The Carbine Collectors Club

Click on the image above to learn more about the M1 Carbine


Forum Home Forum Home > The Club > Newsworthy Items
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


NARA Combination Tool

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
Newsman1 View Drop Down
newsmen
newsmen
Avatar

Joined: Sep 01 2016
Location: CC
Status: Offline
Points: 122
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Newsman1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: NARA Combination Tool
    Posted: Sep 01 2016 at 12:39pm
August 2016-C
REPORT OF THE ARMY GROUND FORCES BOARD NO. 3, FORT BENNING, GEORGIA

PROJECT NO. 2055, TOOL, COMBINATION, FOR CARBINE CAL. 30, 28 JULY 1947

A virtually unknown part of carbine history is the postwar development and testing of a “combination tool” which was modeled after the Garand Rifle’s M3 tool.  The idea was originated by a civilian ordnance employee at Fort Lewis, Washington.  He distributed samples of his carbine tool to various organizations at Fort Lewis, and the feedback he received was favorable. His idea was then forwarded to the Ordnance Department via the Suggestions and Awards Committee at Fort Lewis and the War Department Awards Board in Washington, D.C.

Testing included a “modified carbine combination tool” that was a smaller and simpler version of the original Fort Lewis employee design, and designated below as Figure 1.



Figure 2 is the Trigger Spring Removing Tool.         
Figure 3 is the Carbine Combination Tool
a. Trigger spring remover
b. Screwdriver
c. Hole, for brush, cleaning, M4                                         
d. Chamber cleaning plug

(The screwdriver and the chamber cleaning plug in the carbine tool are virtually identical to that of the WWII M3 Combination Tool for the M1 Rifle seen here, not to scale.)
  
The “trigger spring remover” on the combo tool is a scaled-down version of the Trigger Spring Removing Tool, C7160026, which was issued to 2nd echelon maintenance personnel (Company Armorer Artificer).  “The screwdriver can be used to loosen or tighten the front band screw and the recoil plate screw.  A cleaning brush screwed into the threaded hole in the screwdriver blade can be used to clean the chamber of the carbine.  The chamber can be further cleaned with the chamber cleaning plug.  A cleaning patch cut in half is placed in the slot of the chamber cleaning plug and rotated within the chamber.”

The two types of carbine combo tools were issued to various Army commands, and opinions and suggestions solicited.  Although all reports were generally favorable to the need for some type of combination tool for the carbine, opinions and suggestions varied widely.  A sample of them follows:

The 9th Infantry Regiment suggested that “this tool could be improved if a small stud is added to assist in drifting tight pins out of the functioning groups.”  This was countered by “It has been found that these pins can be removed easily and satisfactorily by the Operating Spring Guide (which is) a component part of the carbine, is considered a definite tool, and ample to assist in removing the pins.  It is recommended for this use by the pertinent publications.”

The 702nd Ordnance Company stated “If the screwdriver is narrowed slightly to the point, it may be used more effectively for mounting the trigger spring than the tubular attachment which is included in the present experimentation tool…The removal of the trigger spring and other parts of the trigger group is not a 1st echelon (individual soldier) operation, and an attachment for its replacement should not be included with a combination tool.”  This was countered by “…even though the removal of the trigger spring and other parts of the trigger group is not included in 1st echelon maintenance, this tool can be used to a good advantage in the performance of 2nd echelon (Company Armorer Artificer) maintenance.”

The 23rd Infantry Regiment report stated that this tool had been “placed in the hands of T/5 Fredrick Borgd and Pfc. Jerry McGrew, the Armorer Artificer (and assistant) of “M” Company,” but that “no use was found for the hollow tube projection.”  (Apparently, neither soldier realized that it was a trigger spring remover.)

The 437th Engineer Dump Truck Company suggested that “the outside diameter of the trigger spring insertion attachment be reduced in diameter by two-thousandths of one inch, to allow more clearance when inserting trigger spring.”
Meanwhile, other experiments were conducted in order to “provide a means of carrying the tool, either in the weapon or on the person, with special attention given to carrying the tool in a recess in the stock of the weapon.”  The smaller “modified” tool was used in these experiments, and again – opinions varied widely.



