1941 Johnson

[Cecil]

Took my rifle to the range today for the third time in two weeks. The first two trips were without incident. Today at the range I had two double taps. I know its not an M1 but we don't have a Johnson Board yet. Any thoughts?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Lance White]

"Milking the trigger" - its especially common on M1's held somewhat loosely while shooting on a rest. It's basically a static condition caused by the recoil of the rifle resetting the trigger while you are maintain constant pressure in trigger follow-through. Same thing as "bump firing"

[Rick B]

It may be just getting used to the Johnson. That recoil operated barrel is a trip as you are waiting for a big kick. Instead you get a delayed push and ever so lightly. Darn things are super accurate though but that stock would have never lasted when a G.I. would drop down on it to get out of harms way. Those tow bolt points are super weak and the rear bolt cover binds up and cracks the stock when the screws come loose. Common cracks are the front of the butt stock where the drum face is and the rear looping around from the bolt cover. Rick B

[Dan Shapiro]

As mentioned, doubles are 99.9% operator error. The rifle not held firmly into the shoulder. Shooter fires and does not continue to pull the trigger all the way to the rear (follow-through). Rifle goes back into the shoulder, at the same time extracting the fired round and chambering the new round. As the rifle moves forward (rebound) from the shoulder, the trigger smacks back into your trigger finger and BANG! You double. Takes you by surprise as you think you're about to go full auto. So you tighten your grip on the rifle, at the same time pulling your finger away from the trigger. Now rifle doesn't fire again.

[Cecil]

I haven't learned all the parts nomenclature yet but there is a part that snaps onto the rear of the receiver. With the repro stock on the rifle that piece will reverberate and actually sting your hand when the rifle is fired. Apparently I unconsciously changed my grip on the stock and placement in my shoulder. Now that the original stock is back on the problem appears solved.

[Gyrene]

A few years ago I wrote about the M1941Johnson that I got. Unfortunately it was a Winfield Sporter, however it does have a Johnson barrel (and the Winfield {converted Johnson} barrel), and the replacement Johnson buttstock, I believe it was from our M1941 Johnson guy in Texas (maybe Joe Scott?). It does have the Winfield buttstock, too), and an original Johnson bayonet with original scabbard.

It was blued by Winfeld, and they don't look too bad in blue, but I wish it was still in the original parkerized configuration. You just have to take what is available, or spend a fortune and get who knows what ???

Gyrene OFC

semper fi


`

[BarryinIN]

You just have to take what is available, or spend a fortune and get who knows what ???

That's kinda how I looked at it. Mine is a Winfield Arms gun, but was a lot less money than one that was "right". I'd rather have my "almost there" rifle and be working on it than have none at all. Plus, I get to rescue one.

[Jim K]

There still seem to be some folks around from the cult of St. Melvin. A year or so ago, I commented that, while the Johnson was ingenious and had some good points, it simply was nowhere near the rifle the M1 was as a battle rifle, and it did not deserve to be adopted. Boy, did I get flamed. I was called names, John Garand was called names, the M1 was trashed, etc.

Much of the criticism came from Marines: Johnson was a Marine (reservist), and any rifle invented by a Marine had to be perfect, and how dare I criticize....

I said then, and will repeat, that I get the impression that Johnson worked the basic mechanism out pretty well on the bench, then someone told him at 9am that they needed a complete rifle by that afternoon. The rest of the rifle, stock and all, has the look of an afterthought.

Jim

[Cecil]

There still seem to be some folks around from the cult of St. Melvin. A year or so ago, I commented that, while the Johnson was ingenious and had some good points, it simply was nowhere near the rifle the M1 was as a battle rifle, and it did not deserve to be adopted. Boy, did I get flamed. I was called names, John Garand was called names, the M1 was trashed, etc.

Much of the criticism came from Marines: Johnson was a Marine (reservist), and any rifle invented by a Marine had to be perfect, and how dare I criticize....

I said then, and will repeat, that I get the impression that Johnson worked the basic mechanism out pretty well on the bench, then someone told him at 9am that they needed a complete rifle by that afternoon. The rest of the rifle, stock and all, has the look of an afterthought.

Jim

You've posted this same message on the other Johnson Forums. My impression is that for some convoluted reason your looking for a fight, again.
I have no intention of giving you one. I will say though that I happen to the be the proud owner of both pieces of history and can say without reservation that I would be happy to use either rifle in combat.

[BarryinIN]

Yeah, I'd wonder why anyone would do it once, let alone twice (at least) unless they just get a kick out of the attention.
There. I just gave you ten seconds' worth.