PDA

View Full Version : Which is the better battle rifle? M16 vs. M1 Carbine


kraigwy
August 19, 2010, 01:15 PM
This is not met to be a debate on the two, but since I got my CMP Underwood Carbine it’s quickly becoming my favorite rifle.

My father was a vet of both the South Pacific in WWII and Korea. He loved the Carbine, saying it was a better combat rifle then the M1. He even bragged about killing water buffalo with it.

We would always have a friendly debate over a beer as to which is the better rifle, the M1 Carbine or the M16A1 (which is what I used). Even to show him up, I killed a water buffalo with my ‘a1 in Vietnam.

I cannot play with my M1 w/out thinking of my father. I would love to have him here today so I could take him shooting with my Carbine.

Sunday there is a 2 Gun Match in Spearfish SD. In my father’s honor I’m going to shoot it with my Carbine and 1911a1 (although the M1911a1 was my pistol also when I was soldiering).

Technosavant
August 19, 2010, 01:17 PM
The M1 Carbine is a handy little thing. I doubt I'd take one over an AR platform, but there's something about it that just feels right.

Maybe one day I'll get one for myself.

thesheepdog
August 19, 2010, 01:33 PM
Both are cool, but I would still take my AR over the M1

Doyle
August 19, 2010, 01:35 PM
This is not even a contest. With the M1 carbine, you've got a notoriously inaccurate rifle shooting an equally underpowered round.

p99guy
August 19, 2010, 01:55 PM
Despite that some U.S. Special forces advisers in VN still prefered them to the M16, because they seemed to penetrate jungle folage better/wasnt deflected as much as the high velocity 55gr M193....and with the early teething problems the M16 was having, the carbine was more reliable at the time. Shooting in combat the M1 carbine was at least as accurate as the SKS and AK rifles it opposed..and with bullets whipping past your ear you are lucky to shoot minute of man lol...it isnt like at the nice calm range(2 moa!!! I'm taking this thing back to the store!!!!)

I have carried a carbine many a mile in my patrol car, and killed white tail deer in mesquite thickets with them...and in one instance fired one in anger at a person that was launching .243 winchester at me(Im still here)
As long as you use SP or HP ammo, and keep what your doing to approx 150 yards you will do just fine with one.
Had one or two LAPD had them instead of shotguns...that north Hollywood
bank shootout would have ended far sooner(.30 carbine would have punched the soft body armor with no problem)

While the M16 in its perfected form is a much better rifle(the M1 carbine isnt a rifle any more than a Ruger PC9 is) you arent exactly unarmed in most circumstances John Q. Public would find himself in, if you had a carbine.

Slamfire
August 19, 2010, 02:08 PM
I know one living WWII veteran of the Iwo and Okinawa invasion who has a very low opinion of the M1 Carbine as a combat weapon. He carried it, used it, and said you could not hit Japanese at 200 yards with the thing.

Before you call him a poor shot, he was an active shooter before and after the war, receiving lifetime Master at Camp Perry in 1964.

I know and shoot with a Vietnam Veteran and Special Forces/Ranger who told me “the carbine is a great gun to play soldier with”. He was with the 82nd and during the missile crisis prepared to jump into Cuba. It was going to be a race between him and the guy on the other side of the plane as to whom was going to touch Cuba first. As an Officer he was able to trade in his Carbine for a Garand because he did not want to be in a combat zone with the thing.

Later he found out the drop zone was a killing zone.

Before you call him a poor shot, he is a two time National Champion in F Class.

I have talked to other Vietnam combat veterans who said derogatory comments on the Carbine.

By the time you get to 69 or so, the worst bugs of the M16 were worked out, and guys from that era don’t have a major beef with them.

You talk to Iraqi war veterans and they take negative comments against M4’s as personal attacks.

p99guy
August 19, 2010, 02:16 PM
whose calling anybody a poor shot? and 1969 isnt early VN/adviser period

jhenry
August 19, 2010, 03:00 PM
There isn't even a contest here. Range, accuracy, firepower, ergonomics, ease of take down and maintenance, adaptability to a variety of situations, sights and optics, all go to which platform? Is there a single thing at all the M1 carbine does better? Fun to dink with, and capable within it's limitations, but not a contender. I don't even consider it to fire a rifle cartridge. More of a .30 caliber revolver cartridge.

demigod
August 19, 2010, 03:10 PM
This is not even a contest. With the M1 carbine, you've got a notoriously inaccurate rifle shooting an equally underpowered round.

End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all.

kraigwy
August 19, 2010, 03:34 PM
End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all

Like I said, because of my father, it got him through two wars, he was satisified with it.

He's long gone now, and I like mine in mormory of him.

As I said, I didnt mean to be a dispute of the two, but as a tribute to the history of the M1 and the soldiers who carried it.

The M1 Carbine was not designed to be a replacement battle rifle but a replacement for the pistol. (Although many soldier elected to replace their Garands with Carbine).

Idahoser
August 19, 2010, 03:41 PM
"battle rifle" is a specific set of criteria, and neither of these fits them. Of the two, the AR would come "closest" but it's not a battle rifle.

Old Grump
August 19, 2010, 03:54 PM
The M1 carbine with its reduced-power .30 cartridge was not originally intended to serve as a primary weapon for combat infantrymen, 357 mag power and a 100 yard range was its strength. Great for the jungles in the South pacific. It could have had a select fire capability but the powers that be at the time decided against it. Better springs and more time spent on cleaning and maintenance in Korea would have lessened some of the complaints but things were a bit hectic at the time and it was never designed to be a front line gun.

PERFORMANCE
AUTO-ORDNANCE M1 CARBINE .30

3 shot groups at 100 yards

Load: Cor Bon 100 DPX, Velocity 2017 fps,Accuracy 0.69

Load: Remington 110, Velocity 1979 fps, Accuracy 0.81

Accurate enough for you?

blume357
August 19, 2010, 04:13 PM
that that said... the answer in my opinion to the questions is the M-16 or I guess more to the point the current M4s... not so sure about the original M-16s.

raimius
August 19, 2010, 05:28 PM
M16 by far. Better effective range, better sights (by a little bit), bigger standard magazine capacity, etc.

The M1 Carbine is a nice carbine, but it is not designed as a primary rifle for infantry, like the M16.

kraigwy
August 19, 2010, 05:29 PM
"battle rifle" is a specific set of criteria, and neither of these fits them. Of the two, the AR would come "closest" but it's not a battle rifle.

Don't know your definition of a "Battle Rifle" but the M16 fits the bill in my book, I've fought many a battle with one, none of which I felt undergunned.

Terry A
August 19, 2010, 05:53 PM
The M1 is my all time vote getter for "prettiest" rifle (carbine) ever. It just looks and feels so good.

However, I have never known of a production version, be it Universal or Auto Ordiance, etc, that doesn not have problems with jamming. Every one I've ever fired has had trouble feeding rounds reliably.

If I had to pick either of these two weapons to go to war with, I would pick the M4 100 times out of 100.

But, the M1 wins the beauty contest! :)

Rampant_Colt
August 19, 2010, 06:13 PM
I've always thought the M1 Carbine would make a most excellent home defense weapon when loaded with some Federal, W-W, R-P 110gr JHP, or Corbon 100gr DPX.

In actual combat? Are we talking Hague Convention rules? AR-15 no question. If hollowpoint ammo was allowed, the terminal ballistic advantage of the 5.56x45 over the .30 Carbine at close ranges isn't that significant

Kmar40
August 19, 2010, 07:43 PM
Don't know your definition of a "Battle Rifle" but the M16 fits the bill in my book, I've fought many a battle with one, none of which I felt undergunned. Yeah, but you're talking real world.

In the internet, an M4 can only wound people and it isn't very good at that even. And it always jams. They're the worst internet rifle EVER.

gak
August 19, 2010, 08:19 PM
This debate always amazes me. I'm a big M1 Carbine fan, but I would *hope* that the M16 variants make for a better "battle rifle,"....or it'd say something awfully miserable about not only the industry but the ordnance planners of our military - that no "natural" advancements in our fighting arms are made over time.

Do you notice the strongest detractors of the M1C at least sound like they've never owned or shot one? I'm not saying that's always the case, but there's sure a lot of "me thinks thou doth protesteth" they could be accused of in the tone! The M1 is simpler, handier and just as effective (for most intents and purposes)--as stated with modern SP ammo--for close-in personal-domestic HD/SD, at which it excels. I'd pick my Inland every day for that role. For all else: the recent-era M16/M4.

That said, for every "I know someone from Korea or the Bulge that hated the carbine," there are likely several vets who have great respect and affection for it, and more than a few who owe their or a buddy's life specifically to its characteristics. However, these days, it should be no slam on the M1 Carbine to say that, for "battle" purposes, the better choice between the two is the AR-platform. Never thought it was a real question like some--especially knee-jerk AR fanboys--approach such discussions (I'm not referring to the question as posed by the OP, given his clarification). Of course the AR platform is better for most military purposes, that should speak for itself...but still - Me thinks...

Ozzieman
August 19, 2010, 08:27 PM
The M1 Grand was the "Battle Rifle" of WW2 and the Carbine was the replacement for the 1911. It was for troops that didn’t fight with a rifle but had one when it was needed like tankers and troops that were in maintenance battalions. My father carried one throughout the war in Europe and never shot it. But there were nights he slept with it and was very glad he had it.
Some here say that the M16 is not a battle rifle,,,, I’m not too sure exactly what that term is but it is the main battle rifle for our troops today so in my book it is a battle rifle.
I feel that both guns are perfect for what they were designed to do and comparing them is like comparing a BAR and a Thompson. Useless, But still fun to do.:)

jrothWA
August 19, 2010, 08:28 PM
it doesn't matter which one hits the hand.

TheM1 Carbine or the AR15, all that matter is PLACING rounds where they COUNT.

My Carbine is now on HD with butt pouch and two 13rd mags, my youngest can handle it, nicely.

Did smoothed the feed ramp to minimize "Stuttering" of soft-node ammo.

hooligan1
August 19, 2010, 08:39 PM
Idahoser, what the????? Both are Battle rifles, Their intended purpose was battle?!!! What the!??:rolleyes: Veterans from all these battle periods would agree! If for 1 minute those rifles were not connected to battle, THEY WOULDN'T FREAKIN BE USED BY ALL THE ARMED FORCES!!!:) These rifles were the epitome of Battle rifle at the time. They had specific uses and they met the needs of many thousands of soldiers. Would you be the one to tell those hundreds of thousands of soldiers their combat weapon wasn't a BATTLE rifle?!! Dude you need to apoligize!! And all of us who proudly carried those weapons will forgive you young man! My uncle was carrying an M16 the day he was blown to pieces in Vietnam. I apologize to Kraigwy for throwing a rant, and I salute your father and all our brothren that paid the most. God forgive those who don't know......

Technosavant
August 19, 2010, 09:39 PM
Idahoser, what the????? Both are Battle rifles, Their intended purpose was battle?!!!

I think he is using the Boston's Gun Bible definition of "main battle rifle" and not actually considering that any rifle taken to battle is by definition a battle rifle.

The BGB definition as I understand it is a semiautomatic rifle in a full power rifle chambering. Think M1/M14, FAL, etc. It is nothing more than an opinion of one guy who wrote under a pseudonym, but it has been taken as gospel by a bunch of folks who really ought to know better. Just because somebody calls their book a "Bible" doesn't mean they are actually authoritative.

HorseSoldier
August 19, 2010, 09:52 PM
The BGB definition as I understand it is a semiautomatic rifle in a full power rifle chambering. Think M1/M14, FAL, etc.

I thought the definition of "Main Battle Rifle" was what clueless fairweather shooters who haven't been there or done that think they should be allowed to inflict on people who fight with long guns for a living. :rolleyes:

Lashlarue
August 19, 2010, 10:44 PM
I was rather fond of the M2 carbine issued to me in Korea.My uncle carried a Garand from Normandy to the Rhine, said, after a very short while he learned to hate it,hauling a 12 lb rifle and ammo on foot for hundreds of miles was not pleasant by any stretch of the imagination.

5.56RifleGuy
August 19, 2010, 10:48 PM
By that definition, does that mean no one fought a main battle rifle until after the conversion to the metallic cartridge and the advent of semi auto rifles?

Tom Matiska
August 20, 2010, 01:27 AM
Under 100 yards I wouldn't argue against the M1. Near 200 I wouldn't argue against the .223. Between that pick your pleasure...

Technosavant
August 20, 2010, 08:42 AM
If he coined the term MBR

I don't know for sure that the term and definition originated with him, but he's the one who is usually referenced.

I thought the definition of "Main Battle Rifle" was what clueless fairweather shooters who haven't been there or done that think they should be allowed to inflict on people who fight with long guns for a living.

Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to. :D It amuses me how many people bust on gun rags as being featherweight opinion journals with not much substance, then take the BGB as authoritative.

It's one fellow's opinion, nothing more. Personally, I prefer to listen to those who have BTDT, and even then I remember that such accounts are still opinion- backed up by real world experience to be sure, but still opinion. There aren't too many folks who have been able to treat real world two way firing ranges as laboratories for what works and what doesn't. There's plenty of people from the same theaters of battle who come back with conflicting opinions.

You examine the platforms, decide which drawbacks you wish to contend with, and you make your choice.

Mike Irwin
August 20, 2010, 08:57 AM
My Great uncle was in the 82nd Airborne during WW II and made every combat drop they ever made, fighting in Africa, Italy, and Western Europe.

Very early on he found an infantryman with an M1 Garand and traded his M1 Carbine for it.

He would never say exactly what happened, but left it at "It didn't get the job done and I didn't have any confidence in it." (words to that effect)

phil mcwilliam
August 20, 2010, 08:58 AM
Which caliber is still used on the battlefield today? Maybe here lies the answer.

tirod
August 20, 2010, 09:35 AM
If it's a carbine, it's not a rifle. The very existence of a different word means it's not to be confused, they are not alike.

The M1 carbine was given to those who needed something more than a pistol, but couldn't be hampered in their daily job with a large caliber rifle. It's no mistake the M1 was quickly offered up as a full auto with bigger magazines, while the final version of the Garand, as the M14E2 full auto squad automatic, was taken out of service quickly.

Of course, stating a debate isn't wanted, and asking which is the better, really? Sure, the carbine is nice, but it's not even considered an intermediate caliber, The M16 is - and that is the nomenclature for a rifle, so the comparison is already decided. See above.

Just for the point, M1 carbine vs M4 carbine? The answer should be obvious, the M1 has less range, is less lethal, has an less efficient and very inflexible optics mount, is harder to clean, suffers from an exposed bolt and fixed, reciprocating charging handle, is far from ambidextrous, and logistically has little support in the market for civilian buyers. There aren't a dozen makers of receivers vying for business, barrels are GI or get over it, and stocks? It's not Lego, it's a one type only.

No debate necessary, it's not a valid VS. discussion.

Idahoser
August 20, 2010, 11:57 AM
hooligan1 wrote:
...Idahoser, what the????? ...Dude you need to apoligize!! ...

Thanks for your opinion. I decline to apologize, since you clearly don't understand what I said.

The M16 is an assault rifle, the carbine is a big pistol. The M1 is a battle rifle. They have names for a reason. I see no need for any apology, including for your insult against me.

44 AMP
August 20, 2010, 12:16 PM
..has less range, is less lethal, has an less efficient and very inflexible optics mount, is harder to clean, suffers from an exposed bolt and fixed, reciprocating charging handle, is far from ambidextrous..

True enough, but not of major concern to the designers of the gun, nor to many of the original users. The M1 Carbine certainly isn't the choice of today's battery powered optics, alloy and plastic military, no question on that. But its a nice little gun, none the less. Its just from an era with a different philosophy than the one we use today.

As to the term "battle rifle", it is one I have heard and used for decades, and I have never heard of it being tied to a specific individual creator. IT is a useful term, once you understand the definition, providing a concise separation from other rifle classes, in a convenient phrase.

Before WWII there were only "rifles". With the creation of the class of rifle known as "assault rifles", (which also has a specific correct definition) the term "battle rifle" came into use.

Sadly, these terms (and many others) have been over used and widely misused by so many people that few people use them correctly today.

If you choose to look at it that way, any rifle used in battle is a battle rifle, and any rifle used in an assault is an assault rifle, and under the rules of English usage, you are technically correct, but neither term is intended to be used that way. You could call every car in Indianpolis an "Indy car", and not be technically wrong, either, but thats not what "Indy car" is intended to be.

Battle rifles use full power cartridges (by the WW II standard, not just WW II cartridges). Assault rifles use intermediate power cartridges (again, by the WW II standard) and are select fire. Those are the essential characteristics. Some designs don't fit either definition properly, and are usually (today) referred to as "carbines". The M1 carbine and the SKS are two of them.

Under US law, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle", as the selective fire capacity makes them, legally, machine guns. "Assualt weapon" is a legal term (thank you Clinton administration) that refers to semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features that make them look like modern military weapons.

kraigwy
August 20, 2010, 12:55 PM
Definitions is a funny lot: WORD GAMES ABOUND

Lets look at how they are used:

A M16 given to a solder, sent into battle is a Battle Rifle
A M16 at the Firing Line at Camp Perry is a Target rifle (and I'm not talking just match rifles, the SAFS uses rack grade M16s)

The M1 used in attacking the beaches at Normandy is an battle rifle, with the Band of Brothers parachuting into battle, its a battle rifle.

Then again a M1 used in NMC or the CMPs GSM matches are target rifles, (again they have to be "as issued", not National Match rifles.

The original "assault" rifles of WWII were shorter rounds used in full auto carbine length rifles. A different round then the standard "battle rifle" ie the 7.62X39 vs 7.62X54R, Or the MP43 "Sturmgewehr" or Assault Rifle didn't use the 8X57 round. (Hitler was first to give the name Assualt Rifle, (Sturmgewehr), to a firearm, The gungrabbers just added the name to any gun they didn't like.)

But now, the 7.62X39 is used by mainline infantry troops, the 7.62X54R is a supplement to it making the AK a battle rifle.

Now our main combat rifle is the M16, it unlike the Stumgewehr, is not issued in conjunction with an larger round (7.62X51), it is the standard rifle firing the standard round (5.56 Nato).

The 7.62X51 is used in MGs, Snipper/DM rifles to argument the main round (5.56) not the other way around as with the German MP43 augmented the '98 Mauser.

This would lead me to believe that the M16 is OUR MAIN BATTLE RIFLE, its the weapon issued (including the M4) to standard infantry troops.

We can play word games all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that the main rifle issued to infantry troops to wage battle IS A BATTLE RIFLE.

But if we didn't have differant opinions, we wouldn't have anything to talk about.

gak
August 20, 2010, 12:57 PM
44Amp - good post....and KraigWy too (yeah I know, mambeepambee of me :-)).

Kmar40
August 20, 2010, 01:46 PM
I thought the definition of "Main Battle Rifle" was what clueless fairweather shooters who haven't been there or done that think they should be allowed to inflict on people who fight with long guns for a living.

You win the prize.

nate45
August 20, 2010, 04:02 PM
The M16 has a greater level of accuracy and is a better designed firearm, with a higher degree of reliability. The 5.56 mm cartridge that it fires, is ballistically superior to the .30 Carbine and not by a small margin.

Flatbush Harry
August 20, 2010, 08:24 PM
The M1 carbine was an alternative to a handgun for som-non-coms and most officers. The .30 Carbine round is basically a magnum handgun round and the rifle was notoriously inaccurate and unreliable. My father, a PTO veteran of WWII switched to a carbine when he was promoted to E-5 in 1944; he liked the lighter weight but suggested that he trusted the M1 Garand a good bit more. My uncle, an infantry company commander in the ETO, kept a Garand throughout the war...for all the obvious reasons.

I have one Garand for a commemorative for each of them...and two for me for shooters. I really have little interest in the carbine ex its historical value.

BTW, I have two M1As....a Supermatch for matches and other serious target work and a SOCOM16...for use as a carbine.

:D

FH

Flatbush Harry
August 20, 2010, 08:27 PM
BTW, As a USAF officer and pilot in 1968-1971, I qualified with, and was subsequently issued, an M16A1. As my brother, an Army Spec4 used to say, "Made by Mattel, it's swell".

My view of MBRs...the last real one we had was the M14.

Cheers,

FH, 2Lt, USAFR(ret)

FALshootist
August 20, 2010, 09:14 PM
My Dad was a Korean war vet. He always spoke highly of the M1 Garand and the BAR. He didn't have anything good to say about the M1 Carbine or the 1911.

Stevie-Ray
August 20, 2010, 09:25 PM
I would also think the M16 the better battle rifle. But I'd still like to have one of those M1 carbines. Hell, it was my first BB gun!:D

"Assualt weapon" is a legal term (thank you Clinton administration) that refers to semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features that make them look like modern military weapons. Probably because they couldn't spell the correct term, "paramilitary weapon.":rolleyes:

raimius
August 21, 2010, 02:36 PM
Assault Rifle = intermediate cartridge + select-fire
Battle Rifles use full power cartridges.
Thus the M16 is an assault rifle. The M14 is a battle rifle.
Then, there is the idiotic AWB definition, but I'm not going there.

Those who like to describe things by intended use should stick to "fighting rifle" so as not to misuse the standard definition of Assault and Battle rifles. Otherwise, we would own "paper rifles," and who would want one of those? :D

TPAW
August 21, 2010, 07:28 PM
Which is the better battle rifle? M16 vs. M1 Carbine

Used both over the pond. The M16 by far.

Art Eatman
August 21, 2010, 11:04 PM
"Battle Rifle" or some variant is mostly a pre-Vietnam usage. Springfields, Mausers, Garands, FALs, etc. Generally.

In comparing the M15 or Ar-15 with a GI Carbine, I'd figure the .223 is by far a superior cartridge. No real comparison.

Now, I like the little GI Carbine. I had an M2 version in Korea; I used to "liberate" a 600-round can from the arms shack and go to the beach at Inchon and pester seagulls and such. Fun critter. And I now have my father's bring-back M1 version from his playtime in the ETO from D-Day on to VE-Day.

M16s are fun; quite controllable. And ARs are commonly quite accurate--much tighter groups than the average M1 Carbine.

I once worked with a guy who'd been a USMC Medic in the Pacific, from Guadal on through to the end. He commented that if a Jap patrol was seen at a fair distance--half-mile, say, guys would open up. If it were Carbines, "They wouldn't even break stride." If a Garand started talking, they'd scatter.

Really, it seems to me that trying to compare the .223 and the Carbine round is pretty much apples and oranges...

Kmar40
August 21, 2010, 11:28 PM
BTW, As a USAF officer and pilot in 1968-1971,
When did we start giving guns to the zoomies? Just kidding.

Serious question, you did three years in combat and never got promoted past butter bar? I thought the pilots got promoted quickly anyway.

I'll bet that's a hell of a story. (I'm imagining it involved the general's daughter).

HorseSoldier
August 22, 2010, 12:50 PM
Assault Rifle = intermediate cartridge + select-fire
Battle Rifles use full power cartridges.
Thus the M16 is an assault rifle. The M14 is a battle rifle.

Assault rifle derived from a literal translation of the German Sturmgewehr, making it probably the most common term in English we get directly from Adolf Hitler, who thought his term had a sexier ring to it than the original German term of "machine carbine" for a intermediate-round chambered weapon capable of automatic fire.

As a curious foot note, the Germans abandoned the term Sturmgewehr after WW2 (probably because they are more cognizant of where it came from than we in the Anglophone world were), but the Austrians did not. However, in Austrian usage both the FAL (StG-58) and AUG (StG-77) are considered "assault rifles."

"Battle rifle" when describing full-power cartridge firing long guns like the M14 was dreamed up by apologists trying to explain why our small arms community was so stupid and dense that they failed to learn anything from WW2 and spent millions of dollars to field a product-improved M1 Garand instead of a weapon better adapted to infantry combat like, say, the AK-47. The idea was that "assault rifles" were specialized for close range combat, while the "battle rifle" was a superior all-around/generalist performer on the battlefield. Great theory except that practical experience demonstrated it to be completely incorrect, because, Hitler's PR term or not, the intermediate caliber select fire rifle was a better combination of strengths and weaknesses for how infantry combat really occurred. The proof of this can be seen in the fact that every military force on the planet who can afford it has gone to assault rifles for general service use.

(Main Battle Rifle appears to be a continued attempt to sex up the term by apologists. I agree with the previous suggestions that Boston T Party is the origin of the term, but am not certain. Obviously it post-dates the switch from light/medium/heavy tanks to the generalist MBT, but it has no military meaning at all

In any case, pretending there are two distinct categories of service rifles tends to create a false sense of separate capabilities and roles -- the reality is that the iron sighted battle rifle in the hands of troops didn't bring anything to the table that the iron sighted assault rifle didn't. Stopping power was somewhat better, but still unreliable, and the full powered cartridges did nothing to extend the engagement ranges troops were capable of since the real choke point there is target acquisition/identification and getting steel onto target. It also created some bad, bad decisions in the recent conflict where guys got handed M14s that had not been specially accurized at all after sitting in storage for 40 years and were told presto-chango they were now designated marksmen because whatever idiot officer made that call had the battle rifle/assault rifle split drummed into his head.

amd6547
August 22, 2010, 01:23 PM
I will ignore the silly word game arguement, for now, and get back to the OP question.
My home made M16A1 semi auto clone is a fantastic, accurate, reliable rifle that I enjoy shooting very much, and would probably choose if the SHTF in a major way.
My CMP Inland carbine has also proven very reliable, shoots grapefruit sized groups at 100yds without trying hard, and I feel comfortable with the performance of the 30 carbine soft point load for SD. The carbine is very light and handles like no other long arm for me...it literally feels like part of me, and points like a finger.
The M1 carbine is my goto HD weapon.
Back to the silly word arguement...Neither is a "Battle Rifle"

44 AMP
August 23, 2010, 12:14 AM
Assault rifle derived from a literal translation of the German Sturmgewehr, making it probably the most common term in English we get directly from Adolf Hitler, who thought his term had a sexier ring to it than the original German term of "machine carbine" for a intermediate-round chambered weapon capable of automatic fire.


