Fighting rifles: Why not an M1 Carbine?

"I'll defend my home with a Fal..defeats level III and penetrates door to door any normal car"



"Man, I hope for your neighbor's sake you're out in the sticks... I sure wouldn't want to look over and see a few rounds of .308 zipping through the drywall"


Folks I have ready for home defense a Garand loaded Tracer,Ball, AP, Tracer, Ball, AP, Ball, Tracer, with the next clip being tracer AP Alternating. That is for BEFORE they gain access. If they gain access it's a Crowd Killer, with 5, 2 3/4 HP #5's. No I do not live in the sticks, rural yes, but there are still neighbors. After playing around with lots or different calibers in different types of firearms over many years I realize that even the Cal 30 Carbine and the 5.56MM are some drywall eating SOB's, along with 2x4's 2x6's OSB, CDX, etc. Granted a 308 or ought six (especially with AP) will out penetrate them all, but unless you are shooting a shotgun with #7 1/2 or #9 shot, penetration will be a problem, UNLESS the neighbor has a brick home. A lowly 22LR will zip right through a trailer (coonass condo), and damage or injure whatever, or whomever, is on the other side. Even a pneumatic pellet rifle with steel BB's will penetrate the aluminum siding of a mobile home. No matter WHAT you are shooting you must be aware of what is behind your target. The trick is to get the intruders respect and attention, while hopefully, they have nothing behind them. The Garand will take care of them if they come in a vehicle. It will anchor it right in place or make a bar-b-que pit out of it. Believe me when I say that API is not necessary to make a gas tank go WOOOOFFF. Let the AP open it up (actually ball will do that too) and the tracer will be the match that lights the pit. Actually the AP and Ball when hitting steel, rocks etc. will generate a lot of sparks of the intensity needed to ignite gasoline. I can remember as a kid firing a 22 with SHORTS in it into a deserted gravel road on private posted property at night and watching the sparks fly with SOFT LEAD bullets.
 
Against armored targets... inefective?

level III body armor will stop a 223, and a 7.62x25 can defeat IIIa armor. the m-1 carbine is more powerful(same diamater, heavier and more velocity) than the Tokarev round, so i would assume that it can also defeat IIIa armor. I don't see any advantage besides range and terminal performance of the 223 over the 30 carbine.
 
I am glad to see that some people here take home invasion seriously. I had another member arguing with me for three days in private messages before I started ignoring him. He was trying to tell me that it was illegal in all 50 states to shoot someone invading your home. I told him he might as well turn in his guns if he thinks that's the way things are. :rolleyes:
 
Even if it were illegal to shoot home invaders, I'd rather face the music in a court of law than at the end of some criminal's gun barrel!

"I don't see any advantage besides range and terminal performance of the 223 over the 30 carbine."

Sounds like two reasonably important advantages to me! I know if someone is coming in the front door, and I have the option of shooting them with my M1 Carbine or the AR, I'll pick the AR. It has a better chance of stopping them more quickly.
 
Personally I wouldn't pick the M1 carbine, as I see no advantage to it over an AK. It's basically a low end (powerwise) assault rifle, so comparing it to battle rifles or handguns isn't very fair. I just don't see any advantage that it has over an AK, that isn't some form of tradeoff. That said, it's a neat little rifle!
 
Poodleshooter's point is precisely what's always kept me from buying an M-1 Carbine, as much as I think they're neat (which is a lot).

Within 100 yds, they're about as accurate. They recoil about the same. They're about as handy. AKs (that I've shot, anyway) have fewer magazine issues. Magazines are equally available. The 7.62x39 costs a little less and is a whole lot more powerful. (The M-1 is a little less frightening to the gun-grabber crowd, if that's a consideration, but not much.)

Every time I think about buying an M-1, I run smack into these thoughts and spend the money on something else. But I still just love the little carbines. They are big FUN to shoot, and I love the US military for using aperture sights on such a cute little piece.
 
I have a couple of M1 Carbines, but I bought them befoe the big run-up in price. I'd still grab one of the AR's for serious social work...
 
For a short time, my father carried a carbine in WWII. One day he and a buddy encountered a Jap soldier on a jungle path. The Jap started running, so they opened up on him with their carbines at a distance not more than - maybe - 20 or 30 yards. The Jap disappeared down the path. Following the blood trail - proof they'd hit him - after several hundred yards, they came upon the Jap, dead, sitting with his back against a tree.

They'd hit him ELEVEN TIMES through the torso, and the guy still ran hundreds of yards! This confirmed what they'd been told by others and had already suspected - that the Carbine was much less effective than other weapons in use.

Informal ballistic testing (no calibrated gelatin on jungle islands in the Pacific!) showed a carbine wouldn't knock a coconut off a tree. A .45 would, and a Garand would tear the coconut open. My father soon was carrying a Thompson.

