The Carbine Collectors Club

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


Forum Home Forum Home > The Club > General Discussion
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Universal M1 Carbine design v. GI Carbine design?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
johnski View Drop Down
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: Jan 30 2020
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Universal M1 Carbine design v. GI Carbine design?
    Posted: Feb 08 2020 at 8:22am
Awhile back, on an M1 Carbine website, I posted a question: Is it arguable that the Universal M1 Carbine design is a better design than the GI M1 Carbine design? Had the Universal M1 Carbine been implemented with 1st class materials, would it have proven to be more reliable than the GI Carbine?

Well, what came back at me wasn’t exactly exemplary of the “gentle art of conversation”. Some of it was downright personal !

So let me try that one more time. Is that an arguable position. Given the write up on this site, I’d say: yes.

Back to Top
floydthecat View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps


Joined: Oct 13 2016
Location: Mississippi
Status: Offline
Points: 731
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote floydthecat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 08 2020 at 9:37am
It just depends on the gun and the earlier the Universal sn, the better carbine you will have. I have had early Universal carbines that followed the original USGI design right down to every component, screw, pin and spring and they are 100% interchangeable with GI components, with forged steel heat-treated receivers.

One thing the carbine enthusiast appreciates is interchangeability. The more Universal drifted-off the reservation, the worse it got. Even to a point that few parts are truly USGI compatible.

Early Universals are very good carbines, but most enthusiasts discount them as part of the family. Just like some do import marks and in many cases even mix-masters.

I think it comes down to....do you want something that shoots 30-carbine reliably or do you want a piece of history. Early Universals will shoot 30-carbine reliably, but they are not part of the history the carbine enthusiast is interested in. 
Back to Top
blackfish View Drop Down
Grunt
Grunt
Avatar

Joined: Mar 30 2016
Location: 999-0
Status: Offline
Points: 217
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote blackfish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 08 2020 at 9:45am
Unfortunately, none of the letters from Abe Seiderman explaining some of the design changes are available given in the Universal Firearms pages, e.g.

http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/uhybridletter.pdf
http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/ufiringpinletter.pdf

These dead links need to be fixed. There was a recent thread within the past 2 weeks noting this otherwise I would have added to it but can't find it at the moment ...
Back to Top
tenOCEE View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Knows rear sights!

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: East Tenn
Status: Offline
Points: 738
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tenOCEE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 08 2020 at 11:47am
Originally posted by johnski johnski wrote:

Had the Universal M1 Carbine been implemented with 1st class materials, would it have proven to be more reliable than the GI Carbine?


Since it wasn't implemented with 1st class materials and suffered from inferior quality, how much does it really matter? Can the original design be refined? Sure. But it wasn't. The USGI was a mass produced arm manufactured by hundreds of outfits that were redirected away from their commercial endeavors and into military contracts. And they did it with 1930s-1940s technology.

Does LS Supply make a more refined version of the flip sight? Yes. Do you want one over the USGI? No.

If a person can't easily come up with refinements in a modern era based on what someone else already managed to design back in the day, then that person can't achieve average abilities. Because very few things can't benefit from a little tweaking. Now is it commercially viable to refine it and implement 1st class materials? Apparently not.
My sig: Seen an IP or S'G'? Add it to my registry. We'll check consecutives.
https://grandrapids.wufoo.com/forms/zzlnt0519k86xs/
Back to Top
johnski View Drop Down
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: Jan 30 2020
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 08 2020 at 10:54pm
I have a Universal which couldn’t get thru a 15 round mag without a stove pipe. Called Wolff and bought a complete spring replacement kit. After every spring had been replaced, it’s now is my one and only 99.9% reliable Carbine (nothing’s 100% reliable). I also have 2 GI Carbines.

What got my attention foremost were the 2 recoil springs v. the 1 spring in a GI Carbine. I noticed Ian on Forgotten Weapons comment about that being an improvement.
Back to Top
johnski View Drop Down
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: Jan 30 2020
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 09 2020 at 1:48am
 Mine is a late model Universal, early 80s. This is the one the that really interests me because it’s where Abe separates from the GI design.

