PDA

View Full Version : The M1 Carbine


Terry A
November 1, 2010, 07:33 PM
I've mentioned several times here that the M1 carbine is my 1st choice for all-time prettiest carbine. As a kid, I was "infatuated" with them. But when I shot them, there were feeding problems. I never owned any because I felt that they were less than reliable.

Here's my questions.....

1. Why are the post WW2 models so unreliable? Why can't these replicas of the WW2 models function better?

2. Has any one ever considered chambering a M1 for another caliber other than the .30? I'm not a gunsmith, but for any of you who are, could one be built to chamber a .223? Or even a .44mag? Ruger's .44 was a fine weapon but it had a very low magazine capacity. With the M1 design, a box magazine offers a better option IF it functioned more reliably.

I realize that some may be lucky enough to have a M1 that does function flawlessly. If you own one, can you elaborate on what you have and if you've done anything to enhance it's reliability?

Thanks!

Dfariswheel
November 1, 2010, 07:47 PM
First, the caliber.
The Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.
There was a .44 Magnum carbine, but it was a special built pump-action version with a larger receiver made by Universal called the Vulcan.
One of the more popular "other" caliber Carbines was the 5.7 Johnson, basically a necked-down .30 Carbine case.
Due to the size and strength of the action and magazine, there's only so many calibers the Carbine can handle, few of them better then the .30 Carbine, at least back in the Carbine's prime time of popularity.

As to the reliability issue:
The post-war commercial carbines were made from cast steel receivers. This was strictly a cost saving decision and much of the reliability was related to the quality of the receiver.
Then too, even though the earlier commercial Carbines used mostly military surplus parts, many of these were well-used or even rather worn parts that were refinished to look new.
As the supply of surplus parts dried up, the commercial companies began to make more and more of their own parts, invariably from lower quality castings.

Combine the cast steel receivers, used parts, low quality cast parts, and simply bad workmanship and the commercial Carbine just wasn't as consistently reliable as the forged steel USGI Carbine.
The US Government contractors insisted on turning out the best quality Carbines they could, and the government demanded they do just that. Makers who failed to meet minimum standards were rejected as Carbine makers.
The commercial makers were attempting to make a Carbine for as low a price as they could, and didn't have to meet any standards.

Red_Eagle
November 1, 2010, 08:33 PM
Don't quote me on this... but, at one time I think Universal or Iver Johnson was making one in 9mm Luger.

amd6547
November 1, 2010, 09:03 PM
Of the post war carbines, I consider the Plainfield to be the best. I owned one and it was always a reliable accurate version of the classic M1. That Plainfield got sold when I just had to have a Mini 14...a move I regretted as soon as I shot the Mini...it las less accurate at 50yds than the Plainfield was at 100yds, and the Mini had the occaisional jam.
My current M1 carbine is an Inland which I bought at the CMP North store (45min from my house). The only issues it has had were with MagTech ammo, which left spent primers in the action and caused a jam. It has been 100% reliable with every other brand of ammo and very accurate...it is easy to shoot softball sized groups at 100yds.
I really dont care about any other round in the M1 carbine...the weapon and round are so perfectly matched, and the the 30 carbine round does everything I want of it. My Inland is my goto HD longarm.
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h61/amd6547/P1000685Small.jpg

Terry A
November 1, 2010, 09:16 PM
First, the caliber.
The Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.
There was a .44 Magnum carbine, but it was a special built pump-action version with a larger receiver made by Universal called the Vulcan.
One of the more popular "other" caliber Carbines was the 5.7 Johnson, basically a necked-down .30 Carbine case.
Due to the size and strength of the action and magazine, there's only so many calibers the Carbine can handle, few of them better then the .30 Carbine, at least back in the Carbine's prime time of popularity.

As to the reliability issue:
The post-war commercial carbines were made from cast steel receivers. This was strictly a cost saving decision and much of the reliability was related to the quality of the receiver.
Then too, even though the earlier commercial Carbines used mostly military surplus parts, many of these were well-used or even rather worn parts that were refinished to look new.
As the supply of surplus parts dried up, the commercial companies began to make more and more of their own parts, invariably from lower quality castings.

Combine the cast steel receivers, used parts, low quality cast parts, and simply bad workmanship and the commercial Carbine just wasn't as consistently reliable as the forged steel USGI Carbine.
The US Government contractors insisted on turning out the best quality Carbines they could, and the government demanded they do just that. Makers who failed to meet minimum standards were rejected as Carbine makers.
The commercial makers were attempting to make a Carbine for as low a price as they could, and didn't have to meet any standards.



That's one of the best & most informative answers I've ever had the pleasure of reading here! Thank you so much!

Loader9
November 1, 2010, 10:11 PM
The Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.

Since you did such a good job with the rest of yer post I almost hesitate to post this. After WWII there was considerable talk about creating a smaller caliber rifle on the carbine action. The military ordered, received, and tested carbines chambered in the 22 Gustafson (sp?). That is the fore runner of the 223 when it first came out. Then there was also the M2 variant that shot the 45ACP in the modified carbine. It had far too many reliability issues with feeding and it was dropped.

Over the years I've probably shot a truckload of military 30 carbines. I've never had a failure of any kind from the rifle. Now something like a Universal carbine which is the after market carbine like Dfariswheel mentions, they're a reliability issue waiting to happen.

jrothWA
November 1, 2010, 11:13 PM
only thing I did was to detail the the entire action and lightly polished the feed ramp to minimize "stuttering" of soft-nose ammo.

JWT
November 1, 2010, 11:43 PM
I found amd6547s post very interesting when he mentioned how the MagTech ammo left spent primers in the action of his M1 carbine.

I have an Auto-ordnance carbine (I know it's not like owning a 'real' carbine) that has performed flawlessly except with MagTech ammo. The spent primers frequently come out of the casings and jam the action. Works fine with any other ammo I've put through it.

bamaranger
November 2, 2010, 12:01 AM
I've shot, or been on firing lines when a good bit of GI .30 carbine was being fired, in GI guns and they were all pretty reliable. The .30 carbine was a std tower rifle for the Fed Bureau of Prisons up into the late 1980's.

Kahr Arms (?) is making a carbine repro these days and I bet they are a cut above the Plainfield and IJ.

In the 1980's there was an outfit modifying the carbine to take the .45 Win Mag ctg and calling it the Mag1. I don't think the carbines held up and have not heard anything on the company in a long time.

The .30 carbine ctg is a mystery as far as how and why it was selected as near as I can tell from my limited reading. Cartridges w/ more punch and similar range (.351 Win SLR) were existent, yet not selected. Even a .40 Carbine would have made a better fighting ctg.

It is what it is though, and I too have always been fascinated w/ the little rifles, but never owned one!

pythagorean
November 2, 2010, 07:44 AM
I got a perfectly functional M1 Carbine from Kahr.
It is shown next to my SOCOM 16:

http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr145/whitehouse_2008/Centerfire%20Rifle/Combined/298.jpg

I think it was near $800 or $750 or something a few years back. No, it's not the original "historic" used M1 Carbine, but I wanted one brand new and I wanted nice wood too.

At the range I found it to be more than I expected.

gak
November 2, 2010, 11:24 AM
In over 40 years of shooting, I've never once had a problem with my two (original/unmolested) Inlands that wasn't related to an occasional FTF or FTE with cra* ammo, or the use once of an aftermarket 30 rd mag. One of these looks to have gone through the typical post war (WWII) refit stage (bayo lug and safety switch on a '43), but the other is a completely original '44 (with rare war-issue bayo lug with bayo) my father--a B-29 pilot--found NIB in the junkyard (!) on Guam in '45 looking for engine parts and getting pot-shot at by remnant Japanese!

Fabulous guns. Especially with current SPs, one of best HD weapons I can think of. To the OP, quit chintzing on yourself and get an original GI! They're out there. I've even found a few "imports" (re-imported GIs) that were pretty decent. Also, in terms of new, while not cheap, the likes of Fulton Armory probably is still the best and closest thing to a "real" new GI, being (mostly) sourced from original new parts IIRC.

Dfariswheel
November 2, 2010, 07:22 PM
Strangely, many generals in WWII despised the Carbine.
General Gavin of the 82nd Airborne hatred the Carbine and thought it was too unreliable for combat use.
He always jumped with an M1 Rifle.

It was the European paratrooper generals who were the people who actually requested a carbine version of the M1 Garand, commonly called the "Tanker Garand" today. They though a shorter M1 Rifle would be more reliable and could still be jumped assembled easier.

