Fighting rifles: Why not an M1 Carbine?

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
Click to expand...

I am glad you mentioned the carbine safety. I forgot to tell everyone how lousy a system it is. If you try and use the wing safety it is an abortion to try and flip off in a hurry and if you replace it with the push button type you end up accidentally hitting the mag realease instead and then losing the mag in the middle of a fire fight.

Contrast this to the excellent foolproof and easy to disengage safety of the MI garand.

I do not mean to sound antagonistic but I give back the same attitude that people sometimes throw at me after they throw it at me.

I do not send love poems to firearms. I evaluate them as machines nothing more and nothing less. If someone criticises a faovorite weapon of mine I could not care less. In fact I may even agree with them on certain points. But since I make love to women and not firearms I am able to look at and evalutate a weapon on its mechanical merits. I do not look at it through rose colored specticles. Would you rather me lie to everyone and tell them I never had any problems with the M! carbine. Then no ones feelings would be hurt and everything would be rosy in the world.

Lets face it the M1 carbine was a pretty lousy weapon. I grew up with a lot of WW11 veterens and a few from the Korean conflict also. Most of them hated the M1 carbine. They too had malfucntion problems and they also told me of shooting people several times without any immediate effect. Contrast this to a real rifle like the M1 Garand. I have personally seen people shot with the M1 Garand and believe me they fall down very quickly. I have never saw anyone hit with the carbine but plenty of WW!! veterens have and have told me of their experiences with it. It was not a good weapon even in its time. It is certainly not a good weapon today.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings but I give real life personal evaluations of the weapons I test and or that i personally own W.R.
 
WR, there are reasonable odds that I have more personal experience with the GI Carbine, over the last 47 years, than anybody on this Board. I've never had the reliability problems you mention, nor has anybody else that I've ever known who used one.

For that matter, the safety is a non-issue. Sure, there are others which are easier to manipulate--for the uninitiated--but I never found any difficulty whatsoever in dealing with mine when on guard duty.

Now: The problem that I have with your commentary about the carbine is that you're lumping the whole deal together as a package. In my experience it's a reliable little gun, but it shoots a pipsqueak cartridge. After all, it's derived from the old .32-20.

It has fulfilled its intended purpose quite well. It is easier to hit with the carbine, than for an untrained or unpracticed soldier to hit with a pistol--thinking of clerks, truck drivers and tankers. Regardless of the effectiveness of the cartridge, a hit with a pipsqueak is much, much better than a miss with a cannon.

Enough. IMO, this horse has about quit breathing.

Art
 
M-1 Carbine as little more than a pistol with a buttstock, woefully underpowered and inadequate for serious fighting. Among the list of deficiencies are an "underpowered" round, limited range, and short sight radius for a rifle.


Yep that preaty much sums up a M1 Carbine a next to useless pistol caliber carbine. I have no use for pistol caliber carbines they are smg's that have been casterated by not having full auto and they are bigger than they should be. If your going to grab a long gun grab one that will do the job don't just grab a pistol with a stock on it.
PAT
 
They loved the little carbine, and Marines know a thing or two about rifles and infantry combat.

Every vet I know that had to actually use the thing in combat hated its crappy stopping power. The troops that liked it were the ones that seldom had to do any shooting but liked its light weight for carry.
PAT
 
Who'd've thunk it?

I'm amazed there's so much partisanship on this issue. I have a newbie friend who's been interested in getting an M-1 carbine for some time. I turned him onto this thread in back on page one, cos it squarely addressed the issues in which he was interested. I wouldn't be surprised if he's terrified of GUNS now! But, he's got a lot to think about.

No criticism of any of you gents; I've enjoyed reading. I'm just surprised that folks have so much to say on this topic.
 
Art,

I agree with your last post that the M-1 Carbine worked for its intended use.

My 1st choice of a rifle going into actual ground combat is an M-16 with 193 ball. But how many on this board will say the 16 isn't reliable or it’s under powered? Where do they draw their opinion from? Mine comes from actual ground combat. These are slots I filled in my tour. M-60 gunner, Squad leader, Hawk Team Leader (ambush team) and Platoon Sarg. My primary MOS was 11 Bravo.

