Johnson 30-06

sksavenger

sksavenger

CGN Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Central Sask
do any of you know anything about a semi auto 30-06 made by johnson i believe. If i remember they had an 8 or 10 shot rotary magazine. non detach i think. i believe they were made near the end of WW11. Any info would be great
thnx
 
Johnson Model 1941 Semi automatic rifle. Used by the Parachute Marines. It uses a 10 round rotary magazine and has the ability to be topped off with 5 round springfield '03 stripper clips. The magazine is internal, therefore cannot be detached. Never were alot made, production ceased later in the war due to the abundance of M1 rifles.

Hope this has answered some of your questions

Cheers,
Hans
 
Very rare in Canada. I know a couple of people who have ones on here. Probably 1000$ + for one. Most of them bought the rifles a long time ago, so they bought theirs around 500$. They've probably tripled in value now. Try putting a WTB notice on the exchange forum. Who knows? You might get very lucky.

Cheers,
Hans
 
Here is a site for the Johnson rifle and there is lots of info on it..i should know, the one i have is #990 off the line..yes thats right i have the nine hundred and ninety rifle produced. www.johnsonautomatics.com In my life time i have only seen 3 in kanaduh and my buddie has one which is 90%plus.Im 39 years old and yes they are rare.The last one i seen about 5 years ago had a price of $1800.00 on it and i wish i would have bought it.
The series started with the number 1 to 1000 and then the prefix A was added to the next 1000 then B and so on.I found mine at a small time auction and i got mine for $165.00 canadian cause no one knew what it was,so i got lucky that time.Unfortunately the only records that are around end with #1000 and the records after that were destroyed in a fire if memory serves me correct.
Check out the site as there is lots of info on it and diagrams and pics also..plus there is original bills copied for rifle orders and one guy from the states is a guru on the rifle..I hope this helps you out as its a real interesting rifle to play with and if you have any questions feel free to contact me and i wiil try and get what ever info you need....take care...Ice:)
 
There were 2 at the Bud Haynes gun auction 1 in 30/06 and 1 in 30 Gibbs.The 06 sold for $1500 the Gibbs for $900
208-B-30.--- Ser.# 0589, Johnson, mod. M-1941, .30/06 Spring. cal. 5-shot s/auto milt. rifle w/559mm bbl. [appears VG, wood refinished.] FRC#439471.




208-B-33.--- Ser.# 3627, Johnson, mod. M-1941, .30 Gibbs cal. 5-shot s/auto milt. rifle w/610mm bbl. [appears VG, wood refinished over old professionally repaired crack @ wrist, w/leather sling. Drilled & tapped for scope mnts.] FRC#458472.
 
yohann160 said:
I like how the US Military always chooses the best and prettiest weapons. Very glad they took the M1 and not the M1941.
Click to expand...


Actually, if you study the facts, you'll find that the johnson was the better rifle. The reason they stayed with the garand was that it was already in production, and with the war coming up fast, they decided it was the wrong time to change horses. Funnily enough, the only strong problem the army had with the rifle was that they felt the unsupported barrel end would bend during bayonet fighting. The marines used a lot of Johnson LMGs in the first year or two of the pacific campaigns, and from what I can find, they where not at all happy to give them up for BARs.

.02$

Darren
 
Darren Constable said:
Actually, if you study the facts, you'll find that the johnson was the better rifle. The reason they stayed with the garand was that it was already in production, and with the war coming up fast, they decided it was the wrong time to change horses. Funnily enough, the only strong problem the army had with the rifle was that they felt the unsupported barrel end would bend during bayonet fighting. The marines used a lot of Johnson LMGs in the first year or two of the pacific campaigns, and from what I can find, they where not at all happy to give them up for BARs.

.02$

Darren
Click to expand...

I beg to disagree, I've owned a Johnson and still own a "few" Garands, and by far, the US made the right choice. The M1 is much easier to field strip and clean, much more rugged, has better sights and has a better loading system. The mag on the 41 was very thin metal and could be easily dinted, which made it almost useless. As far as being rare in Canada, when I was a kid in the 60's you could buy them for around $250 from International Firearm in Montreal. He bought the whole lot of them when they came on the market back then. Most of the 41's you see today were made for the Dutch Army at the first of the war, but because of the quick invasion of Holland, they never got out of the port in the US. They basiclly stayed in storage until the 60's (the short story). As for the US using them, yes some units did, but it was never adopted by the US at any time.

Cheers
Dean
 
Sgt Striker said:
I beg to disagree, I've owned a Johnson and still own a "few" Garands, and by far, the US made the right choice. The M1 is much easier to field strip and clean, much more rugged, has better sights and has a better loading system. The mag on the 41 was very thin metal and could be easily dinted, which made it almost useless. As far as being rare in Canada, when I was a kid in the 60's you could buy them for around $250 from International Firearm in Montreal. He bought the whole lot of them when they came on the market back then. Most of the 41's you see today were made for the Dutch Army at the first of the war, but because of the quick invasion of Holland, they never got out of the port in the US. They basiclly stayed in storage until the 60's (the short story). As for the US using them, yes some units did, but it was never adopted by the US at any time.

