M1CarbineForum
M1CarbineForum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Contractor Specific Discussion
 Commercial Carbines
 The Universal bolt issue
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

jski
Junior Member


56 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2017 :  09:22:20 AM  Show Profile Send jski a Private Message  Reply with Quote
For those that claim the late model Universal bolt design is "flawed":

M1 Carbines Incorporated
quote:
At the same time the bolt hold open mechanism was added Universal changed the design of their bolts. Bolts used prior to this change were based on the GI design of a floating firing pin. The firing pin of the GI design has a tang at the rear that engaged a slot milled in the receiver bridge to hold the firing pin in the rear of the bolt until the bolt had fully rotated and locked. As with most firing pin designs the floating firing pins have strengths and weaknesses. The design has been commonly used in military weapons given the use and environment for which they are intended.

The change implemented by Universal eliminated the tang on the back of the firing pin and the need for proper machining of the receiver bridge that engaged the tang. The proper machining of this bridge has been a challenge for most all commercial manufacturers since their beginning. One of the common negative comments about the Universal carbines is this change eliminated one of two safety designs that prevent the firing pin from striking the primer before the bolt has fully rotated and locked. The change didn't eliminate this safety feature, it simply changed the design to a different design commonly used in semi-automatic firearms to hold the firing pin in the rear of the bolt until struck by the hammer. As with the floating firing pin design this design also has it's strengths and weaknesses but has long been accepted as a safe means of accomplishing the same goal.

Edited by - jski on 11/01/2017 09:23:37 AM

americanboy
Advanced Member



USA
368 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2017 :  1:15:59 PM  Show Profile Send americanboy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
One is never going to convince another that any commercially made M1 Carbine equals or exceeds the reputation, quality, durability, parts availability and reliability of the original USGI carbine. The farthest off the reservation I will go is a Universal Gen-1 with a serial number as close to 1 as I can get. Personally, I think the Universal bolt design was a good one and if I could find that bolt hardened as well as the original USGI bolts, I'd likely have one in all my shooters. I understand the bridge-cut in the USGI carbine was changed early-on in production, so they knew there was an issue. If Army Ordnance had implemented a bolt change during original production, we'd have a "pre" and "post" USGI carbine.

If the bolt design alone was recognized as a serious enough issue, somebody out there would be commercially producing and marketing the bolt. I think Universal recognized that they could not make the gun safe by guaranteeing the proper bridge-cut. The easiest and most economical fix in their mind was to install the widely accepted method of firing-pin retention.
Go to Top of Page

jski
Junior Member



56 Posts

Posted - 11/01/2017 :  3:12:19 PM  Show Profile Send jski a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
One is never going to convince another that any commercially made M1 Carbine equals or exceeds the reputation, quality, durability, parts availability and reliability of the original USGI carbine.
Even the original GI M1 Carbines were "commercially made". That was the strength of the American military that none of our enemies could match. The private sector turned on a dime and began putting out tanks, planes, munitions, etc. that simply overwhelmed all else.

Edited by - jski on 11/01/2017 3:27:33 PM
Go to Top of Page

Satanta
Advanced Member



USA
177 Posts

Posted - 11/21/2017 :  10:43:30 PM  Show Profile Send Satanta a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Not sure where to start or end. As americanboy said, no one will ever convince the other.
(Quote) Even the original GI M1 Carbines were "commercially made".
I'm not well educated in the whole history, but as all came to arms to supply.
They had to produce all parts to USGI specs. If not they were rejected.
The post war commercial carbines did not have that over their head.
Hence the hardening process for bolt, hammer, slide, etc...
Then we can move on to the new designed Universal bolt with the spring firing pin.
It was a move in the right direction in my thoughts, but only too (so call) counter, or hide another problem.
They failed with the ramp miss cut in the receiver with Gen 2. Gen 1? I can't say.
The whole point of this cut is to prevent a firing pin strike BEFORE the bolt is fully closed.
If the bolt is not locked in, you could have some big problems.
The spring on the firing pin will not prevent this from happening. Period!!!... Nice design, but not a fix.
Now if the carbine is clean and has no obstructions due to stupid is stupid does. Or maybe a primmer that falls out for an unknown reason. Jams it up just enough that the bolt will not completely close.
That firing pin spring, plus the missing ramps on the new designed bolt, is of no help at all. The correctly cut ramp in the bolt and receiver would be a far better bet.
Not perfect, but a better comfort zone. It's just simple small steps to prevent the unintentional and possible harmful effects per design which Universal did fail with.
I understand your frustration and the fight for the Universal Carbine.
That was my first purchase. Love it, and still have it. It always goes to the range or outdoors with my Inland.
But changes have been made. All good. USGI where possible. It just gets better is all I can say.
Easily said from this end. You take it and go from there.
USGI made parts from commercial manufactures for the war effort? Your splitting hairs there.
They had standards that will exceed any post war production. Give or take a minute few.
Universal did start well, but didn't end up that way.
Learn all you can. Keep your carbine clean, and happy safe shooting.
Do not forget the hardening process.
The dimple on my bolt drove me nuts till I found this site. Bottom line... not hardened to specs. The hammer? It was without a stamp but came with the deal also.

This is of course only my opinion.
If I may ask jski? How many carbines do you have for comparison?
I was very defensive with my ownership of my Gen 2 Universal.
It wasn't till later that I owned my Inland. I did learn then what these guys are talking about.
There is indeed a big difference.
I also will defend the Universal, but it only goes so far.
Let me ask this.
Have you ever seen a functional complete bolt assembly for sale with the spring firing pin?
If so. I hope you snatched onto it.
Parts are crazy high. I sold my Universal stock for $102. Yet the bolt was not touched at $24.00.
Stocks? square box, hard to find. Bolt? Gen 2 and GI match but of COURSE not hardened. No sale.
Just trying to say that you can't compare.









Go to Top of Page

americanboy
Advanced Member



USA
368 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2017 :  10:10:45 AM  Show Profile Send americanboy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Murphy's Law is time-tested and proven..."if anything can happen it will". There is only one sure way to prevent unintended damage and possible loss of life as a result of a slam-fire. Keep the weapon pointed down-range in a safe direction and EXPECT a slam-fire every time you use it.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
M1CarbineForum © 2007-2017 M1CarbineForum Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy