Jump to content

New Auto Ordnance M1 Carbine


Recommended Posts

Arthur with Walter in my opinion, have it exactly right..... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif How can a decent functioning firearm come out of a state in this country, where Freedom is restricted, in which guns are bad, and guns are the enemy! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif

I bet the workers at Kahr, avoid telling anyone where they work, in which this has a sub-conscious negative effect on their attention to detail on the job; Hence, we the consumer 'buy' shoddy work........dr.jw http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In contrast to some of the other manufacturer's mentioned here, I've probably purchased over two dozen NIB Ruger-made firearms for myself and my customers, and everyone of them functioned flawlessly out of the box. Additionally, the machine work, materials, and fit and finish have always been superb. So, it can be done right, and it can be done right in the US.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

 

I guess it comes down to what you are willing to put up with to get what you want. I really wish Kahr did make a quality weapon that I could brag about right out of the box, and you are right, for 8-900$ I do have a right to expect it to work. I also own several Rugers that I have run thousands of rounds through and wish the A2's I used were as reliable! The problem with Kahr like other problems involves human behavior which doesn't change overnight. My question is, how we force Kahr to make something that is worthy of the name?

(Short of lots of nasty letters and a total boycott-maybe its the only way) In the meantime, PK has mine and I look forward to using it when it gets back!

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sociological problem...

 

Perhaps, and not confined to guns alone. I have some cowboy code here that cost a good deal, like 50 times more than a Kahr, and it has far more stoppages than a Kahr. Myself, though I am not that old, would be ashamed to have sold such muck, but I am not that young either.

 

I don't expect guns, newly made, to work well, there just doesn't seem to be many that do. Well my Remington 700 holds 1/2 moa and sometimes better, but it was lucky lucky. And i'm sure it could do with a bit of professional finishing, but it already shoots better than me. Before buying my 27, I knew, thanks to this board, what to expect, and who to send it to if it proved beyond the remedies suggested here. I never intended giving Kahr a crack at it. I suppose that enables them, if everyone follows that course. So it goes.

 

As to not being a Thompson: it's not a Thompson. End of that discussion. I, rather, PK, Dan and Phil, made it look outwardly somewhat like one. It does shoot well, and trouble free, which is more important to me than looks, or I'd buy a dummy.

 

t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

427SOHV,

As far as Kahr using the name Thompson on the gun, I suggest you read the NAC Thompson thread on this board. Anyone could have used the name "Thompson" on a facsimile when the trademark name, as owned by Maguire's Auto-Ord, expired after 1944. Your AR-15 might have been junk, but at least it was a relative of the M-16. When you cast your gaze on a Kahr, it is immediately apparent that there is no family resemblance to Thompson.

 

QUOTE As to not being a Thompson: it's not a Thompson. End of that discussion. TAB

 

I can't improve on that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

427-

 

I am with you. Colt, Savage, West Hurley, Kahr - its all the same design and I also consider them all Thompsons for what its worth.

 

I cannot speak to the quality, but the important part is if you like the gun and it makes you proud to own and shoot it then don't worry about it.

 

People have to realize that not everyone can plunk down 15K+ for a Colt 21 at todays prices, so you do what you can on a working mans salary. I can respect that. Now, if I hit the lottery.... thats a different story!

 

Fire it. Take care of it and enjoy it. Don't worry about what other people think. Talking smack about someone elses Thompson is pretty immature if its all the man can afford.

 

Just my .02-

 

Chris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Universal has a good M-1 carbine repro. Does Kahr intend to do one that's more authentic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I gotta say I LOVE THIS BOARD!!! Everything from a good ragging session to great advice, to a psychology lesson can be found here under this heading, because of all of the people on here. This is almost as fun as getting to empty a XXX in the time it takes to break wind. Most important, I know I can always find good guys to shoot something with, if not .45acp.

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys,im not trying to start any shit with anyone,I like this board and have learned alot.Im just saying that when someone sees the gun they say,O thats a thompson,not an ar-15,ak-47,m-14,ect.i am just saying that when you see the gun you think thompson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

I had to fish this thread out of the bone yard to warn you guys away from the Kahr M-1 carbines, which are starting to turn up at gun shows. I've just had the "opportunity" to intimately explore two of them, inside and out, in the course of making them useable as safe shooters. That's the best you can hope for, it appears. And these guns were in virtual brand new condition, because the owner had not had very good luck making them shoot.

 

Don't, don't, don't buy one unless you know it works, the price is cheap, and you only plan to bump it around on the floor under the seat of your 1947 dump truck.

