I shot my first deer with a surplus Johnson about 1967(ish). I don't know what happened to that rifle, it was something that my Dad handed to me and made me practice with, then off to the hunt. Even though I liked it, Dad thought it too heavy for an 11 or 12 year old and the following year I was hunting with a Savage lever action in .308. I wish I still had that Johnson. They're rare and collectible now. The Johnson is an interesting rifle that has generated a lot of misinformation over the years. Most of what people "know" about the Johnson is pure bunk. For example, the usual gun store counter pundit will assure you that there was a competition between the Johnson and the Garand to replace the Springfield, and the Garand won and became the army standard. That's not really true. The Garand was already standard for some years before the Johnson even showed up. The Johnson was presented as a substitute standard rifle, a secondary in case rifle production fell behind in the event of war. The secondary goal was to persuade the US Marines to choose it over the Garand. Melvyn Johnson, the inventor, was a reserve USMC Captain. There were problems at first. The initial iteration of the Johnson used BAR magazines and those have always been problematic, easy to dent or deform. That wasn't a big problem in the BAR because the action allowed clearing a malfunction quickly. In the Johnson with its closed action (to keep out dirt and grit) it was a pain in the ass. Rather than open up the action with a larger ejection port, they simply went back to the old Krag-Jorgensen rotary magazine. This was a rather brilliant and reliable magazine that was known to be almost malfunction-proof. It's still used today in the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 rifle. The rimmed .22 is notoriously difficult to make reliable in a semi-auto (at least with a box magazine), but with the Ruger factory rotary mags, its very rare to get a failure attributable to the mag. Anyway, they went with a rotary ten round mag, which could be topped up with an a extra round in the chamber to give you eleven shots. This wasn't a detachable magazine (like the Ruger), but was topped up with stripper clips, or by hand one at a time if needed. The other "wisdom" you'll hear from your gun store counter expert is that the Johnson was inaccurate because of the reciprocating gas system. It works a bit like a semi-auto pistol in that the barrel comes back an inch or so to unlock the bolt. One might assume that the barrel would never lock back up in the exact same place, and you'd have a wandering zero. Yet, when the army finally did test the rifle against the Garand in May of 1940, the Johnson outshot the Garand with a score of 472 to 436. A later test using the Garand vs the Johnson out to 1000 yards favored the Garand, but only by 15 points out of a possible 600. One other innovation was a rotating bolt with multiple lugs. This is the same system used in the M16 and AK 47 families today and in fact, both Stoner and Kalashnikof both admit to copying that system. This wasn't an entirely new concept, but had been used in some earlier bolt action rifles using two only lugs. Johnson's system used ten lugs which gave it the strength to withstand tremendous recoil yet only required an 18 degree rotation to unlock rather than the 90 degrees of the old Steyr or Lebel rifles. The Johnson rifle was not adopted for the simple reason that the Garand was already in production. Still, those tests and the innovative design were impressive enough that the Dutch government ordered 38,000 (over several contracts) to arm its East India colonies under threat of invasion from the Japanese at that time. Few were delivered because the Japanese invaded and so those rifles sat in the factory warehouse until the Marines suddenly developed an interest. The rifle did have some advantages from the point of view of the Marine Corps. That closed action made it desirable to the Corps because it kept out grit and mud better than the Garand. Furthermore, the Johnson, even caked in mud, could be fired as a straight pull "bolt action" rifle should the need arise. The closed action kept debris out much better than the Garand action. Even clogged, the closed locking mechanism was free (unlike the Garand) and in most cases it could be fired until the marine could properly clean the weapon. The (38,000?) Johnson rifles sitting on the docks (intended for the Dutch) were purchased and issued to the USMC Paratroop units. Another large order was placed for the Johnson Light Machine Gun (which was based on the same action), and issued to those same para units. The Marines liked the Johnson, but with war production as tight as it was, the Garand was the only choice after those Dutch guns were purchased. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhgIbVazbf8
Good right up, Kieth. Long ago they showed up at gun shows, not often but enough to see a few over time. I am rather small and they looked fat in the middle to me nut normal otherwise fine and UI always wanted to shoot one but never did. Gun hows were one thing, finding a person with one and a place to shoot was rare. To me they were a viable main battle rifle. Thanks for posting. Gaines
I think the guy in the vid mentions it, but I forgot to add in the text that the other problem was that when a bayonet was mounted the rifle became less reliable. Since the barrel moves back a short distance upon firing, the extra weight of the bayonet affects the bolt movement and creates malfunctions. I'm not sure how bad that was, but all the authorities mention this issue. I suspect it was a minor issue, or the Marines (and the Dutch) wouldn't have wanted it.