I will say, that I never saw an unreliable USGI Carbine that was in good condition and was maintained properly.
I saw a lot of commercial Carbines that were trouble.

grumpa72
November 2, 2010, 08:23 PM
Ref. the "tanker Garands", I thought I read over at the CMP forums, that there weren't any actual tanker models made and that this was an idea that was never put into production. Can you verify that these "tankers" were actually made in WW II? I have seen modern versions of these, being made from surplus M1s but never an actual one from WW II.

Loader9
November 2, 2010, 08:49 PM
In regards to the Tankers model or T-28 as some like to call it. I met a gentleman from Kerrville, Texas who was packing a set of Gov't Cartouche tools. He was an inspector during WWII for the Gov't and he said that there never was a Tankers model Garand. He claimed that the after market folks came up with the designation. But as far as the old gent goes, I did get several 03A3's from him, an 03A4 still in the green wrapper, and a National Match Model NB still in the green made in 1925. There were only 19 Model NBs ever made. All of the 03A3's have something rare on them like a Marlin 5 groove barrel, etc. And I also got an 03A3 carbine as issued for the Philippine Campaign from him that was used but in probably 95% condition. This particular rifle was also used in the article in the American Rifleman back in the 70's. So I think the ol' man had a clue what he was talking about. I, however, don't know that much about the Garand but I read about them everyday.

Airborne Falcon
November 3, 2010, 08:33 PM
My Uncle's WWII Carbine that he brought back with him from Germany ... he was a very young light colonel by war's end, and this is the one he carried. Got the DD 214 (equivalent) of his ETS paperwork - he bought it for $9.00 and passed it down to me in his will.

It had sit in his closet for sixty years when he died ... it had some dust issues but I cleaned it up, had it tuned up by a M14 smithy friend of mine and it runs like a sewing machine now - loves the Federal soft point 110 grain factory loads - plus I roll my own for it as well.

Had to add a period correct aftermarket sling, and I found the original silver oiler complete with the leather washer still in excellent shape. Was lucky to find a shoebox full of mags, all twenty rounders, and picked up some others that work fine.

http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx7/gallopazzesco/Mobile%20Uploads/utf-8BSU1HMDAwNTgtMjAxMDA4MTYtMTMzOS5qcGc.jpg

To me, the cartridge is perfect for the platform. But Art did have to tweak the bolt, also the extractor if I remember correctly, before we got it running just right.

My wife claims it as her personal defense stick in the house when I am out of town .... she shoots it very very well.

It's a 1942 Inland and it is really mint even up close. The top half of the forearm, the handguard, is some of the prettiest furniture on any of my long guns.

Chris_B
November 3, 2010, 08:39 PM
Ref. the "tanker Garands", I thought I read over at the CMP forums, that there weren't any actual tanker models made and that this was an idea that was never put into production. Can you verify that these "tankers" were actually made in WW II? I have seen modern versions of these, being made from surplus M1s but never an actual one from WW II.

The museum at the old Armory In Springfield MA has one T26. Didn't go into production though. I think three were made total


re: the M1 carbine

After shooting USGI examples and then buying one I understand the allure of this little rifle. Just plain fun to shoot

With the availability, reputation, and fairly low price of USGI models, I do wonder if there is actually a need for commercial models at all

I can understand the desire for a new gun even though it's not really my thing in most cases but the USGI M1 carbines work so well and are still going strong 65 years after production ended


edit
I realize that some may be lucky enough to have a M1 that does function flawlessly. If you own one, can you elaborate on what you have and if you've done anything to enhance it's reliability?


My own Inland from '43 runs like a clock and shoots well. It seems to me that contrary to most M1 carbines not working properly, most USGI examples actually work fine. This is in fact the first example I've read of someone asking how to get an M1 carbine to work correctly

I use USGI 15 round magazines. They cost about 15 bucks each.

I use a USGI carbine. I purchased it as an M1A1 actually but I have a full stock as well, a 'high wood' USGI stock

I have seen some reproduction 'low wood' stocks and I can easily see how the original reason for the USGI models to get 'low wood' could be a cause for concern- interference with the stock and Oprod may cause problems

Dfariswheel
November 3, 2010, 08:40 PM
The "Tanker Garand" was never a military issue rifle.

