Why ".30" carbine???

Status
Not open for further replies.
like

Hey, I like the .30 carbine. I actually view it as the first assault rifle, intermediate ctg, later versions full auto, folding stock high cap mag, even the notorious pistol grip.

thanks for all replies

good shooting
 
Let's not forget the use of the carbine during the Vietnam conflict. Because of local restrictions, my carbine's been inactive for over 40-years.

I'm curious, is it just me, or is there a recent resurgence of popularity for the little gun? Perhaps it's time to make my sporterized carbine tacti-kool.
 
I had a friend who served in the Mexican Army. He had one of their M2 versions that had select fire capability, a pistol grip, and was very short-barreled. Pretty nasty up close.
 
Cause they work as intended, I personally know a korean vet who used one to survive mass assults from the Chi-coms. He told me At 50 yards they were deadly, just about a one shot stop. I busted a jack rabbit at about 175 yards with good effect. If I had to give a rifle to my wife in dire times, that be the one.
Click to expand...

Had a conversation about the M1 Carbine just a week ago or so, sitting at the hunting shack around the dinner table. The oldest gent in our group was talking about being in Korea when the Chinese joined the war with their human waves. He told us that our GI's would chuck the Garand's for the M1 carbines in a second. He said you could burn out a barrel on every anti personnel weapon platform available to them, and they would still get through. The MGs could not be swung fast enough, the Garands lacked the magazine capacity and were unwieldly, but the little carbines were effective for the most part. They would knock the floor off the bottom of the 30 round clips, braze on a 15 round clip, and solder the magazine springs together making a 40-42 round clip. They then taped two together (one upside down). Even then those little bastards would get through, but usually with at least one hole in them, and the carbine with a bayonette was easier to use in hand to hand combat. All told, listening to that old gent, gave me a new perspective of him. He survived two tours there, was captured and escaped twice, retreated all the way to Pusan, and then pushed them back over the 38th parallel. He figured at that time China had run out gas so they should have pushed to Bejing...unfortunately Russia started rattling their sabre's so we stopped. The push back had a lot to do with that little .30 cal M1/2
 
Also when the M-1 Carbine was adopted changes in military tactics and the technology they required were coming pretty fast and furious and in many cases had not really been thought out well or worked out in war games and maneuvers. The US was the first to commit to the idea that the foot soldier needed a semiautomatic battle rifle and recognize that the growing number of support troops would be better served with a shoulder arm that was lighter and easier to get into action than a regular rifle and the traditional carbine was long obsolete-the SMLE and M1903 were designed so the infantry and cavalry could carry the same shoulder arm. To drift a little, whenever the shortcomings of the M3 Grant and M4 Sherman tanks against their German
opponents are discussed, US doctrine at the time was that US tank destroyers and not US tanks were to fight German tanks.
In the case of the M-1 Carbine, it seems that modern package design played a role-they came up with a weapon that felt good in the hands, and instilled confidence in its users.
 
The OP needs to find an opportunity to actually shoot an M1 Carbine and then he'll understand. I've had my M1 Carbine for 36 years and it's one of my favorite rifles. It's not an accident that the Ruger 10-22 looks similar to the M1 Carbine.

Many good posts above discuss it's intended purpose but that's more technical than visceral. The M1 carbine is a light, high capacity, fast action carbine and when used for what it was developed for it performs well.

The 357mag handgun with a 125grn bullet is considered a great man stopper. The M1 Carbine's ballistic performance compares well with the 357mag and as many have mentioned, most soldiers can actually hit something with it too.
 
I love my M1 Carbines. Well, I love the first one, the 2nd one has a messed up rear sight assembly, apparently some German or Austrian armorer fell asleep on the job...