Good writeup, but a few minor points: Total production (to my knowledge) was around 28,000: a "no prefix" serial block of rifles serialized from 0001-9999, a "A" prefix serial block of rifles from A0001-A9999, and a what appears to be a partial "B" serial block of rifles from B0001 to B8xxxx. Only a small number of Johnsons were issued to the USMC. Documented Johnsons (all <100 of them) will command a big premium when they come up for sale. As the war went on Johnsons became more isolated, as the M1 Garand became available in increasingly larger numbers. However, at least one Johnson made it as far as Iwo Jima, where it was carried by Capt Robert H Dunlap (Medal of Honor). Johnsons are fantastic rifles for the collector. A real eclectic design, coupled with some very interesting history. I have 2 of them. Recently I came across a bayonet for one -- in Luxembourg of all places.
I think Ian, in the video, says 30 (or 32?) thousand were made. Other sources give smaller or larger numbers, up to 38,000. Nobody seems to know how many were shipped to the Dutch in the East Indies before the Japanese invasion. I find that gap in knowledge very frustrating. The company folded, so their paperwork is lost. The Dutch fell to the Japanese and Germans, so those figures are gone. I suspect the lower figures might just be what were left warehoused after the initial shipments to the Dutch. And it's unclear (to me) if they made additional Johnsons to fulfill the Marine order, or as Ian suggests, the Marines just took what was on hand. Even if your low 28,000 number is correct, that might leave plenty of rifles to outfit a couple of Marine para battalions. There was a company in the early sixties that mail-ordered thousands of surplus Johnsons to the public, in the same way other companies sold Mausers, Carcanos, Enfields and so on. Some of those were "sporterized" by having the bayonet lug removed and the sights swapped out for some kind of buckhorn sight, others were left in military configuration. I think mine was the sporterized version, but it was a long time ago and memory fades. Anyway, that's where all those USMC Johnson's went. Somebody on a gun forum long ago had a JPG of the magazine advertisement. I don't recall the price, but it was low - $75 or so, with the sporter going for an extra ten bucks (or something like that). It's confusing too, because the LMG version is the same damned rifle with a different magazine system and some minor internal changes to go full auto. It's unclear (to me) if the production numbers of rifles and LMGs are being conflated as the total. I don't know how many LMGs were made. I suspect a 12 pound full auto 30.06 would be a handful, but then again the FAL and M14 had similar recoil and could be controlled (at least in bursts) by well trained soldiers. That reciprocating barrel might well have dampened (spread out) the recoil in the same way a locked breech pistol has less "smack" than a blowback pistol in the same caliber. I find this rifle interesting. There are a lot of failed small arms out there that are just as well forgotten, but this rifle was a good one that just came along a few years too late to catch the bus.