Two comparisons come to mind: Savage and SpaceX (yes, this may seem a bit of a stretch). Way back in the 50s when Savage’s fortunes were at an ebb they were face with the costly task of developing their own bolt gun. Well, Savage’s engineers brought in a manufacturing engineer who looked at the problems they were having with what has always been problematic: joining the barrel to the receiver and getting the headspace correct. So the manufacturing engineer made a (now) obvious suggestion: use a nut to accomplish this. Focus on functionality and put aside aesthetics.

SpaceX was facing bankruptcy and had one last shot at it. So they simplified and simplified and simplified their design to reduce costs and increase reliability (simple is more reliable than complex).

In both cases they succeeded!

These seem similar to what Universal faced as the supply of GI parts dried up. Their late model carbine are the result of their effort to reduce manufacturing complexity (and hence, costs) and still produce a reliable product. At least reliable enough to keep the market viable.

Their 2 recoil spring design seems to reflect this. Evidently, all manufacturers of the GI carbines struggled with drilling the hole for the recoil spring - getting it straight enough. Well, Universal always used forged receivers (to their credit) as apposed to cast receivers, so they couldn’t simply cast straight holes. To avoid this problem they devised the 2 recoil spring solution. And it worked, maybe better than the 1 recoil spring.

Back to Top
floydthecat View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps


Joined: Oct 13 2016
Location: Mississippi
Status: Offline
Points: 731
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote floydthecat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 09 2020 at 9:29am
Deep in the recesses of my old and feeble mind, I think I recall reading something concerning the use of dual springs early-on in USGI carbine development. 

I actually think Universal did a couple of things (maybe just one) that were improvements. The introduction of the spring-retarded firing pin and elimination of the receiver bridge, which was difficult for them to get right, might have been an improvement. However, the only slam-fire I have personally experienced was in a rifle employing the spring-retarded FP system. 
Back to Top
tenOCEE View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Knows rear sights!

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: East Tenn
Status: Offline
Points: 738
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tenOCEE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 09 2020 at 9:45am
The only cracked receivers I've ever witnessed in person were Universals. Two in one day. Cracked identically. I've seen damaged GI receivers (burrs or worn slide channels) but they were made for war duty.
And everybody knows how bad the slides are for cracking.
My sig: Seen an IP or S'G'? Add it to my registry. We'll check consecutives.
https://grandrapids.wufoo.com/forms/zzlnt0519k86xs/
Back to Top
johnski View Drop Down
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: Jan 30 2020
Location: Melbourne, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote johnski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 12 2020 at 11:14am
2 cracked receivers in 1 day? I’ve never even read about 1 in all these years. Incredible!
Back to Top
tenOCEE View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Knows rear sights!

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: East Tenn
Status: Offline
Points: 738
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tenOCEE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 12 2020 at 11:27am
Discussed in depth on this site, with pictures for proof. Pictures that were even reposted within the past month on this site. Seems amazingly coincidental to have it brought up again so quickly on the same site doesn't it? And by two different new members who joined the same month.

My sig: Seen an IP or S'G'? Add it to my registry. We'll check consecutives.
https://grandrapids.wufoo.com/forms/zzlnt0519k86xs/
Back to Top
cali201 View Drop Down
Grunt
Grunt


Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 198
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cali201 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 12 2020 at 12:43pm
Is it possible that this is the first time these words were ever found in the same sentence?: Universal, better, than the GI M1 Carbine  
Back to Top
sleeplessnashadow View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: Nov 09 2015
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
Points: 696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sleeplessnashadow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 12 2020 at 11:51pm
Originally posted by blackfish blackfish wrote:

Unfortunately, none of the letters from Abe Seiderman explaining some of the design changes are available given in the Universal Firearms pages, e.g.

http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/uhybridletter.pdf
http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/ufiringpinletter.pdf

These dead links need to be fixed. There was a recent thread within the past 2 weeks noting this otherwise I would have added to it but can't find it at the moment ...