I don't know if I would claim Hitler thought it was "sexier", but it certainly was given the name for propaganda purposes. The rifle was in fact developed under the name Maschinen Pistole (MP) the German term for submachine gun, expressly to get around an earlier order from Hitler that forbid "wasting resources" on further rifle developement.

At the time, the Wehrmacht was still mostly victorious, and Hitler saw no reason for another rifle. He did, however, not forbid R&D of submachine guns. Hitler didn't find out about the MP43 not actually being a MP until officers returning from field testing them on the Eastern Front asked for more of the "new rifles". Der Fuehrer was a bit upset, but after it was demonstrated for him, he became enthusiastic, and dubbed it the Sturmgewehr, and the MP 44 became the Stg 44. Production was ordered increased, but like other late war technological improvements (jets, ballistic missiles) it was too little, too late to change the outcome of the war.

HorseSoldier
August 23, 2010, 02:17 AM
The MP designation was adopted for the Maschinenkarabiner program, which had been knocking around in various incarnations since the mid-30s, to go under the radar of the Fuhrer's strangely Luddite take on small arms modernization (we are talking about a guy who except for this one area seems to have otherwise never met an R&D program he didn't like).

Mutatio Nomenis
August 24, 2010, 03:11 AM
Neither is a real battle rifle. The M16 is an assault rifle and the M-1 Carbine is a mini-rifle that fires a pistol round. The question should be: M-14 versus M-1 Garand.

Addendum: If I had to put in my hat, then I'd say something like a Steyr AUG or an AK-103 or an FN FAL or an M-16a4.

Father Time
August 24, 2010, 10:06 AM
I'll give my .02 here.

I like both the M1 Carbine and the M16/M4/AR15 rifles. They are fun to shoot and accurate.
Anyone that says the M1 Carbine isn't reliable probably had an old junker that had seen too much abuse. But the same could be said of the AR family of rifles too.

The M1 Carbine was designed as a self defence weapon and in that role it functions very well. I know I wouldn't have any problems using one to defend hearth and home. I wouldn't even have a problem using one if I
was a SWAT team member that kicks in doors for a living. I think the real reason the M16 is a "better" "battle rifle" is because the M1 Carbine round drops like a rock past 150 yards. It's not even the realativly low power of the round that I have an issue with. The flat trajectory of the 5.56 round makes it easier to get hits at 200-400 yards and that is a big deal when considering an infantry weapon.

5.56RifleGuy
August 24, 2010, 11:25 AM
How are the AUG and m16a4 any more of a "battle rifle" than the original m16?

Father Time
August 24, 2010, 01:10 PM
The MP designation was adopted for the Maschinenkarabiner program,

I was under the impression that "MP" stood for Machine Pistol or Maschinenpistole

HorseSoldier
August 24, 2010, 03:55 PM
The original program/prototypes were described as Maschinenkarabiner (MKb), changed to Maschinenpistole (MP) when Hitler restricted research on new rifles/carbines.

Technosavant
August 24, 2010, 05:51 PM
Neither is a real battle rifle.

Says who?

That you made the above statement implies you didn't read the rest of the thread. The "authority" who pontificated about what was and wasn't a "battle rifle" is not unanimously recognized (or even recognized by an authority) as someone whose opinion means anything.

TriggerJunky
September 1, 2010, 11:38 PM
Let's argue semantics... M16- this weapon is a rifle or battle rifle as stated earlier. (Period). M1 Carbine- Note the use of the word "carbine" in said weapons name. This weapon is for CQD. Which is why it was issued the way it was. Issued to tankers, construction batallions, truck drivers... guys that have a job in the war that aren't offensive units (tankers excluded). I personally love both the AR Platform & the M1 Carbine. However, I am also a fan of picking the right tool for the job. If I were regular infantry... M16. If I where a pathfinder or tanker, ect... M1 Carbine. Both weapons do their OWN SEPARATE jobs superbly.

Volucris
September 1, 2010, 11:51 PM
There is not a single thing the M1 Carbine has that the M16 doesn't have or improves on. M1 Carbines are great guns but when it comes to modern battle the M16 platform is damned near unbeatable.

DanThaMan1776
September 2, 2010, 12:08 AM
Better battle rifle than the m16.. no way.

But it is still an awesome handy little rifle.

gsteele
January 19, 2016, 10:52 AM
Much maligned, it served well - not poorly - in Okinawa. My Uncle, who fought there, had stories to tell. The carbine could shoot through both sides of a Japanese battle helmet with a head in the middle, so it wasn't underpowered in that respect. It also killed about 1/3 of the Japanese killed in Okinawa - mostly because of the use of the T3 with M2 IR sight that was used at night against Japanese infiltration patrols. It's not high velocity, but the 100 yard energy equals the muzzle energy of a .357 magnum; you decide if that's enough. It's not a sniper rifle, and wasn't meant to be - so when asking is it a better "battle rifle" than an M-16, you are asking if a Chevy Caprice is a better SUV than a Corvair. What?

I think those of us who grew up throwing Garands around have a different view of what constitutes a rifle: Garand and M-14 and Springfield and Enfield and Mauser, etc., si; carbine = carbine; M-16, different philosophy and tactics (suppressive fire, light=more (ammo/unit weight), CQB, high velocity=lower range error consequence, etc.) The carbine is a '40's weapon, designed with the metallurgy and machining of the era; the M-16 is a '60's weapon, fully refined and adopted by the '80's and '90's. Both are still in use, and the former is still useful - just dated.

wogpotter
January 19, 2016, 12:47 PM
I honestly don't think of either as a "Battle Rifle".

Llama Bob
January 19, 2016, 03:50 PM
In the context of modern infantry arms, the M1 carbine strikes me as not terribly useful. It has poor armor and barrier penetration relative to anything but a pistol, a loopy trajectory, and less than exciting terminal ballistics. It's hard to scope.

The advantages it had, namely small size, very light weight and a large ammo capacity, are duplicated in other modern weapons with more powerful loads. I can't really think of any application where I'd prefer an M1 Carbine to an M16A4 and I'm not the .223's biggest fan.

In the context of its time and lacking a better cartridge the carbine seems to have served a purpose. The Garand is a pretty unwieldy beast.

mavracer
January 19, 2016, 04:19 PM
Necro thread I'd rather have a M16 for most applications, I suppose kicking in doors a carbine would be pretty good.

Captains1911
January 19, 2016, 04:44 PM
End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all.

I like it for it's history, and the fact that it's fun to shoot. That does not mean I would consider choosing it over an M4 in any type of defensive role, however I would choose it over a sharp stick.