One post mentioned serious fighting. What the heck is that? Anytime you've got incoming it gets serious.

Turk
Vietnam 1968-69
173rd Airborne Brigade (Sep)
 
By Jove, Turk! :) "Anytime you've got incoming it gets serious." Yup.

The most wondrous gun/cartridge deal in the world ain't worth nuthin' if it doesn't fit your needs.

Other than the fact that I live in a perpetual state of sticker shock at the prices for guns (and trucks, or coffee), I'd not hesitate to recommend the Carbine for fun-plinking and bunny huntin'.

And if I wuz a Bad Guy, I wouldn't want a bellyful of bullets from a Carbine. One way of looking at the Carbine for home defense: The cartridge is not one where you shoot once and then check to see how you made out.

:D, Art
 
Ok guys rather than yelling and screaming at me lets take a look at what other peole say about the lousy gas system of the M1 carbine. I took this right from this forum today..

Quote: The bolt assembly never comes back after firing. I have to manually cycle it after every shot.

How do I fix this problem?

Registered: 04-06-2000
Location:
Posts: 1687
Note that the gas piston is staked into place, so it may be a chore to get it out. You'll also have to stake it when you put it back together. You may be able to get some solvent into it and loosen it up without actually taking the nut off, that would be more desirable.

Imagine putting up with this nightmare in combat. I also have had the same problem with the troublesome gas system of the M1 carbine. There are a lot of other combat rifles both old and new that do not have this nightmare of a problem.

You know I am beginning to believe that a lot of you regulars that write for this forum never met a weapon that you did not fall in love with and never met a weapon that you did not think was perfect in every way.

Am I one of the few people on this forum that dare to criticise all the perfect weapons in this world.

Perhaps we could discuss on the pistol forum how perfect the High Point series of pistols are? I am sure you get the picture. W.R.
 
Every vet I know that had to actually use the thing in combat hated its crappy stopping power. The troops that liked it were the ones that seldom had to do any shooting but liked its light weight for carry.
Click to expand...

Hey pat this is truly a first. Both you and I agree on something.
I think you really hit the nail on the head this time.

I too have listened to real veterens tell me the exact same thing. It will be interesting to hear all the counter responses to the real opinions of real veterens who actually used this lousy weapon. W.R.
 
This has been an amazing post. A battle rifle is what it takes to kill the person trying to kill you. Personel experience is in agreement with Turk, it does not come any better than the M-16 and the m-193 cartridge. The carbine is a fine weapon and yes there are better weapons. At age 20 the only knowledge I had of combat rifles is what I was using in Nam in 68. My MOS was 11B as well. The decision to use the carbine(M-2) was made for me when on point. Our platoon sgt was an "instamatic" and I had more experience than he. Our platoon leader was fresh out of ROTC. My suggestion is to put the ballistic tables down, realize that the Garand and M-14 are too heavy to carry with a full field load(in the Higlands, our ruchsacks weighed about 80+ pounds). The carbine is a good weapon and I never saw the mechanical problems listed. The 16 is better and if we had the muzzle brakes that are available now, we would have used the 16 on point. I hope that for those who have not seen this side of life, that you will never see it. Go in Peace for there has not been much of that since 1969.
 
Now, look, WR. You say, "You know I am beginning to believe that a lot of you regulars that write for this forum never met a weapon that you did not fall in love with and never met a weapon that you did not think was perfect in every way."

That's flat-out not factual, and it's grossly unfair. You oughta know better, just from the posts in this thread! (Somebody else can re-read 'em; I ain't gonna!)

And I ain't about to feel ashamed, nor apologize, for my not having all these problems that a heckuva lot of folks seem to have. Hey, I'll take luck over brains, any day!

But if my various pieces of gunnery shoot as accurately as I expect them to, and function as reliably as I expect them to, why on earth should I sit around and nit-pick? Dunno about "fall in love", but if something gives me no trouble for decades, it's a bit hard not to like.

As for you recent quote about the cycle-problem, it's a 50- or 60-year old gun that's probably never been back through an armorer's attention. Who's surprised that this sort of thing will crop up from time to time? Not me. We ain't talking Northstar Warranty, here. :)

Sorry, but some of your points remind me of a guy who commented to a person griping at length about some pretty minor problems: "Son, you wouldn't give a bitch a bone if she brought home a bear!"

Y'all have fun. I gotta hit the highway for a few days.

Art
 
Make one little thing clear here on the "bolt won't cycle ........" The weapon in question was never an issue weapon. Universal made carbines were not made to fully to G.I. specs. the gas system on some were different than the military, while still using the short piston principle the means of doing such were different. some did not have the nut for the piston some had a different nut. and I have heard many times that most Universal carbines were not made all that well. I have owned Universal, G.I. and Iver Johnson carbines and I like my G.I. one but would not as a choice take it into battle.
 
Byron

Your post:

Our platoon sgt was an "instamatic" and I had more experience than he. Our platoon leader was fresh out of ROTC. My suggestion is to put the ballistic tables down, realize that the Garand and M-14 are too heavy to carry with a full field load(in the Higlands, our ruchsacks weighed about 80+ pounds).

Your post is something that some people don’t take into consideration concerning rifle weight. I feel I was luckier than you, being in a Mech. Infantry unit as we only humped with rucks 1/3 time compared to you. We either were mounted or would circle wagons and run patrols (without rucks) out of this defensive position. I still can vividly remember my lungs ready to explode going a mountain with an 80-lb. rucksack on my first mission. A few days later my ruck was lightened a bit (didn't have to carry the 81mm round) but was given a 60 (23 lbs) to carry for next four months.

Turk
 
After all, it's derived from the old .32-20.
Click to expand...


Uh, No.

The .30 Carbine was a second-pass look at the old Winchester .32 Self Loading cartridge, originally developed for the Model 1905 Self Loading Rifle. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'm fairly certain that the .32 WSL was slightly less powerful than the old .32-20.

The entire concept would have been a lot better had the military actually adopted the more powerful .351 WSL cartridge.
 
The .30-Carbine cartridge was developed in 1940 by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company at New Haven at the direct request of the U.S. Ordnance Department. the company was furnished with specifications calling for a compact, rimless cased cartridge with a bullt of 110 grains, developing a velocity in the neighborhood of 1800 feet per second from an 18-inch barrel.
the cartridge as originally produced by Winchester had an overall lenght of 1.67" with a case lenght of 1.29" inches.
became our .30 Carbine M1.
it is a most unusual coincidence that the cartridge developed was actually one very close to the .32 Winchester Self-Loading Rifle cartrideg developed by the company for use in it's model 1905 Self-Loading rifle. This is a short, semi-rimmed cartridge case with straight side wall. The slightly altered version was issued to several developers to use in producing carbines for the Government tests. Entered in the tests were two versions of carbines developed by John Garand. Among others Winchester had developed a 7 1/2 pound carbine or experimental rifle for this cartridge. it proved so successful that Winchester undertook the development of a 5-pound carbine to handle the newly accepted cartridge.
they developed the frist handmade sample carbine in the record-breaking time of 14 days. the initial carbine brought out several bugs as was inevitable in such a rush model. by working round the clock for 34 days, the Winchester organization rushed through the model which became the U.S. Carbine Caliber .30 M1. samples of this new Winchester were tested on September 15, 1941 against improved models from Springfield, and by Hyde and Reising, as well as a gas-operated rifle by R.J. Turner. the outstanding superiority of Winchester design was clearly demonstrated.

in 1940 the Ordnance department provided a set of specifications
and called for designs to meet them. these were to be semiautomatic
(and later also full automatic) carbines. in this instance an entirely new
military cartridge was developed for the short lightweight weapon whose
weight was specified originally at 5.5 pounds. curiously the cartibge developed
was almost identical with the original commercial .32 Winchester autoloading
cartridge of 1905 except the bullet was shorter and lighter.
Guns made by Auto Ordnance, Harrington and Richardson, Hyde, Savage,
Springfield Armory, Winchester, and Woodhell were submitted. the locked-breech
Winchester with it's short stroke action was selected, partily because of it's highly
efficient lock action which resembled the Garand quite closely. the gas operating
system, however, was the type used in the Winchester 1940 rifle.
when adopted, this carbine was cataloged as the U.S. Carbine, Caliber 30 M1.
it has since gone through numerous modifications,including paratroop models and
full automatic designs.