After the paratrooper generals asked for a carbine M1 Rifle, Springfield Arsenal built a couple of experimental models.
They concluded the muzzle blast and recoil was too excessive and when the war ended before they could do much more with the idea, they dropped the project.
There were only a couple of these made and only 2 or 3 survive in museums.
One is in the Springfield Armory museum in Springfield Mass.

There were apparently a small batch of carbine M1 Rifles built in the Pacific, and these were sent to Springfield for evaluation.
At some point during the war, Springfield converted all of these back to full size rifles.

Where the name "Tanker Garand" came from was from a big West Coast gun distributor who had a batch of surplus M1's that weren't selling. On a trip to Springfield, he saw the Garand carbine and had the idea to convert his rifles to up sales.
He came up with the idea of naming it the "Tanker Garand" and made up the story that General MacArthur had requested them for use by Pacific tankers.

All of the Tanker carbines that are around are commercial builds, some using receivers that were scrapped as un-serviceable. People welded these cut receivers together and built substandard rifles out of them.
To be fair, there are some around that were assembled by top gunsmiths.

The trouble is, you have no idea of knowing whether it's a good rifle or junk without shooting it.

Doc TH
November 3, 2010, 09:33 PM
I will go along with amd and gak. My GI carbine - DCM in 1965 - has been flawless through the years. I do not believe the cartridge is ineffective for its intended purpose, and take general officer's opinions with a grain of salt. My wife's uncle was in a Marine parachute battalion in WWII Pacific combat and thought the carbine was excellent. So, apparently, did the SAS in Malaya.
However, if someone could produce a carbine just as reliable in 5.56mm I might be interested just because of ammo availability and cost. Of course reloading .30 M1 would likely be just as useful.

Doug S
November 3, 2010, 09:52 PM
Never tried a commercial version, but my WWII Rockola has been 100%.

Brit
November 4, 2010, 06:15 AM
If the Security Industry in Florida were ever given the ability to carry short rifles, at the moment not! The M1 Carbine would be ideal, Hollow Point or soft Point ammo. would make it ideal.

The one I own spent years in an Armory in Germany, a couple of dings in the stock, otherwise like new!

Would like to pick up mil spec 15 round Mags; Suggestions?

Chris_B
November 4, 2010, 06:49 AM
I have no issues finding USGI 15 rounders, and I live in Massachusetts, the antechamber to hell as far as guns go. I think that a few commercial firms could claim to make 'mil spec' M1 carbine mags but my suggestion would be to stick with original USGI magazines; they are very high quality in my opinion

I think the CMP has them. Try gunbroker as well. They also come up from time to time for sale to members at usmilitariaforum

I'm astonished at the things you can still find; all these M1 carbine mags are original USGI, even the one at far left which looks like it was made yesterday. The more beat-up looking ones function perfectly though
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/newstuff/closer.jpg

RGPM1A
November 4, 2010, 12:10 PM
I always wanted and M1 carbine. The CMP doesn't have anymore except for really expensive ones on auction now so I went to some gun stores looking for them. A good USGI carbine around where I live (if you can find one) costs at least $700 to $900. So I started looking at the Auto Ordnance (Kahr) and Plainfield guns. Almost bought a new AO/Kahr for $700 but found a lot of negative reviews on various forums regarding reliability and/or poor workmanship. Also found a Plainfield for $400 but didn't buy it because it had some problems - bolt catch pin hole was worn out and the barrel was not indexed right. Still looking for a good USGI. Should have bought one years ago when the CMP was still the DCM.

NWPilgrim
November 4, 2010, 01:08 PM
Even though I was building up a few AR15 rifles a couple of years ago, I couldn't resist picking up a couple of M1 Carbines when the opportunity presented itself. I already had a couple of Garands, but had heard so much about the carbines. And with grandkids coming along I got to thinking a Carbine might be a nice step up from a .22LR for them someday. And if I can ever get my wife to shoot she might like a Carbine better than an AR.

Both of my Carbines are Inland 1942. Both have shot flawlessly with Federal AE and reloads (15.0 gr W296) with FMJ and SP. They are always a favorite at the range. Never met anyone who doesn't get a kick out of shooting them.

BTW, a Carbine deserves a stock mounted double mag pouch! :D

I think a SP load would be very effective for self defense or small game to 100 yds.

