Doughboy

Friends,

I'm considering assembling a "clone" of a "folding stock" MMJ Carbine in .22 Spitfire.
(I cannot afford an "original Johnson Carbine", as the current "asking price" is often as much as 5,000.oo USD.)

I find anyone calling ANY Johnson Carbine "original" is somewhat amusing, inasmuch as the only REALLY "original" thing made by Melvin Johnson's company was the barrels & (sometimes) a few "small parts". - In point of fact, SOME "original Johnson Carbines" are UNMARKED & can only be identified by the receiver's serial number alone.
(There is a "by serial number list" of all KNOWN "Johnson Arms-made carbines". - The list may NOT be ALL of the receivers that MMJ used.)

I have found a company in Indonesia that are making folding "paratrooper" stocks that cannot be told from the WWII & Korean War USGI production.
(The "name" of "Paratrooper Carbine" is factually/historically incorrect, inasmuch as the folding stock carbines were made for ARMORED VEHICLE use. Many of the "folding stock carbines" were issued with the tool kit & "onboard" spare parts for heavy trucks, like POL Tankers. = IF anything, they should be called: "Tanker Carbines".)

Therefore, IF anyone has a "source" for a stripped .30 Caliber carbine receiver at a "decent price", I would like to know of it.

THANKS for reading this thread.

yours, sw

dfariswheel

It's getting hard to find a usable M1 carbine receiver these days.
What you usually find are worn out or scrapped receivers that are welded together from miss-matched receivers.
These are not suitable to spend any money on.

Fulton sells newly made top quality receivers.....

https://www.fulton-armory.com/m1-carbine-receivers.aspx

Other than that, watch the gun auctions like Gunbroker.com for one to turn up, but it's Buyer Beware to avoid a welded or old, clapped out receiver that's not usable.

I'm not sure where you got the info that the folding stock carbine was developed for tankers and truckers.
There's plenty of original records documenting that the folding stock carbine was developed by Inland specifically on a request of the Airborne units.
Among others, Bruce Dow who is America's top military arms historian is an editor for the NRA American Rifleman and has done articles on the development of the M1 carbine, including the complete history of the folding stock version.
No expert I've ever read said anything about the folding stock carbine being developed for tankers or truckers.

I've never seen a WWII photo of a tanker or truck driver with a folding stock carbine.
Truckers were issued a standard stocked carbine or a 1903 or 1917 rifle if they even had a weapon.
Tankers were not issued firearms, the weapons were issued to the TANK, not per man.
A tank was usually issued 3 .45 pistols, one submachine gun, and one standard stocked carbine.
Who got what was decided by the tank commander.

As for the foreign made folding stock replica, I'm betting that the experts can give you chapter and verse on how it's not a close copy of the original folding stock.
You might take a look at this site.....

http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/modelM1A1.html

In any case, good luck with your project.
Unfortunately you missed the boat on carbine receivers. The CMP was selling a few about 8 years or so ago.

Snake45

Most of the replica/repro/remake M1A1 stocks I've seen are much too "straight," i.e., not nearly enough drop. This makes them look odd to me. I wouldn't mind buying a new repro if I could find one that had this right.

Doughboy

dfariswheel,

My source was the LINE CHIEF of RAAD, who was directly involved in the design of the folding-stock carbine (I knew Mr. Charles H Skelton, Sr. in the mid-1960s.- He was a close friend of my dad's) AND the preface to the "GS tech manual" for the .30 carbine.
(Mr. Skelton said that the "original proposal" was to issue the carbines to tank crews & to make a carbine "part of the OVM kit for trucks of greater than 5T capacity".)

Have you got a conflicting source to offer everyone??

yours, sw

dfariswheel

Yes.

Well known M1 Carbine and US military arms expert Bruce Dow NRA Editor and author.

US Military Ordnance Museum director and internationally known military arms expert William Atwater who had access to all US government records on the M1 Carbine and other arms.

Author Larry L. Ruth writer of the "War Baby" books on the M1 Carbine which are considered to be the "standard reference" for collectors and who had access to all Carbine manufacturers company production histories and documents.

Scott Duff internationally known expert on martial arms and author.

The National Rifle Association who are internationally known arms experts and the repository of many US government small arms records.

The US Paratrooper Association who have extensive records.

The US Airborne Association who have many documents written by the WWII paratrooper commanders like General Gavin discussing the M1 paratrooper Carbine. (Which like many paratrooper commanders Gavin HATED the Carbine.)

The 82nd Airborne Association who have records and personal accounts of the commanders discussing the Carbine.
It was apparently the 82nd who first asked Ordnance for a folding stock Carbine.

The 101st Airborne Association. More personal accounts of the paratrooper Carbine design and adoption.

The US Army Ordnance Association who have many records and accounts by WWII Ordnance members involved in the paratrooper Carbine development.

Last, like a lot of people I've always had a high interest in WWII.
I've seen literally thousands of photos and film clips of US personnel in Europe and the Pacific and read many, many books by military personnel who served in and near combat.

In all those pictures, video, and books, I've never seen a single picture or mention of a tanker issued a folding stock Carbine, nor have I seen or heard a single instance of any kind of truck driver issued a folding stock Carbine.

Were tankers or truckers issue a folding stock carbine there should be at least ONE photo or mention of it somewhere.

TommyGunn

I wonder what Gavin's complaint against the carbine was ...... ?

dfariswheel

Gavin hated the Carbine because they failed him in Sicily.

He wrote about this in his book "On To Berlin".
He jumped into Sicily with a Carbine.
When he landed he tried to take some German soldiers under fire and his Carbine just wouldn't work.
He grabbed another from a fellow officer and it too failed to work.
Several other paratroopers in the same group as Gavin had failures of their Carbines.

Next day as he was passing by a field medical station he picked up an M1 Rifle from a casualty and he carried (and used) that M1 Rifle for the rest of the war.
There's a photo of Gavin gearing up for the jump into Holland for Market Garden.
He's wearing a .45 in a tied down Model 1916 hip holster and the M1 Rifle is leaning up on a pack at his feet.

There's been speculation that Gavin and other paratroopers were issued very early Carbines which didn't have the manufacturing bugs worked out yet.
In any case he hated the Carbine and was one of the Airborne commanders who requested a carbine version of the M1 Rifle.
Before much could be done with that the war ended.

Other paratrooper commanders thought the Carbine was too under powered for regular use in combat and was too short ranged.
Contrast that with Audie Murphy who's favorite weapon was his "lucky Carbine" with which he was so deadly.

TommyGunn

Yeeeuup.

It's a bit odd that he apparently had two failures with the carbine --- his and then one he appropriated.
Such would leave a bad taste in one's mouth, especially in war. I've heard complaints of the carbine being underpowered, which I suppose were made by those trying to use it when the Garand would have worked much better.

While General Patton considered the Garand the best battle rifle ever, I once read a letter to the editor of a gun mag from a WW2 vet who disparaged the Garand, and said he'd then been given a carbine, and he loved it.

I guess it depends on the soldier's experience .....

csmkersh

My Army training said the Carbine was originally meant to be fielded as a replacement for the 1911 .45 ACP. The light recoil of a pistol cartridge in a small rifle allowed troops, both officer and enlisted, to be trained to hit their target whereas many never mastered the 1911.


The "Daisy Mae" carbines are completely different animals than the .30 Carbine. Did I miss the boat somewhere?

TommyGunn

That was my understanding as well. As well, really for rear echelon commandos. The fact it saw battles in the numbers it did was testament to success .... but it should be noted that those who used it in European theaters where long ranges were more often the norm did criticize the weapon for its shortcomings in that realm.

dfariswheel

As said, the M1 Carbine was intended to be a replacement for a pistol for non-combat troops or troops who operated crew served weapons like artillery or mortars.

Since most users of the pistol got little to no training and even an expert couldn't get reliable hits at over 50 yards, the military rightly and smartly decided a short, light, low recoiling, high magazine capacity, selective full-auto carbine-like rifle would be ideal and would allow these non-combat troops a fighting chance.
The original concept was for selective full-auto and a 50 round magazine.
The full-auto and 30 round magazine didn't make it until the last weeks of the war.

The idea for the Carbine was due to the rapid attack methods of the German Blitzkrieg in which rearward troops might find themselves under sudden attack by a German break through, as happened during the Battle of the Bulge.
Troops armed with a pistol would stand little chance and pistols were too easily misplaced and were always a target for theft.

Common sense would indicate that a short, light, high magazine capacity, and "handy" little rifle would be just too attractive to front line combat troops, and that's exactly what happened.
Like it or not the Carbine became a front line weapon where it was generally well liked and very effective.
It was not as long ranged or as powerful as an M1 Rifle, but in Europe and the Pacific combat usually didn't happen at long ranges and the Carbine was suitable for those types of combat.

Nothing much was heard about the under powered nature of the Carbine until Korea where combat often took place at long ranges where the Carbine just didn't have enough power to stop enemy troops at a distance.
In Vietnam, again the Carbine was considered to be a very effective weapon and many early Special Forces and advisers used the M1 or M2 Carbine by preference.

Javlin

I have an a buddy served in Nam with a bit of property one of the conditions when I come out to shoot is the carbine has to come also!Joe served as a radio operator out in the field that and the 45 were his go to weapons.Joe can still shoot my 45 better than I probably ever will by a long shot