I believe 30k is possible, but not more than that. There are 3 known serial number "blocks" of 10,000 numbers each. Assuming each block was completed used that is 30,000 rifles in total. It appears that the "B" block was not completely filled (with the highest known number ~ B8xxx to my knowledge). Johnson production figures are complicated by the fact that the serial numbers were not used sequentially (that is, rifle "1111" was not made immediately prior to "1112"), and the factory logs for the "A" and "B" prefix serial number range are gone. A collector in the US has the original "no prefix" serial number logs. These are quite interesting because they include the date that the rifle was shipped, the customer name (NPC - Netherlands Purchasing Comission) and the serial number of each part of the rifle. Johnsons did not have all matching serial numbers. It seems that pre-numbered parts were in bins, and while the rifles were being assembled a part was pulled out at random and installed in the rifle before it moved onto the next step on the assembly line. I believe all of the Johnsons that made to the Dutch East Indies were from the "no prefix" block, which means that you can infer which ones made it overseas based on the delivery date. Both of my rifles (delivered to NPC in early and mid November 1941, respectively) likely made it overseas. I will have to have a look at Bruce Canfield's book and see if there's more information. You're thinking of Winfield Arms. Here's one of their ads, selling the "military" Johnsons as well as two sporterized models: Re: the M1941 Johnson LMG. It is possible that the numbers of rifles and LMGs have been combined by some. LMG production totaled around 9,500 IIRC, which when coupled with the ~28,000 rifles would make a total of around ~38,000. From what I've heard recoil was manageable. There's one story (with photos) in Canfield's book of Melvin Johnson firing a LMG single-handed as if he was firing a target pistol. The M1941 was praised by the USMC units who used it, primarily for being compact and light and was regarded as "quite superior to the BAR" (as written in a report to "Brute" Krulak following Choiseul)
I'm out of salutes for the day, but: You. Are. Awesome! Great minds think alike! That's very likely where the confusion in numbers comes from. I can't really make it out, but is that $65.50 for the military version in that advert? Oh Lord, I could have bought one a month with my paper route money. But then, Lugers and all those great collectable military arms were dirt cheap back then. And you have two of them? You bastard! I think you mentioned these in a thread a while back, but I had forgotten that. Now, having mentioned them yet again, you OWE us some commentary on shooting them. Accuracy, reliability, the actual "feel" and balance of the rifle. I'm also curious if my theory about lower perceived recoil is correct vs a Garand or similar arm. I get that from my experience with small .380 and 9mm Makarov pistols. For example a Czech CZ-82 re-chambered in .380 is almost painful to shoot compared to my little Colt Mustang, even though the CZ is twice the weight and has a much broader backstrap. The Mustang is locked breech, spreading out that recoil, while the CZ is blowback. Some of the really tiny .380 blowback micro-pistols coming out now feel like your palm is being slapped with an iron rod! The physics don't change - same cartridge - but the locked breech spreads that recoil out even though it can only be measured in micro-seconds. It's all subjective, but real enough when you pull the triggers on a blowback vs a locked breech pistol. So, does the extra barrel movement in a much heavier rifle like the Johnson make a difference in perceived recoil?
The same guy developed the M1941 Johnson Machinegun, adopted by the 1st Special Service Force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1941_Johnson_machine_gun
I have a thread for odd weapons in British and Commonwealth service on the sister site. According I think to Skennerton's book on Australian military rifles a small number of Johnson rifles would up in Australian hands, possibly the RAAF. I believe they may have been leftovers from a KNIL contract, as Australia did inherit some other KNIL stuff from the US after the NEI fell, including Buffalo fighters, Mitchell and Boston bombers, and Marmon-Herrington two man light tanks. It sticks in my mind that these Johnsons may have been in 7mm Mauser, possibly because they were originally destined for Chile? Or am I mis-remembering? I would have presumed that any Johnsons would have been in .30-06.
The details on the rifle are sketchy, but several sources says that 10,000 were sold to Chile in 7mm. There are other references to Johnsons in .270 Winchester - Lord knows who bought those, unless it was strictly a sporter. If you look at the rifle (see disassembly in the vid), it's unique in that to change calibers, all you had to to do was swap out the barrel to any other cartridge which would fit the bolt face of a 30.06 and had the approximate length (to fit the magazine). That would include 7mm and 8mm Mauser (and a whole slew of American sporting cartridges based on 30.06 brass). Shorter or longer cartridges would require a tweak to the magazine, but a number of standard military cartridges would only require popping in a replacement barrel with the correct chamber size and bore diameter. I came across another reference yesterday saying that 70,000 Johnson rifles were manufactured. So, the number now ranges from less than 30,000 to 70,000. It's a very poorly researched rifle.
I have a 30-year old article from Guns & Ammo about the Johnson rifle, including a shooting test. Once I get home from vacation I will scan it and post it here.
