Jump to content

New Auto Ordnance M1 Carbine


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Some other surprises, too. I just visited their site, and under new products for 2004, there it is: Chauchat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, Maybe the Moonies can take something that didn't work, and make it work. They took the Thompson from a good working, firing weapon to a turd that needs to have a RMA # with every purchase.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a hoax. Sorry! I took the post off topic and shouldn't have. Has any seen the new carbines?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad Bad Chris! go to your room! Ya, I would like to see their version of the M1 carbine. It might even work out of the box who knows? probably investment cast recievers etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Chauchat????????????? I wonder if PK ever worked on one.....Oh, just a joke...levity on this board?...tch,tch,tch....Chris go to your corner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now lets think about this Phil. How can Kahr make it worse? I have had a good experience with them as far as customer service, and my Thompson worked great when it worked, so I can't fault them 100%. However, I would be far happier if they did one of two things:

1. Start making quality weapons- I'd even be willing to pay a little more!

2. Start making weapons that blow up when they jam and sell them to terrorists (patriotic duty)

 

John

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm asking this question out of ignorance, but just what is the quality issue with Kahr Arms? My only experience with this company's products is the M1927A1 Carbine I purchased. Except for some of the ugliest wood I've ever seen on a weapon (which I replaced) the carbine has functioned flawlessly for me. Did I just get lucky? What has been some of their QC issues?

 

Thanks,

 

C6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deputy, my 1927A1 functions flawlessly now. However, when purchased, the rear sight screws worked loose after only about 50 rounds through the gun. Also, when I first cleaned the gun, it could not be reassembled, until I took it back to the shop I purchased it from and had their gunsmith mill down the shaft part of the safety switch. It was getting caught on other internal parts, preventing reassembly! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif I've been told of many more serious problems associated with Kahr produced 1927A1's. I'm sure others will chime in. The point is, for $800+/gun, they should function flawlessly out of the box! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, your point. I suppose I have been fortunate then, because I have run in excess of 1000 rounds through it without any problems. The receiver was a little tight to the frame when it was new, but it has loosened up slightly so that disassembley is no problem. It now seems to have about the same tolerances of my WH M1928 SMG.

 

A buddy had the rear sight problem with his West Hurley 1927A1. The rear rivots came loose after prolonged use. My Kahr Arms 1927A1 has the screws.

 

I really don't use the 1927A1 anymore, as I mentioned it's pretty much a let down to shoot after the real thing. My first exposure to the world of the Thompson, (besides the movies) was at the Sheriff Department I originally worked for. The department had two tommy guns and a BAR that had been originally purchased by the department in the 1930's. The Ohio Ordnance semi auto SLR - BAR is my next project. Hope to commission one for construction in April. It takes 3-4 months and requires 50% down.

 

Thanx for the feedback.

 

C6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a 1927a1 and its been perfect for over 6000rounds and its a kahr,yes for the money they should have no problems,But i and alot of other peoplle have had ar-15s that cost more and have alot more problems than the thompson but all you hear people say is that is just the way some ar-15 are.And as far as the moonies owning kahr,I have heard on other boards that is just BS.im not trying to start any shit here but i have read that justin moon son of rev. moon owns kahr.no connection to the moonies cult.As for the m1 carbine,i think i may get one.Its less money than the usedup gi ones i see all over.if i buy one i will let everyone here know how it works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Deputy 89C6 @ Feb 1 2004, 10:46 PM)
The Ohio Ordnance semi auto SLR - BAR is my next project. Hope to commission one for construction in April. It takes 3-4 months and requires 50% down.

Mine should be here March or April (M1918 blued). Woo hoo!!! I'll get back to you with a range report if you like.

