Need opinion

[matconcrete 0]

Wondering if this is a legit spitfire, been looking for one but I’m not sure if this is original.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/908179763

[eb in oregon 0]

Ed can answer this better than I however original Johnsons assembled from the receiver up had the name of the company on the receiver. Ed has stated in the past that no more than 200 Johnson carbines were manufactured. But no one has mentioned how many conversions were done or the extent of custom work performed. So it could have come out of Ed's shop as a conversion but I don't think they were marked in any way to prove so. Then there was a minor industry for a bit where conversions were done by other people and shops, so without any documentation that's way up in the air. But considering that 200 or less carbines were assembled by Johnson Arms it is a real crap shoot to find an original one today. I've seen two in the last 43 years, I bought the second. If I didn't have two carbines in 5.7MMJ I'd consider it, right handed stock or not. If you're waiting for an original Johnson you might be waiting for the rest of your life.

I'll also mention that I've discussed the matter of the feed ramp with Ed several times. He has said that there are no existing drawings of the feed ramp modifications that he is aware of, and he has said it needed to be built up to function correctly with the 5.7MMJ. The feed ramp of my IAI carbine looks like a Beaver chewed it out, but it'll feed round nose bullets so I'll not mess with it. The Johnson has a nicely machined ramp professionally done on a vertical milling machine and it feeds anything. Ed has also told me that the receivers they were receiving at the end came with more material on the ramp to allow the necessary modification. He also explained that if there are feed problems it is usually that the feed ramp was done incorrectly. So again, it's a crap shoot.

[Ed Johnson 0]

This could very easily been done as one of our Johnson Arms conversions, but there is no way to tell for sure. Our barrels for conversion featured a Williams bead front sight, not what I see here. The stock was probably from a custom stock mfr. such as Fayjin (sp?). The rear sight is a 30 M1 Carbine military.

E B above mentions our low quantity of manufacturing....200 new....and we did approximately 50 conversions. The volume was kept deliberately low, as we were operating on a shoestring budget, using subcontractors, to see how well the gun would sell. We determined that it was a definite technical performance improvement over the .30M1 Carbine, but not a worthwhile investment to buy all the equipment necessary to produce a product at a competitive price. We actually lost a little money on every carbine we assembled.

The logical companies to make such a rifle would be folks who already manufactured new versions of the M1 Carbine, such as Plainfield - Iver Johnson, and later, IAI.....but sales never ran high for them either. Ammunition manufacturing is sporadic, also.

Not surprisingly, I still have a couple myself. Not surprisingly, I will never sell them. They are sweet little guns. 

I should also mention that there is a recent "Firearms News" article on this Spitfire project that is worth reading, which gives a history of our trials and tribulations.   ej

[eb in oregon 0]

Well Mat, did you buy it?

[matconcrete 0]

Yes I am the proud owner , when I get it in my hands I may have more questions as seller stated it won’t go into battery, think all Im lacking now is that carbine, Bruce?....

[eb in oregon 0]

21 hours ago, matconcrete said:

Yes I am the proud owner , when I get it in my hands I may have more questions as seller stated it won’t go into battery, think all Im lacking now is that carbine, Bruce?....

There are only several mechanical issues that prevent the bolt from going into battery with a cartridge involved. The first and most obvious is a problem with the bolt face or extractor. The second is a short chamber, which would be rather rare in my experience. I once purchased an RPK clone that had been assembled by Hesse (long gone now and deservedly so) that was advertised as "used". After receiving the rifle it went into the safe until I could more closely examine it and shoot it. Several months later I tried to chamber a round. No workee, the bolt refused to close. Breaking it down I looked at the extractor and found it had not been completely machined. The groove that is supposed to enable the extractor to snap around the case was missing, as well as the lip of the extractor. I called Hesse and asked them if they shoot their products before shipping and was assured that each and every rifle was test fired. So I asked then how did this one (SN blah, blah) get out with a bad extractor that made it impossible to fire the rifle. Bottom line is I sent the bolt back for repair, insured it would feed and cycle, and promptly sold it. However that incident demonstrated that one should never take something for granted and face value. There is always a weird reason something fails to function. Then of course there is the third factor of bad ammunition.

