The M1 in the American Rifleman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick B

I bought it for $425.00

---

I think one of mine was about $650 CDN and the other was a bit less as a sporter modified. My bayonet was about $125CDN from Marstar back then and the scabbard had a repair but was present. This was mid '80s...(?)

The one I've got is a four digit no alpha prefix, but got the Winfield treatment. Ejection is indeed brisk.

Nice lookin' walnut on that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Low & Slow

Ejection is indeed brisk.

---

Glad to hear though, I mentioned it one time and was almost burned in effigy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I think one of mine was about $650 CDN and the other was a bit less as a sporter modified. My bayonet was about $125CDN from Marstar back then and the scabbard had a repair but was present. This was mid '80s...(?)

---

I was offered one about 4-5 years ago, about 10x that price of yours. Too much for me. The owner told me the ejection destroyed the brass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StratA

about 10x that price

---

Yes, when I sold mine to a friend, he gave me $1500cdn for the Johnstone, an M1 Thompson and an M1 carbine...that was about 1990 I think. Low but do-able...sad. Now the Johnstone alone would be about $5/6000CDN if you're willing to take the chance with our Gubm'nt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StratA

The owner told me the ejection destroyed the brass.

---

Maybe it was my old one. Caved the left rim right in, then the outside edge of the mouth against the receiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

then the outside edge of the mouth against the receiver.

---

Part of my cleaning regimen involves removing the brass residue off the receiver.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RCS

There were some powerful elected officials and well known gun writers of the day that were looking forward for the M1 Garand to have a bad performance during the National Matches and testing.
Then they could promote their beloved Johnson rifle as the first choice to adopt instead of the M1 Garand rifle.

I have fired a few Johnson 1941 rifles and I can relate to the violent ejection pattern of these rifles, something was wrong with the timing and design. They also made a point that the Johnson
barrel could be removed in the field - like it was really important for the infantry soldier to be able to change out his rifle barrel in combat ? The Johnson bayonet ! not worth talking about it.

Then there was talk how the Johnson 1941 light machine gun could replace the BAR. It was obvious that Johnson could not adopt a magazine like the 20rd BAR (or FG 42) and used the awkward
single cartrdige feed on his design.

I did know a collector who owned Johnson serial number R13 and even years ago it was valued at 10K

---

The ability to change out the barrel on a 1941 JSAR during battle was never considered. However the ability made breaking the rifle down for parachutists and being able to clean the bore from the breech without further disassembly was considered an advantage by some.

---------- Post added at 07:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Low & Slow

The one I've got is a four digit no alpha prefix, but got the Winfield treatment. Ejection is indeed brisk.

---

People sometimes forget that brass (in military thinking) is considered disposable and it's condition after firing is completely irrelevant. The object it to get it out and where it goes and how it looks doesn't matter in combat. My JSAR also tosses brass like an Olympic shot put thrower with no sense of direction and dents it a bit but it is perfectly reloadable. Granted a small dent here and there, but I'm not relying on it for survival.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eb in oregon

People sometimes forget that brass (in military thinking) is considered disposable

---

Agreed and I was only speaking from a present day shooter position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eb in oregon

the ability made breaking the rifle down for parachutists

---

That one was a problem as the jacket COULD take a dent and the barrel collars would never slide back in. I don't know if testing or practice ever proved that one for real.

Given the short development period, I think a pretty good result was obtained.