 

So, from what I'm hearing my plan to get a Kahr M1A1 SBR might not be a good idea. I guess I could get a parts kit and Richardson receiver and have someone (PK?) put it together as a SBR. Any suggestions from the peanut gallery?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a lot of fun trashing the Kahr guns, but you know what? I don’t normally see any major problems with them and most of the other makers suffer from the annoying lack of detail work that Kahr does. I send NIB Winchester M70’s back for new bolts and re bed Remington's and re fit S& W’s all the time. The days of skilled workmen assembling and polishing guns in the factories passed a lot of years ago.

 

Now the craftsmen are independent and if you are not lucky enough to get a “good” gun out of the box, you will need to invest a bit more to make it right. Call me “sour” or “experienced”, but I don’t expect any new firearm from any maker to be perfect. Is it right? Is it just? Is it fair? Probably not, but it just seems to be a fact of life in this day and age.

 

My 2c

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I purchesed my NIB Walther PPKS, I could not fire it without EVERY single round jamming. TERRIBLE. Needless to say it took a bit of work to make right. However, it still doesn't function 100% with HP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PK. @ Feb 2 2004, 02:52 PM)
We have a lot of fun trashing the Kahr guns, but you know what? I don’t normally see any major problems with them and most of the other makers suffer from the annoying lack of detail work that Kahr does. I send NIB Winchester M70’s back for new bolts and re bed Remington's and re fit S& W’s all the time. The days of skilled workmen assembling and polishing guns in the factories passed a lot of years ago.

Now the craftsmen are independent and if you are not lucky enough to get a “good†gun out of the box, you will need to invest a bit more to make it right. Call me “sour†or “experiencedâ€, but I don’t expect any new firearm from any maker to be perfect. Is it right? Is it just? Is it fair? Probably not, but it just seems to be a fact of life in this day and age.

My 2c

That makes me feel better. I've built my own 1911 from the ground up out of (mostly) Wilson Combat parts so I figure I can deal with a little feed ramp polishing, sear work, or something small as long as I have decent documentation.

 

Been thinking more and more lately about getting my full FFL and then paying the Class III SOT so maybe I should wait for the real deal. Wife even thinks it might be a good way to make a little money!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Kahr M1 carbine was shown at a dealer show last week in Billings Mt.

There is better wood in a #2 pencil.

 

At least you can write with a #2 pencil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PK,

The problem is that Kahr uses the Thompson name, therefore there is an expectation from buyers who believe they are getting a heritage weapon. If the company called it the "Kahr .45 Caliber Carbine" then you might have a case. It is not as if this design was not fool-proofed a long time ago. Indifference in manufacturing and assembly by the maker is a sign of contempt for the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 2 2004, 10:33 PM)

It is not as if this design was not fool-proofed a long time ago. Indifference in manufacturing and assembly by the maker is a sign of contempt for the consumer.

Arthur, I unreservedly agree with you on your point about contempt for the consumer, on the part of Kahr. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif Regards, Walter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only say that when I contacted Kahr with problems, they were more than accomodating and spent a good amount of long distance time by phone (their dime) telling me what to look for. I agree with PK about needing some tweaking to get it to work just right. I was in the army and you have no idea what kind of crap was sold to Uncle Sam-weapons manufactured by the lowest bidder, Mattel! We had to have a full time armorer in a Long Range Recon company to take care of our problems.

For those of us without the means to buy a FA, Kahr is the only option, and I amvery glad to have someone like PK who can turn it into something you can have a lifetime of fun shooting. I do however agree that Kahr raising their prices a little and producing better quality weapons would create a lot of good will. JMHO

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE For those of us without the means to buy a FA, Kahr is the only option

 

John,

I understand that the NFA Thompson's are cost prohibitive, and may not be legal in some states, however, I don't see how the Kahr version represents a suitable alternative. Considering the Kahr price tag, and its only nodding acquaintance with the weapon it is attempting to replicate, they really do not represent an option at all. The difference between the military weapons you used, bought with tax payer dollars, and a weapon you purchased as a private citizen, is that you have choices, and if you feel there is only one choice, you have an obligation to hold that manufacturer's feet to the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...