Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 1/16/2006 8:13:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 8:15:26 PM EDT by LonePathfinder]
They just look so cool. I would.

world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl20-e.htm

Assuming some company would make new rifles....
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:14:28 PM EDT
if the money was availible I would as well.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:15:53 PM EDT
If kept below 700 bucks, sure.

It seems every new rifle these days cost $1500+
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:19:14 PM EDT
I think they are ugly as hell. And I don't think a company would sell them for less than 1k new. The Garand is a much better weapon in my opinion.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:20:52 PM EDT
No. "Cool looks" aren't enough for me.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:28:41 PM EDT
I would, but to make one correctly it's going to be VERY expensive...which will kill the market, which means no one is going to do it.

I've had the pleasure of shooting one, and they are wonderful, easy guns to shoot. Not a Garand, but still a joy to drop the hammer on.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:47:11 PM EDT
Bit O Trivia...


Did you boys know Melvin invented and patented the multi-lug bolt/locking into the barrel extension design (as used on AR type rifles) and was buds/worked with E. Stoner...
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:43:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Noname:
Bit O Trivia...


Did you boys know Melvin invented and patented the multi-lug bolt/locking into the barrel extension design (as used on AR type rifles) and was buds/worked with E. Stoner...



Documentation?

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:46:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 10:46:30 PM EDT by brentwal]

Originally Posted By Noname:
Bit O Trivia...


Did you boys know Melvin invented and patented the multi-lug bolt/locking into the barrel extension design (as used on AR type rifles) and was buds/worked with E. Stoner...



yes, too both questions
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:54:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 10:58:00 PM EDT by Noname]

Originally Posted By CMB69:

Originally Posted By Noname:
Bit O Trivia...


Did you boys know Melvin invented and patented the multi-lug bolt/locking into the barrel extension design (as used on AR type rifles) and was buds/worked with E. Stoner...



Documentation?




Reread your copy of "The Black Rifle"---Stevens/Ezell" with attention to chapter 2...

PS---Bolt/BBL extension design patents were 1937-1938-1939...!
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:03:52 AM EDT
Except for no place to hang a bayonet, might have been better than the Garand with a little more cleaning up. Garand type stock to support a bayont and Garand/03A3/M14 type sights.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 11:19:22 AM EDT
Sure, I'd buy one, if it was made exactly the same way. The price would also have to be below a grand.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:27:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 12:29:57 PM EDT by AmericanPatriot1776]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Except for no place to hang a bayonet, might have been better than the Garand with a little more cleaning up. Garand type stock to support a bayont and Garand/03A3/M14 type sights.




Johnson rifles did/do have a bayonet lug for attachment. The Johnson sights are also so excellent. The Johnson stock is also as good as a Garand stock.


Mine should be back from restoration in two days. Can not wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:30:05 PM EDT
My last name is Johnson. I should get a discount.

And yes, I want one.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:32:28 PM EDT
I would love to have a Johnson. It had some really neat features, such as the ability of the 10-round rotary magazine to be "topped off". A repro would be very cool, but I doubt if it could be manufactured in a cost-effective manner!
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:36:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By junebug68:
I would love to have a Johnson. It had some really neat features, such as the ability of the 10-round rotary magazine to be "topped off". A repro would be very cool, but I doubt if it could be manufactured in a cost-effective manner!



Unless it was made by Norinco...................
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:42:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 12:42:57 PM EDT by xinflt]
Nope. If I had the money, I'd get a Garand. From the same web site:


Trials and development of the rifle continued until the early 1940, when the Army Ordnance Board finally rejected the Johnson rifle as being too long and heavy, and potentially unreliable with the bayonet attached. Same year Johnson submitted his rifle for trials to the US Marine Corps, where it was tested against M1 Garand rifle. First tests results were good for Johnson, but later on the M1 Garand rifle was found superior to it.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:44:52 PM EDT
meh

I gotta get myself a Garand first!
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:44:55 PM EDT
IIRC the Johnson didn't use the normal bayonet/knife, but a spike bayonet and that ticked the army off.

Marine Raiders did use them and the Devil's Brigade use the LMG versions.

Some things the Johnson had going for it:
Used exsisting stripper clips to load 10 rounds vs 8
Could be topped off
Had LMG version with 30 round mag vice BAR's 20

Would have been interesting to see the Marines going all for the Johnson and the Army sticking with the Garand/BAR.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:46:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
IIRC the Johnson didn't use the normal bayonet/knife, but a spike bayonet and that ticked the army off.

Marine Raiders did use them and the Devil's Brigade use the LMG versions.

Some things the Johnson had going for it:
Used exsisting stripper clips to load 10 rounds vs 8
Could be topped off
Had LMG version with 30 round mag vice BAR's 20

Would have been interesting to see the Marines going all for the Johnson and the Army sticking with the Garand/BAR.




