Johnson semi-auto rifle reliablility

Status
Not open for further replies.

cjwils

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
280
Location
Seattle region
The July American Rifleman has an article about the Johnson semi-auto rifle, which saw limited use during WW2. In comparing combat firearms, reliability in adverse conditions is a critical consideration. Is there any info on how the Johnson compared to the M1 Garand in that regard? My dad, who was a combatant in Europe in WW2 said his M1 Garand always worked. Didn't matter if it was dragged through the mud or dropped in the snow, it would always fire. Did the Johnson match that level of reliability?
 
The July American Rifleman has an article about the Johnson semi-auto rifle, which saw limited use during WW2. In comparing combat firearms, reliability in adverse conditions is a critical consideration. Is there any info on how the Johnson compared to the M1 Garand in that regard? My dad, who was a combatant in Europe in WW2 said his M1 Garand always worked. Didn't matter if it was dragged through the mud or dropped in the snow, it would always fire. Did the Johnson match that level of reliability?

The only reliable information about Johnson rifle durability comes from a USMC test. And, the test was conducted on Johnson rifles that were slightly better than prototypes, and had already fired 5000 or more rounds.

I have one book by Melvin Johnson and he does not reference any test data.

I am going to say, the Johnson rifle was not tested, not built in the quantities nor for as long as the Garand. As such, the Garand was a much more developed rifle, they got all the little bugs out, and I doubt early 1942, the Johnson would have been as reliable. As you know, the Johnson rifle was issued in limited quantities and taken away from front line units and replaced with Garands. It did not have a lot of combat experience, nor a lot of time to feed back field problems to improve the design. There is no basis to assume any superiority of the Johnson rifle over the Garand because we lack so much information. We do know the Garand was developed into an extremely reliable weapon. What the Johnson rifle would have become, I don't know.

We should have gone into WW2 with the 276 Pedersen round, and that would have made an interesting history.
 
The Garand had problems with exterior debris and water washing the lubricant out of the rifle. It did have significantly more development time than the Johnson, which would have helped it be a better rifle.

Clip from: https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/03/05/united-states-rifle-caliber-30-m1-m1-garand-unreliable/ that references a Time magazine article from 1941 (that’s behind a paywall that I can’t access)

“– The rifles were doused in mud “of light consistency.” Results: “The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-1 [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach.” The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired “in the normal manner.” But “the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.”

– The board assumed “that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach.” Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; “the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. …” The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.”

BSW
 
The only complaint I have in regards to the Johnson Rifle is it has a vicious trigger slap, and will bruise your finger with continous shooting. The hammer searing is a double hook similar to the M1, but the disconnector and the sear are a single, solid piece. So, in order for the hammer hooks to get caught by the disconnector the sear has to move forward, this pulls the trigger forward against your finger. And the hammer has a lot of energy, as the Johnson has a high cyclic rate.

A reported failing, which I have never seen as I have never shot one with the bayonet attached, was with the bayonet on the barrel, the recoiling mass increased and the cycling became "iffy".

EDIT: One other thing, that really has no military consequence but annoying to some is the ejector is a tipping lever in the side of the receiver, and slaps the side of the case to move it out the ejection port. It puts a huge dent, about 1/8" wide and 3/4" long in the side of the case, rendering it non-reloadable.
 
The Garand had problems with exterior debris and water washing the lubricant out of the rifle. It did have significantly more development time than the Johnson, which would have helped it be a better rifle.

Clip from: https://firearmusernetwork.com/2015/03/05/united-states-rifle-caliber-30-m1-m1-garand-unreliable/ that references a Time magazine article from 1941 (that’s behind a paywall that I can’t access)

“– The rifles were doused in mud “of light consistency.” Results: “The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-1 [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach.” The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired “in the normal manner.” But “the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.”

– The board assumed “that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach.” Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; “the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. …” The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.”

BSW

That is the USMC test that I read in another publication. The Johnson rifles used in this test had already been through a previous test and had not been updated based on the results of that test.

But, anyone reading this test report should understand that the USMC Corp was infatuated with the 03 Springfield. This is a WW2 rebuild:

daqrzH5.jpg
gidXiBU.jpg
This is generally true of the military, pointy sticks had to be wrestled from the hands of Troglodyte Infantry before they accepted the issue stone tipped spears. And until the day they died, retired Troglodyte NCO's claimed that stone tipped spears were never as good as those pointy sticks.

Anytime there is a weapon transition the user is unhappy and resists the changeover. You can read the existing reports of the 1911 Cavalry troop tests, they all wanted the Colt SAA over the new fangled automatic. This is always the case, the user likes what he has, wants something better but only a little different and totally rejects revolutionary change. Going from the tried and true 03 to a semi auto was just too much change, too fast for the Marine Corp. They might have had a negative opinion of the 03 when the Krag was the issue rifle, but I have not found any period documents. But thirty years later, the 03 was a highly developed and reliable rifle and the USMC wanted to keep it. Therefore their test results reflect that. They did not want to change, 03 good, everything else, bad.

