What about the M1 Carbine?

[Avitron]

Many and I mean many of our soldiers used the M1 Carbine to defend our country and the M1 seems to be the forgotten one. Sure there are many that are M1 fans but does the rifle really get the credit it deserves for battling many wars, It served from the early 40's to the mid 50's, and the irony of it all it was an effective tool for many soldiers. To me the M1 was a love hate rifle. A soldier issued an M1 carbine knowing that he was going to march many many miles he was happy to carry the M1. It was light and effective. When a soldier knew he was to fight within a short walk distance he wished he had the M1 Garand. But all in a nutshell, the M1 carbine done it's job. So all in all I must give the M1 Carbine an standing ovation. Thanks M1.

[hunter_la5]

whats an M1A1 Garand? theres an M1A1 Carbine... theres an M1a1 Thompson submachine gun, theres an M1a1 Abrams main battle tank... theres an M1A rifle (civilian M14)... but no M1A1 Garand.
And since when has the M1 Carbine been forgotten? Its a pretty well known and respected rifle, and usually any conversation discussing World War Two rifles will bring up the M1 Carbine. Sure there have been arguments concerning the power (or the lack of) of the M1 carbine, but nobody has ever denied nor forgotten their key role in history. So basically what I'm getting at is, what's your point?
Oh yeah, and the M1 Carbine was even used in relatively small numbers all the way into Vietnam, it didnt go out of service in the 50s.

[Rojoe67]

As I understand it the carbine wasn't intended for front line troops. It was also (sorta) to replace 45 pistol. That said, we know what many airborne troops took into battle too. It was light and very adaptable for many troops with many specific missions. The main battle rifle as WWII was well underway was the Garand. It was by far the better rifle for ballistics and range. It's weight was a lot more than the little carbine and much longer. Two different tools for the troops that both worked very well. One must remember the many accounts from troops fighting against a heavy dressed enemy. The carbine often didn't get through the thick winter coats and liners. This information I have from a Korean helicopter pilot. He was shot down twice behind lines. He lived to tell the story of his escapes. He told me when in a fire fight with communist troops at a medium distance the 30 carbine wouldn't take the enemy troop down.

I would love to get a carbine but last time I looked into a new or like new rifle the price shocked me right out of the idea...... :(

[Avitron]

Hunter la 5,

Your right, sorry. I'm so hyped up on M1, M1A1 I got a little M1a1 on the brain. M1 Garand.

Rojoe67,

The M1 Carbine is a neat little rifle. Accurate, stable, consistant and nice piece in my collection. Most importantly the History behind it.

Avitron signing out...

[p99guy]

One thing I have allways found odd about the accounts of the Korean war use of the Carbine is the lack of penetration at close range stories.What has been surmized since that time is that 1. NK troops often went into battle high as a kite and just didnt feel alot of pain when hit..so little reaction. 2. the heavy cotton stuffing of the NK winter clothing absorbed blood like a kotex....so to an observer there was no blood coming out of that uniform at all, just an itty bitty hole. Now to a cold/scared 19 year old carbine carrier with shot placement that understandably isnt camp perry grade at that moment...its going to look like the carbine had little effect.And it isnt like he has time to go strip that body to see what really happend either.To somebody raised on Tom Mix westerns where anyone shot goes down instantly its going to look like a nightmare come true..but he in effect was facing the same problem police have with someone high on PCP..they are a bullet sponge!
The carbine has no problems getting through a modern Kevlar vest..the only soft vest that will stop it is a IIIA....and at 40 yards I have shot and killed a deer through a 4inch tree limb and completely penetrated the deer's neck and kept going.....so penetration at reasonable ranges isnt a problem. However the FMJ doesnt dump much energy on its way through...and doesnt create ghastly soft tissue wounds like a varmit rifle cartidge can so, shot placement is rather important. Using the soft point or hollow point ammunition
turns the carbine into a different animal that is quite effective at reasonable ranges...
It was a favorite in the 1960 and 70's with the NYPD stakeout squad
.It was the prefered weapon even over a shotgun with this group that waited inthe back rooms of stores waiting for an armed robber to show up.....they shot close to 50 people on that detail and never had a carbine loaded with expanding ammo fail to put a BG down for the count in one to two shots.
In WWII it was acknowledged that though the carbine was a liability to have in wide open country(it still would outrange any SMG) it was really prefered over a garand in house to house city fighting....and in close in fighting such as was the case with the Hurtgen forest, it held its own quite well. Hell the germans even liked it and would use one if availible to them(they even had their own model designation for them)
If used correctly and withen its range limtations,the carbine will do the job.

one note ,I put this in paragragh form..its just not posting that way.