BWM
January 19, 2016, 04:49 PM
The carbine was much liter than the M 1 grand the M-1 was a front line gun that was a very good gun it the gun that changed the war!! The carbine was a cooks gun and the people in the rear. There is or was thankful for the M-1 it was a lot better than 03 06 bolt action.

zincwarrior
January 19, 2016, 04:54 PM
Quote:
End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all.
I like it for it's history, and the fact that it's fun to shoot. That does not mean I would consider choosing it over an M4 in any type of defensive role, however I would choose it over a sharp stick.
__________________

Like the OP I have my Dad's M1-also from Korea. Its a relic with beautiful beautiful wood.

M1s are like Winchesters from the century before. At the time they were an advance for the task they were made for (a definite upside from grease guns and 1911s), and are beautiful. But you should not compare it to a modern rifle, any more than you should compare an M1 to a Henry repeater. Apples to oranges

cw308
January 19, 2016, 06:06 PM
The M16, Coming from a Vietnam Veteran, in country May 67 - 68 the south Vietnamese carried M1 garands & carbine's. North Vietnamese & VC used SKS & AK 47 We Carried M14 & 16's. You wouldn't want to get hit by any one of them, But over 100 meters if I had a choice which one was pointing in my direction I would say the M1 Carbine, weaker then all the others. The problem with the 16 I had no place to keep the cleaning rod, that changed as time went on . l liked the 16 it was light we carried 120 round's 6 magazines. Try that with a 14 in that heat and all the _ _ _ _ we walked through. Should have kept it to the short version, The M16.

kcub
January 20, 2016, 09:05 AM
How about the love child of both, the mini14?

It could have had a select fire capability but the powers that be at the time decided against it.

Huh? What about the M2 carbine select fire available in late WW2 and Korea?


Was the M2 carbine the world's second assault rifle? It definitely had more range than the submachinegun.

I'd llike to have an M1/M2 carbine in 9x23 Winchester. And have the military also use 9x23 in handguns. You can get 10 in a 1911 magazine and have 100 yard power.

herdman
January 20, 2016, 09:35 AM
M16 or variant is by far better.

chimo
January 20, 2016, 09:36 AM
The best "battle rifle" would be an M1 Garand, IMO.

A carbine is not a battle rifle, it's a carbine.

Skans
January 20, 2016, 09:43 AM
It's too bad Ruger couldn't modify their Mini-14/AC556 to accept M16 barrels with a barrel extension that would work with the Mini's receiver.

tirod
January 20, 2016, 10:24 AM
In the early days of 3 Gun only .30 cal was allowed. Nobody shot M1 carbines against the main battle rifles. But, some wildcatters tried to neck up the 5.56 to .30 to compete. And got thrown off the course for their effort.

The AR15 was eventually allowed in, and now dominates. IE, wins. Same for Service Rifle matches. And nobody brings the M1 carbine to the line with any serious expectations of success.

You shoot the M16 to place, or go home satisfied you at least tried. Eventually most give it up and get a competitive AR15.

In comparison to the others, there are reasons. But since it's not meant to be a debate, I won't detail them here. Just point out the results, which overwhelmingly support the Stoner design above the others. It's likely also why it's still in service after 45 years. The others, not. Not even.

gsteele
January 20, 2016, 11:15 AM
I dearly love shooting my carbine. It's reliable, has no recoil, is relatively cheap to shoot, and I can use the same ammo in my Ruger single action. That's fun. You can easily take whitetail with softpoints (if you can shoot - if not, a .458 won't kill a squirrel), varmints are toast, and I have a scope mounted on one of mine just for the heck of it.

I don't have an M-16/AR-15, although that will soon change. It is clearly a more advanced and versatile weapon in that you can customize grips and forends, stocks adjust, you can change calibers from 5.56 to .458 Socom, etc. - it's the shooting equivalent of a LEGO kit. Customizing it doesn't diminish its value like messing with a carbine would - although I think of the carbine as "good enough" just as it is. You don't criticize a classic 1969 Camaro for not having GPS, do you?

Check YouTube - you don't see any scowls on the face of people shooting a carbine. The fact that it won't knock over a Blue Whale with one shot doesn't matter a damn. People shoot air guns, have a hell of a time doing it, and they're not exactly cannons, either.

The discussions above seem like an argument about which is better - a blonde or a redhead. There are 7 party nights a week; why not try 'em all?

gyvel
January 20, 2016, 11:42 AM
As was mentioned by one poster, the M1 carbine was a cook's gun. It was intended as a replacement for the 1911 for some troops who were not front line. It was never intended as a "battle rifle" (whatever that is).

RickB
January 20, 2016, 12:06 PM
My preference would be based on location.
As noted, neither the Carbine nor the AR is a battle rifle, but if I needed a long gun for "battle", then I'd prefer the better long-range performance of the AR.
For house-clearing, I'd prefer the Carbine.
I've never been in battle, but I've shot some 3-gun with both the Carbine and AR, and if the requirements are hitting 12" targets at 350 yards, it's no contest - most Carbines are 3-minute guns, so even a really good shot would have a hard time getting consistent hits with a Carbine at that distance - but if it's close quarters, stairs, doorways, narrow halls, etc., I prefer the Carbine.
It's light, short, and can easily be employed - both carrying and shooting, if necessary - one-handed.

eastbank
January 20, 2016, 02:11 PM
to me there is no perfect battle rifle as battles change and can be different, where a m-4 may be right and a m-14 not, in a matter of minutes it could change where the m-14 would be the rifle needed. it comes down to you dance with the one you came with. eastbank.

wogpotter
January 20, 2016, 05:11 PM
That's true.
I still like the idea of a full house .30 cal for "rifle" work at distance & a sub-gun for up close & personal CQB.
Horses for courses.:)

cw308
January 20, 2016, 05:22 PM
As to post #60 If it gets you home whether M1 or M16 its a " battle rifle ".

TheDevilThatYouKnow
January 20, 2016, 05:33 PM
Let's argue semantics... M16- this weapon is a rifle or battle rifle as stated earlier. (Period). M1 Carbine- Note the use of the word "carbine" in said weapons name. This weapon is for CQD. Which is why it was issued the way it was.
The M16 was initially adopted as an Air Force weapon to arm it's perimeter patrol forces in 1964. Only later did the US Army adopt the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm M14 rifle and the forthcoming SPIW system (which newer got past the prototype and trial stages). The first major purchase was in 1966 and not until '67 did the Army accept the rifle as the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1".