And they did not change,not initially. The Marine Corp landed on Guadalcanal with 03's. Of course they did not know better till Army units arrived, all armed with Garands. One book I read , indicated the Devil Dogs had a habit of acquiring Army Garands, some means much more upfront and honest than other means. The Marine Corp Commandant must have heard the howling, all of the way across the Pacific, because by the time the Marine Corp invaded Tarawa, (per a book I read) only one Marine was known to have carried an 03 on that invasion. At least the unit the author was in, maybe there were two. I can say, you will see pictures of Marines on Guadalcanal with 03's, but I have not seen a picture of a Marine with a 03 (unless it was a sniping rifle) later in the war.
 
That was an interesting article on the Johnson semi-auto rifle. I know very little about them but have never heard any negative comments about their reliability. My only exposure to them was about 1998 when I shot an NRA High Power 100 yd. match with my DCM M-1 alongside a guy with a Johnson semi-auto. Believe it or not it was lightly sporterized. He said one of his uncles had picked it up that way probably in the late 1950's- early 60's. It ran fine and the accuracy seemed on par with my Garand and the guy said it was a decent shooter. That's about the extent of me & Johnson semi-autos but I've always found them interesting because there are so few of them around which makes them intriguing.
 
I wouldn't doubt that the Johnson was and is a very reliable and accurate rifle.
But for the needs of a battle rifle of the period it leaves things to be desired.
1) Has a long and exposed section of small diameter barrel subject to damage and bending.
2) Unable to mount a real bayonet because of the recoiling barrel design. (affects reliability by increasing recoil mass, and see #1.)
3) Less robust overall than the fully enclosed action and barrel of the M1. Magazine subject to denting and damage rendering it non-functional.
4) Parts of the action are less accessible than the M1. A screwdriver is needed to remove the fire control assembly.
 
From what I recollect from my readings on the Johnson rifle, it performed adequately while it was in service.

Once production of Garands could keep up with demand, the need for the Johnson rifle was not as important and it was withdrawn form service.

I've read that once Garand armed army soldiers were sent to Guadalcanal, the marines would dog the Army soldiers and pick up their Garands should Army soldiers become wounded.

Maybe the top Marine brass was attached to the Springfield '03 but the soldier in the field figured out the value of the Garand in combat.
 
Last edited:
I have learned to treat what I have read or heard with a grain of salt. BUT. From what I have read about USMC arms at Guadalcanal was that not only would the US Marines "liberate" M1 Garands from the US Army who had them, but also that when US Army who had Garands were cycled out, many would "abandon" their M1 Garands so US Marines could "find" them.
 
My $.02.

The Johnson seemed like an interesting design in many ways. I bought Canfield's book wanting to love the Johnson, but I came to the conclusion that because of the short recoil operation, it was a wrong turn in battle rifle design. It's best element was the multi-lug bolt design that later found its way into Stoner's AR platform.

The Johnson was prone to vertical stringing due to its relatively thin-for-length, whippy barrel. There were a number of serious failure points in the stock design, though to be fair these probably would have been addressed given longer development time. Check out this video about the repairs needed to fix a blown Johnson Rifle stock:



The Johnson rifle is still seriously cool and not a terrible design for its day. I'd love to shoot one. It just isn't quite in the same class as the Garand.
 
I own one and the are very interesting rifles. Garand is definatly easier to completely disassemble and assemble but IMO not near as interesting as the Johnson 1941
 
A couple of things to note.
"Corps" is a term borrowed from the French (much as corporal sergeant, lieutenant, colonel all are), meaning ta unit comprised of Divisions, and smaller than an Army. The plural retains the French irregular plural in English, and is "corps."
Our jarheads get persnickety when referred to bt the abbreviation for "corporation."

Until 1947 there was the Department of the Navy and the War Department. The two department competed for Congressional resources and funding. When the War Department adopted the Garand in 1936, they needed enough to equip around two million soldiers. In contrast, the Marines only had between 50 and 75 thousand riflemen to keep armed. And, since the Marines were rather busy in the interwar years, they were reasonably well stocked in firearms. And no real pressing need for more. This was unlike the rest of the Navy Department, who desperately needed more ships, expensive ships, in the face of rumbling war worries in both the East and the West.

The Depression had hurt all production, war production in particular. Which is why, when the War Mobilization Act commenced in 1940, the Navy Department contracted with the Paris-Dunn company in Canada to create wooden drill rifles, and training bayonets were commissioned with factory-second bayonet parts.

