Armory Sponsor
Posted: 5/1/2025 8:41:04 PM EDT
|
...that isn't fully compatible with USGI parts? Aren't the technical drawings for each part out there and available? Is it cost cutting / cutting cvorners? Bad / sloppy reverse engineering? Desire for certain parts to be proprietary so you're the only source of replacements? Something else? Everything I've read about the currently available carbine clones says that other than Fulton Armory, every brand has some sort of issue or incompatibility with GI parts. Wouldn't it be easier to make them correctly in the first place? |
There's a prize at the bottom of every box of .22LR. It's called happiness. Keep shooting!
|
Originally Posted By Grendel_J: ...that isn't fully compatible with USGI parts? Aren't the technical drawings for each part out there and available? Is it cost cutting / cutting cvorners? Bad / sloppy reverse engineering? Desire for certain parts to be proprietary so you're the only source of replacements? Something else? Everything I've read about the currently available carbine clones says that other than Fulton Armory, every brand has some sort of issue or incompatibility with GI parts. Wouldn't it be easier to make them correctly in the first place? Bad reverse engineering. |
|
Originally Posted By vellnueve: Bad reverse engineering. Originally Posted By vellnueve: Originally Posted By Grendel_J: ...that isn't fully compatible with USGI parts? Aren't the technical drawings for each part out there and available? Is it cost cutting / cutting cvorners? Bad / sloppy reverse engineering? Desire for certain parts to be proprietary so you're the only source of replacements? Something else? Everything I've read about the currently available carbine clones says that other than Fulton Armory, every brand has some sort of issue or incompatibility with GI parts. Wouldn't it be easier to make them correctly in the first place? Bad reverse engineering. You hit the nail on the head. When Kahr 1st did their version of the M1 carbine back in the 2000's they measured a USGI production (Rockola IIRR) to pantograph into making new ones. They screw up the measurement on the bolt, IIRR it was 1 millimeter or so shorter than a USGI spec bolt. The early production Kahr's then had issues because the barrel had been cut to USGI specs so the bolt would beat itself up as you shot the carbine. Their "solution" was to start reaming the barrels to match their spec bolts. This fixed the issue there but now you could no longer use USGI bolts on Kahr's as they wouldn't head space, and to use a Kahr bolt on a USGI barrel you had to ream it to fit. Auto Ordnance bought Kahr (or vice versa, I don't remember which) and kept things the same. As to "New" Inland all they did was use the same supplier for bolts and receivers and trigger groups as Kahr/A/O, Lamothermic Corp, Brewster, NY. You can interchange between those 2 companies for parts but that's it |
|
That's fascinating information. I never knew any of that. So a 1mm error in bolt dimension compounded itself into the manufacture of thousands of "misfit" carbine copies. Sounds like a real "for want of a single nail, the kingdom was lost" type of ituation. |
There's a prize at the bottom of every box of .22LR. It's called happiness. Keep shooting!
|
Originally Posted By Grendel_J: That's fascinating information. I never knew any of that. So a 1mm error in bolt dimension compounded itself into the manufacture of thousands of "misfit" carbine copies. Sounds like a real "for want of a single nail, the kingdom was lost" stype of ituation. I know it because I had 1 of those early Kahr/A/O POS's and did some checking. Lucky for me the internet was around the same time they brought it out "New" Inland had issues with bolt hardness their 1st year of production. |
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: OP, look up Universal. When they ran out of GI OP rods, they re engineered the whole thing. I've seen those before. At least they're easy to spot and avoid on gun show tables  The hole in the side of the slide (op rod) is a dead giveaway.Attached File |
There's a prize at the bottom of every box of .22LR. It's called happiness. Keep shooting!
| Cheapest way to "fix" the problem = moar profitz for the company's owners. The company isn't beholden to the stipulations of "mil-spec", so they just crank out a product at minimal cost and maximum profit. As long as it's "gud enuf" for the customer to buy it, it's GTG. |
|
The commercial M1 carbines of the 1960s and 1970s have developed there own little collector niche. They started out using GI surplus parts, then as supplies got short, they started modifying other surplus parts (like using 1903 barrels cut and milled to fit an M1 carbine), and started making their own parts to augment available surplus parts. For example, the very early Universal carbines were 100 percent compatible with their GI counterparts and used mostly surplus or NOS GI parts. However, within a year or so they had switched to using their own aluminum trigger housings and the percentage of GI parts steadily declined as surplus parts dried up they started using commercially produced parts. BY 1967 and serial number 100,000, it was an M1 carbine look alike, not an M1 carbine. This site covers the history of most of those early manufacturers. http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/ The site also covers the history and details around the current commercial M1 carbines including the refurbished Fulton Armory carbines, the newly manufactured Auto Ordinance and Inland carbines and the replica Chiappa carbines. |
|
Originally Posted By DakotaFAL: The commercial M1 carbines of the 1960s and 1970s have developed there own little collector niche. They started out using GI surplus parts, then as supplies got short, they started modifying other surplus parts (like using 1903 barrels cut and milled to fit an M1 carbine), and started making their own parts to augment available surplus parts. For example, the very early Universal carbines were 100 percent compatible with their GI counterparts and used mostly surplus or NOS GI parts. However, within a year or so they had switched to using their own aluminum trigger housings and the percentage of GI parts steadily declined as surplus parts dried up they started using commercially produced parts. BY 1967 and serial number 100,000, it was an M1 carbine look alike, not an M1 carbine. This site covers the history of most of those early manufacturers. http://www.m1carbinesinc.com/ The site also covers the history and details around the current commercial M1 carbines including the refurbished Fulton Armory carbines, the newly manufactured Auto Ordinance and Inland carbines and the replica Chiappa carbines. I've got one of the early EFM (ERMA'S FIREARMS MANUFACTURING CO.) with a forged receiver from 1962 or so (3 digit SN) Wasn't till decades later reading that site about 03 barrels did it make sense why my bayonet lug won't fit right. It still stands watch down at my mothers house in TX. Interchangable with all other USGI parts. |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24&25'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11,14,17,18,19,20&21'
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15,16,22,23,24&25'
Afghanistan: 09,10,11,14,17,18,19,20&21'
|
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: I've got one of the early EFM (ERMA'S FIREARMS MANUFACTURING CO.) with a forged receiver from 1962 or so (3 digit SN) Wasn't till decades later reading that site about 03 barrels did it make sense why my bayonet lug won't fit right. It still stands watch down at my mothers house in TX. Interchangable with all other USGI parts. Beware that those carbines did not have properly heat treated receivers. |
Armory Sponsor