Cheers
Dean
Click to expand...

Concur

While the Johnson is an interesting (and very advanced) design, I really don't think that it could be described as better than the M1.

To my way of thinking, it reminds me of the Canadian Ross/Enfield debacle, or perhap the Peterson which also lost out to the Garand:

It does have some very advance features, but like every other "advanced" piece of kit which was NOT adopted a conspiricy/superiority myth has grown up around it.
 
I have had two Johnson M1941 rifles and half a dozen M1 rifles over the years, so I've had a good deal of time to evaluate the pros and cons of the two.

M1 Pros: Has fewer parts than a Johnson, balances better (my opinion), better sights, and breaks down for cleaning and maintenance very easily. Safety is positive and easily manipulated. Bayonet mounting is suitable for hand-to-hand combat. It is gas operated.

M1941 Pros: Barrel is removed for reducing the overall length of the rifle (important for paratroops), multi-lugged bolt locking into barrel elimiates headspace problems, magazine can be topped off at any time using 5-round Springfield clips). It is recoil operated.

M1 Cons: 8-round enbloc clip cannot be reloaded; must be expended or partial clip ejected and replaced with a full one, clip "twangs" on ejection of last round signalling rifle is empty.

M1941 Cons: Too many small parts, special pins that hold butt stock and forearm to magazine are subject to loss -- which renders the rifle useless, rear sight is fragile, balance is awkward (my opinion), receiver is very complicated and takes a lot of time to make, safety is awkward. Bayonet is not suitable for hand-to-hand combat (too fragile).

Note: My first Johnson had a missing retaining pin that was replaced with a handmade substitute. The original pins had a stamped tang with a detent. When the pin was inserted (fore or aft of the magazine), it was rotated and the detent latched into a machined V-cut on the receiver. This kept the pins from loosening up and falling out when the rifle was fired. My replacement pin did exactly what it was not supposed to do: loosen up and fall out. I searched for nearly two years before I found an original pin. These two damned pins are the Johnson's greatest flaw.

Put it this way, the Johnson is a nicely made, quality rifle. But, it is not (my opinion) my choice for a "go to war rifle." The Garand prooved itself from desert to mountains to jungles to arctic wastes. There were just too few Johnson rifles and Johnson light machine guns made to have any real effect on WW2. There were 4-1/2 million Garands made.

After WW2, surplus Johnsons equipped troops in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). During the mid-1950's a company called Winfield Arms in California reimported a lot of these surplus Johnsons and converted them into "sporters" in various calibers. One of the reasons why Johnson rifles in their issue G.I. condition are difficult to find is that Winfield threw the parts removed from their "sporter" creations away!

MG
 
Does the Johnson have to have its 10 shot magazine pinned to hold only 5 shots under our laws? It's a semi center fire.
 
Johnson

I had a johnson in my hands at the local Army & Navy store in 1957 & like a fool I passed it up & bought a LE Mk iv economy was the issue ( $11.95 vs $19.95 cdn):rolleyes: If ever a lightning bolt was to strike me, it should have been then;)
 
The sights on the Johnson are both good and bad. The front sight is a rugged blade with protective "ears." That's the good news.

The rear sight is another story -- that's the bad news. The sight itself is a large leaf spring. It has a slide on the end that goes into a dovetail on the top of the receiver. The sight elevator is a piece that straddles the top of the receiver. The sight leaf has a pair of tangs that engage range notches on the sight elevator. The tension of the leaf keeps the sight elevated and locked in the range notches.

The rear sight is a peep sight that has a knob that moves it right or left for windage adjustments. The sight aperture is structurally weak and can loosen up. Once damaged, it is not easily fixed. The windage markings are not easily read.

In comparison, the M1 Garand rear sight that fits between the two lugs of the rear receiver is far more robust. The windage and elevationmarks are easily read and felt. The WW2 Garand sights had a serious design deficiency -- the locking bar that kept elevation and windage from changes after it was set. The locking bar was deleted because the whole elevation knob assembly had to be replaced if the locking bar was removed. The end of the pinion shaft was staked to retain the locking bar. If the bar was removed, the pinion shaft was re-staked. The limit for staking of the shaft was twice; there was no third time.

Post WW2 sights were redesigned with a new windage and elevation knob that was both simple and could be disassembled without damage. The sight itself is very simple: windage and elevation knobs, sight base, aperture, and sight cover. The adjustments are very easy and the "clicks" can be felt as the sights are moved. The windage and elevation clicks are repeatable -- and move the sight consistently right, left, up, or down. This is not the case with the Johnson's sights which are much cruder in comparison.

Of all the rifles I have owned and shot, the sights on the M1 and M14 are the best iron sights in the world that have been fitted to a combat rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom