Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1 Carbine
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-15-2010, 11:31 AM
DaveHH DaveHH is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,705
Default That looks like a standard Type 3 ejector

After I was satisfied that there was sufficient spring action in the ejector assembly. I would look toward the lubrication of the carbine. If there is too little grease or lubricant, the entire process is defeated. The Garand has a defined blueprint of ejection all based upon how well the weapon is greased, the carbine has a very similar system. The fact that the cartridge is a pop gun compared to the Garand only reinforces the friction/lubrication issues.

At the range Thursday, a guy was shooting a new Springfield M1A and I asked him how he lubed it as it seemed to be having issues. He said "I've always stuck with WD40". An aircraft preservative to lubricated an automatic rifle?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-15-2010, 11:32 AM
BQ97 BQ97 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,491
Default

I call it a USGI ejector because that is exactly what it is. It is not messed with or modified at all. In fact it is one of the two types found in late Winchesters. I have one in my late Winchester and it works just fine. If you happen to look at one of the later Carbine Club datasheets you will see the type pictured in kmad2001ís post is listed as one of the choices.

http://www.carbineclub.com/DataSheet_7_01_08a.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-15-2010, 11:46 AM
meplat meplat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 3,817
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BQ97
If you happen to look at one of the later Carbine Club datasheets you will see the type pictured in kmad2001ís post is listed as one of the choices.
Looks like some kind of "hybrid" of choices 3 and 4 to me
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-15-2010, 02:48 PM
BQ97 BQ97 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,491
Default

Looks like any other standard type 3 ejector with half the finish worn off where the one side of the ejector touches the cartridge case.

The heavy bevel of a type 3 ejector



not to be confused with the smaller bevel of the type 2 ejector
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-15-2010, 05:48 PM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 833
Default

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/g...IIEjectors.jpg

/\These in the picture tend to work./\

The cone head ones in the other picture tend not to work. The Winchester cones may be in late guns but only because Winchester used up ever old outdated part before they started to use the newer better ones.

The bevel and cylinder are the latest two types used by the military in rebuilds.

The original three facet wedge didn't work dependably and the cone shape didn't work all that well either especially when coned too much like the original poster's picture. I have seen cones with longer sides and a smaller flat tip than these in the second picture. They didn't work either.

The cylinder was an effort to make the ejection stronger by keeping the push going as the ejector popped forward and the case rotated, but case rims would get caught on it and not enter the bolt face during chambering.

So the beveled cylinder was made, with a SMALL bevel that leads to positive ejection. Just enough to break the corner so a case would slide by to enter the bolt face.

You may notice I don't express much concern about data sheets and the specific names of widgets whatever their 1-2-3-4 may be. The sheet can list anything it wants. All well and good for folks who want to study parts and know what came from where or in what order of use. Being named does not enhance function.

I pay attention to function and try to figure out why this works and that doesn't. And I accurately report the result of observation. Working guns are fun. It is cool with a capital K to burn through 100 rounds of carbine ammo and have perfect function. Until then, I worry why it didn't work. Things that don't work tend to get worse. Things that work tend to keep working.

The OP asked why his carbine didn't eject. The bubba'd bevel or conehead ejector in his picture is the number one thing I would get rid of first and fast. It would be replaced with a well made beveled ejector. The bolt would have a better chance to properly eject cases. Function rules.

Guns that do not function are not interesting. I help make them work and have no reverence for old outdated parts that were replaced because they didn't function well. I have my own little pile of parts like that that are neat but useless because they don't work.

Last edited by .Steve.; 03-15-2010 at 06:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-15-2010, 08:11 PM
BQ97 BQ97 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,491
Default

Your history is a little off but that is understandable. The multi angled ejector, pn B200989,was the first design . It had some alleged problems and the design was simplified in July 1943 to the lightly beveled type, the ones collectors now call the type II ejector, same part number but a different revision number. The more pronounced beveled ejector came next, part number 6200989. That's the one in kmad2001ís bolt and it is not bubba'd. Inland used this design as well, and it is the most common ejector by sheer numbers.

In February 1944 Springfield Armory conducted an investigative test into carbine extraction and ejection problems and concluded most, if not all, ejection problems associated with the M1 Carbine were linked not to the type ejector but the slide dwell angle. There were also some problems associated with the depth of the ejector hole in the bolt but the ejector hole depth problems were overcome with an increased dwell slide. By increasing the dwell angle the bolt stayed closed longer and allowed both the extractor and ejector, regardless of type, to function as intended.

