The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Universal M1 Carbine design v. GI Carbine design?

jski · February 9, 2020, 01:06 AM

Mine is a late model Universal, early 80s. This is the one the that really interests me because it’s where Abe separates from the GI design.

Two comparisons come to mind: Savage and SpaceX (yes, this may seem a bit of a stretch). Way back in the 50s when Savage’s fortunes were at an ebb they were face with the costly task of developing their own bolt gun. Well, Savage’s engineers brought in a manufacturing engineer who looked at the problems they were having with what has always been problematic: joining the barrel to the receiver and getting the headspace correct. So the manufacturing engineer made a (now) obvious suggestion: use a nut to accomplish this. Focus on functionality and put aside aesthetics.

SpaceX was facing bankruptcy and had one last shot at it. So they simplified and simplified and simplified their design to reduce costs and increase reliability (simple is more reliable than complex).

In both cases they succeeded!

These seem similar to what Universal faced as the supply of GI parts dried up. Their late model carbine are the result of their effort to reduce manufacturing complexity (and hence, costs) and still produce a reliable product. At least reliable enough to keep the market viable.

Their 2 recoil spring design seems to reflect this. Evidently, all manufacturers of the GI carbines struggled with drilling the hole for the recoil spring - getting it straight enough. Well, Universal always used forged receivers (to their credit) as apposed to cast receivers, so they couldn’t simply cast straight holes. To avoid this problem they devised the 2 recoil spring solution. And it worked, maybe better than the 1 recoil spring.

February 9, 2020, 01:06 AM	#8
jski Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2016 Posts: 374	Mine is a late model Universal, early 80s. This is the one the that really interests me because it’s where Abe separates from the GI design. Two comparisons come to mind: Savage and SpaceX (yes, this may seem a bit of a stretch). Way back in the 50s when Savage’s fortunes were at an ebb they were face with the costly task of developing their own bolt gun. Well, Savage’s engineers brought in a manufacturing engineer who looked at the problems they were having with what has always been problematic: joining the barrel to the receiver and getting the headspace correct. So the manufacturing engineer made a (now) obvious suggestion: use a nut to accomplish this. Focus on functionality and put aside aesthetics. SpaceX was facing bankruptcy and had one last shot at it. So they simplified and simplified and simplified their design to reduce costs and increase reliability (simple is more reliable than complex). In both cases they succeeded! These seem similar to what Universal faced as the supply of GI parts dried up. Their late model carbine are the result of their effort to reduce manufacturing complexity (and hence, costs) and still produce a reliable product. At least reliable enough to keep the market viable. Their 2 recoil spring design seems to reflect this. Evidently, all manufacturers of the GI carbines struggled with drilling the hole for the recoil spring - getting it straight enough. Well, Universal always used forged receivers (to their credit) as apposed to cast receivers, so they couldn’t simply cast straight holes. To avoid this problem they devised the 2 recoil spring solution. And it worked, maybe better than the 1 recoil spring. Last edited by jski; February 9, 2020 at 01:51 AM.