This has been fixed.

The dead links weren't discovered by the dead link checking program I use. Thanks for letting me know. Best to e-mail us if anyone finds a problem with a link. Unfortunately I can't check the forum posts on a regular basis. Thank you.

Jim
Back to Top
sleeplessnashadow View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group


Joined: Nov 09 2015
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
Points: 696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (4) Thanks(4)   Quote sleeplessnashadow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2020 at 3:43am
Originally posted by johnski johnski wrote:

Is it arguable that the Universal M1 Carbine design is a better design than the GI M1 Carbine design? Had the Universal M1 Carbine been implemented with 1st class materials, would it have proven to be more reliable than the GI Carbine?


Sticking with the original question ....

"Better" is a matter of opinion. The responses you received to the question probably reflected this to a degree well beyond the question. Maybe to a degree of making the question moot.

If the question is: "Were the changes Universal Firearms made to the original GI carbine design an improvement to the GI carbine design? Had the changes been done to high quality control standards."

I think the changes can be grouped into several categories.

a) the changes made over time prior to s/n 100,000
b) the changes with the hybrid design starting at s/n 100,000
c) the changes made over time after s/n 100,000

All 3 categories also need to take into account some changes were not motivated by making an "improvement" in the original GI design. Some were motivated by ease of commercial manufacturing and production costs as the surplus GI parts were no longer cost effective and/or available. Or just the expense of making all the parts to GI standards in the commercial production arena. As technology changed between 1962 and 1984. The years Universal produced carbines.

Other changes were motivated by weaknesses in whatever design change they implemented that should have been worked out in R&D before the changes were included on the carbines they sold. In fairness to Universal Firearms consider all the changes Ordnance made over time to the original GI carbine design.

That Universal deviated from the standards established by Ordnance isn't really relevant to the question. Though very relevant to all the owners when it came to parts availability. Especially after Universal went out of business.

I'm not going to try to go over all the changes, only the most obvious ones. Sticking to the question of "improvement". These are just my opinion based on my experiences. I'm sure I'll forget something.

I think it's important to understand the changes implemented with this hybrid produced a carbine in .30 cal. carbine but not a true replica of a U.S. Carbine in .30 carbine. They looked similar but the changes made it a hybrid for the most part incompatible with most of the prior parts used by Universal Firearms or on the GI carbines. There is no U.S. on the receivers. This was discontinued a few years prior.

a) the changes made over time prior to s/n 100,000

Most if not all of of these were not attempts at design improvement vs. a cost effective replacement. I'll only comment on a few of them.

The Trigger Housing
The use of an aluminum trigger housing with steel parts, especially surplus GI parts, was not an improvement. Their redesign producing the rectangular trigger housing made of aluminum may have been an improvement over the first design but wasn't an improvement over the GI design.

Front Sight
This really about the manner in which the front sight was attached to the barrel using a set screw vs a key and pin. The "ears" on the GI design and those on the Universal design were both subject to damage during use.

The strength of the GI design is it was a reliable means of holding the front sight in place. To include removal/replacement of the front sight. The set screw was easier. Repeatedly removing and replacing it the use of a threadlocker adhesive to hold it in place is a good idea. So an improvement in removal but not with keeping the front sight secure after it was replaced.

The small set screw could get lost but so could the key and/or pin.

b) the changes with the hybrid design starting at s/n 100,000
and
c) a few of the changes made over time after s/n 100,000

Gas Piston & it's Housing
With the GI design the piston and it's nut were not to be removed by other than Ordnance personnel. That requirement worked for the carbine's time in the military but not during it's time in civilian use. The inside of the chamber housing needs to be cleaned to keep the carbine functional. Most shooters avoid cleaning this area due to the difficulty in removing the gas piston nut. Eventually resulting in malfunctions as the gas flow gets impeded by the left over powder residue. Especially with the variety of commercial ammo powders that are used.

