose out of the industrial revolution had stagnated in Britain by the early part of the 19th century. Commentators such as Ames and Rosenberg have suggested that "Americans clearly led the British in the adoption of many machine methods of production",, which seems to imply that somehow the manufacturing technology transferred to America early in the century where it flourished. 1. is grew and . While there undeniable evidence to show that American manufacturers and entrepreneurs had embraced and developed this new technology, initially concentrating their efforts on solving the difficult problems which were associated with the methods and procedures of standardised manufacturing in the production of small arms, the main thrust of this thesis will be to examine-the basis for Ames and Rosenberg's assertion that America was either moving faster or Britain's early technological progress had paused. It is intended to discover why it was that engineers and industrialists in Britain had apparently not followed a more rigorous approach to producing weapons by machinery after having the technological initiative of the industrial revolution, seeming to prefer traditional labour intensive methods of manufacture. We will also attempt to discover how Government r eacted to this apparent loss of technical advantage. In addressing these issues, the following 2 question will be asked: - were