The final ejector type has a beveled side and it was simply a matter of simplifying the design based on Ordnance Dept testing . Since the ejector cannot rotate there was never a need to bevel the entire face. This lead to only the side of the ejector facing the extractor being beveled to increase the surface contact area on the ejecting case. Kind of going full circle as this one is very similar to the original design.

The type 3 , cone shaped ejector may not work with kmad2001ís bolt, ejector, and slide but it isn't a bubba'd ejector. Based on the Feb 1944 SA report I'd replace the slide first but if that is not an option then I'd look at replacing the extractor spring first so the extractor can maintain grip on the empty casing better.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-15-2010, 09:28 PM
meplat meplat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 3,817
Default

BQ97, your history is interesting.

My Rock Island Arsenal ordnance drawing #6200989 (10 December 1951 / 30 September 1968) specifies the "Type 2" ejector.

Why did the design abandon the cone?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-15-2010, 10:27 PM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 833
Default

BQ97, thank you for your efforts to educate. I have no intention of getting sidetracked away from functionality. The ejector in the OP's photo doesn't look to me like the cones in your one photo. I have seen short cones like those and have seen cones that were tapered for twice that length. The common characteristic was fairly pronounced machineing with distinct corners. The OP's photo more resembles a home bevel job gone wild, or a long cone someone rounded corners on. Either way, it is a poor ejector and most likely his real problem fixed with a good small bevel ejector and a new spring. A slide is not necessary to make it work. (Yes, an angled slide and a round bolt will make any carbine run much-much better.)

The cone fails to control ejection because it fails to maintain contact with the case as the case begins to rotate. Step one is where the case clears the chamber/receiver. The flat face of the cone pushes on the case and the case begins to rotate. The case moves away from the ejector as the ejector comes out of its hole. The geometry of the cone puts the cone facet parrallel to the rotating case head at that moment. The flat face is no longer pushing and the case loses contact with the ejector when the cone facet parrallels the case head. It is the functional equivalent of the case falling into a void caused by the short side of the cone facet compared to the longer flat face. If the original push was good, the case goes anyway. If the original push was not so good, the case pops out from under the extractor without enough push to exit. Not enough rotation speed to kick it to the side.

A cylinder, literally a faced off little piece of rod ejector maintains contact as the case rotates and pushes it steadily in rotation to the up and right. There is no facet void for the case to "fall" into and the push never stops. The cylinder causes problems because the sharp corner prevents cases from sliding over the bolt face and from entering the bolt face causing a whole series of jambs.

The bevel works because the flat face comes full diameter (almost so) and never loses contact with the case until the ejector stops moving forward. The bevel allows a case head to slide over the ejector and enter the bolt face. For functionality, the bevel gives almost the good long push of the cylinder and offers no resistence to the case as it slides around on the bolt face and offers no corner to catch on as the case centers itself in the bolt face. The best of both worlds.

Polished, reshaped, or some original, whatever the OP has would be best removed and replaced with a good bevel type ejector and a new spring.

What the OP has now is just enough extraction to rotate the case back into his face and not enough ejection to kick it out and up the right side. It isn't working.

(I think this is why I avoid the widget threads. Making them run is one thing, but worrying about parts is another area of interest.)

Good luck fixing your head ejector. If you get it running, let us know.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-16-2010, 07:51 AM
BQ97 BQ97 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meplat View Post
BQ97, your history is interesting.

My Rock Island Arsenal ordnance drawing #6200989 (10 December 1951 / 30 September 1968) specifies the "Type 2" ejector.

Why did the design abandon the cone?
Ejector PN 6200989 is this one. The same one kmad2001 has.


Last edited by BQ97; 03-16-2010 at 08:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-16-2010, 09:05 AM
meplat meplat is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 3,817
Default

Well, maybe kmad2001 has one like your leftmost. It's bevel appears outside ordnance spec. I'd reject it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BQ97
not to be confused with the smaller bevel of the type 2 ejector
After all this, I am now a bit confused as to the difference between the two types.

According to Riesch, the type II ejector was a cylinder with a "slightly chamfered" leading edge whereas

Quote:
The Type III Ejector's leading edge was chamfered to form a flat faced cone. The degree of the chamfered edge will vary among manufacturers.
What is the difference between the two, other than apparently "degree"? Some of your T2 ejectors appear the same as a few of your T3 examples. All I have in my collection are T1's and the one in my post war bolt, which I had assumed to be T2 but now I'm not so sure ...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 AM.