Fighting rifles: Why not an M1 Carbine?

Byron, my memory vaguely has it that the M-16 I fired had the birdcage style of brake.

Hard Ball, thanx.

I''ve spoken before of military doctrine, and its relationship to Infantry weapons. If you think about it, WW I and before involved a lot of static-position, longer-range shooting. People in fixed positions staring at each other. An Infantry charge was a relatively tight mass of people, compared to today's tactics.

As tactics have changed, weaponry has changed--but not as quickly. Note Hard Ball's "200 yards" comment in part B.

Just as an exercise, imagine an M-1 Carbine with a cartridge some 1/2" longer, whether bottle-necked or not. 1/2" longer receiver; gas port a bit farther down the barrel. What, maybe a MV of 2,600 ft/sec? Could this not be quite effective within some 200 yards? And ammo still relatively portable in combat quantities?

Note that today's MilDoc calls for Infantry rifle fire effectiveness to around some 200 yards...

As usual,

Art
 
Turk, I well remember opening many cases of C's by putting the 3 prong at the intersection of the wires and a good twist. It worked.
Then the wild grab for Peaches and pound cake. No matter how much one prayed over the Ham and Lima Beans and Ham and Eggs, they were bad. Did you have the Tobasco Sauce Cook Book?

Art, I agree the round depicted would have been good. The round would have been close to an AK. When push comes to shove, I'll take the M-193 and a 16. Byron
 
M-1 Carbine with a cartridge some 1/2" longer, whether bottle-necked or not

Art,

Ok, I'll bite. You just described the .223 Rem cartridge and a Mini-14. Have you ever held up a .223 case next to a 30 carbine case? Just as you described. The .223 case is a little longer, and necked down.

Lee
 
I wuz sorta tryin' to stay out of an argument over caliber. :) "Effective fire within 200 yards" was my primary thought, in an existing weapon type. The Carbine pre-dated both the AK and the AR...

Art
 
Here is another opinnion of the carbine's effectiveness in combat by John B George. George served as a platoon leader in one of the army divisions that drove the Japanese from Gudalcannal and as a company commande in Merril's Marauders in Burma. He wrote about his experiences in his book SHOTS FIRED IN ANGER published by the NRA, In his book he describes each infantry weapon used by the Japanese and American forces in WW2. After trying the M1 Garand and the Thompson submachine gun he selected an M1 Carbine and a Colt .45 automatic as his personal weapons.
His reasons were as follows:
"The carbine was one of the ace weapons of the war, light, handy, powerful and reasonably accurate."
"It as a good offensive-defensive weapon making its users nearly as effective as an M1 rifleman.
"Its cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate the Japanese helmet and perforate the metal plates of the japanese bullet proof vest"
"Flat enoufgh shooting to have practica; accuracy to more than 200 yards."
"For any type of of ofensive combat fighting it was oftn superior even to the M1 rifle. penetration being the only point of difference."
George alsp notes that a fully loaded carbine held 16 rounds compared to the M1's 8 and that when you had to reload you inserted a 15 round magazine in the carbine and an 8 round clip into the Garand.
After nearly three years of close combat against the Japanese army, George had nothing bad to saay about the carbine.
 
Dang!

After seeing all that Hardball has had to say about the M-1 Carbine, I'd be hankerin' fer one, if'n I didn't already have one.
 
This has to be one of the longest and most controversial threads inexistance.
 
The theory that the .30 Carbine is less effective than a BB gun is one of the great firearms legends of our times. Those of us who have actually used them in combat know differently.:cool:
 
Glamdring,

During WW II Smith & Wesson worked on two prototype revolvers chambered in .30 Carbine, one an N frame, and the other a K frame.

It quickly became evident that the K frame wouldn't last more than a few dozen rounds before something failed, so that was back burnered in favor of farther R&D on the N frame.

That project, too, petered out because muzzle blast was horrendous and durability was an issue.

The N frame .30 Carbines are highly sought after as collectors items.
 
Hard Ball: I once worked with a guy who had been a Marine Corps Medic on Guadalcanal--and a few other vacation spots--and his take was just the opposite. Damfino.

Situational, I guess.

Art
 
Art-

I have the greatest respect and admiration for combat medics, but their duties are entirely different from soldiers or marines who engage the enemy in close combat. As you say, situational.
 
Another Vote for the Thread Too Tough to Die:

Some of you will get the humor from this slightly adapted old time slogan:

M1 Carbine: Love it or leave it.:D
 
Hard Ball: He wuz close enough to the Japs to get a Purple Heart. Anyway, on Guadalcanal, they were having to shoot through trees and brush to hit the Japs. Penetrating power was muy, muy important. Situational.

My memory--from photos--has it that Iwo Jima was far more open, as was Tarawa. Okinawa, again, was pretty much covered with forest. I can see why the Carbine would have been effective on Iwo...

BigG, ain't this been about five threads in one?

:), Art
 
Only 153 entries - - -

well, guess this will make 154. I just had to get in on it before it died out. ;)

Seriously, though--Some of the comments in this string threaten to almost--ALMOST, mind you--make me rethink my oopinion of the .30 USC system. This, and the article in current issue of SWAT mag. Guess I'll dig my carbine out of the safe and take it on next trip to the range.

Best,
Johnny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top