[matconcrete 0]

Appreciate the info, I hope to have time to study it soon , after a brief look over I see some evidence of crudeness ie: punch marks on side of rear site, hopefully I can find proper front site and fore stock, or better yet find some someone capable and willing to bring it back to original, as much as possible.

[eb in oregon 0]

20 hours ago, matconcrete said:

Appreciate the info, I hope to have time to study it soon , after a brief look over I see some evidence of crudeness ie: punch marks on side of rear site, hopefully I can find proper front site and fore stock, or better yet find some someone capable and willing to bring it back to original, as much as possible.

The only thing I'd do in your place would be to either find out the issue of the hand guard (missing and barrel band has been modified to not be able to hold the upper hand guard in place) and stock and fix it or put it in a CMP stock (with a new barrel band) and varnish it. Johnson Carbines were shellacked or varnished, they don't have a military finish. At least not those I've seen or pictures of. And as no one has any idea IF that carbine ever was in Ed's shop, changing the front sight makes little sense. When you speak of "bringing it back to original" original what? Looking like a GI carbine or looking like one of the 250 or so Ed's shop put out? And all of those weren't all identical either. Some came with GI rear sights (mine did) or a Williams rear sight, with a Williams ramp front sight. Both are "original." Some came with GI stocks, some came with after market stocks. Either of those is "original" also. If, and only if there are a series of drilled and tapped holes on the left side of the receiver (I don't remember but think it five and they are hidden in a standard GI stock) for a scope base could it maybe be an original Johnson Spitfire. My Johnson has a Plainfield aluminum trigger housing, but as they used all the surplus parts they could find cheaply, that isn't a consistent feature either. One of the concepts I've lived with for a long time is "if it ain't broke don't fix it."

Last thing, I looked at those pictures again and the front sight appears to be a GI sight that had the protective ears cut off. If so you could replace the front sight with either a GI sight or have a Williams ramp put on it if that made you happy. The punch marks on the rear sight aren't unusual or rare. Some armorers have a heavy hand and didn't always have a brass punch on the bench. A couple doses of cold blue will make them almost disappear. And, just saying, but if that carbine was made in someone else's shop it is as "original" as it gets.

"Sorry to be slow in replying to this particular message. Thank you for sending it.

1) Some new receivers were castings and some later ones were forgings. The detent quality would have varied.

2) The new receivers were drilled and tapped for scope mounts...specifically also for Williams HCO side mounts..

3) If your Spitfire still has our original sporter stock, I agree that you might want to buy another stock if you want to scope it....obviously that is your call.

4) In our brochures, even though the Spitfires were initially designed for Military-Police markets, which didn't materialize with the exception of some local police usage, we did market them as sporters for "varmints - big or small." So I guess it is in the eye of the beholder whether a rifle is for shooting varmints or other animals. On a practical basis, with iron sights, I personally consider the spitfire as an effective performer up to 200 yards....but preferably 100 yards....in terms of the ballistic performance."           Ed J

 

 

Regardless all that, I'd just be happy to have a carbine in 5.7MMJ of any kind if that was all I could find at the time. Forgetting who made it if it works. If it don't work? I'll get it to work and not worry if it was one out of maybe 250 in this population of billions. I've had a lot of guns pass through my hands these last 40 years. I've "offed" a bunch (having some fun first) and have only started keeping a tighter bunch. My Johnson "Spitfire" and the IAI clone (with a few issues, but acceptable) are two of the few that I will keep. Sorry about the bad photo, but I was only trying to show that it isn't a military finish stock.