 

The story: A good shooting friend is the son-in-law of an affluent and aged local man who buys everything new which shoots, as soon as it comes out. He heard about the Kahr carbines in late 2005 and thought he might like to have one for conversion to 5.7mm Johnson (the M-1 carbine round necked down to .223). So he bought two of these brand new Kahrbines in early January 2006; bought two new 5.7 barrels, case forming dies, reloading dies, Clymer GO and NO-GO gauges, chamber reamer, both versions of stocks (sporter and military style) for both guns, two S&K scope mounts, new scopes...i.e., the works. He spent a bundle. Then he sent the guns off to two different professional gunsmiths for conversion and setup. (The thought process sort of escapes me, but what the hey?)

 

Well, it all turned out to be a disaster. The guns didn't feed right, didn't function right otherwise, were not accurate or reliable, and became something he simply did not want to think about anymore. So he didn't. This man is in his late 80s, and has always gathered around him the finer things in life. But when he runs into a problem, he takes the bypass right away; won't hassle with warranties and resale of a clunker.

 

Recently he heard my friend, his son-in-law, wanted to build another gun, so he told him he could get rid of these two Kahr turkeys in the process maybe, to raise money. And would I replace the .30 barrels, check things out, and make them marketable or give-awayable? Silly me: "Sure."

 

Well, I got more hands-on experience with brand new non-functional Kahr carbines than I ever wanted or expected, even though all the Kahr Thompson quality stories on this board had me in the alert mode. I finished the whole nightmare last night, after working on them off and on over January. I never want to see another Kahr Arms M-1 carbine again. Here's what I found.

 

All four stocks were poorly made from wood best described as trash. On both military style stocks, the recoil plate nut holes were drilled twice too deep, so they had to be epoxy filled, to keep the too-long bolt from pulling the nut all the way up into the stock and sticking out. Thus repaired, the action stays in there a little better.

 

Two of the investment cast recoil lugs had the hole drilled undersize, so they ground the recoil plate screws undersize to fit. (This turned out to be a common Kahr solution to dimension problems. Wherever they made something wrong, they just ground up something else to make it fit; they chase wrong dimensions.)

 

The barrel band assemblies (both types used on two military stocks) were...well, stamped metal garbage. Nothing fit right. Best to just throw it away.

 

The sporter stocks were disasters. Both appeared to have been factory inletted for some other type of action than M-1 carbine, with large...I mean LARGE...gaps, 1/2" wide or so at various points. A joke. The front retaining assemblies were both screwed up and chewed up from the factory. But they had tried hard to make them fit and had sort of got them on there.

 

The barrels weren't too bad, but the metallurgy in the investment cast gas cylinders was not right. One of them was badly split and deformed by normal working pressure after just a few rounds. And the inner part of one cheaply made gas piston nut was brittle and had broken into numerous small pieces. But the pistons looked O.K. and well made. So were the bores of the barrels.

 

One of the factory bolts was the flat type and seemed O.K. and well made. The other was the round M-2 style, poorly made and finished, and the metal appeared soft. After just a few rounds, it was deforming around the rear.

 

In the mechanism, everything was investment cast and much was poorly fitting, and barely functional or not functional. I made it work by reshaping, grinding, filing, hand fitting, etc. That's the only way one of these is going to work. And that appears to have been what they did at the factory...half way. No way could you retro fit G.I. parts to one of these losers, unless something might fit, just by accident.

 

I can't even describe the poorly manufactured and finished investment cast slides. Forget about blueprint dimensions.

 

The investment cast receivers didn't look bad and were marked Auto Ordnance. But the metallurgy was fishy. The Kahr factory rear sights had been removed and lost during scope mounting, so I obtained NOS G.I. sights and thought I would drift them on in a couple minutes. Again, silly me. Both dovetail receiver sight "cuts" appeared to not be cuts at all, but just the way the receivers were molded. The G.I. parts could not possibly fit. One groove was nearly 1/8" undersize in width. They must have ground a rear sight until they could hammer it on there. I nearly destroyed a dovetail cutter trying to clean the first slot on my milling machine. I switched to diamond cutters and files, and got the slots up to milspec...wasting the better part of an evening in the process...my love for those Kahr craftsmen growing all the time. PK knows the feeling. ;)

 

Several weeks earlier, I had replaced each .30 barrel (both made by Kahr or their subcontractor) on the receiver to which it had been originally fitted and headspaced. Thread timing was O.K., but the threads on one barrel were way over spec. It required very careful jigging and lubing to get it on without marring or breaking something, like a receiver. Apparently, that had bothered nobody at the factory.

