powder. (2) To supply target ammunition as cheaply as is consistent with efficiency. This we do by firing the shortest-lived powder on hand. This powder which shows signs of short life is not always the oldest powder and a hard and fast rule to use powder according to age would be less economical than the present practice.

The CHAIRMAN. You say here "purchase and manufacture of smokeless powder." Then over on page 28, under "Ordnance and ordnance stores," there is an item here for maintenance of proving ground and powder factory. Both of these appropriations are used for the same thing, are they not?

Admiral MASON. No; we use the small amount out of ordnance and ordnance stores for taking care of the proving ground proper, for watchmen, and things of that kind. We do not charge those things on smokeless powder, where their duties are interchanged or interchangeable.

The CHAIRMAN. You buy most of your powder under the general head of ordnance and ordnance stores? Admiral MASON. We buy all of it. That is, not all of it. We purchase the powder for target practice under ordnance and ordnance. stores only.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the purchase of the other powder is under this other head, $650,000?

Admiral MASON. No, sir; that $650,000 is practically for the manufacture of smokeless powder at Indian Head, and the powder that we purchase is under ammunition for ships of the navy.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be a good thing if we could put all of these under one head. As it is now, under three different heads, you can purchase smokeless powder.

Admiral MASON. This appropriation has been kept this way because it was an appropriation for the powder factory, and we would know exactly how much money we had to run that factory and what our output was. If anything happened to the factory, with the word "purchases" put in there, if we had an accident or a fire, and found we were running short of powder, we could then divert some of that money to the purchases. So I should think it would be perfectly proper to leave it in.

The CHAIRMAN. How about "machine tools, navy-yard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, nineteen thousand three hundred and ninety dollars?" Are those some special tools?

Admiral MASON. The machine tools contemplated by this estimate consist of a power hack saw, which is badly needed for cutting small material; six lathes, two milling machines, two shapers, and one planer, which are required as an expansion to the machine shop to provide for the increase in the number of ships assigned to this yard for repair and outfitting.

The CHAIRMAN. They are all required there?

Admiral MASON. Yes, sir. Philadelphia is increasing in importance, and there are quite a number of battle ships there each year, and we want to increase that factory.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is "machine tools, navy-yard, Boston, Massachusetts, nineteen thousand three hundred dollars." It is the same thing there?

Admiral MASON. About the same thing. Boston has now had allotted to it four battleships and quite a number of cruisers, and

we never have had an ordnance shop there to amount to anything, and you gave us some tools last year, and these are some more to make it a fairly good shop.

The CHAIRMAN. "Electric traveling crane for Electric traveling crane for gun shed, navy-yard, Puget Sound, Washington, six thousand dollars.

Admiral MASON. They are building a new gun shop there, and it was my expectation that they would have money enough to put us in a traveling crane. This is being built by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. I thought there would be money enough for a traveling crane, so that the guns could be picked up from the cars and landed off on the skids and racks. When the bids came in finally, they found that there was not money enough for cranes, so we put this in as an ordnance tool. It is necessary. At Puget Sound yard that gun. shed is very necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is "air compressor with storage tank and pipe line, naval magazine, Mare Island, California, six thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. The present air-compressor plant is inadequate to meet the increased demands upon it, necessitating this addition to the plant. This is at the naval magazine, Mare Island, and not at the yard itself. That magazine supplies all of the ammunition for the Pacific, and also for China, and we want this to increase the plant.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is "For Naval Gun Factory, Washington, District of Columbia: For the purchase and erection of new and improved machinery for existing shops, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. This is the gun factory at Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you need all of that?

Admiral MASON. Yes, sir; we have had that quite a number of years. That is for wear and tear on the machinery in that big shop. The CHAIRMAN. Does it require that every year?

Admiral MASON. Yes, sir

The CHAIRMAN. The next is "Remodeling one hundred and ten ton crane in north gun shop, thirty thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. This crane has been in use for seventeen years, and it is getting worn-out. If we have that $30,000 to put on it now we will save the crane for a number of years, yet.

Mr. BUTLER. What did it cost originally, I wonder?