To be honest I don't get to the range nearly as much as I want. Sometimes I'll take a rifle to the office with me and at the end of the day I'll head out into the "back 40" to fire off a few rounds. One advantage of being the boss . I've only shot one of my Johnsons. Both are solid mechanically; 1 has a pooched barrel (although it does not keyhole at 100m, the spread is horrendous), 1 has a mint barrel. I've only shot the one with the pooched barrel. I will do a write up on both (with side by side comparisons with my M1D Garand if possible) this summer. If I don't, PM me and I'll spend an afternoon on it. A few general comments (all my opinions, and keeping in mind that I haven't shot either a Johnson or Garand in 2 - 3 years): I like the general feel and handling of the Johnson better than the Garand. As you might expect from the profiles, the Johnson just feels like a sportier rifle. That means good handling, balance (very little weight past the chamber, meaning a very light frontal load), and generally better all-round comfort when carrying. We all know this isn't the case, but the Johnson has the feel of a militarized sporting rifle (and I mean that in a good way). However, although the rifles weigh the same, the Garand has more "beef" up at the muzzle end. This heftiness makes it slightly easier to follow up with quick shots as there is less muzzle rise. The Garand also has better sights (the Johnson rear sight and in particular the elevation adjustment is incredibly cheap) and just generally feels like a "tougher" rifle. I have not shot either rifle enough to fully justify the latter on the basis of noted stoppages or parts wear -- this is solely based on casual range use, which is admittedly a very poor metric. That being said I view the potentional weak points in the design of the Johnson as being the rotary magazine system and the recoiling barrel. The former due to potential for damage to the spring or magazine casing, the latter for potential of fouling. The Garand's weak points are well known, but I have little doubt that the Garand was a superior battle rifle. I like the Johnson a lot, but it was a more delicate design than the Garand (mitigated somewhat by the fact that the Johnson is a simple rifle which can be more easily manufactured and repaired than the Garand). The Johnson (to me) has less "felt" (AKA perceived) recoil than the Garand. It is interesting that some US Army testing reports falsely claimed the Johnson had horrendously abusive felt recoil. The true story is that the solider firing the Johnson had a bloody nose (or a recent face injury that re-openned) just before firing commenced. Rather than pass in favour of the backup shooter, he decided to shoot the course of fire anyway and did a great job of it. However, by the end, the poor man's face was covered with blood. Certain observers jumped to the conclusion that the Johnson was so harsh it had bloodied the soldier, and made note of it in the report. I may not be remembering this correctly but this incident is recounted in Canfield's book.
I don't recall anything about Commonwealth use of the Johnson in Canfield's book (it is very late now and I don't have it directly in front of me), although its certainly possible that any weapons recieved from the KNIL units after the fall of the NEI would have been put to use in auxilliary duties (airfield guarding). According to Canfield, Chile ordered 1000 Johnsons in 7x57mm shortly after the Dutch cancelled their order. The Chilean contract rifles used modified 1936 Mexican Mauser barrels that were fitted into standard 30-06 parts (including the barrel bushing, which retained a "30.06" calibre stamp). These were all delievered to Chile to the best of my [very late night, and very tired] ability, so I do not foresee how these would have made it into Commonwealth hands. Canfield says 1000 for Chile, and I'd take that over the numbers quoted from other sources. If I am incorrect on the number Canfield states I will correct it in the morning (I'm doing this from memory). Winfield Arms did the "sporter" Johnsons, and offered them in 7x57mm (likely from spares/NOS from the Chilean contract, or built on this old tooling) and in .270Win. The .270Win variants were purely done through Winfield to the best of my knowledge. The only place I've seen the 70,000 figure referenced is on Wikipedia, and there is no citation. I do not consider it accurate. I believe around 38,000 is the "true" number, when one includes the M1941 LMGs (which really, you shouldnt). or around 28000 for the M1941 rifles alone. How they could conflate this to 70,000 I don't know. I don't see how it is possible. This is not referenced in Canfield's book. His book is quite comprehensive, and where research gaps exist they are typically due to missing/unrecoverable information. I wouldn't say that the Johnson is poorly researched, just that the information available for research is limited. For a comprehensive look at the Johnson guns I strongly recommend Canfield's "Johnson's Rifles and Machine Guns".
Here's a very educational video on the Light Machine Gun Version of the Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf40tHdKmno