CARBINE CALIBER .30 M1, M1A1, M2, AND M3,
the carbine was developed to replace the pistols in use by noncommissioned offcers,
special troops, and company-grade officers.

Manufacturers of the carbine were:

WINCHESTER: 809,451 M1 Carbines, 17,500 M2 Carbines, and 1,108 M3 Carbines.
INLAND Maufacturing Div. of General Motors: total of 2,625,000 carbines including
M1s M1A1s M2s and a few M3s.
UNDERWOOD Elliot Fisher: 545,616 carbines.
NATIONAL Postal Meter: 413,017 carbines.
ROCK-OLA Manufacturing-Corp: 228,500 carbines.
STANDARD Products: 247,155 carbines.
SAGINAW: 739,136 carbines.
IBM: 346,500 carbines.
there were more Carbines produced then any other United Staters weapon.
the variations of the carbines are as follows:
Carbine M1-semiautomatic, originally made with L-type flip over
sigth which was replaced with a ramp-mounted aperture adjustable for windage,
sporter-type stock.
Carbine M1A1-same as M1, but has folding-type metal butt stock.
Carbine M2-selective fire, usually found with fixed wooden stock.
Carbine M3-receiver grooved for infra Red "Snooper scope,"
otherwise identical to the M2.
 
Turk, I was with the 3/8th Inf, 4th inf Div. We worked with the 2/8th Mech for a week in Bam Be Thout in Nov 68. We had bad days in the Plei Trap March 69. The 80+ pounds did not include a couple of 81's when an 81 crew was with us. It cannot be said enough how good the 16 was and that little 55 grain bullet. The trouble with the 16 is when the army changed powders from Dupont to a Winchester with a high clacium content. I recall opening a crate of ammo and "Dupont Powder" being stamped on the boxes. I did not know what the importance was then. I do not recall when the M-2 was stopped being used on point but it was before the Plei Trap. Byron
 
30 Carbine more powerful than 357 mag??? :confused:

If your comparing a 4" revolver to 18" carbine okay.
But if you compare both in revolvers, the 30 carbine is/was chambered in revolvers, the 357 has the edge. From Speer #12 manual the 30 carbine in a 7.5" Ruger Blackhawk does 1400 fps with 110 JHP at BEST. While the 357 in a 6" S&W M19 does 1680+fps with 110 jhp.

While in a carbine length barrel of 18" the 30 carbine does close to 1990 fps with the 110 JHP. But the 357 will do 2400+ fps with 110 JHP when fired out of a 18" tube. Heck the 357 can push a 125 JHP slug to almost 2200 fps in the carbine.

So really when all is said and done the 30 carbine is about the same as the 9x19 when the 9 is loaded to Nato/European/+P+ levels. But the 9's and 357's can use bullets that expand faster, while the 30 will probably give more penetration.

As to the original question of this thread, "Fighting Rifles: Why not an M1 carbine?" I would say because there are better choices that are no more expensive and perhaps cheaper. The only advantage it would offer would be the more stable platform of a longarm vs a side arm when compared to pistols. Vs a SG,Assault carbine, or 357/44mag carbine it would have no advantage IMHO and a couple of disadvatages [ie weak cartridge, iffy bullet expansion].
 
glamdring,
Thanks for an informative post. I think that the one real advantage of the cal 30 carbine over the pistol calibers (.357, .44 mag) is the availability of 15 and 30 round mags, and I think 30 carbine ammo is cheaper (not sure). I did not realize that the .357 mag would outperform the 30 carbine. HMMMM How about a 30 carb converted to .357? I guess there would be no way to make the mags work. But if you could....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top