Admiral MASON. Sixty-seven thousand five hundred dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. "New eighty-ton crane over shrinkage pit, north gun shop, twenty-five thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. Our shrinkage pit is so situated that we can not go down any farther on account of the water line. We can not keep the water out; so that we have got to come up so as to handle longer tools, and in going up we have got to have another crane over the present one, so that that is absolutely necessary.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is on page 32, "New batteries for ships of the navy: For completing the work of modifying four-inch fortycaliber mounts, five-inch forty-caliber mounts, and providing new sights for same, seventy-five thousand dollars.'

Admiral MASON. Last year the bureau asked for $135,000 to complete this work. The committee allowed us $60,000. This, I think, will complete the work. Orders have been given for the completion

of the work on 4-inch, and some of the 5-inch can probably be completed out of this amount. The balance of last year's estimate, $75,000, will be required for completing this work on the 5-inch.

The CHAIRMAN. "For replacing eight-inch Mark V guns with eight-inch Mark VI guns on Maryland and class, two hundred and two thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. Last year we submitted an estimate for $502,000 for the manufacture of 20 Mark VI guns. Those other guns, the ones in service, were not hooped at the muzzle, and they have got to be withdrawn to be worked on. The appropriation of $250,000 last year permitted the manufacture of 10 guns which are well under way. This estimate is to give us 10 guns more and I think after we get through with that we will stop asking for reserve guns.

Mr. PADGETT. What is the difference between a Mark V gun and a Mark VI gun?

Admiral MASON. One is not hooped at the muzzle, and the other one, the new one, is hooped to the muzzle, and is stronger, and it is safer, and we are able to give it a higher muzzle velocity if necessary. The other guns were designed sometime ago.

Mr. PADGETT. How long since we began using the Mark V guns that are now being supplanted?

Admiral MASON. I think they were originally designed at the end of the Spanish war, ten or twelve years ago.

Mr. PADGETT. When did we quit manufacturing Mark V guns? Admiral MASON. I do not think I have manufactured any. We will say it was five years ago. Since I came into the Bureau we have not manufactured any.

Mr. PADGETT. Is it possible to take a Mark V gun and remodel it, or is it an entire waste?

Admiral MASON. That is the intention, to replace these guns on the ships, to withdraw those and reline them and hoop them to the muzzle, and then we have got so many excellent reserve guns; so that as I say, after doing that this year, the appropriation we have asked for this year, I think we will stop all further requests for reserve guns. We have managed to catch up.

Mr. PADGETT. What I was getting at is this. You take a Mark V gun and you remodel it. Is it then as good and efficient a gun as an originally constructed Mark VI gun?

Admiral MASON. Yes; provided it is the same length.

Mr. PADGETT. Yes, I understand; of the same size?

Admiral MASON. The same length and the same caliber. We will make it so that it is as good as the other.

Mr. PADGETT. What is the relative cost of the original manufacture of a Mark VI gun and the cost of remodeling a Mark V gun into a Mark VI gun?

Admiral MASON. The 8-inch gun costs about $25,000. It will cost to reline and hoop to the muzzle and convert it practically into a Mark VI gun about $5,000.

Mr. ROBERTS. Does it not cost more than that, Admiral? You ask for $200,000 here, and you say it will fix up 10 of them. That is about $20,000 apiece.

Admiral MASON. No; these are for new guns, in this appropriation. Mr. ROBERTS. For replacing the old guns?

77013-09-7

Admiral MASON. Replacing. tion for relining and hooping. ships. There is an error in the bill that I want to call attention to. Attention is invited to the fact that in the naval appropriation bill, draft No. 1, the amount under this heading is given as $202,000. It should be $252,000. The appropriation of $250,000 permitted the manufacture of 10 guns to be undertaken.

Over further there is an appropria-
This is to get guns to put on these

Mr. ROBERTS. To go back a little further, to remodel it costs about one-third of what the gun costs originally?

Admiral MASON. No; about one-fifth.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is a provision "For continuing relining and conversion of twelve-inch Mark III guns to Mark IV guns, one hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

Admiral MASON. Forgings have been procured for the conversion of 24 of the 42 Mark III guns, and it is estimated that forgings for 6 more can be procured under the current appropriation, leaving 12 guns, the conversion of which must be provided for. That is, the cost for relining and hooping to the muzzle 12-inch guns is about $11,000.

Mr. ROBERTS. How many of them are there?

Admiral MASON. The cost is a little over $12,000.

Mr. THOMAS. How many are there of them?
Admiral MASON. Twelve guns left.

Mr. PADGETT. Will you explain, Admiral, the difference between a Mark IV gun and a Mark V gun?

Admiral MASON. It is practically the same thing. Whenever we make a radical change in a gun of a certain caliber and a certain length, we just give it another mark. The Mark III guns are not hooped to the muzzle and the Mark IV guns are.

Mr. PADGETT. Is the designation "Mark IV" limited to 12-inch guns?

Admiral MASON. No, sir.

Mr. PADGETT. Or do you have any 8-inch Mark IV guns?

Admiral MASON. We can have. The marks are simply designations of changes, or indicate changes and improvements and advancement in the design of a gun or a carriage, or almost anything.

Mr PADGETT. The No. VI is more advanced than No. V, and No. V is more advanced than No. IV?

Admiral MASON. Yes.

Mr. PADGETT. Now, if you are abandoning the Mark V guns above there, why are you converting others into Mark IV guns that are two grades behind?

Admiral MASON. One is 8-inch. On page 32 we were talking about 8-inch guns before.

Mr. PADGETT. You are talking about 12-inch guns on both pages. The Mark VI has reference to 8-inch guns, and right on the same page we have a provision for relining and converting 12-inch Mark fir guns to Mark IV guns.

Admiral MASON. That is a different proposition entirely.

Mr. PADGETT. I asked you a while ago if Mark IV was limited to 12-inch guns, and you said "No."

Mr. ROBERTS. You answered "No."

Admiral MASON. We are talking at cross-purposes, then. We use the word "mark" to show any improvement in anything we have in ordnance.

Mr. PADGETT. Do you have any 12-inch Mark VI guns?

Admiral MASON. We are going to have.

Mr. PADGETT. Do you have any 12-inch Mark V guns?

Admiral MASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. PADGETT. Then, why do you not convert these into Mark VI instead of into Mark IV?

Admiral MASON. They are not long enough. I believe that is the

reason.

The CHAIRMAN. Mark VI is the latest improvement, and Mark VII is still in your brain?

Mr. PADGETT. He has Mark VI developed.

The CHAIRMAN. He has Mark VI of the 8-inch gun developed?
Mr. PADGETT. Yes.

Admiral MASON. You may be sure we would have modified them into Mark VI if we could.

Mr. PADGETT. After you get them remodeled into Mark IV guns, later on will they be converted into Mark V guns?

Admiral MASON. We can not do that; they are of a different size. Mr. ROBERTS. They are a shorter gun.

The CHAIRMAN. They are a smaller gun, the 8-inch guns.

Admiral MASON. This modification makes those guns just as efficient as we possibly can make them with the material on hand-that is, with the material we have left in the gun.

Mr. PADGETT. So that a Mark VI gun must be longer than a Mark

IV?

Admiral MASON. Not necessarily longer. It may have some other improvement. It may have a different kind of a chamber, a different kind of rifling; it may have a different shape on the outside. Any improvement that is a decided improvement, so that it is really a different type of the same gun, we add one to the mark. Mr. HOBSON. Does it vary at different calibers?

Admiral MASON. How do you mean?

Mr. HOBSON. Could you have a Mark VI of 8-inch caliber and not have a Mark VI in a 12-inch caliber?

Admiral MASON. Oh, yes; you could go on with the improvements and have the marks go clear up to 8, 10, or 12. For instance, in our gun sights we have a Mark 19 and in our telescopes a Mark 14.

Mr. PADGETT. You can take a 12-inch gun and make a Mark VI out of it if you make it long enough and of the right caliber? Admiral MASON. Yes; but it is pretty hard to make it longer without you take it all apart and build a new gun.

Mr. PADGETT. I am not talking about making it longer. If it was originally built long enough, you could convert it into a Mark VI? Admiral MASON. Yes; probably.

Mr. PADGETT. So that it depends upon the individuality of the gun whether you can convert it?

Admiral MASON. Yes.

Mr. PADGETT. That is what I wanted to get into the record.

Mr. HOBSON. Is the Mark VI of the 12-inch caliber as far developed as the Mark VI of the 8-inch caliber? Have you progressed in different stages as far with that as you have with the small calibers?