 

Everything was screwed up. Front sight pin holes were not right, but they fudged that dimension by using stamped metal roll pins...which are O.K., but... The sights would go on...one easily, one not so much so. But nothing was close to G.I. specs.

 

I'm not a big critic of investment cast parts. I think they are O.K., and the metallurgy can be O.K. if done right. But these guys made no effort to clean up the castings, to make them look presentable, fit correctly, and work right. A couple seconds on the wheel could have cleaned up parting lines, burrs, etc. Nobody bothered. Just get the crap billed and out the door.

 

Each carb came with a factory 15-round mag. One fit, but the other only came within about 1/8" of latching. Only friction kept it there. It could never have fed cartridges. Mr. Dremel and I fixed it. Both mags looked like black park, but the scratches and flaking convinced me it was more likely a spray finish of some sort.

 

Investment cast magazine latches were poorly made and way undersized for their (cast in) cuts in the receivers. And they didn't have the right clearance with the stock wood. The whole thing was just a mess.

 

They want around $500 or more for just the plane Jane version of this turkey. CMP has really nice rack grade ex-military M-1 carbines right now, all you want, for about $410. It's a no brainer. Wood is good, bores great, everything gauged and hand-approved by an expert armorer before they will let you have it. And the thing is safe and works 100% every time. Very nice barreled receivers (which they consider nit picky rejects) are $150. I just made two beautiful carbines from them. So now I have five. :lol: Which probably isn't enough.

 

So if you want an M-1 carbine, the Moonies might not be the folks to see.

 

Long ago, my Army issue weapon was the M-1 carbine, and I won military competitions with one right off the rack. In the reserves, I was an ad hoc armorer for these and 1911s. I just love them to pieces. After being Mooned and Kahred this month, it's such a joy just to sit and look at, and work the actions of, my former military issue carbines. Never a bad surprise.

 

Oh, I forgot...and to get back on topic...the front page of the manual that comes with these...uh...things says, "OWNER'S MANUAL, TO BE USED FOR AUTO-ORDNANCE M1 CARBINE, Maker of the world famous "TOMMY GUN"TM".

 

They didn't want us to forget that "TM". Wonder how general T would feel about it? He was born too early to have ever heard the term "Kahred again." Guess it's just as well.

 

*Edited 28 Jan 08 to correct original purchase date.

Edited by PhilOhio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased on of these about six months ago and wrote an extensive review of it in the M1/M2 Carbine section of these boards. The review went away.

 

Anyway, I'm extremely impressed with the gun. It emulates a WWII gun with the early flip sights, push button safety, flat bolt, and type one barrel band. Everything on it that isn't walnut is steel. Fit and finish are excellent throughout. As many of the parts are modern steel castings, the finish is much better throughout than the wartime guns.

 

I ran 150 rounds through it the day I got it and had no failures. It is extremely accurate and very light and handy, as the early wartime guns were before the weight crept up.

 

Kahr even went to the trouble to use the same wooden blank for the stock and handguard, so the wood grain matches throughout. The gun is neatly parked in black, with the exception of the bolt and rear sight, which are blued as the originals were. The original receiver ring markings are duplicated, but the serial has been moved to the forward left side of the receiver. the receiver has the ring of high quality steels.

 

I bought a reproduction khaki sling and ammo pouch from atthefront.com and the gun looks perfectly WWII. I gotta recommend this one, guys. I don't know what Phil had his hands on, but I found precisely NONE of the problems listed. I bought the gun largely based on a very positive NRA Rifleman write up, and it turned out to be an accurate review in every detail.

Edited by TSMGguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know Phil, after reading your tale of woe I am reminded that

(if i recall correctly) both the Kahr Thompson and the Kahr M-1 Carbine

were "tested" by the American Rifleman and given a clean bill of health.

Even more confusing after reading TSMG's post...

 

Bob

Edited by reconbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know Phil, after reading your tale of woe I am reminded that

(if i recall correctly) both the Kahr Thompson and the Kahr M-1 Carbine

were "tested" by the American Rifleman and given a clean bill of health.

Even more confusing after reading TSMG's post...

 

Bob

 

 

Have you ever seen "American Rifleman" review a product from one of their advertisers and not recommend it? It does not happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking early production gun versus and newer production gun that had the bugs worked out of it after trial and error. Phil mentioned the two guns he worked on were from 2003. We all know Kahr's reputation in putting something out there and then getting it to work, look and feel the way it's suppose to much later, Maybe the engineering finally caught up with where it should have been from day one. Or it could be much the same as the Kahr L drums, most didn't work but a few worked flawless. The ones I had were on each end of that spectrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

I think First Sergeant may have the answer to this. The guns I have reworked must have been some of the first ones out. (Correcting what I said before, I just looked at the receipts, which were for the second week in January 2006.) They may even have been special ordered; I'm not sure.

