Fighting rifles: Why not an M1 Carbine?

FPrice, I certainly agree with you. I've just tried to avoid a Grand Dissertation...My somewhat grumpy editorial comment would be that some folks could stand to do some actual thinking of the meaning of the various comments which have been posted, before jumping in with the various vignettes or irrelevant notions. :)

C'est la vie...

Art
 
Of course the AK/AR/Garands are more powerful, thats a given.

Shouldn't folks be comparing the M1Carbine to the Marlin 1894 in .357 magnum? or the various Ruger/Marlin 9mm and 40S&W carbines?

I don't really think that .30 carbine performance against body armour is an issue. Other than the occasional (ie rare and inexcusable) SWAT/BATF screwup, home invaders are more likely to be drugged up than armoured up.

In that case, the 900 fpe from the carbine, in a suitable JSP round, would be a good thing. For the cost, its a good deal.

I'd put a tactical light on it someplace that wouldn't screw up the balance, (just in front of the mag well?) but its short and light enough to make holding it with one hand possible while the weak hand opens doors/dials the phone.
 
1. Firing a rifle one-handed allows you to lay down cover fire while exposing a minimum amount of flesh.

2. It implies a light weapon which will be faster handling and easier to carry.

3. It allows you to do things with your other hand, like open doors, use flashlights, etc. without taking your rifle out of the ready position.

4. It allows you to easily maintain a firing grip on the rifle while reloading.

There may be more, that's all I can think of in a couple of minutes...
 
Light weapons are fine..unless your up against heavy weapons...I'll take an Fal against an M1 carbine/Ar15/Mini14 anytime..Go ahead, Hide behind a car....Price is about the same too...
 
Many of the replies making light of the effectivness of the .30 Carbine deal with extreme situations, ie, level three body armor, multiple intruders, and the like, interspersed with anecdotal second and third party experiences in WWII. The fact remains, the the .30 Carbine, rifle and round, are quite effective on soft skinned targets, both human and vehicular. I think most responders feel the same, and would not feel undergunned in a situation where this type of gun would be required. I have owned many of the little rifles through the years, and a beautiful Inland is in the safe now, with the popular combination of a 30 round mag in place, and two 15's on the stock.
 
I tried to put a belt pouch on the stock (after removing the action) but it just won't fit. Is IAI stock thicker than GI stock or am I using the wrong pouch?
carbinepouch.jpg
 
Oleg,

the secret is to insert the mags and close the pouch while it is pushed towards the trigger, on the thin part of the stock. Then you push the closed pouch onto the thick part of the stock...the resulting increase in friction will hold the pouch in place fairly well. The little mag pouches do look overstuffed when closed, don't they?
 
M1 Carbine

I'm certainly no expert here, but I do know that the M1 Carbine, while being a reliable weapon, was used mainly by LDNN's in Vietnam because the carbines were smaller, suited to the small Vietnamese frame. SEAL's supposedly use a modified version today, but more for long range work than fire support. :)
 
Almost Forgot...

M1's were originally intended for medical staff and cooks as a last resort, easily carried and meant for a last resort. It was then adapted and used by GI's as a light weapon.
 
I disagree with the comments made that the m1 carbine is a realiable weapon. I have owned original military m1 carbines and so have a lot of my friends. We had to modify all of them just to try to get them to work. The recoil spring in them is much to weak and is a constant source of jams and failures to feed with this weapon. We had to replace this spring with a commercially made extra strength spring.

Also the m1 carbine magazines are delicate and easily damaged even the more reliable 15 rounders. Take one apart for cleaning and then when you put it back together there is a 50/50 chance it will not longer work. I am not talking of the cheap commercial magazines but of the real mccoy the military magazines.

The full auto carbines that I have shot just did not work with either the 30 rounders or the more reliable 15 rounders. I got jams with military ammunition from both style magazines in both full auto and in semi-auto. I never experienced this with an MI Garand.

AS far as power. The M1 carbine is a vastly inferior round to the full power 3006 or 308. Lets face it you can build a carbine in this caliber as easily as the more weak and anemic .30 carbine round.

People who like the carbine like it because of its mild recoil and light weight and its good looks. If you like the carbine enjoy it but for myself I will pass on it. There are just to many other weapons that are a lot better. W.R.
 
?

you can build a carbine in this caliber (.30-06) as easily as the more weak and anemic .30 carbine round.
Click to expand...

Um...how can it be "as easy" to make a carbine that fires a 150 grain bullet at 2700 fps as it is to make a carbine that fires a 110 grain bullet at 1975 fps? If it had been "as easy"- I'll say this sloooooooowly- the Army would have had it done. I'm quite eager to hear your reasoning, though.
 
Wild Romanian,

constant slamming of the weapons one dislikes does not an expert make. The US made and fielded in excess of seven million M1 and M2 Carbines; if they had reliability issues of the magnitude you describe, it would hardly be the most numerously produced infantry weapon in US history. Also, mine has worked fine with milsurp and commercial softpoint ammo, both with the 15- and 30-round magazine. If you and your pals had reliability issues, maybe you should invest in a good cleaning kit for your guns on the next trip to the gun store. Giving a review on guns is much like critique on books or plays...ripping the reviewed offering to shreds is much easier (and requires a lot less talent and subject knowledge) than offering a constructive, informed and qualified review.