2carbines2.jpg
 
One of the more intelligent threads on the .30 Carbine in awhile. Modern-day detractors usually either have not shot one or otherwise have little knowedge, appreciation and acknowledgement of the relationship between a gun's design, intended use and capabilities. The comment about the jeep and tank was priceless. OTOH, actual war use detractors likely experienced M1 Carbines in environments where its success would have been considered unlikely by its designers in the first place, such as the specific long distance situations encountered in Europe and Korea mentioned earlier, and cold weather failure of too-light lubricants and inappropriately loaded ammo. For every soldier that disliked the Carbine for its lack of longer range power versus the Garand, you'll find another that says he owed his life to the higher capacity magazine and rate of accurately placed firepower in CQB. At the same time you'd find Garand users who cursed their weapons for their unwieldy weight and size and limited (capacity and reloading of) 8 shot clips for those same close-in conditions--and would've given their eye teeth for a Carbine "at the time." The usefulness and effectiveness of a particular weapon--or lack of--all depends on where you are and what you are doing when your particular weapon saves your bacon or lets you down--whether it be a BAR, Garand, Thompson, Carbine or 1911. All of them had their place, and their strengths and weaknesses.
 
Last edited:
for the record

So that nobody thinks I'm just a video gamer, I've shot .30 carbine a good bit. albiet not in combat but at a range. I had the opportunity to handle and shoot a wide range of GI carbines in the late 80's, the M1 carbine was still the Fed Bureau of Prisons tower rifle (can you believe that) and everybody from BOP learned how to shoot, from the dentist/secretary to the genuine corrections officers. I was lucky enough to pull some details as an instructor at the academy. I agree, a hoot to shoot, light, handy, and even the most recoil sensitive trainee could shoot them well. We shot up all the loose surplus ammo at the conclusion of each class, easier than turning in partial boxes.

Regards the comment "the army ord board had been working on it for years"....the concept probably, the ctg, not so sure. The light rifle concept had been around, likely since post WW1, but the project took life in June 1940. My source says Winchester (PUGSLEY) suggested the ctg to the army and they bought it. NO TESTING Invites to mfg's took place in Oct '40,and the M1 Carbine as we know it was accepted in Sept '41. That's not years, that's not even two, and less than a year if you only count the time from invite to acceptance.

Maybe it was just all wartime expediency?
 
I reload for 30 carbine and use Remington 110 gr. JSP over W296/15.0 and get about 2,000 fps. I think it will get the job done.
 
"My source says Winchester (PUGSLEY) suggested the ctg to the army and they bought it."

That is what I've heard over the years, as well.

My Great Uncle was in the 82nd during World War II and was in pretty constant combat with the unit. He was originally issued an M1 Carbine. After his first combat experience he said that he found a GI with an Garand and traded weapons with him.
 
An article I once read said that Winchester did not initially participate when the Army asked manufacturers to submit test models. Apparently at the time Winchester was involved with two major projects, production of M1 Garand rifles, and designing/testing a prototype semiauto battle rifle for the Marine Corps.

By 1941 the Marines needed rifles they could field immediately, and stopped the Winchester search for a new battle rifle. Meanwhile the Army had received many designs and test samples for the new carbine but was not satisfied with any of them. They again asked Winchester to submit a sample and this time Winchester responded.

According to the article they had a basic design model done in 15 days, and worked day and night to get a test sample ready. The Army had set a deadline of Monday, Sept. 15, 1941. On Saturday Winchester was advised the deadline had been moved up a day. It had to be delivered for testing by Sunday Sept. 14, and moreover, Winchester had to have successfully fired 1,000 rounds before hand.

On Saturday the carbine would not work properly. It was determined the gas port was too small. If they drilled it too large, excessive gas pressure would soon result in broken parts. On the first attempt, the drill bit broke off in the barrel, which was the only barrel available.

Fortunately they were able to clear the broken bit and try again. They hit it right, as the carbine functioned perfectly. The design and manufacturing team ran rounds through it as fast as possible. The article quotes Edwin Pugsley as saying he had never seen a group become so enthusiastic so quickly about a new design.

It was an impressive achievement all around - from the formal project commencement in June 1940 to acceptance in Sept. 1941. Compare that to how long it took to field a new U.S. military pistol in 1985.
 
