Talk:M1941 Johnson machine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military technology and engineering task force
	Weaponry task force
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War I task force

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No, it doesn't. I've made this image for you, so that you can see the differences between an in-line stock and an "outdated stock": http://home.arcor.de/sebastianrigling/johnson_non-in-line.jpg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

[edit] 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)