Universal's hybrid design eliminated the gas piston nut. Using a pin through the gas piston housing to hold the gas piston in place. The pin fit is tight by necessity and requires a steel punch to remove it and replace it. The downside to this design isn't really a downside as opposed to common sense. The gas piston housing block needs to be supported when the pin is hammered out and back in. Not supporting the gas piston block can crack the weld that holds it to the barrel. A better design than the GI design for civilian use if it's done properly.

Welding the gas piston housing to the barrel was something Universal did almost from the beginning. Important that each one was done right. Breakage wasn't necessarily the fault of the design vs the use of improperly loaded ammunition.

Many owners don't have the manual that explains how to remove/replace the gas piston. So it doesn't get done. This isn't a design issue.

Twin Recoil Springs
It was recognized early on by Inland Mfg that the single recoil spring put the spring tension on only one side. They manufactured I think 3 prototypes with twin recoil springs. Then decided to stick with the single recoil spring. Someone else may know the why, it evades me at the moment. Serial numbers on those prototypes were in the 32-34 range. Bottom line is the GI carbines work fine with the single recoil spring.

Universal's use of the two recoil springs wasn't really better or or not as good as the GI design. Simply different. They also work fine. The use of the two instead of one may have been a better design over a single spring due to the design changes to the slide and/or receiver.

Slides
The GI design was a solid design they worked on improving slightly over time. To include strengthening the slide arm where it connects to the body, case ejection away from the chamber, and dwell time before the action opens. While all the GI slides work well in civilian use the better function design is generally considered to be the later slides with the angled front of the handle area that ejects the casings away from the chamber.

Universal's hybrid slide design included a number of changes that effects the answer to the question of "improvement" over the GI design.

The opening of the cam cut that engaged the right bolt lug in the slide handle area failed to take into account the forces exerted in and around that cam cut opening if there were problems that impeded the movement of the bolt or the slide. Or exerted more force on the slide, such as improperly loaded ammo. However, the GI design also had a weakness when this happened.

Theoretically there should be no force that impedes the movement of the slide or bolt or exerts too much force on that movement. So the "weakness" wasn't the GI design or the Universal design. Both designs worked equally as well. Unless that impediment or over exertion happened.

With the solid GI design impeding the movement of the slide or bolt exerted force on the right bolt lug. If a GI bolt fails it's most often the right bolt lug cracks or snaps off. Usually related to something impeding or overexerting the movement of the bolt/slide. Over exertion of the GI bolt/slide could also cause the receiver to crack in the rear of the opening for the right bolt lug.

With the open Universal design impeding or overexertion of the bolt/slide could crack or break the slide in the area around the open cam cut instead of the right bolt lug. Over exertion could also crack the receiver in the rear of the opening for the right bolt lug. Not to be confused with improper hardening of the bolt/slide as this description assumes the bolt/slide design to include proper hardening.

So the open cam cut wasn't necessarily worse than the GI design. But also wasn't an improvement. Because any crack around the open cam cut is usually obvious it stands out. Where a crack in the right bolt lug is often concealed by the slide until disassembly.

The slide retention pin ... Universal eliminated this pin with their hybrid. The earliest ones used a key and a screw to dismount the slide from the receiver. They discovered this weakness early on and soon corrected it by eliminating the key and screw using a notch in the right side of the receiver to allow removing the slide from the receiver. Still absent the slide retention pin.

The problem with both of these designs was there was no means of holding the slide in the open position absent a magazine in the carbine that had the follower with the bolt stop design. Resulting in the addition of a lever to the right side of the receiver that went thru the receiver and could engage the bolt. When the lever was moved it engaged the bolt and held it in the open position.

This lever was designed to be left in place and not removed. Which wasn't made clear in the manual. The manual many current Universal carbine owners don't have or refer to if they do. Not a weakness in the carbine design. It is extremely difficult to replace this lever and attachments once removed. Again assuming the lever was installed properly at the factory it normally wouldn't come loose.

