Daisy Mae carbine clone on GB

[Blueheeler 0]

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/896807754

 

 

[eb in oregon 0]

What sort of twisted person would take one of the rarest rifles on the planet and turn it into such a abomination? And it wasn't done by an artist, but only an apprentice.

[Brian Alpert 0]

If one has a LMG parts set minus the magazine support assembly (which is usually missing) and a receiver, the next best thing is to put together a carbine.  It is a simple matter to convert to a 41 LMG semi if a mag support assembly becomes available.  

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have 2 for sale

[ArtR 0]

3 hours ago, eb in oregon said:

What sort of twisted person would take one of the rarest rifles on the planet and turn it into such a abomination? And it wasn't done by an artist, but only an apprentice.

Eb, you do realize that the "Daisy Mae" was another Johnson product?

[eb in oregon 0]

58 minutes ago, ArtR said:

Eb, you do realize that the "Daisy Mae" was another Johnson product?

I do, but to take a limited production rifle and a rare product and make a fake clone out of it to mimic a prototype just chaps my hide. And it wasn't well done, the welding is pathetic.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/6/19/game-changer-the-johnson-auto-carbine/

[Bruce Canfield 0]

At least the one on GB didn't try to pass it off an an original.  In any event, there are a number of features that are only found om genuine Auto-Carbines that are virtually impossible to fake.

 

 

[matconcrete 0]

Would be interesting to see those differences, are they visible in photos?

[Brian Alpert 0]

I have only seen originals in pictures but the lowers are most obviously different.  The Daisy Mae takedown is. probably different as no latch plunger is visible as on the LMG lower.  From what I hear, all 3 of the Daisy Mae carbines were slightly different.  Pictures in "the book" show a different sight base without the square block on the top of the receiver as well as a finger groove forend.

[Bruce Canfield 0]

There were several differences in the five or six Johnson Auto-Carbines made as would would be expected in prototype weapons.  The main external differences are the grooved forend and lack of the rear sight "rest" on # S-3 and the later rifle-type forend and a rear sight rest on #S-5 (attached).  The safety on the Auto-Carbine was entirely different than those on the rifle and LMG and the stock has different dimensions that the LMG stock which is a sure tip-off of the put-together guns.  One of the attached photos depicts the differences between an original Auto-Carbine and a LMG.

[Jeed 0]

Hello, I am somewhat interested in this. I asked the seller if the LMG parts were original and if they knew who put it together. They replied the parts seemed to be original, they didn't know who put it together and that it "came from an esteemed collector who passed away many years ago" Can anyone tell from the pictures if the parts are original? I know it's not a great welding job on the rear sight but does everything else look OK? Is this an outrageous price to consider paying? 

[matconcrete 0]

Thanks for the side by side Bruce, I did not realize the differences , if I’m not prying how did you become caretaker of s-5 ?

Phil

[Bruce Canfield 0]

Phil,  actually it was pretty much blind luck. About 15 years ago there was an ad in the Shotgun News for a "Johnson rifle. serial number #S-5,"  This piqued my attention as that serial number was out of the norm for a Johnson rifle and I had a lot of reservations. I asked the seller to send me some photos and he did.  I immediately saw it was not a Johnson rifle but appeared to be a Johnson Auto-Carbine.  We negotiated a price that wasn't cheap and I made sure I had a three-day inspection period.  When I received it, it was obvious it was the real deal. I tried to find out whatever information I could about its background but the only thing the seller knew is that is came out of somewhere in New York state.  I know that Harry Torgerson lived in New York state at the time of his death. Just before Torgerson departed for Bougainville, MMJ, Jr. gave him an Auto-Carbine, supposedly the only person to leave the factory with an Auto-Carbine during the war.  Interestingly, photographic evidence proves Torgerson had two different Auto-Carbines at different times as per the attached photos. He carried one to Bougainville which had a grooved forend and no rear sight rest. At the time of his mustering out of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton in 1945, he had another Auto-Carbine which had a rifle-type forend and a receiver with a rear sight rest, exactly like #S-5. Apparently Torgerson exchanged his earlier Auto-Carbine for this "later" one (that's certainly a relative term) on one of his trips to the Cranston factory.  Is #S-5 Torgerson's gun? It's entirely possible since there were only five (or maybe six) Auto-Carbines ever made and the fact that at least two are in the Cody Museum and at least two others (Torgerson's "Bougainville gun" and "Daisy Mae the 3rd" as shown in the book) have the receiver without the rear sight rest. this means only one (or possibly two), at most, have the rest sight rest feature on the receiver which make the odds very good it'sTorgerson's.

[camstuff 0]

Great story on the buy and the history,  thanks for sharing!

[Brian Alpert 0]

Jeed,

     Both carbine "clones" and 41 LMG semis are put together with modified original rifle receivers and original LMG lowers.  Sight bases have to be fabricated to attach LMG rear sights to the receivers.  These sight bases are fabricated, not original.  The Lyman sights are original.  One can use an original or replacement bbl with the 41 LMG front sight.  As noted, the subject carbine being auctioned is not particularly well done.  The fabricated sight base is crudely done and not correct for the carbine,  The front sight mounting is also crudely done with incorrect pins and tack welds underneath.  You can do better.

     

[eb in oregon 0]

10 hours ago, Jeed said:

Hello, I am somewhat interested in this. I asked the seller if the LMG parts were original and if they knew who put it together. They replied the parts seemed to be original, they didn't know who put it together and that it "came from an esteemed collector who passed away many years ago" Can anyone tell from the pictures if the parts are original? I know it's not a great welding job on the rear sight but does everything else look OK? Is this an outrageous price to consider paying? 

Paying $8,500 for a rifle of any kind merely based on photographs with no option to inspect the rifle upon receipt and send it back for a full refund (minus shipping) if dissatisfied seems a poor option.

[Jeed 0]

Mr. Alpert & Mr. Eb, Thank you both for some very sound advice, I'll take heed.

[matconcrete 0]

Thank you Bruce for that history.

Phil