Thanks and thoughts—new member

[tuskinventor 0]

Fellas, brand new member here is sunny Detroit and wanted to thank you for letting me join. Recently purchased serial # A9926 and was given an original owners manual that appears to be signed/note by MR Johnson himself. Does anyone else have something like this?  Was it common? And even more important...is it real?

[ArtR 0]

If the manual is indeed signed, you could post a photo here, and Ed Johnson might be able to confirm if it might be his fathers signature.

[tuskinventor 0]

Trying to post pics but it’s not letting me. Too big maybe? 

12 minutes ago, tuskinventor said:

Fellas, brand new member here is sunny Detroit and wanted to thank you for letting me join. Recently purchased serial # A9926 and was given an original owners manual that appears to be signed/note by MR Johnson himself. Does anyone else have something like this?  Was it common? And even more important...is it real?

 

Think I got it now. 

[camstuff 0]

FYI:  Here is a link to the johnson publications on the Johnson web page.  Check your manual to see if it’s missing the pages that this reference. 

http://www.johnsonautomatics.com/manuals.htm

[tuskinventor 0]

Pages 5-8 are NOT missing. They detail out the parts of each major assembly 

[ArtR 0]

FYI, I am getting photos now....If Ed chimes in, he may confirm that signature

[bdm 0]

I have the Johnson LMG  original  manual that i picked up at a auction  

[tuskinventor 0]

It is a super cool piece of history. Hoping the note is real as well. 

[Brian Alpert 0]

Johnson's note is dated 1939, long before the M1941 no prefix, B prefix and A prefix were ever produced.  It is obviously referring to one of the Taft-Pierce models, not this particular rifle

[tuskinventor 0]

Thanks Brian—without a doubt the timeline of the rifle and the manual do not match—hoping that the note from Mr Johnson is authentic more than anything. I am convinced the manual is real—the note I am not sure. 

[Ed Johnson 0]

I cannot totally confirm the signature, and am not a handwriting expert, but it looks pretty close to some of his others. The "M" and "J" are quite similar.   ej

[tuskinventor 0]

Thank you sir for your time and thoughts. I found another similarly noted manual on “open library” that is to a USMC Colonel that is signed “MM Johnson”. Hand writing looks very similar. 

[Jimbocious 0]

On 12/2/2020 at 5:38 PM, Brian Alpert said:

Johnson's note is dated 1939, long before the M1941 no prefix, B prefix and A prefix were ever produced.  It is obviously referring to one of the Taft-Pierce models, not this particular rifle

Hmmmmm.  If the JSARS were not yet produced in 1939, how could Mr. Johnson have signed a Military Handbook for a non-existent rifle in 1939?  Something seems fishy to me....

[tuskinventor 0]

So I thought the same thing “hmmm, seems strange to me about the dates” and I could be dead wrong  as I play detective through the internet. I believe that this early manual was developed in conjunction with the first Taft-Pierce prototypes and then provided for the first trials/testing at APG in late 39. Although the term “1940 manual” is used to describe this particular manual—it is very possible, that copies were available sooner to support advertising and the formal testing. I have seen a couple of reproductions that stated the first copies were actually printed in 1938 (again, this could be just internet BS). My latest search is for the name “Henry Lawrence”, who is the man the note is made out to...I am trying to find the employee records of Taft-Pierce in 1939 and cross check the names (no luck yet)-I did find that a widow of a Henry Lawrence of Woonsocket RI (home of the Taft-pierce factory) died a couple of years ago at 94. Age seems about right...the quest continues and even if it is a forgery—it’s still super fun to try to Prove legit. Please chime in folks as I am just learning about the rifle in detail now and could always use real data to help in the final conclusion. 
 

chad in Michigan 

[camstuff 0]

Good work on your investigation!  Hope you proceed further with this.  

[Jimbocious 0]

Tusk -- your research and knowledge around all this is way above my pay grade, and very impressive! My only other thought is that this would be a very obscure type of thing for someone to try to forge, which helps your argument.  I guess if you really wanted to get forensic you could have the ink tested to see if it's from the 1939 period!  Look forward to any updates or breakthroughs!

[tuskinventor 0]

So today’s update is not too exciting. I found the draft and census records for Henry Lawrence. He was indeed a resident of Woonsocket, but not of the Taft-Pierce factory. He was a mill worker in a factory that was very close, and was inducted into the Army in 1942, serving until 1946. He passed away in 1989. He was 27 years old in the 1940 census. I have found a relative (cousin) and have reached out to see if he was somehow connected to the development of the rifle. My search and investigation continues!! Also, thanks to Ed Johnson who has reached out to me via PM. 

[Blueheeler 0]

It would seem odd to me that if someone faked this, that they would use a cryptic message addressed to a specific individual. 

[M48TANKER 0]

I think I've figured it out!

Mr. Johnson was actually giving Mr. Lawrence a complement on his golf game. Having just made a "Hole-in-one" during a golf game with Melvin Johnson, Henry proved he could "put them in accurately." Melvin was expressing his desire to be more accurate at golf.

[ArtR 0]

Quoting from http://www.johnsonautomatics.com/History.htm,  "The Army Ordnance Board trials commenced in December 1939, again at Aberdeen. Using Taft-Peirce manufactured rifles, over 6,000 rounds of ammunition were fired with only 12 minor stoppages experienced. These tests found that although the Johnson rifle was well made, it was not suitable for Army use.The Ordnance Board stated in their report of the trial dated February 23 1940, that the rifle was too long and heavy for their requirements and that it would not function reliably with the bayonet fitted. The magazine was considered delicate and its design would allow the ingress of sand and other debris into the action, causing stoppages."

And quoting again from http://www.johnsonautomatics.com/manuals.htm, the photo showing a nearly identical 'manual' to the one that the note is written on:

"Model 1940 Manual

This manual measures approx. 9 1/4 inches x 7 inches, has a brown card cover and the pages are a shiny magazine quality paper. It has 40 pages and gives detailed description of the rifle and the Ft. Benning tests. Pictures contained within it show a custom made test rifle (one of the R-XX series made by Taft-Peirce) with a lot of early features."

If that were in fact the case, the Army, and those testing the sample test rifles, might have been provided a 'manual' for reference and use. The Dec 26, 1939 date would in fact fall into place

[Ed Johnson 0]

Golf? Dad wasn't much of a golfer, but OK.

[tuskinventor 0]

Thanks so much to all the folks who are showing interest in my research. Still no response from the cousin of Henry Lawrence, but I am beginning to think that perhaps I am searching for the name and not the actual event. Woonsocket was actually bigger in 1940 than it is today. Almost 45k then. Perhaps several “Henry Lawrences “ lived in the town at the time. Assuming the inscription is real...doesn’t it make sense that perhaps Henry Lawrence was actually a government marksman provided by Aberdeen for the December of 1939 tests?  Perhaps Mr Johnson thanked him by writing him a personal note?  I know, total conjecture, but I think it is worth some more time and research.  I have done some work at APG in the past and perhaps I can find some more information on long ago testing!  It continues...