It would have been nice if they stuck with the .45ACP cartridges and used 1911 magazines, simplify the supply lines a bit..
Click to expand...
What would the point of such a weapon be? The government already had the Thompson and later the Grease gun. I love the 45, but the 30 carbine shoots so much flatter.

The real complaints came in Korea where the Carbine was over-issued to combat troops and simply wasn't suitable for the longer ranges that were common there.
Click to expand...
Bingo. Sometimes you need a 1 pound hammer, sometimes you need an 8 pound hammer. They used the wrong tool for the job.

One thing I have also read about was the shortage of HE shells for the recoiless rifles, the supply line had mostly AP, which is not that effective against infantry, meaning the infantry with their rifles had to bear a far greater share of the fighting. The guys with carbines would open up at long range and by the time the enemy got close, where the carbine would be effective, they would be out of ammo.

The main issue they had in Koreia was the stocks of WW-2 ammunition they where using. They had a new type tropical powder stabilizer in them that tended to degrade the powder in storage that was exaberated by cold weather. Army ord. was finding out that a lot of the stuff was lucky to hit 650fps out of the 16 inch barrels. Pretty much you would have done better with a .32 Walther PP than a carbine with this ammo.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting, never heard about that. Sounds quite plausible just on its face. (Would the carbine cycle in such a situation?) Do you have any links or sources where one could go to read about that?
 
The way I heard it, the M1 carbine was to be issued to troops who would normally have a handgun as their PDW in combat zones. So, it wasn't intended for riflemen, but guys behind the front line. Seems to me it would be a good alternative with a lot greater range, not to mention higher capacity.
 
The way I heard it, the M1 carbine was to be issued to troops who would normally have a handgun as their PDW in combat zones. So, it wasn't intended for riflemen, but guys behind the front line.
Click to expand...

Yes to part one, but no to part two. There were a lot of guys very much at the sharp end who were issued carbines, and a good number of them on infantry unit TO&Es (crew served weapons guys, for instance) who were right in the line with guys armed with Garands.
 
When the subject of the 30 carbine comes up, people often chime in on the superiority of the 5.56mm or the 7.62x39mm. They are better rounds overall, but at CQB distances, out to 150yds, the 30 carbine is a terrific cartridge.
I myself own both an AR and an AK, but it is my CMP M1 carbine which sits handy for HD use with a 15rd mag of SP and a pouch on the buttstock with two more (one loaded with FMJ and one loaded with SP).
Really, it is the combination of the weapon and the round which makes a winner...the carbine itself handles like few other weapons. It is so light, and it's gas system and action has such light recoil. The shape of the stock makes it point like a finger. At 100yds, I can easily put 15rds into a group the size of a grapefruit without trying hard. The sights are superior for the CQB role the weapon was designed for.
It really is a triumph of American ingenuity and doctrine...the entire system...the weapon, the round, the way the ammo was packaged in spam cans on strip clips and bandos....
 
Agree with the handiness of this gun. Got a CMP carbine a few years ago and after slinging a M4 with aimpoint, surefire, vertical grip and peq-2 the M1 carbine feels like a feather. Love that gun.
 
My father used the carbine in both SP in WWII and Korea. He didn't talk much about it but one night after I came back from Vietnam we got to drinking and talking. The similarities of the two wars (The South Pacific and Vietnam).

In jungle warfare for the most part, you never saw who you were fighting. Mostly one part of the jungle shooting at another part of the jungle. Relatively short range. Sure there were exceptions, but again for the most part that was close range also. Well under 100 yards.

It was about fire power, a light rifle putting out a fast rate of fire. His Carbine was a lot like my M16a1. You could carry a lot of ammo, which was effective at the shorter ranges.

His carbine saved his hide so he swore by it as my A1 saved mien and I sware by it.

He told me before I went in the army he killed a water buffalo with his carbine. I had to one-up-him, and kill one is SE Asia with my 'A1.

My father's gone now. I have my CMP Carbine and think of him every time I shoot or fondle it.

It may not be the best gun out there but I'll keep and shoot it as long as I'm able to honor my father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top