M1 and M2 differences - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M1 Carbine

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2004, 06:08 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 35
M1 and M2 differences

Can anyone tell me what parts are different between an M1 and M2?

Pictures would be great.

Thanks

Light Infantry
light infantry is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 06:35 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N.E.Ohio
Posts: 3,218
There are differences in the slide, trigger housing, sear and hammer. There are also a bunch of extra parts in the M2 like the selector switch the "9" spring, disconector assembly, disconnector block, etc.... There is no difference in the receiver, except for the marking.
jimb16 is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 08:00 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 555
You also must use a round bolt with the M2
hired_gun is offline  
 
Old 10-11-2004, 08:09 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Jeremy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Camp Lejeune
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by hired_gun
You also must use a round bolt with the M2
Not true...flat bolts work as well.
Jeremy is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 08:30 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 555
It will work but it can also cause problems that you won't have with a round bolt.

With the introduction of the round bolt there was an increase in bearing surface. This allowed for a smoother operation of the rifle in general and help prevent the bolt from "jumping around" which was very important when operated on full auto.

I have yet to see a M2 in USGI configuration with a flat bolt.
hired_gun is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 01:33 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,132
I'll say this with a caveat that I don't own an M2 and maybe what I say should be taken with a grain of salt, but I recall reading somewhere the round bolts for the M-2 were specially hardened to deal with the rigor of full auto fire. IF this is true, I'd think it would be one more reason to make sure it's in the M-2. Just my 1.5 cents...
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 01:39 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 321
The round bolt works better but the flat bolt works too. The round bolt works better because it helped to regulate the rate of fire better. As Tommy said I don't own one but I have done a report on the weapons of the Korean War. Hope this helps, Wayne or Jimb will be along soon I bet to help you.
S.K.89 is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 02:46 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 555
That's true. While a flat bolt will work with a M1 you are better using a round bolt.

The chief reason for making the round bolt was for cost reduction as it required less milling than the flat bolt. As a result it had more weight than the flat bolt and because it was round all the way around it offered better bearing because it kept the whole bolt in contact with the receiver as it cycled. The round bolt also slowed the rate of cycle down because of the same reasons.

The reason why the round bolt was not considered an M2 production part was because by the time the M2 went into production the round bolt was already considered to be a "standard" part of the M1.

I don't believe that there was any difference in the hardening of the two bolts but I may be wrong. [/i]
hired_gun is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 03:55 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N.E.Ohio
Posts: 3,218
First, the round bolt was developed for the M1, not the M2. It was coincidental that it worked better than the flat bolt. Since it did, and was beefier and better able to stand the strain, ordnance decided to use only round bolts on M2s. I've seen M2s shoot with flat bolts. The cyclic rate is higher due to the lighter weight, but the beating the whole carbine takes is also greater. It will work, but it certainly isn't recommended.
jimb16 is offline  
Old 10-11-2004, 10:36 PM   #10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ditto hired_gun, s.k. 89 and jimb, if the round bolt hadn't come out when it did, they would have used the flat bolt. I can't say I have ever tried a flat bolt, as I didn't want to fool with the military specs at that rate of fire. I still hear mag catches, flip safeties and adj. rear sights referred to as M2, but they weren't designed for this purpose, it just worked out they were used alot for that time-period, and they were the latest designs. You guys did good, didn't really need jimbs or my input.
 
Old 09-04-2013, 03:34 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1
From everything I have read about the M1 and M2 Carbine differences, it looks like there are no differences in the receiver. However, I have an M2 the receiver is worn excessively. A gunsmith gunsmith told me that a M1 receiver would not fit the M2 for full auto without some machining of the receiver. Does anyone know if that is true?
Dvldog is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 05:06 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,298
Dvldog,

NOT being "a fan of" the M1/M2 carbine, I cannot answer your question but WELCOME ABOARD.
(We are blessed to have NUMEROUS true experts on this forum, who can CORRECTLY answer your query. = You have found "THE RIGHT PLACE".)

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 05:54 PM   #13
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvldog View Post
From everything I have read about the M1 and M2 Carbine differences, it looks like there are no differences in the receiver. However, I have an M2 the receiver is worn excessively. A gunsmith gunsmith told me that a M1 receiver would not fit the M2 for full auto without some machining of the receiver. Does anyone know if that is true?
There might be a slight modification that can be done with a hand file up in the area of the selector lever. Or it might be that that mod is made on the trigger housing--been a while (decades) since I've seen it done.

If your M2 receiver is "worn out," I think you're out of luck, as the ATF will no longer allow an M1 to be legally converted. Unless there's some provision in the law or regs that specifically allows the replacement of a worn-out receiver (someone might know more than I do about this).
Snake45 is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 06:58 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Charlie Petty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,954
There is also a considerable difference in the stock. The M-2 stock has a clearance cut for the selector switch.

I'm pretty sure the M-2 parts can be put in an M-1 trigger group
Charlie Petty is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 07:16 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,203
The only difference between an M1 carbine receiver and an M2 is the "2" stamp.

Since the receivers are exactly the same, the registered "part" is actually the conversion kit itself as I recall.
Since the military itself often converted M1 carbines to full-auto and back again, and there was no difference in receivers, this was the only thing the BATF could do.

I "think" (Note the qualifier) that you can legally install a registered full-auto kit on another carbine since the kit is the registered part, but you need to talk to the BATF to get all this clear and make sure you have all the proper paperwork.
dfariswheel is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 07:17 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,132
I know that there was a kit that was made, called a T-17 kit assuming my memory works, that contained the parts that were used to switch the M1 over to M2 configuration. At one point you were allowed to own the kit if it wasn't installed in a weapon but that is no longer true.
The BATF, since it can unConstitutionally rewrite laws to suit its purpose has changed the law a number of years ago and you can't have the kit.
Somewhere I have a video that was made by the army that shows how both the M1 and M2 work and shows the differences .... but I seem to have misplaced it.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 09-04-2013, 07:59 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,298
to ALL,

At least as of 08/04/13 (the DIM-wits on the far left may change that situation at any time that pleases their SILLY PREJUDICES!), you can have ALL the M2 parts installed on a carbine EXCEPT ONE but that ONE cannot be a spring.
(Don't get caught with that ONE part in your possession, while having the other parts.)

IF that UTTER FOOLISHNESS doesn't tell you how downright STUPID that the federal government IS, there is NO hope for you.

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 02:48 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfariswheel View Post
Since the receivers are exactly the same, the registered "part" is actually the conversion kit itself as I recall.
I think this is the first time I've ever heard this. Do you have a reference, source, or link?

If this were the case, at least one part would have to carry a serial number. None of the GI parts are SNed. It's logical to assume that the ATF would specify which part would have to be numbered.

I've never heard anything to suggest that M2 carbines, or legally converted M1s (pre-1986), were registered by anything other than their regular (receiver) serial numbers.

I AM aware of the ATF registering AR-15 "drop in auto sears" as "complete" full-auto weapons, but have never heard of this applying to carbines or any other gun.

I could be wrong....
Snake45 is offline  
Old 09-05-2013, 02:50 PM   #19
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Petty View Post
I'm pretty sure the M-2 parts can be put in an M-1 trigger group
The hammer, trigger, sear, and so forth drop right in. But you need to make a mod up at the front end, a detent notch for the 6-shaped (or 9-shaped, if you prefer) selector switch spring.

M2 trigger housings are common--or were at one time not that long ago. Not 100% sure if that statement's still true today.
Snake45 is offline  
Old 08-08-2014, 07:44 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Andalusia Alabama
Posts: 3
I have 2 Carbines and they both have M2 trigger housing in them. I see them at gun shows and some of the sellers don't know the difference.

Last show I went to one guy was selling M2 sears for M1 I told him that and he said there both the same.
Paul
Old Iron is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M1 Carbine


Search tags for this page

difference between m1 and m2

,

difference between m1 and m2 carbine

,

difference between m1 and m2 rifle

,

m1 and m2 difference

,

m1 m2 carbine difference

,

m1 m2 carbine differences

,
m1 m2 hammer differance
,
show the difference between the m1 carbine and the m2
,
what is the difference between m1 and m2 carbine
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
M80 Ball Differences? Ammunition 4 11-27-2010 05:54 PM
Winchester 97 Differences David Berkowitz Shotguns 4 04-06-2009 09:35 AM
9mm differences fstdraw Ammunition 3 11-15-2006 08:24 AM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.