Stock type?

[tsmgguy 0]

Hello,

What is meant by "stock type" or "stock type #2" when applied to the M1941? Is that in reference to a stock with or without laminations present?

Thanks!

Howard

[emmagee1917 0]

Yes , prewar blanks were thick. Wartime demands forced the use of narrower blanks so the cheeks had to be added.

Chris

[Brian Alpert 0]

There is no "stock type" that I am aware of. Some had laminated "cheeks", some did not. The production logs refer to a stock number, which when examining the production logs is either left blank or has the #"2". If present, it is located in the slot for the front buttstock screw. The "2", in so far as I am aware, does not refer to the presence or absence of laminated cheeks.

[tsmgguy 0]

There is no "stock type" that I am aware of. Some had laminated "cheeks", some did not. The production logs refer to a stock number, which when examining the production logs is either left blank or has the #"2". If present, it is located in the slot for the front buttstock screw. The "2", in so far as I am aware, does not refer to the presence or absence of laminated cheeks.

Thanks for the clarification!

Howard

[emmagee1917 0]

So , one piece stocks are known with the "2" stamp present ?

Any theories on what it does mean ?

Chris

[webmaster 0]

Yes , prewar blanks were thick.

I don't understand this sentence in reference to Johnson rifles.

[emmagee1917 0]

The first stocks did not have cheek pieces added , they were machined out of the wood blank which was quite thick. This resulted in a lot of wasted wood. When the war started , there was shortages of everything , including the thick stock blanks. The US just could not waste wood like that any more. Johnson had to start using the narrow blanks they could still get and add on the separate cheek pieces.

Chris

[Joseph Scott 0]

Possibilities for the number "2" might refer to the shift it was made on. or by the person making the wood. which machine was used, or even the inspector. No one knows for sure.

[Steve(WA) 0]

Were any Johnson's made with a solid stock, without the "cheeks"? All the pictures I have seen show the cheeks (unless sporters, although my Winfield stock has them). Were just the early no-prefix guns the only ones with solid stocks? My set by Mr Scott looks perfect, but is it totally incorrect on a B prefix gun like mine? Not that 99% of the shooting public would know, but I do like it to be as accurate as possible. I have a almost like new Remington 1903A3 and the same thing in Smith Corona. Mr Scott's finish is just like those. A military type WW2 finish, not a pre or post war high gloss and polished shooter. It is a perfect wood finish for a war type product (just no "cheek").

[Joseph Scott 0]

To my knowledge, there was no known definite change-over date or number. Wartime production was hectic and anything was possible. For instance, Mauser produced solid walnut stocks late in the war when the blanks dried enough to use. Others have researched company history and are working on a new book. Maybe they might have more information.

[tsmgguy 0]

I think Bruce Canfield has probably written the definitive history on these rifles so far, Johnson Rifles and Machine guns; The Story of Melvin Maynard Johnson, Jr., and His Guns. It's a good read and a worthy addition to any book shelf. A few pertainent passages from page 252, "Collector notes":

"The chief reason for the laminated wood . . . was that it enabled narrower (2-inch) stock blanks to be used."

"Some original Johnson stocks did not have the laminated wood which indicates that thicker wood blanks (3-inch) were used. While "solid" stocks were used on some original Johnson rifles, the laminated stocks are the most commonly encountered variety. Collectors today should realize, however, that most of the reproduction Johnson stocks, including the stocks used by Winfield Arms, do not have the laminated area. There does not appear to be any specific time frame or serial number range for original Johnson rifles that left the factory with the laminated stocks or solid stocks. The use of both varieties seems to have been interspersed during production and was likely a case of using whatever size of stock blanks that were on hand."

[Steve(WA) 0]

Interesting, thanks for posting. At least in my case, it answers the question if a later B serial number gun could conceivably have a solid stock. A stretch but maybe.

[tsmgguy 0]

We don't know the proportion of laminated to solid butt stocks, but it sounds like it wouldn't stretch belief at all for any "later" (B series) M1941 to have a solid stock. All we can say today is that a M1941 is more likely to have been produced with a laminated stock, but either can be quite correct.

To further cloud the issue, Canfield states that M1941 serial number production was not sequential. A rifle with a B series serial number was not necessarily manufactured later than one with an A series number. It looks like our normal frame of reference as collectors regarding serial numbers doesn't apply with JSARs.

So, why am I going to so much trouble to produce an accurate reproduction M1941 butt stock that includes the laminations and lightening/storage cavities? Simple. No one else has done it.

[Steve(WA) 0]

Howard... I don't blame you a bit! It is nice to have a perfect copy. I am very happy to have Mr Scott's furniture set, and understand why he marks them, and makes them as to not to be confused with an original one. His final finish is second to none on a reproduction stock! Now I am comparing to 1903A3's and such with wartime finish. I don't have an original Johnson military type stock to compare it too. I have seen M1 Garand and 1903 Springfield reproduction wood sets, and they do not compare to Mr Scott's finish. Good luck with the project!