Do not forget quick barrel changes/ barrel removal.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:49:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By xinflt:
Nope. If I had the money, I'd get a Garand. From the same web site:


Trials and development of the rifle continued until the early 1940, when the Army Ordnance Board finally rejected the Johnson rifle as being too long and heavy, and potentially unreliable with the bayonet attached. Same year Johnson submitted his rifle for trials to the US Marine Corps, where it was tested against M1 Garand rifle. First tests results were good for Johnson, but later on the M1 Garand rifle was found superior to it.




I like the Garand more, but do not forget that the Dept of the Army was developing the M1 itself, so that may have played some minor part of the Army Ordnance Board adopting it.

If I had to go into battle, I would take an M1, but I do think that the Johnson rifle could have used some more devlopment.

The Johnson LMG, was in many ways, better than the BAR. That would have been an interesting competition, if more Johnson LMG's had gotten into circulation.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:50:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 12:51:09 PM EDT by HKTackDriver]

Originally Posted By Maggot:
I think they are ugly as hell. And I don't think a company would sell them for less than 1k new. The Garand is a much better weapon in my opinion.



+1 Weren't these rifles ditched for a reason?


It is worth noting that the Garand first entered service with a completely different gas system than it was later fitted with. Army Ordnance completely redesigned the system during production. Similar defects in the Johnson would have no such leniency. In fact, the Johnson was more fragile and tended to be less reliable in combat due to its lesser stage of development. Overall, about 30,000 M1941 rifles were produced during World War II. After the war, the USMC returned all remaining rifles to the Netherlands Purchasing Commission.

Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:51:28 PM EDT
Johnsons are going for like $4000 now..........unless you can find a sporterized one for $2500-$3000.

Johnson bayonets are at least $350.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:54:38 PM EDT
Johnson Message board if anyone is interested:

Johnson Forum
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 12:57:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 1:03:51 PM EDT by LARRYG]
No on a clone, just like I would not buy a Garand clone being made these days. No history, less quality. No thanks.


Good features were good accuracy, lesser recoil, and bigger magazine capacity with capability for reloading partially full magazine with loose cartridges.


Better accuracy? My 60 year old Garand with a 1955 barrel is very accurate, so I don't buy this.


Lesser recoil? My Garand absorbs a lot of the recoil through it's gas system and op rod setup. Much lighter than a bolt .30-06

I will give it to them on the magazine, but that is not enough to outshine the Garand.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 1:02:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HKTackDriver:

Originally Posted By Maggot:
I think they are ugly as hell. And I don't think a company would sell them for less than 1k new. The Garand is a much better weapon in my opinion.



+1 Weren't these rifles ditched for a reason?


It is worth noting that the Garand first entered service with a completely different gas system than it was later fitted with. Army Ordnance completely redesigned the system during production. Similar defects in the Johnson would have no such leniency. In fact, the Johnson was more fragile and tended to be less reliable in combat due to its lesser stage of development. Overall, about 30,000 M1941 rifles were produced during World War II. After the war, the USMC returned all remaining rifles to the Netherlands Purchasing Commission.




...Sort of.

The Johnson used a delayed-blowback action; barrel and bolt would recripocate, the bolt would cam, and the round would be ejected almost exactily like an AR15's action.

The chamber itself was fluted, just like an HK.

The rifle had all it's own tools built into it; a punch, a screwdriver, etc. You could DETAIL-strip this rifle with just your hands. Just like a 1911. (Well, and your bootheel.)

The unreliable bit came from the volcanic sand/ash over the Pacific islands...the grit was extremely fine, and really clogged things up. Remember, at this time, the Garand had NOT been issued to the Marines; they were still slogging on with M1903A3's and M1917's. Of course the Johnson wasn't going to be as reliable as a bolt gun when it gets gummed up. Recoil was a bit stout as well.

It had a single-stage trigger, which the sand also wreaked havoc on. (The one that I shot, the trigger was pretty damn good, for a single-stage)...that was one thing the Marines, or at least their brass, hated.

Even odds that it would have been kept in service had the Garand not been an armory project...

Not saying either is better than the other (the Garand has some glaring, obvious deficiencies which were cured in Johnson's design, while Johnson's rifle had some deficiencies that didn't exist in the Garand, like it's trigger and safety setup)...they are both very different rifles. Both had, and have, a place in any martial collection of US arms.

IMO, the Johnson was retired unfairly, but the NIH syndrome was a big, big thing in the military...still is.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:31:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
Both had, and have, a place in any martial collection of US arms.




Granted, a REAL Johnson would have a place (at what $4000?), but not a clone as the original question was posed.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:32:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Evil_Ed:
Both had, and have, a place in any martial collection of US arms.




Granted, a REAL Johnson would have a place (at what $4000?), but not a clone as the original question was posed.




A real collection, no...but some kid who's trying to piece together something just cause he can, sure

I was trying to address the whole "johnson rifles suck!" thing

I need to keep an eye out for some...
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:33:04 PM EDT
I would buy one before I would buy a garand, for sure.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:34:26 PM EDT
I almost bought one of the Miltech refurbs awhile back............wish I had now
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 2:50:50 PM EDT
.
Top Top