By 1942, things changed rather dramatically. The Marines were expanding to more than 250,000 riflemen the Army to more than 5 million). New firearms were in desperate need. Enter the Johnson the Reising and several other fascinating stopgaps.

The Johnson rifle was recoil operated, and recoil operated military arms have never fared very well in service. It had a number of good features. But none significantly enough better than the Garand, which was already in production, and had been through five years' product improvement and testing to change. Especially not with a war on.

The Marines mostly adopted the Johnson to equip the Paramarines, who like the fact that it could be broken down into a pair or smaller parts more suitable for jumping out of aircraft. Like most things in the Marines, things did not always stay wher the TO&E meant them to. That, and Johnson's first big sale of his rifle was to the Dutch East Indies, and they were no longer available to accept or pay for that order, which made them available.
 
...though to be fair these probably would have been addressed given longer development time...

Don't forget the "gas trap" Garand. Three years worth of production Garands were taken out of soldier's hands, brought back to the factory and updated to fix a multitude of issues. So, 100% the Johnson could have been an excellent gun if it was going to be a primary service rifle, and the primary dumb bits would have been fixed in due course.
 
During the early and mid 90s my wife and I were pretty active at gun shows. You would see several Johnson Rifles at every show. Today I can go to a 1,000 table show and can't recall the last time I saw one. I have often wished I had grabbed one back then. I enjoyed the American Rifleman article but to this day I have never had the pleasure or opportunity to shoot one.

Ron
 
...recoil operated military arms have never fared very well in service.
It's certainly true that there haven't been lots of them, but the ones that come to mind seem to have done pretty well. Maybe I'm just not thinking of the right ones?
 
...the Johnson rifle was recoil operated, and recoil operated military arms have never fared very well in service...
¿Que?

Maxim
Vickers
Madsen
Bergmann
Revelli
Mle 1915 CSRG
MG-13
MG-30
MG-15
MG-17
MG-81
MG-131
MG-151
MG-151/20
MG-34
MG-42
MK-101
MK-214
M1917
M1919
M2 HB
AN/M3
M37
M73
M219
Dror
M4 37mm Auto Cannon
BK 3.7
Bofors
GSh-23
GSh-30
Nudelman N-37
Nudelman NR-23
NS-37
KPV 14.5mm
Molins gun
AZP-57
AK-176
AK-100/70
AK-130
Just about every military semi-auto pistol in 9mm and .45 cal
Several semi-auto shotguns
PDShP
Solothurn S-18 series
M107 (Barrett M82)
Mk 47 40mm AGL
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the "gas trap" Garand. Three years worth of production Garands were taken out of soldier's hands, brought back to the factory and updated to fix a multitude of issues. So, 100% the Johnson could have been an excellent gun if it was going to be a primary service rifle, and the primary dumb bits would have been fixed in due course.

First of all, your point is certainly valid. The Garand wasn't perfect, particularly early production examples.

However, early rifles were not taken out of soldiers hands and brought back to the factory. The gas-trap-to-gas-port alteration of the first roughly 50K M1s produced was not a factory recall; upgrades were performed in-service if and when individual rifles required major repairs. Some gas trap M1s served right through the entire war.

This was also true of other early Garand weaknesses like the 90 degree angle on the original op-rod design. During wartime, US Ordnance usually incorporated improvements into new production and left the suspect parts to fail in service, provided the calculated odds of failure were sufficiently low.

==

On a different point of discussion, short recoil operation per se has proven perfectly suited to some weapons. My opinion, and that's all it is, is that, when applied to a 30-06 class cartridge in a sub-ten pound rifle, short recoil does not show the same suitability that it has with heavier weapons, like machine guns, or when used with lower-powered pistol cartridges. The Johnson LMG and Israeli Dror (basically the same weapon) are examples where the use of short recoil operation in a very light platform beats the crap out of the shooter.

The Johnson rifle was a practical semi-auto rifle, with some probably fixable issues, but the requirements of its recoiling barrel made it a less robust design for general service than a gas operated rifle for the same cartridge class. My understanding is that it also lacked the accuracy to serve as a specialist weapon.

Can anyone give an example of a sub-ten pound rifle made today for a full-power (30-06/7.62 NATO class) cartridge using short recoil operation? I'm OK with being proven wrong here.
 
...early rifles were not taken out of soldiers hands and brought back to the factory. The gas-trap-to-gas-port alteration of the first roughly 50K M1s produced was not a factory recall; upgrades were performed in-service if and when individual rifles required major repairs...

I absolutely did not know that. Saw it characterized a couple places I thought reliable (but traveling, so no books nearby to go reference and prove this) as a factory rework. Will try to remember that in future.