The Book
November 7, 2010, 08:26 PM
The WW2 models are the sweetest rifles out there

Ignition Override
November 8, 2010, 03:19 AM
RGPM1A:
I'm glad that you researched the issues and probably made the right decision.
You might have read the description of how (don't know why) the bolt got somehow jammed/stuck in my brand-new AO Carbine back in October '07.
$750 at "Guns And Ammo", Summer Ave, Memphis TN, and it was my first gun purchase, then age 52. "Prior planning (reading) prevents ****-poor purchase".

The gun was treated/handled very gently. The factory repair staff never explained what happened. And guys often call the SKS Commie junk;
very ironic-I have a Norinco. If the SKS is "Commie junk", then the junk works remarkably well after 2,000 rds. or more, unlike the brand-new US product I tried out on impulse, which jammed after about 300 rds.of new Rem. ammo from Bass Pro, on Sycamore View. :o.

Terry A
November 12, 2010, 05:59 PM
Thanks everybody for the great responses. I really enjoyed reading about your experiences with the M1. I'm going to keep my eye out for one to purchase.

kraigwy
November 12, 2010, 06:52 PM
I just came in from a shooting session with my CMP Underwood Carbine. I figure I'll only shoot it in GSM Carbine matches so pretty much all I shoot it at is the SR1 (NRA 200 yard target reduced to 100 yards).

This gun was made in Jan '44. Pretty good shape. I fired 40 rounds and never had a problem keeping them in the black (9-10-X ring). A couple sneaked out but that was me getting sloppy, not the gun.

I still cringe when I think I almost missed out on the CMP Carbine sales. I was gonna pick one up at the North Store in Sept when I went to the GSM Master Instructor's Course. I got yancy and ordered it the last of June. By Sept they were gone.

Those little suckers shoot, you got to give them that.

Brit
November 18, 2010, 01:35 PM
A little twist on UN fired Guns, a Remington 1100 Shot Gun, went to a impromptu 3 gun match, my buddy had a new, in Box 1100.

I said "You are nuts, you have not fired it?"

"This is Remington!" pull trigger at the start, no bang! It never did, off to Gun Shop, he said a drill was broken in the bolt!

I know, you don't believe it, I didn't either at the time.

MrAcheson
November 18, 2010, 02:17 PM
The "Tanker Garand" was never a military issue rifle.

After the paratrooper generals asked for a carbine M1 Rifle, Springfield Arsenal built a couple of experimental models.
They concluded the muzzle blast and recoil was too excessive and when the war ended before they could do much more with the idea, they dropped the project.
There were only a couple of these made and only 2 or 3 survive in museums.
One is in the Springfield Armory museum in Springfield Mass.This. Another is at the US Army Ordnance Museum. Currently that's at Aberdeen Proving Ground in MD but it is in the process of moving to Fort Lee outside Richmond, Va.

Airborne Falcon
March 31, 2012, 11:17 PM
I must have moved the pic of mine since it was posted above ... but here it is from the new location.

http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx7/gallopazzesco/preps/utf-8BSU1HMDAwNTgtMjAxMDA4MTYtMTMzOS5qcGc.jpg

Ridge_Runner_5
March 31, 2012, 11:46 PM
Love mine. It's a Plainfield Machine, so it wasn't in a war. But I love the styling and the character of it.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/Shooting/IMAG0095.jpg

Hawg
April 1, 2012, 07:56 AM
I know this is an old post but my Universal only needed the feed ramp polished to reliably feed soft points. It's been banging away since it was new in 1969. Pic isn't very good but you can tell it's never been a safe queen.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/rebel727/oldest/M-1.jpg

velocette
April 1, 2012, 08:12 AM
The little carbine can also be customised into an attractive and handy rifle with Mannlicher style stock & a Browning 2x scope.
I traded a revolver for this Inland rifle already customised. With the change of a few springs and a good cleaning, it is reliable and moderately accurate. It shoots anything I can stuff into the magazines, my reloads too (15.0 W296 / H110 & 110gr SP bullets) The Korean mags are excellent both the 15 rd and the 30 rd. By the way, the 30 rd Korean mags have a follower that will hold open the bolt after the last round is fired.