So, as to the question of better than the GI design, I think this slide removal method and bolt open retention is better than the GI design. The GI slide retention pin is easy to remove, a little more difficult to replace but not as difficult as the lever used by Universal that was not intended to be removed. But the GI slide retention pin doesn't do a reliable job 100% of the time as many fingers can attest too. The design of the Universal Firearms lever held the bolt open securely.

Bolt
Rifle bolts used by most semi-auto and/or full auto military forces have been designed to prevent a hard blow to the front of the rifle from discharging a chambered cartridge. A concern in a military environment and especially during combat. The means by which this was done with the U.S. M1 rifle, the U.S. Carbine, and the M14 rifle was accomplished with the design of the bolt, firing pin, and receiver. The result being referred to as a floating firing pin.

A tang on the rear of the GI firing pins engages a cutout in the bottom of the receiver bridge that holds the firing pin in the rear of the bolt until the bolt rotates and locks shut. The cut in the receiver is critical for this to work and has been a challenge for almost all commercial carbine manufacturers to get it right to this day. Many have simply ignored it.

Universal eliminated the cut and tang on the rear of the receiver. The firing pin is held in the rear of the bolt by a strong spring that engages the front of the firing pin. This is a very common used and accepted practice for keeping the firing pin away from the front of the bolt and primer until the firing pin is stuck by the hammer. Universal didn't eliminate this safety feature they simply changed it to another method equally as safe.

The GI design has a secondary safety feature to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer until the bolt has rotated and locked. The design of the rear of the bolt and face of the hammer prevents the hammer from striking the firing pin until the bolt has rotated and locked shut. Universal's hybrid retained this secondary safety feature.

A common weakness of the GI floating firing pin design in the M1 rifle, carbine, and M14 rifle is something called a "slam fire". This can happen when the bolt is released either by accident or intentionally on a chambered cartridge. The momentum of the bolt and firing pin can cause the firing pin to strike the primer when the bolt rotates and locks without having pulled the trigger. It's not common and involves a certain set of circumstances to be present but it can and has happened. Keeping these parts clean helps prevent it.

The firing pin retention spring used by Universal prevents slam fires from happening. At the same time the spring is strong enough to prevent an accidental discharge if the barrel strikes something. Theoretically the floating firing pin design is more full proof against this happening but adds the danger of a slam fire.

The Universal Firearms bolt is an improvement in the GI safety design when the carbine is used outside a military/combat environment. With a the right firing pin spring the Universal Firearms design could be better than the GI design in a military/combat environment. Which leaves some room for theories and opinions.

The U.S. military has since changed their bolt designs to incorporate other means of preventing slam fires.

Receiver
The deep hole for the recoil spring has been a challenge since the first GI carbines. The challenge for the current commercial manufacturers has become more manageable with the improvements over time and availability of the machines that can do it. But over the years the commercial manufacturers have experienced the same problems experienced by those contracted during WWII to produce the GI carbines.

I've not seen a Universal carbine that has the single recoil spring that the deep hole was drilled out the side, bottom, or inside the receiver. Doesn't mean they didn't have the challenges that produced the problems. Some commercial manufacturers sold their receivers with an off center deep hole and/or the hole in the side, bottom, or inside at the end of the deep hole. Universal may have recycled those they had problems with.

As for the design of the Universal hybrid receivers from s/n 100,000 and above ... if hardened properly they worked fine. The design itself was not superior to the GI design unless one considers "superior" to include easier and/or less expensive for the manufacturer.

The right side of the receiver being thinner than the original GI design was acceptable to Ordnance as evidenced by their approval of the spring tube receivers used throughout production by Quality Hardware and used by several prime contractors in the beginning or as a means of salvaging their receivers that had the problems associated with drilling the deep hole. Though some back then considered the spring tube receivers less durable than those with the integral spring tube.

Personally, I think the GI receiver design with the integral spring tube as used by Universal prior to s/n 100,000 to be stronger than the GI spring tube receivers and those by Universal after s/n 100,000. Simply because of the thickness of the metal with the integral spring tube. I don't consider Universal's receiver for their hybrid superior in design for the end user. Both designs work if manufactured properly so I also don't consider the Universal hybrid receiver inferior. Simply different than those with the extra insurance of the added metal thickness along the right side. Either design can crack and usually in the same locations as the out of spec forces that can cause the cracks are the same in both designs.

Elsewhere on these forums there are posts showing a Winchester spring tube receiver with a crack at the rear of the opening for the right bolt lug along with a Universal hybrid receiver with a crack in the same location. This wasn't a design flaw in either. It was the forces and pressure exceeded the specs.

Summary
As to the question of was the hybrid design by Universal being superior to the original GI design .... keeping in mind the question is not was the carbine made by Universal Firearms superior to the carbines made under contract to U.S. Army Ordnance ... there are several things that need to be taken into account when comparing the two designs.

"Superior" does not necessarily mean those without the "superior" design are not adequate for their intended task. This also applies to the GI carbines of WWII and their design changes. As well as those made later for commercial sales. I'll get to the subject of "standards" in a moment. The question asked assumed standards were equal, maintained, and not an issue.

Different does not mean superior or inferior. It means different. I don't think there is much debate over whether or not the carbines by Universal or any other post WWII commercial manufacturer are different than those made under contract to Ordnance during WWII (see standards below).

The changes implemented by Universal weren't intended to improve on the GI design. Most were motivated by the cost of the parts and/or manufacturing them and/or improving the design of the carbine made by Universal Firearms. The hybrid was a work in progress to a degree it needed improvement and/or corrections to it's earlier designs. Some of which should have been worked out before it was introduced.

Cutting to the chase, finally, I think the design of the original GI carbines has proven itself as more durable and effective than any manufacturer or Ordnance ever expected it too. The design exceeded what the civilian gun manufacturers can afford to make that most civilians can afford that will keep the manufacturer in business.

None of the carbines made by Universal Firearms were superior to any of the GI carbines. Several of the design changes implemented by Universal had potential to improve on the GI carbine design but those design changes weren't made for GI carbines. They were for the carbines made by Universal with their hybrid being a different gun. Looked similar, used the same ammo, used the same magazines, has a short stroke gas piston, but the extent of the changes were enough that it was no longer a replica of the U.S. GI carbine. It was a hybrid.

So the question as to improvements in design over the GI carbine design really isn't applicable as the design changes weren't for or used with a GI carbine.

Take a step back for a moment and look at this from a slightly different perspective.

The bottom line from my perspective is whatever all these carbines were originally intended for and all the changes anyone made are not as relevant today as the fact all GI carbines and all Universal Firearms carbines are used guns. The manufacturers name isn't as important as evaluating each one on it's own for safety, function, and use. Winchester or Universal, doesn't make a difference when they are used guns.

The GI carbines, Universal's carbines, and all commercial .30 cal. carbines share common weaknesses from the original design of a magazine fed semi-auto centerfire rifle with a short stroke gas piston that are the most common causes for failures to feed, failures to extract, failures to eject, and catastrophic failures. Keep it clean and maintain it. To include the gas piston cylinder/chamber. Use factory ammo. Have the headspace checked occasionally as it gets out of spec from normal wear with use. If it has problems related to the cartridges or casings 9 times out of 10 it's caused by one of two things. Either the one part common to all that was the weakest part of the original design: the magazine. Or it hasn't been cleaned, maintained, and safety inspected periodically.

If a carbine has a problem it doesn't make sense to me to look at who made it 10-50 years ago and blame it on them. Or assume others who tell their stories took the time and effort to figure out what really happened. How many would admit the fault was theirs for not cleaning and maintaining their carbine?

I've long maintained that the best firearm is the one a person knows how to use, maintains, and uses all the time. The weakest link usually isn't the firearm, it's the human using it. Myself included.

