If I understand the Universal situation, there are two distinct types of these. The older type was built on cast receivers with many (all?) USGI parts, like the Nat Ord/Fed Ord guns. Later, they did a gun that was basically an M1 lookalike that would accept few USGI parts. These can be instantly recognized by the stamped op-rods ("slides") with bolt lug cutout. I think these had two recoil springs.
The older guns are okay, but I wouldn't give you more than $100 for a "Type 2," as they are notorious for breaking parts, particularly that stamped op-rod, and replacement parts are scarce. When you can't fix it anymore, it's a wall ornament.
Sounds like the OP has one of the earlier, more desirable types.
Like Snake said, very early Universals werent bad. They used a cast commercial receiver with nearly all GI parts. Those tend to work and are okay. Later ones used a brazed on gas port on the barrels. Cast aluminum trigger housing, stamped slide with two recoil spring, and a receiver that would no longer accept many GI parts. They were sporting rifles that looked like an M1 Carbine, but were a LONG way away from being a GI carbine.
M1 Carbines as designed require a VERY high level of manufacturing precision and top notch materials. That's why a GI carbine is so utterly reliable; like an AK. Trying to make an inexpensive knock off has been elusive. I dont know how good the AO's are, but if they match a GI Carbine for quality, I'd be shocked beyond measure.
I just dont see how anyone could come close to GI quality for anything under a couple grand or more.
A quality GI Carbine Copy?
Auto-Ordnance AOM130 - Style # AOM130, Tommy Gun Shop / Firearms
I was told by the son of a LGS owner several years ago they sent the first two received back...and they are not known for extreme inspection of the goods.
Geoff
Who notes .30 US Carbine ball ammo is classed with "unobtainium" and "stable trans-uranics" at the moment.
Post Four of Four (Here and Elsewhere): One more thing to say before I disappear for another six months.
Don't know that I would hammer the recent manufacture Auto-Ordnance guns.
I have a good friend who now works for the Kahr organization and he tells me they shoot fine. The company sells the daylights out of them. And a good number are shipped for sale in Europe, where the
end users don't tolerate things that are poorly made or malfunction and where the
sellers (especially at the import/distribution level) won't handle anything that is unreliable or in need of constant repair for such things only create extra work for them (in many cases, more so than here) and diminish their overall profitability.
Those guns are a relatively recent addition to the A-O side of the house but I knew a number of people who were at Kahr when they purchased the company itself. To say that the manufacturing of its Thompson-related products at that time was nightmarish, would be considered by some to be an understatement for it reflected the then common practice of failing to change with the times. To their credit, Kahr stepped back and then "stepped up" by redoing a lot of what was going on in order to make consistent and reliable firearms.
Kahr has also been known to willingly address issues with their own-named products. So I would have to think that any issues the Carbines might have had (if they had any, for any company can make a bad batch of "something" for a wide variety of reasons) have been dealt with by now.
As to "commercial" carbines in general, I agree with the remarks offered up here and to some degree on the linked site (and the even more detailed pages it links to) that the 1st Version of the Universals weren't too bad. However, people in the part of the country where I came from in those days (the 60's thru the 80's) tended to prefer the Plainfield (a product I believe that ultimately fell under the Iver Johnson banner) over the Universal when it came to non-GI guns. Although it should be noted that everybody I knew really preferred and generally owned the Military version instead.
In the late 1960's, surplus ammo was so cheap that it seemed comparable to .22rimfire. Looking back, it probably wasn't
but it was close. Cheap and plentiful and NOT corrosive. What more could you ask for? It was not only seen as a "fun gun" in those days (and in a time when a term like that could be used without causing a stir) but during the riots that sadly occurred during the same period, it became evident that even full-stocked Carbines could be easily (and quickly) taken in and out of a squad car, were fast handling
indoors and were capable of successfully performing the task for which they were originally designed within typical urban environment distances
outdoors.
Lastly, before I gave it away, I always had a "paperweight" on my desk during my engineering days that I had picked out of a representative-sample-giveaway-bin at a trade show that was actually a sandblasted-but-unfinished commercial carbine "slide" made by the people who were fabricating the part for the gunmaker itself. I was designing shop machinery and OEM vehicle drivetrain components at the time, and it always served as a reminder that it would have been pretty neat to be in the firearms industry instead.
Funny how things work out, isn't it
Charlie?
