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.