“The most practical place for carrying the Modified Carbine Combination Tool is in the oil and thong case recess, widened so as to accommodate the tool.  

a. Modified carbine combination tool
b. Oil and thong case” (“oiler”)




  

“Drilled recess in stock for carrying the combination tool, with recess covers.
a. Spring type cover – spring used on model is a trigger spring.
b. Sliding type cover – cover slides in grooves cut in stock.
c. Carbine combination tool.
d. Recess.

The only practical place for carrying the Carbine Combination Tool in the M2 Carbine is in a drilled recess in the butt of the stock…Two recess caps were tried – a sliding type and a spring type.  The sliding type was the better of the two, in that it is simple to make, is efficient and is durable.  The spring, which on the experimental spring type model, is a trigger spring, soon loses its tension and becomes warped, thus failing to completely close the recess cover…The M2 stocks with a carrying recess drilled in the butt did not split or indicate any tendency to split when 20 rifle grenades were fired from each carbine.”  (Note in the top right photo, that the buttplate was removed and the combo tool recess hole drilled completely through the buttstock.)

   

“The size and construction of the M1A1 stock grip does not permit the drilling of a recess in it for carrying the tool.  The tool should be carried in a cylindrical tube permanently attached to the buttplate.”  Note that two types are shown: left, welded onto the buttplate, which negates the spring-hinge, and right, attached to the upper arm of the M1A1 frame.  In the latter, figure “a” is the carrying cylinder, “c” is the modified combination tool within, “d” is the carrying cylinder cap and “e” is the cap retaining chain.  It seems obvious that the little chain and cap would never hold up under “field use” conditions.   

Various tests and experiments were performed, to examine the utility of the features of both the subject combo tool and the modified version, as compared to “book” procedures and expedient methods used by soldiers. Basic-trained soldiers as well as Armorer Artificers participated in these tests.  Carbines were disassembled into the basic component groups and reassembled, and a record kept of the time it took for each soldier to accomplish the task.  

The trigger groups were then disassembled and reassembled four times, using various tools and methods, followed by the removal/replacement of the trigger springs 50 times in each weapon.  
Trigger springs were then examined to see if any damage was done by the two experimental tools, “and a functioning check made to determine if the trigger spring would return the trigger to its forward position after the trigger had been snapped.”

Weapons were then cleaned, fired with 10 rounds, and cleaned again with the various tools (including the Carbine Cleaning Rod), and a record kept of the time required and how many patches were needed to clean the chamber.  “It is to be noted that the first patch used was never prohibitively dirty…The subject item easily and thoroughly cleaned the chamber, but not to an extent appreciably better than the other test methods.”   

Results were generally inconclusive.  No specific tool or method was appreciably better or faster than any other.  The only negative aspect of the combo tool was “The Brush, Cleaning, M4, inserted in the threaded hole in the screwdriver of the Carbine Combination Tool and the Modified Carbine Combination Tool tended to become loose and to bend.”

At the conclusion of all this testing, the Army Ground Forces Board #3 had this to say about the Carbine Combination Tool:

1. “FM 23-7, US Carbine, Caliber .30 states:  The diameter of the chamber in the carbine is so near that of the bore that additional cleaning should not, as a rule, be necessary.  No evidence of need for a special chamber cleaning tool has been found prior to the statement of the fabricator of the subject tool.  
2. The only tool needed to easily and quickly strip and assemble the carbine is a cartridge.  The screwdriver section of the subject tool performs one step only in assisting 1st echelon personnel – that of loosening and tightening the front band screw, and this may be done with a carbine cartridge.
3. ORD 7 SNL B-28 lists 2 Tools, Removing, Trigger Spring Assembly, for issue to 2nd echelon personnel for each 1 to 20 carbines, and one Spring, Trigger for each 1 to 20 carbines.  This indicates the need for replacing trigger springs is small, and such replacement would be by 2nd echelon or higher echelon, since trigger springs are of limited issue.  In practice, removal and replacement of trigger springs is frequently made without the use of any tool.

Conclusions:  The Board concludes that:

a. The screwdriver section of the proposed tool is superfluous.
b. The cleaning section of the proposed tool does not offer material advantages over standard items and procedures.
c. The trigger spring remover section of the proposed tool is a duplication of an already standard item, and fulfills no requirement not met by the standard item.
d. The tool performs no function that cannot be performed well by items of equipment already in the hands of the individual or the organization.