American Rifleman (http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/6/22/us-m16/)
Britannica.com (http://www.britannica.com/technology/M16-rifle)

Jimro
January 20, 2016, 05:39 PM
Well, the thread necromancer strikes again. :rolleyes:

I couldn't tell you which is the better battle rifle. I only ever carried an M4 and M9 in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But, given my experience, pick a rifle that is going to serve you well in the environment you find yourself in. My generation pushed the M14 back into service for the "longer range" needs of a battle rifle. Doesn't make it "better" than an M4 for clearing compounds though. Just different tools in the toolbox.

Jimro

Model12Win
January 20, 2016, 08:39 PM
Neither of these two guns qualify as "battle rifles", as neither use a full-power rifle cartridge. This is a battle rifle, and I'd rather take it in harms way than either of those pea shooters :cool::

http://s18.postimg.org/xn7ufoy6x/g32.jpg

Mobuck
January 20, 2016, 09:00 PM
Just my opinion but technically, the M-1 carbine was not originally intended to be a "battle rifle". It was a compromise to issue to "support troops" and officers instead of a pistol which most couldn't hit the side of a barn with.

amd6547
January 20, 2016, 10:25 PM
Perhaps that was the intention, but the Carbine saw a lot more combat use than statements like that sound. It was a frontline weapon in several wars.

bamaranger
January 20, 2016, 10:30 PM
I'll admit a fondness for the M1 carbine, but if I knew I was going to a fight, I'd not take it if I had access to an M16.

My story with the carbine involves some a tempporary instructor detail at the Fed LE Training Center in Glynco GA. At the time the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was expanding and I spent a goodly portion of my time on the line with those folks. Everybody, irregardless of their job title, got range time and qualified with 3 weapons, revolver (that should date me), shotgun, and the M1 carbine. The carbine was by far the easiest weapon to teach, and the trainees invariably shot their best scores with the M1.

One of the peculiarities of the job was that we never turned in partial boxes of ammo. If there were open boxes, we shot them up. This simplified returning ammo, and totalling ammo issued and returned. The lead instructor was a good old boy from Arkansas, and we got along fine. We shot for Closest to the mark for lunch, who would return the rifles and ammo, and just generally a good time.

I swore I'd get one, but when CMP had them, I did not commit, something about a mortgage.

Jim243
January 20, 2016, 11:59 PM
Before everyone jumps on me about this post, yes, I owned a M-1 Carbine back in the 1960's. And my opinion of it that it was something between a pistol and a real rifle. Not a toy, but not a real rifle either.

The 30 Carbine rounds were just a bit better than a pistol round, but no where's near as good as a rifle round.

Why the popularity of the M-1 Carbine, well as I see it, it was the weight. Not of the rifle, even though it was much lighter than the M-1. But the weight of the ammo one had to carry around for the gun. (You note I did not say the rifle) And having a 10 or 15 round mag for it, was much better than only having 8 rounds and then needing to reload. (or the 7 plus 1 for the 1911)

Those M-1 Carbines shot Min of enemy not MOA very inaccurate except at close range like 25 or 30 yards. So if I call it a piece of CR__ don't get upset with me. It did kill, but only at close range. They should have come up with a better cartage for it.

Then came the M-14, a much better RIFLE, but it too was a failure because it really is uncontrollable on full auto. 20 rounds was a nice feature, but it was just a modified M-1 and caring around ammo for it was just as bad as caring the old 30-06 ammo for the M-1 and the rifle weighted as much as a Garand.

So that brings us up to the M-16 (waste of ammo rifle) and the finally settled on M-4 (3 round rapid fire) Carbine of today. While I am not crazy about the 5.56 as a battle rifle caliber (Should have been a 243 (6 MM) instead of 224) it seems as a reasonable in-between for weight and damage. (although caring 10 thirty round mags of 5.56 around on a vest is no walk in the park either).

So I am not sure which is the BEST, I only know what I would want to use.

Stay safe.
Jim

amd6547
January 21, 2016, 07:38 AM
My early six digit serial Inland, courtesy of the CMP, does not fit this description:
"...Those M-1 Carbines shot Min of enemy not MOA very inaccurate except at close range like 25 or 30 yards. So if I call it a piece of CR__ don't get upset with me. It did kill, but only at close range. They should have come up with a better cartage for it..."

At 100yds, I can easily keep 15rds on an nra 25yd pistol bullseye, standing offhand, without trying hard.

Here is 100yds standing offhand rapidfire using Hornady Critical Defense...
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h61/amd6547/Mobile%20Uploads/ef43bca4-d432-48b3-bb07-13ad1fdeff43_zps0z83uklp.jpg (http://s61.photobucket.com/user/amd6547/media/Mobile%20Uploads/ef43bca4-d432-48b3-bb07-13ad1fdeff43_zps0z83uklp.jpg.html)

Audey Murphy chose it as his favorite.

SR420
January 21, 2016, 07:57 AM
My preferred 'Battle Rifle' is the M14, and it's many variants.

This CQB-16 type SEI in a Blackfeather "RS" is my go-to M14.


http://www.athenswater.com/images/BF-RS.SFU.12.06.JPG

kcub
January 21, 2016, 09:06 AM
The real question is not which is the best battle rifle but which is the best rear echelon weapon. I hear some 2/3 of personnel are not front line combat.

But sometimes the supply chain gets attacked.

Jimro
January 21, 2016, 01:48 PM
The best weapon in a supply convoy is a radio followed by a Ma Deuce in a pintle mount. Generally the mounted machine guns are more important than what Soldiers are carrying as an individual weapon, at least until the radio calls in the cavalry.

Jimro

amd6547
January 21, 2016, 03:47 PM
Well, that wasn't the case in 1940.
The military was concerned about fallshcirmjager dropping behind the lines, or guderians panzers bypassing the front lines.

The Carbine is truly a story of American ingenuity. Designed and adopted in record time, and made in the millions in just four years with full interchangeable parts by companies who never made a gun before.

illusion
January 21, 2016, 08:27 PM
American Rifleman that just came out has an article on the M-1 Carbine that shows its effectiveness as considerably less than a lot of comments here. Information is from a Korean War combat attendee!

amd6547
January 21, 2016, 08:50 PM
Excerpts from Audie Murphy's book "To Hell And Back":
"Within a moment I am involved in a duel with a German who climbs upon a cannon to get the advantage of elevation. I see him as he lowers his rifle upon me and whip up my carbine. He fires. The bullet kicks dust in my face as my carbine goes off. Frantically I try to blink the dirt from my eyes, knowing the German will not miss again. It is only a few seconds, perhaps, but it seems much longer before I can see. The kraut is sprawled in front of the gun. Later I discover that my lucky shot got him in the heart." (Chapter 15)