Roger
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p235/RogerS_photo/carbinear12-11004.jpg
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p235/RogerS_photo/carbinear12-11001.jpg

Sun Tzu
April 15, 2012, 04:18 AM
Armed Citizens,

The venerable 30cal. carbine w/a "16" barrel is a perfect HD weapon for myriad reasons...:)

It works!

It is lightweight even when fully loaded w/a 30 rnd mag...

It is easy to convert it to a cool looking polymer paratrooper style w/a black Choate Stock from Arkansas... :rolleyes:

It is easy to mount optics w/an after market weaver style rail system...

A real USGI mil spec carbine will always work!;)

An Auto Ordinance GI mil spec carbine will too!:cool:

I own both a 1944 dated, matching serial, Underwood that served in Normandy and a GI mil spec Auto Ord too!:D

Seriously, both weapons are fun to own an look at w/all their original stock furniture and accessories...:eek:

So if ya dig military weapons that are cool then get a REAL 30CAL CARBINE!!!

"I'd rather have a gun and not need it; then need a gun and not have it"...
Christian Slater "True Romance" 1992

pooka
April 16, 2012, 10:31 AM
I think they are great little weapons:D I own 3, a '44 inland M1A1, an early '44 IBM, correct featured, (orig fipper, type 1A band) and an IBM receivered Underwood bbl'd build up. I bought it as a mint stripped rec, then found a likenew Underwood bbl, and I had the rest of the parts. The M1A1 is fun to shoot, but my IBM mixmaster is my go to. All funtion w/o a bobble with ball ammo, never tried sp or hp ammo, but I just may get some and funtion fire it.

jimmythegeek
April 17, 2012, 05:38 PM
I was shooting off a bench rest this weekend and at 50 yards I was hitting from about 2"-8" above POA. For comparison, I shot a .22 and had a 2" group without even trying.

Any suggestions? Anybody seen anything similar?

Airborne Falcon
April 17, 2012, 09:36 PM
Could be anything if you are hitting that high.

Could be bent barrel, bad crown, bad sights or bad sight picture or it could simply be shooter error.

Take a straight edge of some sort, preferably a metal straight edge like a metal yardstick or something, and check the barrel.

Get out a magnifying glass and check the crown.

Examine the front sight post to see if it appears to have any filing marks or to see if the bead, or top of the post, had been broken-off.

There is a reason, you just have to find it.

kraigwy
April 18, 2012, 09:15 AM
I was shooting off a bench rest this weekend and at 50 yards I was hitting from about 2"-8" above POA.

That's a big problem with USGI Carbines. For reasons God only knows, GI's felt they had to file down the front sight on carbines.

The fix is to replace the front sight.

You can get more info on this at the CMP Carbine Forum.

http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6

jimmythegeek
April 18, 2012, 07:11 PM
If I was getting a group like I did with the .22, I'd understand.

I'll have a look at the barrel and barrel band, maybe it's loose.

dalegribble
April 18, 2012, 10:30 PM
i have always loved the m1 carbine. i finally had a chance to buy one from big 5 quite a while back. it is a commerative from iai that is a very good shooter with what i believe is a target grade barrel. i like it alot and it is pretty darn accurate.

Ridge_Runner_5
April 20, 2012, 11:39 AM
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/For%20insurance/IMAG0746.jpg
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/For%20insurance/IMAG0747.jpg

Peter M. Eick
April 22, 2012, 09:52 AM
Odd, my Inland 30 carbine is astonishingly reliable. It will basically feed and fire just about anything I have every tried to shove in it. I would have said it was exceptionally reliable once I culled a few bad mags. I bought about 20 of them and the rusty ones don't work so hot but the rest are great.

4V50 Gary
April 22, 2012, 11:50 AM
The M-1 carbine is a fun gun.

Back in the '60-'70s, if a GI carbine couldn't be found, there was Plainfield and Universal. Their replicas got cheaper as surplus parts dried up. I avoided them and lucked out in finding a Saginaw (GM steering gear) one for $100 in '77. Snatched it up without hesitation from the gun store.

The M-1 Carbine was the first rifle I liked as a youth. I have an IAI (Israeli) aftermarket one. The rear sight blade fell off after a few shots and being in the field, I couldn't find it. I bought a picatinny rail that replaced the handguard and will put a Tasco red dot on it.