I realize that the M1 Carbine is not the be-all and end-all of fighting rifles. It's not a battle rifle, nobody has ever claimed that status for it. It's merely been stated by many users, military and civilians, that the M1 Carbine is more than adequate (and in some instances even preferable over a full-sized battle rifle) for most combat situations. If you need to worry about body armor on your opponents in suburban America, chances are they are better equipped and trained than you even if you're wielding an AR-15 with a Beta-C mag full of green tip ammo. Let's leave the extreme scenarios to the "UN Invasion" crowd, most DGUs are not against kevlar-wearing vermin...and the ones that do are invariably decided on the side of the guys clad in black, every time.

Yes, they make carbines in .308 and .30-06, but they are invariably twice as heavy as the M1 Carbine and have increased recoil and muzzle blast over their full-sized counterparts. I gues it depends on whether you want to define carbine as "cut-down battle rifle" or "purpose-built reduced caliber rifle". Neither definition is incorrect, but don't define one by the standards of the other.

Oh, and one thing that always slays me is how 900fpe out of a carbine is "weak and anemic", and 900fpe out of a handgun is the Hammer of Thor. I guess all those foot-pounds out of the carbine are worthless because the bullet diameter is not the Holy Grail of perp slayers, the 0.45 inch.

WR, you don't like the M1 Carbine, I gathered that. You also don't like most other guns, and you've shot them all. Personally, it is my experience that folks with your professed pedigree usually drop the magazine when they try to take my M1 Carbine "off safe".
 
I fairly frequently shoot short military carbines chambered in 7.62x51, 7.62x54R, .303 Brit, and 8x56R. None of them are noticeably easier to hit with out to 200-300 yards than the M-1 Carbine, and all are far more punishing to shoot.

Sometimes you feel like shooting a lightweight full-caliber rifle and getting a good bruising and a spectacular lightshow, other times you just want to put many rounds downrange and on target with a minimum of fuss. The M-1 Carbine would make that easy, especially if "downrange" was up a staircase or across a street.

An M-1 Carbine is a good weapon for the types of situations where a fixed-stock SMG or a short-barrelled shotgun would also be used; close-in work in built-up areas or close terrain.
 
WR, I just can't go along with your comment about reliability at all. Nada, no way.

My M-2, in Korea in 1954, fired a few thousand rounds--many on full-auto. No misfires, failures to feed, no trouble at all. At that time, I was just a 20-year old, wet-behind-the-ears kid with little gunsmithing expertise--but no gunsmithing was needed.

The four M-1s I've had have functioned equally well. One was a DCM gun. I have my father's DCM "truck gun" carbine; shoots just fine, even after decades of banging around. I have an Inland that's all nice and shiny--and it works just fine. I haven't shot the other DCM, yet, but it "feels" righteous.

If your carbines that gave you so much trouble were "original military", they must have come from a junk bin. :D As far as the magazines go, I've found that if one refrains from using the gun to drive fenceposts, their reliability, or damage to them, is not a problem at all.

:), Art
 
WR,

I have only owned one M-1 and I haven't put as many rounds through it as you have, but I have never had a failure to feed or fire.

It's not a main battle rifle, was never meant to be, even I realize this - heck, they even made a holster for it- but it ain't a pistol either!

I have heard bad things about the 30 rnd mags,bit haven't tried any, but with a 15 rnd in the well and two on the butt iit is a great 'grab and go'.

For home defense (and with a bayonet fixed) it has greater energy than a pistol, and doubles as a short pole arm that can deliver a butt stroke like no pistol. Sure a a full size battle rifle makes a longer pole arm and delivers a meaner butt stroke, but it is longer and my hallways aren't that wide.

It is a boarding cutlass to a calvery saber - sure on a field I'd rather have a calvery saber , but 'tween decks I'll take a boarding cutlass.
 
M-1 Info

I'd like to have one, myself, if I could find a shooter at a good price and not worry about reliability.
There is a detailed if anecdotal account of one man's thoughts on this gun, which he preferred for combat, in the Sept. 2001 SOF. I don't think that has been mentioned yet in this thread, and might be relevant.
 
Oleg you have the wrong style of pouch, there is an earlier model of pouch that slides over the stock and has a female snap in the back (It looks more like a larger .45 ammo pouch)-originally intended for the male snap on the pistol belt. The earlier pouches were made in 1943-1944 time range not exactly sure on the adoption date though.

As for taking the M-1 carbine into battle it is better than a sharpened stick, but I would rather use an AK in 7.62x39. Or atleast something that yaws in the flesh.
 
Seeker, it's not so much if it's a 15 or 30 rounder that affects the reliability problem it's the magazine itself, and if its been damaged or not. The lips are the place that can't take bending. While I was assigned a carbine (M2) I tried some mags till I got ahold of 3 or 4 of each (15 and 30 rd). I did not really baby them, but like Art says I did not drive fence posts with them either. They always worked just fine. Some others that did not take care of the mags had problems .............. lots of problems. Those are the same persons that did not take care of any kind of property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top