"Grasping the carbine in my left hand and a grenade in my right, I step suddenly from behind the rock. The Germans spot me instantly. The gunner spins the tip of his weapon toward me. But the barrel catches in a limb, and the burst whizzes to my right. I lob the grenade and grab the carbine trigger with one movement. Before the grenade has time to burst, two krauts fall with carbine slugs in their bellies. I quickly lob two more grenades into the position; four of the eight Germans are killed; three are put out of action by wounds. The eighth, a squat, fat man, tries to escape.....I squeeze the trigger. The helmet jumps. The man falls as if struck in the head with a club." (Chapter 17)

"Before reporting to company headquarters, I carefully clean my carbine. ‘I want to go up and try to get that sniper,’ I say....There is a rustle. My eyes snap forward. The branches of a bush move. I drop to one knee. We see each other simultaneously. His face is a black as a rotting corpse; and his cold eyes are filled with evil. As he frantically reaches for the safety of his rifle, I fire twice. He crashes backwards....At headquarters I make my report. Then I go to the room that serves as a kitchen, take my carbine apart, and start cleaning it." (Chapter 17)

"Crack! It is like being struck with a ball bat. The ricocheting bullet digs a channel through my hip and knocks me flat....I raise my carbine and with my right hand fire pistol-fashion. The bullet spatters between the German’s eyes." (Chapter 18)

"'Wonder if I could get a carbine. I don’t like an M-1 for this woods fighting.'" (Chapter 19)

Art Eatman
January 21, 2016, 08:53 PM
I once worked with a guy who had been a USMC Medic in the Pacific, from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima. He commented that if a Japanese patrol came under fire at 500 or more yards from a carbine, they wouldn't bother to break stride. But if a Garand started chugging, they scattered.

I was issued an M2 in 1954/1955 during occupation duty in South Korea. I already had several years of '06 experience before I was drafted. The M2 was fun, for seagulls and such, and likely useful for up-close and personal social work, but I'd prefer more Oomph in a battle rifle.

cw308
January 21, 2016, 10:26 PM
Jimro, Ma Deuce. M2 50 caliber machinegun is the best battle weapon, not in the same league as the M1 carbine & M16.

HiBC
January 22, 2016, 03:56 AM
I guess I pick up something different from kraigwy's OP.

And its not about ballistics or semantics.

Its about the Old Man.

And the thoughts could be about boondockers vs jungle boots.

To quote Elmer,both the M-1 Carbine and the M-16,along with Kraig,and his Dad,can say "Hell,I was there!"

On rare occasions,I just smile,nod,Respect,and sometimes keep my mouth shut.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the greatest of respect for the Infantry Rifleman,and the Battle Rifle

Sometimes the battle weapon is not the rifle.For a Platoon leader,the Weapon is the Platoon.
Dire situations and desperate moments occur,up close and personal.But the PL might be better at observing and directing carrying a carbine.
As I recall,an AN-PRC 21 radio weighs just about the same as a BAR.Close enough to 20 lbs to not argue about.An M-60 ,about 23 lbs?

That radio fights by calling in fire missions,feeding back intell,etc.The radio man,whether the RTOor an FO,needs to be able to protect himself,but he may be more effective with the radio unencumbered by by a Garand.

The assistant gunner for the MG might be effective carrying a lot more ammo and a carbine rather than a Garand.

Same with the combat engineer and his demolitions.

None of these folks doing other jobs are rear echelon cooks.They just have a different focus,another use for their hands and eyes than being in a rifle battle.

Leave that to the rifleman.With his Garand.

Yes,there are times when the specialist is up to his hip pockets in alligators,and needs to stop someone from killing him.His Carbine is there.
Don't forget some folks were issued heavy,short range Thompsons and M-3's...even Reisings..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Non-Veteran says "Thanks,and Welcome Home" to those who Served.

kcub
January 22, 2016, 08:20 AM
For Art and those with M2 carbine experience; how did the M2 compare to the Thompson? The Thompson, though a great gun, would be pretty heavy to lug around. Also the ammo is heavy.

It seems like the M2 carbine extended the range of the submachinegun out to 100 yards or so.

Jimro
January 22, 2016, 09:54 AM
Jimro, Ma Deuce. M2 50 caliber machinegun is the best battle weapon, not in the same league as the M1 carbine & M16.

Neither is an M1 Garand or M14 or M110.

A Mk19 is a good thing to have when bad guys are shooting at you. As is having a radio to call in CCA or CAS.

Jimro

T. O'Heir
January 22, 2016, 01:39 PM
M1 Carbine was not a battle rifle. The M2 Carbine was not an SMG either. And if you think an SMG is no good at 100 yards, you need to think again.
"...M2 50 caliber machinegun is the best battle weapon..." A .50 BMG is not a battle weapon. It's purely defensive.
1500 x 764 pixels is too big.

James K
January 22, 2016, 01:53 PM
It is odd to see folks claiming that troops in WWII considered the carbine a "battle rifle" when most thought of it as a weapon for people who would do little fighting. US front line troops were issued the M1 RIFLE (aka the Garand), not the little M1 CARBINE, which was mostly carried by company grade officers and others whose primary duties did not include shooting people.

Jim

Jimro
January 22, 2016, 02:33 PM
A .50 BMG is not a battle weapon. It's purely defensive.

.50 BMG is just a cartridge, a cartridge that is fired by a number of weapons. The only weapons I know of that are designed for purely defensive jobs are ICBMs.

The Ma Deuce and the Barrett are definitely "offensive" in nature. The Gau-19B isn't exactly a slouch in the firepower department either :D

Jimro

cw308
January 22, 2016, 03:13 PM
The M2 50 cal. is getting away from the question posted. In the middle of a fire fight, when a 50 opens up, pouring pure hell out there IMO you see will see what a true battle weapon is. One of the first rounds that go off is at the 50 gunner.

Jimro
January 22, 2016, 03:22 PM
Here is a truth about military weapons.

On any given day, it doesn't matter which rifle or pistol that any given soldier has.

It is the right mix of weapons, properly supported by robust logistics and services, in the hands of competent Soldiers, guided by cunning leaders, that make battlefield victory.

It is true that some weapons are "better" than others, but it comes down to the right mix of weapons. Tactical victory comes down to making the enemy fight in two directions. Pin him with machine gun fire, then drop mortars on his head. Pin him with rifle fire, then send a squad to flank left (or right) to destroy with direct fire.

It is fun to talk about which rifle is better, but really it isn't the rifle. Never has been.

Jimro

kilimanjaro
January 22, 2016, 03:35 PM
The rifle is there is provide security for the machine gun team and the LT with the radio calling in Arty and snake and nape.

johnwilliamson062
January 25, 2016, 03:32 PM
I can't believe the legs this post has grown, especially considering the general agreement.

At the least I would have expected something like a tangent to a carbine chambered for the 300 BO being the cause for it to hang on this long.