A Few Comments on Standards

All of the carbines made for Ordnance during WWII were made by commercial manufacturers. One big difference was they were not in competition with one another. They often worked together to resolve problems and shift parts and material to where they were needed most. They all served the same master, U.S. Army Ordnance. With that master not only establishing quality control standards and holding all to those standards but helping each of the manufacturers acquire what they needed to get it done.

If anyone built a .30 cal. carbine to all of the GI standards of WWII or post WWII it would still have to pass an Ordnance inspection. Without which it would not be to GI specs. So no commercial manufacture can make one to all the GI specs.

How much would it cost to make that carbine to all the GI specs in today's world? $35 to $50 in 1945 equates to about $500 to $700 in 2020. Think you could make that all GI spec carbine for $750?

Which brings us to the standards used by commercial manufacturers. They have one element in common not in the GI standards: their standards have to include the survival of the company with most in existence to return a profit to the investments.

How many of those original manufacturers are still in business? Winchester is Winchester in name only. Why? Operational costs, overhead, profits in the civilian world. Doesn't matter if it's carbines, music boxes, cars, or tools.

Sometimes the quest for profits in the commercial world takes precedence over a quality product. The result being a different set of standards. A weakness of capitalism that is supposed to be balanced by the buying consumer.

You wanna know why the carbines made by Fulton Armory cost so much get your hands on one, closely examine it, then shoot it more than once. Then get your hands on a carbine by Auto-Ordnance and a modern day "Inland" and do the same. Then buy an old GI carbine and an old Universal carbine but get them safety inspected before you shoot them and make sure they are clean.

We buy what we can afford and sometimes lower standards are acceptable for the price difference. Some of my experience comes from having bought multiple carbines over time made by all the various manufacturers. More so the Universals because of all the negatives I'd seen. A fair assessment requires buying and getting experience with what was made over time as things changed at various times.

The Universal's I've owned and sold to get another have been no different than any other commercial carbine with the exception of those made by Fulton Armory. Which I purchased new. It's why I keep repeating, a used gun is a used gun, safety inspect it, clean it, maintain it, and use decent magazines. If something breaks it's probably because it reached the end of it's lifespan. GI parts have an incredible lifespan but their life has often been a very different life. We'd break too and a lot sooner if we went thru what they did.

FYI, I own one .30 cal. carbine as a shooter. I built it myself. And a second one for my son. Receiver made by commercial Springfield Armory in Geneseo, IL in the late 1990's. Milled from forged steel. All parts are late GI with most bought unused as new old stock. All the GI SA parts I could find then the rest all GI Inland late parts. I'm not a gunsmith and not anywhere near as capable as the folks at Fulton Armory. But you wouldn't wanna get shot by either one of these two. My daughter got one I bought new from Fulton Armory. I own only one other carbine that's a keeper. I'm not a collector of what I don't shoot. That other carbine is a Universal Firearms Vulcan model pump action .44 mag. Half carbine, half pump shotgun. The design is interesting to me and the carbine works like a champ at 55 years old.

Jim
Back to Top
W5USMC View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Apr 29 2017
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 1108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote W5USMC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2020 at 10:01am
Wow Jim, as usual great post! Thanks.
Wayne
USMC Retired
NRA Life Member
Back to Top
tenOCEE View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar
Knows rear sights!

Joined: Jan 01 2016
Location: East Tenn
Status: Offline
Points: 738
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tenOCEE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2020 at 10:30am
Ditto that.
My sig: Seen an IP or S'G'? Add it to my registry. We'll check consecutives.
https://grandrapids.wufoo.com/forms/zzlnt0519k86xs/
Back to Top
floydthecat View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps


Joined: Oct 13 2016
Location: Mississippi
Status: Offline
Points: 731
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote floydthecat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Feb 14 2020 at 3:03pm
I doubt there is anyone alive that has taken-up and published the research to the degree my “distant cousin” Jim has. 
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 0.078 seconds.