Recommendations:  The Board recommends that no further consideration be given to the proposed Tool, Combination, for .30 Caliber Carbine.”
Marty Black
Back to Top
m1a1fan View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Got Para?

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: Virginia
Status: Offline
Points: 1736
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote m1a1fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct 29 2016 at 9:24pm
Think I have one of the combo tools.  It came with an M1A1 and a wooden box containing all kinds of parts (recoil check, stripper clips, gas piston nut wrench, some kind of dual 30 round mag clip and such).  Think the whole thing is from the Vietnam area.  Will try to find it and post a pic.  Think it has writing on it but can't remember what it says.  Thought it was some kind of gauge the first time I saw it.
Back to Top
sleeplessnashadow View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: Nov 09 2015
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
Points: 1150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote sleeplessnashadow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 04 2019 at 10:36pm
The carbine depicted in this post is a Winchester prototype. It is part of the Winchester collection at the Cody Firearms Museum in Cody, WY. The collection was donated to the museum when the Winchester Museum was closed pending the sale of the company in the 1980's.

We were asked by the folks at Cody if we could help identify the history of this carbine as no information came with the carbine.

A little background about prototypes may help some understand the mix of parts on this particular one. Prototypes were test guns for various research and development projects. They were often used for more than one project over time. This one appears to have been used for at least 3 or 4 different projects. Possibly with several being tried together.

The serial number is 5720250. It has an undated Winchester barrel with Winchester's proof mark. The stock has an oval sling cut with low wood in the slide area. The carbine was not disassembled given it's a museum piece and to avoid any difficulties that may have been encountered trying to reassemble it due to the prototype parts.

It's been suggested the holes in the buttstock may have been part of the tests with the combination tool set shown above. Those tests were conducted by Ordnance and the Infantry Board post WWII using M2 stocks. This one has an M1 stock but it's possible not all stocks tested were included in the report. Since this was part of the Winchester Museum it was retained by someone on a level with Olin and/or Pugsley for inclusion in their collection. At what point it was added to their collection is not known.

Another possibility for the holes in the stock was the testing done to develop a stock that wouldn't crack when launching grenades. According to Larry Ruth in War Baby, Volume II, pages 541-548, Ordnance began a series of tests for this purpose starting in August 1948. Production of the first grenade launchers for the .30 cal. carbines began in October 1943 with a revision in the latter part of 1944 continuing production until V-J Day in August 1945. With total production being 387,165 grenade launchers. Obviously the issues with stocks cracking was well known before the Ordnance trials post WWII,

Parts on this carbine include known prototype parts in the development of the select fire mechanism for what would become the Model M2 carbine. Research and Development for the mechanism best suited for select fire began in May 1944 with Inland and Winchester producing prototypes (refer War Baby, Volume I chapter 16). The Inland design was adopted and first used with the Inland Model T4 carbines (marked T4 on the receiver instead of M1) by July 1944, the prototypes used in the development of the M2 carbine. But Winchester research into a different select fire mechanism continued.

Winchester's device was named the No. 3 Mechanism. Winchester carbine s/n 5720250 (the carbine depicted below) with parts that "embodied the principal" was viewed by Ordnance at Aberdeen on November 21, 1944. With the carbine test fired to show it worked (War Baby, Volume I, pages 247 and 248). The design of the parts underwent changes and were assembled into four later Winchester carbines submitted for trials June 1-8, 1945 at Aberdeen. The trials concluded the Winchester design compared favorably with the Inland design but was submitted too late. The Model M2 carbine with Inland's select fire mechanism, designated "Kit, M17" , had already been adopted by Ordnance October 26, 1944.

Another experiment this carbine shows evidence of is the research and development that produced a revision of the carbine slide incorporated with carbines beginning November 18, 1943 (part #D7160091,shown as slide #V on the web page for the slides.) The design included a number of changes that included increasing the dwell time to eliminate breech flash and reduce strain on the recoil mechanism. Look closely at the slide handle. The marks on the right side of the carbine were related to measuring slide travel. Also note the flattened nose of the stock and the barrel band.

Back to the holes in the stock. No evidence has been found so far as to what these were for. Possibly the cleaning kit. Possibly a buffer mechanism for use with the grenade launchers. We hope that at some point to be able to examine photographs showing the carbine with the stock and handguard removed since these photos do not show enough of the design to reach any conclusions.

(To view a larger version click on the image)






























Jim
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.