 

TSMGguy,

 

I don't for a second doubt the accuracy of your review on your own gun, which may have been built as late as mid-2007. I didn't start work on these two carbines expecting anything like I found. But I was at least skeptical, or apprehensive, knowing Kahr's track record. On the other hand, several members here had bought them or examined them, and said they were just fine. And I trusted their objectivity, as I do yours.

 

And so, Reconbob, I think this may answer your question. We're both right, or at least accurate in describing our experiences with the Kahr carbines. I only hope that the ones being sold today, in 2008, are all good ones.

 

Roscoe, Bob,

 

As for your lack of regard for the new product reviews coming from NRA...you guys and me both. With me, they lost all credibility after their rave review of the Kahr Thompson, and comments on the company, etc. Total B.S....actually, I guess, outright misleading. I am the NRA, and nope, Wayne LaPierre doesn't represent me.

 

Hawksnest,

 

Thanks for the compliment, but PK's the guy who has forgotten more about gunsmithing than the rest of us combined. This is just something that I enjoy, and am forever learning as much about it as I can soak up. The absurdity of it is that just when we start figuring it all out, somebody spoils the party by nailing a lid shut on us. :lol: In the meantime, it sure is a lot of fun learning and being able to enjoy the results.

 

On Saturday, I told my buddies that what has actually happened is that I have become almost a full time gunsmith with one customer; me. The price is always right, I never demand a refund, and I never sic lawyers on the gunsmith for screewing up. I may cry a little, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Phil knows his stuff. But I also think that TSMGguy knows his stuff too.

The curiousity is - how did two knowledgable guys end up with such completely different

examples of the same gun?

 

Bob

 

Ya got me there, Bob. Phil is a respected member of these boards, and I value his views. It's like we ended up with completely different pieces.

 

I bought mine from an outfit that is out of state, and insisted on a three day non-firing inspection. The gun showed up, and the packaging was secure and very well done. It felt and looked right. Taking the non-firing idea to the extreme, I ordnance stripped the gun and minutely inspected everything. The originals exhibited excellent workmanship, as this one does, but the Kahr is better finished. Back together it went, and I headed for the range. There were no no problems with 150 rounds of original LC 60 ammo just broken out of a fresh can. No lubrication was done as I wanted to let the moving componants hone themselves in. I know nothing of metalurgy, but can spot an abnormal wear pattern, and there was none of that.

 

I thought that it would be slightly unfair to Kahr to try swapping out any parts for originals and then function testing again, so I resisted that idea.

 

The only comments I would make is that the butt plate could be a bit thicker, and the stock contours are slightly different from those of early M1 carbines. The furnished original magazine, while refinished well, was pitted, so I broke a few NOS originals out of the wrap for range use and to complete the ensam.

 

Everything about this little gun is pleasing to the eye and nicely executed. I like the theory that the Kahr's early efforts may may have been far off of the mark. The rifleman artice did state that a redesign was done when the suggestion was made to produce guns with the WWII features that guys wanted and would actually buy. I've collected original carbines for many years but could not stomach the Universals, Iver Johnsons, IAIs and the like, and so passed on them. This one, I like. I've retired my originals to the safe and use this one for my all around desert knock-around gun. With more dings and rubs, it will shortly be indistinguishable from original except to the knowledgable eye.

 

I'd have to call the gun a visually accurate reproduction, made with typical modern methods and techniques. That ain't bad, as tolerances can be well controlled these days. Run (don't walk) and git yerself one of these. (Unpaid endorsement.)

 

Added on edit:

 

This rifle was sitting at my position at the range when one of my friends wandered by, took a quick glance, and said, "That is WAY too nice to be bringing to the range." I cleared and handed him the gun and said, "Look again, good buddy." He realized what he was holding and his eyebrows met up with his hairline. "Nice," he said.

Edited by TSMGguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Phil knows his stuff. But I also think that TSMGguy knows his stuff too.

The curiousity is - how did two knowledgable guys end up with such completely different

examples of the same gun?

 

Bob

 

Because some people have an agenda.... Same as with certain types of ammo... btaim I have only handled two of these guns both of which were ordered when the article broke in AR. I must say they both seemed to have great fit and finish but I didn't field strip them of course. Now my concern with the respected member from Ohio's guns is not the veracity of his statements but that a second party "worked" on the weapons after leaving the Moonies and before he ever saw them.... Who knows what kind of shenanigans were perpetrated in that time frame.

 

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...