Talk:M1941 Johnson machine gun

In-line stck

The Johnson DOES have an in-line stock. It just looks different than the M16s.--Asams10 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I've made this image for you, so that you can see the differences between an in-line stock and an "outdated stock": http://home.arcor.de/sebastianrigling/johnson_non-in-line.jpg

The counterforce which is caused by the shoulder has a much bigger distance to the recoil force. This leads to an torsional moment which will make the weapon pull upwards. If there's an in-line stock the recoil force and the counterforce of the shoulder is in ONE LINE, so that there's (nearly) no torsional moment.

At the bottom of the image I've cut away the part of the Johnson lmg which will never touch the shoulder, so that part is unnecessary in such an issue because it won't influence any force. Then, next to that I show you the buttstock of an Mosin Nagant rifle... you will see: There's no real big deal of difference. It's pretty the same if you look at the position of forces and torsional moment.

If you have a better explanation for an "in-line stock", please tell me. Otherwise there's no reason for calling the buttsock of the Johnson lmg "in-line stock".

So I demand to accept the edit to the article of cutting-out that false statment.

Excuse my weak English, I think the message is still comprehensible.

Sebastian R. 23:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't or just haven't brought up arguments yet I'll edit the article again. There's no reason to accept that "in-line stock" theorie as long as there's no evidence. It's just not in one line: It's obvious - There cant't come up an dispute.

The weapon with a similiar buttstock to the M16, is the M1941 Johnson semiautomatic rifle. But this article is about the Light Machine Gun which has got a completely different buttstock. Sebastian R. 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, I've overlooked the whole section about the in-line stock and it's parallels to the M16 in the article, I just edited the "parallels to the FG42"-stuff. In reference to my upper argumentation, that section mentioning the M16 also has to be edited/deleted. But before I do such a major edit I keep up that discussion to avoid disputes. Still: "When firing, recoil forces along with the mass of the weapon's moving parts all traveled in a direct line with the shoulder of the gunner" doesn't fit to the M1941 Johnson LMG as mentioned and shown above. I'm waiting for your arguments. I'm no weapon specialist, the shape of the buttstock just makes me to think physically about that "in-line stock" claim. I'm always open to change my mind by hearing a good argument about that. Sebastian R. 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't check every day. You're being reverted, AGAIN. You're not understanding the concept or you're too ignorant of the M16 to understand how that weapon works. When up to the shoulder, the M16 rests in EXACTLY the same spot as the Johnson MG. The fact that the stock looks different is immaterial. It's the sightline, not the stock LOOK. Stop assuming there's a concensus when you don't get a response while I happen to be on a fu&%ing airplane. --Asams10 06:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After 5 Minutes you've already undone my Edit so what am I supposed to expect when you don't answer me for a day? I thought my picture above would explain anything, but just for you:

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianrigling/johnson2.jpg

The butt stock isn't in line with the recoil. It's no in-line stock. Sebastian R. 15:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not supposed to expect anything. It is an inline stock as it has no drop. The gun is also designed with in-line recoil and that takes into account thrust lines, sight line, etc. You can't really have an in-line recoil design without an in-line stock unless it is of some unorthodox design. At any rate, a change to the wording to explain they are both in-line might be in order, but it does, indeed, have an in-line stock.--Asams10 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge myself beaten. I can accept it like that. Sebastian R. 22:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not in-line: http://home.arcor.de/sebastianrigling/johnson2.jpg

An in-line stock has to actually be in-line. Just look at the diagram. 71.245.76.111 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sight-line and cheek weld of both the "in-line" AR-15 and the "in-line" Johnson LMG are identical, as are the shoulder welds. The stock on a Johnson LMG (and an M16 for that matter) are only truly in-line with the body when lying prone, in which case the Johnson actually proved a bit awkward as noted in a few Primary documents I've read. You've obviously never fired an AR-15. In-line also has more to do with the longitudinal center of gravity than you might think. You can call it a lie all you want, it's an in-line stock by the definition. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just re-examined the picture. It's really interesting how they both have not only the same cheek weld and sight line, but EXACTLY the same cheek weld and sight line. It's as if you're trying to prove the point you disagree with in this picture. They are not to scale, BTW, and the Johnson is slightly longer IIRC. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As "These light machine guns all featured a straight line recoil mechanism with a lowered butt stock to help reduce muzzle climb" it is fairly obvious that they do NOT have an in-line stock, which the M16 DOES have. Hence I'll remove the statements in that regard until someone can provide proper inline citations for it. BP OMowe (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at my Johnson

Shouldn't the article correctly be moved to Johnson automatic rifle, seeing that's more descriptive? (It's also how I've more often seen it described.) Trekphiler (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1941 Johnson machine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403213227/http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Semi-automatic%20Rifles/US/U.S.%20M%201941%20Johnson%20Semi-%20Automatic%20rifle/PROTOTYPE%20JOHNSON%20SEMI-AUTO.html to http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Semi-automatic%20Rifles/US/U.S.%20M%201941%20Johnson%20Semi-%20Automatic%20rifle/PROTOTYPE%20JOHNSON%20SEMI-AUTO.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate of fire

There are two different numbers regarding the rate of fire. In the text it says " 200-600 rounds per minute ". However in the spec table above the cyclic rate is addressed with 300-900 rpm. Which one is correct? Neumi17 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)