Paper ballistics notwithstanding, 110 grain ball ammo from a carbine can't be relied upon to put down an opponent.
 
Lonnie Jaycox


Your Post """"I think the Carbine handles more gracefully and quickly than the AK""""""

My personal opinion is just about anything points and handles better than an AK.

Turk
 
From reading Audie Murphy's book, I'd say what he liked about it was that it was light and quick. He speaks on several occasions of firing it "like a pistol" using only one hand.

He never mentioned any failures to stop, but in all fairness it seems that he was very fast and also was a phenomenal shot. One account has him snap shooting a sniper from behind a tree using his carbine with only one hand. He stated that he hit the enemy soldier in the head with his first shot. That's just one incident--he mentions others where he was able to snap shoot using the carbine one-handed with very good effect.

I guess there was a good reason he was so decorated.

By the way, Murphy's references to using the carbine don't seem to be limited to only "woods use".

I think people make way too much of long-range rifle capability in combat. After all, it was during WWII that the Germans went from using high-powered bolt rifles with tremendous long-range capability to trying to outfit their soldiers with the first assault rifle. And, the Russians took to the idea so well that they kept their assault rifle secret for years. If long-range capability was so important, one would think that these two countries, both of which used bolt rifles well into the middle of the 20th century wouldn't have taken to the medium-range assault rifle concept so readily.

Snipers with scopes and long-range pinpoint accuracy make great reading and good movies, but grunts do most of the real killing up close with assault rifles, submachine guns and grenades.
 
JohnKSa, the Soviet battle doctrine favors weapons such as the AK. The U.S. battle doctrine favors weapons such as the M-1 or M-16. We've already had a rather long thread with comments about this.

The Germans' effort toward full-auto assault rifles came about in part because of changing needs as they were in retreat. Not only did the terrain change in those latter stages, they desparately needed to augment the capabilities of their declining number of soldiers...

FWIW, Art
 
People have come up with a million reasons for why the switch from long-range full size rifles to medium-range small rifles has taken place around the world. Seems like Occam's Razor is, sadly, ignored.

The switch has taken place for the simple reason that soldiers are more effective with the latter weapon.

You can argue about what "effective" means in that sentence, but the rest isn't really debatable as far as I can see.

You know, the ability of a light "assault rifle" to be fired easily one-handed just might be its most useful feature, and might be reason enough to choose it over a full-sized rifle that doesn't allow this.
 
Occam's razor...

About 15.95 at Wal-Mart....... :p

Paraphrasing, a "rule" that says "the simplest solution is usually the right one".

Anyone who would care to expound on that is more than welcome..

Giz
 
Occam's Razor:

A scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
 
I have difficulty in understanding why being able to fire a rifle one-handed would be of great importance. Occasional convenience, sure--but pretty much trifling, as reasons go.

I note the M-16 can be fired one-handed. Even its cartridge is far more of a medium-range critter than the carbine's.

It seems to me that if something is gonna be called a "battle rifle", its cartridge must be capable of doing dire harm, with reasonable expectations of accuracy, out around 300 to 500 yards. This may not be the primary usage, but it's--IMO--a notable part of the deal. It's part of "effectiveness". The .30 Carbine round just doesn't hack it.

Art
 
Art....

Most of the examples of uses of the carbine, such as firing it one-handed, are not reasons why it was developed. They are merely examples of how some people adapt to a particular firearm and it's characteristics.

Early on several of us made the point that the carbine was not developed as a battle rifle, but more of a replacement for the handgun. However, when such a weapon gets to the field, the individual American soldier, being the individual that he is, sometimes will gravitate towards that weapon for reasons which are generally unrelated to what that weapon was designed for. Some people seem to have gone to the Thompson SMG for similar reason, EXCEPT for weight! The only Thompsons I have ever handled seemed to be as heavy or heavier than my Garand.

That some people like Audie Murphy liked the Carbine, or some like HankB's father had a failure to immediately stop a most probably scared-to-death Japanese soldier are not definitive proof of anything. They are just a few small parts in the overall story and may be considered when you make your choice.

The over-used comparison between firearms and tools in your toolchest may still be appropriate here. (I know, it has it's limitations, but it's still useful) You do not use one tool for every job around the house. The biggest screw-driver you have may be useful for most jobs, but not for adjusting your glasses. Most of us would probably opt to reach for something other than our M-1 Garand or M-1A if we hear a noise downstairs in the middle of the night.

The M-1 Carbine has it's uses, you just have to understand them and it's particular limitations in order to make an informed selection.

"Beware the one-gun man. He may have designs on your firearms to improve his collection." (author unknown)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top