Edited August 27, 2021 by eb in oregon
Additional information

[matconcrete 0]

Thanks for the input , I agree and will follow your lead , it closely resembles the available photos of the custom deluxe sporter 

model so thats the direction I’m headed, probably just polish and finish a fore stock, I’ll get it to the range and report back.

pm

[eb in oregon 0]

I'll also mention that I'm sure my "Spitfire" is one of the last built, it has the highest SN of any I've seen or read of, to include at least one mentioned here. I'm pretty sure it used some of the last available parts in stock, especially the stock as it was surplus. It was patched behind the recoil lug for a crack, it has a plug set into the wood. There is also a crack in the right side of the stock just before the rear sight which looks like it had a bit of glue forced into it and then the stock was varnished. Though I've had it for a few years yesterday was really the first time I had it out in bright sunlight, which exposes defects not seen under artificial light. But then too I also spied a very fine crack in the stock of the IAI behind the recoil lug that I'll have to scheme on how I'm going to fix. I hope the issues are minor and that you get to shoot it real soon, they are a "hoot to shoot." You should just be able to remove the front sight (replace it or change it at your will), put on a new band and upper hand guard, and re-install the front sight. They are easily replaceable. However with the nose of the stock trimmed back the only thing you'll have to keep the barrel band in place is a tight fit and the screw. It's the failure of going into battery that has me curious.

[matconcrete 0]

Ok I snuck out back to my range, I was not lied to ,bolt will not lock up with round in chamber.

swapped bolt , made no difference, seems the round protrudes about .040 further from the barrel then the 30 cal does in the m1.

Sounds like this needs to go to a competent gunsmith. Any thoughts?

pm

Sorry meant to include this

 

[matconcrete 0]

Eb you mentioned feed ramps on your spitfires, could you post a photo? I can’t see much difference between the spitfire and the carbine. Thanks,pm

[eb in oregon 0]

I took some pictures, sorry about the poor quality, my eyes aren't what they used to be and sometimes my camera says it's focused when it really isn't.

I took pictures of the IAI, Spitfire, Inland, and Plainfield's ramps. Then inserted the appropriate cartridge and took another picture. Of all four the Johnson's is the only one with a distinctly differed ramp. The others look similar, but have profiles that vary a little bit, according to the eye. Again, the IAI won't feed match style bullets, but feeds anything with a round nose or shorter profile. Like Hornady's 35 grain spire point. The Spitfire feeds anything even though the ramp looks a bit rough. The Inland and the Plainfield will both feed the 5.7 round nose and spire point bullets but there is little chance of them firing. They disappear into the .30 caliber chamber. I'm really wondering how many 5.7MMJ carbines are out there with an unmodified ramp that work just fine with round nosed .22 Hornet bullets. Anyway here's the pictures. I hope they are of some use.

 

[matconcrete 0]

Thanks, that will help. I’m fortunate to have John Andrewski willing to look at this for me,I don’t think he would if it weren’t for the 

whole Melvin Johnson story . He’s more inclined when it’s something he’s never seen. He’s quite familiar with the lmg.

The Johnson ramps are noticeably different, I’m thinking that is the direction we should go. Thanks again. Pm

[matconcrete 0]

Well here’s an update, Gunsmith John called and said I should try some proper ammo, I purchased some on gunbroker and never measured it (can you say rookie), I just assumed the seller was right. Maybe his ammo was like mine? Its .070 long from base to shoulder. Is there a reliable source out there? Eventually I intend to reload , and use 30 cal casings.

pm

[matconcrete 0]

Ok final chapter to this story,  after much input and ammo from Eb and samples of ammo from Ed J, I ordered and recieved a “go” gauge and final answer is Eb was right both chambers were tight, but not as tight as I thought, I built a tool and polished the chambers especially the shoulder area. The go gauge fits with 2-3 thousands of headspace , ammo from Eb And Ed J now fit and cycle fine, next opportunity will hit the range for real test.

