Universal M1 Carbine design v. GI Carbine design?

[jski]

Awhile back, on an M1 Carbine website, I posted a question: Is it arguable that the Universal M1 Carbine design is a better design than the GI M1 Carbine design? Had the Universal M1 Carbine been implemented with 1st class materials, would it have proven to be more reliable than the GI Carbine?

Well, what came back at me wasn’t exactly exemplary of the “gentle art of conversation”. Some of it was downright personal !

So let me try that one more time. Is that an (reasonably) arguable position. Given the write up on the site (The U.S. Carbine Caliber .30), I’d say: yes. And that website is by far the best I’m aware of for the presentation of GI and commercial carbine designs.

 

[kBob]

"Had the Universal M1 Carbine been implemented with 1st class materials,..."

Not sure what part of Florida you are from but in the pan handle we used to say "If a toady frog had wings, he would not bump his butt so much...and he would not be a toady frog..."

My experience with about a score of GI carbines is that they either worked or were quickly made to do so.

My more limited experience with "peek-a-boo" op rod Universals was that of the four three never worked right and one went bad after a few hundred rounds.

I am one of those dumb old boys that tends to be influenced more by direct personal experience than web discussions so I am a bit backwards I guess.

GI > Universal

-kBob

 

[kBob]

double post

-kBob

 

[whughett]

Not a clue. But thanks for posting as an owner of two GI models, Saginaw and RockOla and the father of three teen age boys who shot thousands of rounds thru them in the 70’s , I can vouch for the gi’s. The third gun was Plainfield and it too seemed bullet proof.

I cashed in on the increased value of the GI’s in the late 90’s to fund another hobby, but kept the Plainfield.

 

[jski]

I have a Universal and couldn’t get thru a 15 round mag without a stove pipe. Called Wolff and bought a complete spring replacement kit. After every spring had been replaced, it’s now is my one 99.9% reliable Carbine (nothing’s 100% reliable). I also have 2 GI Carbines.

What got my attention foremost were the 2 recoil springs v. the 1 spring in a GI Carbine. I noticed Ian on Forgotten Weapons comment about that being an improvement.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

Just talking theory, the dual springs on the Universal were probably an improvement over the original GI design.

I once owned two examples of each but I didn't shoot the volume of ammo needed to make much of an informed opinion. My understanding is that the most common GI carbine malf is balky feeding and the dual springs seem like a sensible improvement. Universal's stamped and welded op rod was probably the opposite of an improvement, but mine both worked fine during my relatively limited experience.

If I had to choose blindly between a GI and Universal Carbine, I'd take GI every time because they had better QC, but guns are individuals.

 

[Speedo66]

GI Carbines are not one of those guns I've heard about having inherent problems. Given good magazines, every one I've come across has worked fine.

Can they be made better, possibly, but not having the better material in the aftermarket ones as you propose, who could say?

In the eternal words of a long ago co-worker, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

 

[jski]

Keep in mind guys, Fulton Armory produces a VERY high quality and VERY faithful reproduction of the GI M1 Carbine.

But keep in mind, the Universal Carbine design is the only significant rethink of the original GI design, courtesy of Abe Seiderman.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

The aluminum trigger housing/magwell on the Universals is definitely NOT an improvement......

The main reason Universal changed to dual springs was because of the manufacturing difficulty in drilling the spring hole straight- this was a problem for the GI manufacturers as well, leading some to use a separate spring housing. The other commercial carbine makers all used cast receivers and simply cast the hole as a void, but Universal always used forged receivers and the dual springs were a logical workaround.

Considering that the GI guns worked fine with the single spring, I dont consider it an improvement.....and the crack-prone open slide was a step backwards.

 

[WestKentucky]

I quite often wonder about similar things. Would the HP22 have a better reputation if it were made with better materials, what would the Cobra pistols do if aluminum or steel instead of zinc. What reputation would RG have had had they not ever made their junky 22s and had started with their better centerfire guns? Truth is that a functional design is a functional design with little regard for materials provided material properties are considered as part of the design. Ease of maintenance and durability with minimal or no maintenance is typically what separates the working models from one another. Make it easy to maintain and people are somewhat likely to maintain it. No matter how you shake it, stuff that’s not maintained will quit working quickly. What makes a AK such a great gun is not it’s accuracy, or it’s ease of manufacture, but it’s downright ability to keep working because of how easy it is to take off the top cover, remove the bolt, pour in some burnt motor oil, slap it back together and let it eat another 15000 rounds. Similar with an AR/m16/m4... pop a pin tilt forward pour in oil, continue abuse. Does the universal design make it any easier to maintain? The are functionally so similar that differences in materials would be of little consequence.

 

[CapnMac]

The multi-spring design on the Universals was less of a "design feature" as much as it was a way to make the amalgam of used GI parts and new-made parts "work" together. The new parts in the Universals were not made to the strict sub-c0ntracting specifications of war-time carbines. Part of that is volume. The parts made for GI Carbines were made in hundreds of thousands to exacting tolerances. The parts for the universals were mad in the hundreds (perhaps thousands, barely). These things matter.

What also complicates this is that many Universals out there are "run" with only one spring installed.

Is the Universal a "better" design is a question that just brooks too many other questions. Like the ammo, the purpose, lore learned from GIs (rightly or wrongly remembered).

I did not find my Universal to be better than any of my GI Carbines. But, that's my 2¢

 

[CoalTrain49]

I own a GI carbine. Works fine after I rebuilt the bolt and replaced the springs, including the op rod spring. So I would have to say an improvement to what. Something that works fine is about as good as it gets IMO.

Ruger took it one step farther and produced the Mini using an up to date rifle cartridge. Reliable like a hammer. The design is timeless.

 

[jski]

Mine is a late model Universal, early 80s. This is the one the that really interests me because it’s where Abe separates from the GI design.

Two comparisons come to mind: Savage and SpaceX (yes, this may seem a bit of a stretch). Way back in the 50s when Savage’s fortunes were at an ebb they were face with the costly task of developing their own bolt gun. Well, Savage’s engineers brought in a manufacturing engineer who looked at the problems they were having with what has always been problematic: joining the barrel to the receiver and getting the headspace correct. So the manufacturing engineer made a (now) obvious suggestion: use a nut to accomplish this. Focus on functionality and put aside aesthetics.

SpaceX was facing bankruptcy and had one last shot at it. So they simplified and simplified and simplified their design to reduce costs and increase reliability (simple is more reliable than complex).

In both cases they succeeded!

These seem similar to what Universal faced as the supply of GI parts dried up. Their late model carbine are the result of their effort to reduce manufacturing complexity (and hence, costs) and still produce a reliable product. At least reliable enough to keep the market viable.

Their 2 recoil spring design seems to reflect this. Evidently, all manufacturers of the GI carbines struggled with drilling the hole for the recoil spring - getting it straight enough. [As alluded to by NIGHTLORD40K] Well, Universal always used forged receivers (to their credit) as apposed to cast receivers, so they couldn’t simply cast straight holes. To avoid this problem they devised the 2 recoil spring solution. And it worked, maybe better than the 1 recoil spring.

 

[Old Stumpy]

I owned a Plainfield that I bought around 1973. These later became Ivor Johnson carbines. They had a cast receiver, round bolt, M2 style adjustable sight, birch M2 stock with a plastic butt plate, and a zinc alloy trigger group with steel parts. The op rod may have been cast or GI. Don't know.
I replaced the trigger housing with a steel GI one as soon as I could.
They were well-made and worked fine and were decently accurate.
I could consistently hit pop cans at 50 yards offhand.
What it and GI carbines did not like was Winchester JHP ammo with a lot of lead exposed. It caused a lot of feeding jams when the soft lead tip hit the chamber mouth and peeled back to be stopped by the jacket.
I also owned a couple of old GI carbines later on that were also very reliable.
I don't think that the Universal carbine really offered anything more in reliability.

 

[jski]

This is a interesting/pertinent quote from
Post WWII Commercially Manufactured M1 Carbines (U.S.A.):

Over the years many M1 Carbine enthusiasts and collectors have had a poor opinion of the carbines produced by Universal Firearms. Some complained about the design changes, some claiming the changes were unsafe as they did not meet the standards set forth by U.S. Army Ordnance. Many companies in the history of firearms have manufactured "carbines" of various different designs, operating actions, calibers, etc. None comparable to the standards of a U.S. M1 Carbine simply because they were not based on the design and changes approved by U.S. Army Ordnance for the Caliber .30 M1, Carbine. Different is not the same as better or worsse. Confusing this issue is the fact the first 8000 carbines manufactured by Universal Firearms were of the same design as the U.S. M1 Carbine and most of the parts were interchangeable with surplus GI carbine parts.

Many owners of the carbines manufactured by Universal Firearms have enjoyed them for many years without encountering any problems. As with any other firearm, every part thereon and therein has a lifespan. All semi-automatic centerfire rifles share a number of common safety features that should be inspected periodically and when buying a used one. With a used gun, it's not the name on the firearm that matters as much as having a competent mechanic check under the hood before we drive it.

All of this should be kept in mind if and when you may encounter negative comments regarding the carbines manufactured by Universal Firearms. Investigations conducted by this author have found the majority of complaints were either not from first hand experience, did not include examination by a knowledgeable person to determine exactly why something went wrong (think semi-auto rifle gas systems, headspace, poor quality or worn out magazines), or one complaint was posted on an internet discussion forum and quoted on a dozen others making it sound like more than one. The issues discovered with a Universal Carbine or Universal M1 Carbine have been consistent with all commercially manufactured carbines, regardless of who made them. Refer to the Safety issues page on this website. Remember, a used semi-auto rifle requires more maintenance and safety inspections than most other firearms. Also keep in mind that if the carbines manufactured by Universal Firearms were as bad as the rumors, how did they manage to stay in business so long and make so many carbines?