1st one (Teflon Universal)

New2brass wrote: The examples I have observed or others have checked have been magnetic.  So maybe they are nickel plated? Are yours magnetic?

New2brass wrote: Is this one green or blue? The mag sounds like a Union Hardware wartime spares contract magazine. Is it also Teflon coated? I have been looking into the commercial carbine manufacturers that sold magazines. I have identified some  vendor specific 30 round magazines. As to other metal magazines  5 round mags some look specific made, others are clearly 30 round cut down. 15 round mags I have only found one specifically different. The rest I suspect are USGI which were readily available. The Iver Johnson I have only found the base plates separate. Some companies offered stainless/nickel magazines. One company offered both. I am wondering if it was a publishing error.

New2brass wrote: Not a Teflon.. A Stainless Steel Universal spotted on an auction site

Jim,

Thanks for the specifics on the teflon colors. I'm away from my paper items at the moment, and also have the 1969-70 catalog you mentioned in my own collection. I've never seen all the Universal catalogs you have in your collection together in one photo...Any chance you could take a photo of them to post here? For those who don't know me, I'm a bit of a firearm paper item nerd, and co-authored the first collector guide on the subject in 2005. (It was specific to the Thompson Submachine Gun) I also wrote a CCNL article on M1 Carbine paper items a few years back. Anyway, my interest in firearm paper items includes just about anything on paper that is firearm related.

Thanks!

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

There have been plenty of stories and opinions on the carbines made by Universal Firearms. Many of them negative. When I started researching Universal and their carbines I looked for the issues I'd read in many of these stories and opinions. In this post I'll stick to the issue of their redesigned bolt and claims it was/is unsafe.



The design of the rear of the GI bolt and face of the hammer were designed to prevent the hammer from contacting the firing pin (A) until the bolt rotated into the locked position and was ready for firing (B). The rear of the bolt and face of the hammer were hardened to operate as a matched set.



The purpose of the tang on the rear of all GI firing pins is to engage a cut in the rear of the receiver bridge that held the firing pin back until the bolt was fully rotated and locked. Along with the design of the rear of the bolt and face of the hammer this was intended to prevent out-of-battery discharges.

Additional info is available on the web page devoted to GI bolts and firing pins on this website.

A few early Universal's were built using GI bolts but not many. The bolt Universal used was a round bolt machined from a forged steel billet to GI specifications. With the exception of some having a quasi lightening cut we see on the GI flat bolts.

Universal switched production of their carbines at s/n 100,000. Those with a s/n about 100k feature the redesigned hybrid Universal took out a patent on. This redesign did not initially include a means by which to hold the bolt open. Meaning it was absent the previously used slide stop and slide stop spring.

I have info Universal switched to a cast bolt for a short period of time about 1970 but I have yet to see one. They continued to use their bolt based on the GI design after the other changes at s/n 100k.

About s/n 185000 Universal introduced a lever on the right side of the receiver that could be used to hold the bolt open and lock the slide in the rear position. To accomplish this the lever engaged a notch added in the side of the bolt at the rear. This bolt included several additional changes that departed from the GI design. Carbines with the lever to hold the bolt open cannot use a bolt of the GI design.


Right: GI style bolt used by Universal until about s/n 185k. Left: The redesigned bolt with the notch the lever engaged to hold the bolt open.

One of the most obvious changes was the elimination of the tang on the rear of the firing pin. This is often cited as "elimination of one of the safety features of the GI design" with a conclusion it is therefore unsafe. It did eliminate a safety feature but they replaced it with a different design commonly used on many other firearms.


This bolt retained the design of the rear of the bolt and face of the hammer to prevent the hammer from striking the firing pin until the bolt was fully rotated and locked. To hold the firing pin within the rear of the bolt and away from the primer they added a strong tension spring inside the front of the bolt.

Opinions can differ on which is safer, the firing pin tang or the tension spring. Keep in mind the design of the GI carbine was for a very different environment than the civilian market. Many other commercial firearms use the retention spring.

Add to this equation, one of the things that has been common with commercially manufactured receivers is an improper cut in the rear of the receiver bridge affecting the degree to which it held the firing pin tang way from the primer. The tension spring eliminated this problem.

One last thing that applies to all commercial bolts, Universal included. GI specs for hardening of the bolt hardened the rear of the bolt to a greater degree than the front of the bolt. I have yet to find a commercial bolt that meets these standards. They are hardened the same front and rear. The drawback with this is it diminishes the lifespan of the safety design at the rear of the bolt by metal deformation from repeated hammer strikes. All commercial bolts should be monitored for this damage on a regular basis.

I often get asked if a particular commercial manufacturer made good carbines or problem carbines. My answer is, a used gun is a used gun regardless of who made it, and what it was when they made it. Get it checked by a competent gunsmith before you shoot it. Especially semi-auto centerfire rifles designed for the military.

Jim

The teflon coated carbines sold by Universal were marketed as submersible and "rust proof". Not the first time the guy who handled their marketing exaggerated or did false advertising. Fortunately he did only marketing, not operations.

The problem this marketing created was owners believed it. As a result, many went uncleaned and/or unoiled after exposure to the elements. The carbines rusted in the various areas not teflon coated and along the edges on the barrel and receiver.

Green seems to have been the most common color. I've seen more green ones than all of the other colors offered combined.

Your GI bolt was not the one used by Universal during that time. Likely someone replaced the Universal bolt with the GI one. I'll address the Universal bolts in another post.

Jim

crashtestnewbie wrote: http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/bolts.html it looks like there were  a few items to increase safety. Its a good read. Some improvements helped reduce muzzle flash.

Yes, a good read indeed. I see the relationship of the rear of the bolt to hammer face to prevent firing until bolt is locked. A pic IS worth a thousand words. LOL.

I have a mechanical question. I understand that there could be an out of battery fire with the Universal. Like other rifles. My rear receiver bridge is the type that is cut wrong. I read where there is a second back up safety that relates to the hammer face/bolt tang set up (GI bolt). How does that work? Maybe a pic of the relationship? Thanks.