Phil

[eb in oregon 0]

17 hours ago, matconcrete said:

Ok final chapter to this story,  after much input and ammo from Eb and samples of ammo from Ed J, I ordered and recieved a “go” gauge and final answer is Eb was right both chambers were tight, but not as tight as I thought, I built a tool and polished the chambers especially the shoulder area. The go gauge fits with 2-3 thousands of headspace , ammo from Eb And Ed J now fit and cycle fine, next opportunity will hit the range for real test.

Phil

Sometimes it only takes a little bit. .003 is the average of the human hair. I hope it works "as advertised" and they are at least as accurate as the standard .30 Carbine.

[Ed Johnson 0]

OK. Reading this saga, and the final resolution, makes me feel better about Phil's auction purchase. I was worried about what you were running into. And thanks for the receiver photos, EB. They clearly show the different feed ramps. The ogive (shape and size) of the .30 M1 Carbine bullet versus the 5.7mm bullet were different. Without beefing up the feed ramps, some of the sharp-nosed soft point bullets were slamming against the face below the chamber and not being lifted up the ramp and positioning into the chamber. When buying later receivers from Plainfield Machine, they had them cast with our ramp shape and found that both the 5.7mm and the .30 cal cartridges fed OK with that change. IAI came along years later and should have copied what we did but I guess they somehow did OK anyway. EB, you would know better, as I have never fired or handled an IAI carbine.

[eb in oregon 0]

On 12/27/2021 at 5:46 PM, Ed Johnson said:

EB, you would know better, as I have never fired or handled an IAI carbine.

As I've only a single example of each I'm not convinced I "know better," but I can say the ramp profile of the M1 Carbine has everything to do with feeding. The "Spitfire" will feed 40 grain RN, SP, and Open Tip match style bullets without a hitch. So far. The IAI (which appears to have a standard M1 Carbine ramp) will feed the RN and SP and 35 grain Hornady "XTP" bullets without a hitch (so far) but refuses to feed the Open Tip match style bullets. At all. I've tried different magazines to no avail. I've tried the 5.7MMJ RN and SP in two other carbines and they feed but won't chamber, they just disappear into the chamber. So the ramp profile you guys developed for the "Spitfire" appears to be optimum for all .22 caliber bullets and the standard .30 caliber 110 RN. However as mentioned elsewhere, in my opinion trying bullets heavier than 40 grain defeat the purpose of the original design.

I'll take this opportunity to apologize for the poor quality photos. I didn't load them into my laptop until I'd cleaned up and put the rifles away and locked them up. I wasn't about to go back and start all over.

[Ed Johnson 0]

OK. Thanks for this summary. I may not have made the point clearly that when Plainfield changed their investment cast receivers to include the Johnson style ramp, they used these receivers for BOTH the 5.7mm cartridges AND their .30 M1 Carbine cartridges. Both worked well. No problems, apparently.

When Dad and Jack Fitzgerald (his right-hand man at the time) initially dealt with thew feed problem, they had a gunsmith braise some material onto the M1 Carbine feed ramp to give our smaller 5.7mm bullets more "lift" up into the chamber. I'm surprised IAI didn't pick up on that. Oh, well.....

 

[matconcrete 0]

Thought I’d post a couple pictures of the spitfire from amoskeag, maybe youguys can shed some light, markings are not like EBs

[eb in oregon 0]

Merely a guess, but I'd surmise that is an early receiver. No clue as to the number on the barrel. Is it re-lined? Still an original Johnson "Spitfire."

[matconcrete 0]

Barrel number matches reciever, don’t think its relined.

[eb in oregon 0]

Oh wow, somehow when I looked at the picture yesterday the numbers appeared different. That must have been an exceptional shot of Jack Daniels. I only asked about re-lining as I have no clue to who made the first barrels in .22 caliber and I think it is possible to re-line for the 5.7MMJ but have no actual knowledge of that being the case.

[matconcrete 0]

Ed mentioned  Plainfield made some recievers for them and i believe thats what this one is, under the rear sight is marked PMC

I suspect Ed could put this issue to bed.