I also have a vague recollection that one reason the Johnson has some more mindshare than it might is that back in the mid-30s, when the Garand was having it's teething issues, one of the several know-it-all solutions (like those advocating we go back to bolt rifles) was to replace it with a new and unproven gun. That ring a bell?
 
I also have a vague recollection that one reason the Johnson has some more mindshare than it might is that back in the mid-30s, when the Garand was having it's teething issues, one of the several know-it-all solutions (like those advocating we go back to bolt rifles) was to replace it with a new and unproven gun. That ring a bell?

You can read about it in period literature. After the Garand adoption Melvin Johnson really tried to get his rifle adopted but failed in his efforts. He was able to conduct celebrity shoots, with important political personages, but in the end, the Army had spent a lot of money building production lines for the Garand and the Johnson was not 200% better. If the Johnson had been 200% better, maybe they would have made a change, but at some point no matter how promising the bird in the bush is, you have to go with the bird in the hand. The saying "better is the enemy of good" has a lot of variations, one variation is "**** or get off the pot".

Melvin Johnson did not have the time, nor the money Colt did in the 1950's. Colt purchased the Armalite AR-15 design, and in lobbying the administration Colt purchased a lot of Army personnel, inprint gun writers, and Congressmen, and were able to have their AR-15 displace the M14. That Matte Mattel gun got a lot of good American boys killed in combat. Read all about it in the book "The Gun" by Chivers.
 
The Johnson is the holy grail of my collection. If I ever get one, I'l be happy to give a report.
Back in the 1970's, when I was doing a lot of my collecting, Johnsons were affordable, but I had other priorities (Garands, a Thompson, a BAR, etc.). Now, I might like to add a Johnson to my collection, but I'm not going to pay $5,000 for one (which is what someone was asking for one at the last gun show I went to). That's crazy. After all this was a marginal weapon in WW2.
 
Almost all of those are MGs, and "heavy" ones at that. Precious few mounted the front sight on the recoiling barrel. Almost none are infantry riles, and even in modern usage, use as infantry rifles is rare.

Now, in pistols, there was more use, but military pistol production is a fraction of rifle (or MG) production.

Finding a way to supporrt 45-60cm of barrel firing rifle caliber (especially non-intermediate) rounds is complicated. You need a frame to hold the trunion of some length, or accept another point of bearing, which can complicate accuracy.

In a 10-12 kg MG (or 20kg), those are solvable problems. Not so much in a 3-4kg rifle.

Now, the Johnson LMG was a marvel for its time. Vastly superior to the BAR in many ways--other than being in production and in inventory with established TO&E). Would it have improved things? No way to know. Smart people have suggested it might not have done so well in Korea. But, maybe not, after near a decade of product improvements. No way to know.
 
You can read about it in period literature. After the Garand adoption Melvin Johnson really tried to get his rifle adopted but failed in his efforts. He was able to conduct celebrity shoots, with important political personages, but in the end, the Army had spent a lot of money building production lines for the Garand and the Johnson was not 200% better. If the Johnson had been 200% better, maybe they would have made a change, but at some point no matter how promising the bird in the bush is, you have to go with the bird in the hand. The saying "better is the enemy of good" has a lot of variations, one variation is "**** or get off the pot".

Melvin Johnson did not have the time, nor the money Colt did in the 1950's. Colt purchased the Armalite AR-15 design, and in lobbying the administration Colt purchased a lot of Army personnel, inprint gun writers, and Congressmen, and were able to have their AR-15 displace the M14. That Matte Mattel gun got a lot of good American boys killed in combat. Read all about it in the book "The Gun" by Chivers.

I would disagree with your assessment of the M14/M16 situation.

My take would be that after killing any chance of adopting a intermediate class rifle cartridge and ramming the M14 through the selection process by any means, fair or foul, the end users in Viet-Nam weren't happy with the end result. They felt they were outgunned by the VC using AK47s capable of useful short range full auto fire while they were stuck with semi auto rifles that, while equipped with excellent target sights for slow fire at bullseyes at 600 yards, left them at a disadvantage. Since Colt had managed to bypass Army Ordnance by selling the M16s to the USAF to replace their M1 carbines, the M16 was in the system and they started getting sent to Viet-Nam as military assistance instead or the M1 rifles, carbines, and BARs that were going over previously.

Once in country, US troops started demanding the lightness, handiness, mild recoil, and full auto capabilities that the M16 offered.

Army Ordnance attempted to sabotage the larger adoption of the M16, and the rifle did not have the necessary development done before it was fielded as a replacement for the M14. US troops died as a result, but I would assign the blame to Army Ordnance and their Not Invented Here revulsion for anything that wasn't made of forged steel and wood, firing a full power rifle cartridge.

BSW
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top