[4V50 Gary]

The anemic M-1 Carbine hasn't been forgotten. What I forgot is which book I read an account in of a soldier shooting a fleeing German. He pumped a few rounds into the German who fell down, got up and ran until someone else gave him the "stay" command with a Garand. They unrolled the German's blanket roll and found the carbine bullets. :eek:

The 22 Johnson Spitfire should be the answer but it's not a field tested cartridge.

[gak]

Several years ago I spoke with a friend of my father's who was "there" at D-Day and beyond and carried the carbine exclusively (the subject came up because of my father's "pristine" carbine now in my hands :) he got on Guam/he was a B-29 pilot and stashed a new one found in the field junk yard behind his seat!) - and he liked it a lot. Said comparisons with the Garand are pointlessly futile/apples and oranges. Different missions but that description doesn't dis' the carbine; it was ultimately carried by a lot more troops than originally intended (and I think I read that more carbines have been made (through Korea) than any other US firearm. The Pacific theatre is really where the carbine came into its own as a primary/main battle weapon, as some have said particularly in close-in jungle/beach combat and, yes probably most effective there becasue of the lighter clothing. In any event, my father said that it was a fave among marines throughout the various Pacific campaigns and you saw a lot of them with "regular" troops (not just rear echelon, jeep drivers, command, etc., as has been so often reported (misleading), albeit its purported original design-mission. It's role grew much beyond, and despite its failings (power, range, heavy clothing penetrability) played a big part in our victory in both theatres.

I currently have two nearly-identical Inlands (a '43 and the above '44), great fun to shoot, reliable quality and handy (light!!) weapons for plinking, HD/SD, varminting, etc.,--and yes can do the occasional deer, short range in a pinch, though you would not buy for that function (for the flamers out there: of course, many better weapons out there for that duty as well as long range combat). The firepower out of the little bugger is a delight. Though mine are in great shape (showing very little sign of wear after 30 years in my ownership, 30 in my father's), investor types tell me I should quit shooting them though! Have backed off in recent years. No plans to sell but oughta save some of the fun for my antecedants!

[tulsamal]

one note ,I put this in paragragh form..its just not posting that way.

Just put an extra "return" where you want a new paragraph. That will give you an extra "line feed." That's what passes for paragraphs in this software!

Gregg

And yeah, I like my Rock-olo Carbine just fine! At least for a fun gun. Too many other choices in my safes to need it for serious stuff.

[gak]

A few more of the D-Day soldier's comments. He said there were many times he could see the enemy way off in the distance but was frustrated he couldn't do any thing about it. Almost a a verbatim quote "I could see them but couldn't do much about it. Truth be known, probably couldn't have with the Garand either (its range outdistancing its open sight-ability), but I could have at least scared the beejesus out of the bastards!" But he said in his duty (humping squad seargeant), he was more often thankful for the light weight and firepower than he was wishing for the more range and power. He also said that for every story of a Garand man extolling his rifle and attributing his continued life of because of, there's another one who wished to hell he didn't have to hump his "boat anchor of a gun" and had more ammo like his carbine buddies (both firepower vs the 8 rd clip as well as on his belt), and some who paid iup in injuries or their life because of it--just as there were carbine shooters who could've kept their life or a limb if they had the range/power of the G. But, carbine owners were more often envied for the plusses--especially for their firepower and strip-clip ability to quickly reload magazines when they got a break--than they were slammed (by Garand guys and themselves) for their disadvantages.

[Limeyfellow]

Some git rifled through my wife's uncle's gear before he was due home from Japan and nicked the m1 carbine he was hiding in there. Damnit I will get the guy who did that. I wanted it!!!

[Death from Afar]

I LOVE shooting the M1 Carbine, they are a hoot and a lot of fun. With cast bullets and mild loads they are cheap too. The problem is the suck on the stopping power front as has been noted. The bullet shape alone does not lean itself to stopping a rabid rat, let alone a Jap. Still, I would rather have one than a .45 pistola.

[Duxman]

My grandfather (WW2 vet) who fought the Japanese - said his favorite weapon was the M1 carbine. An accurate man stopper, it was easy to carry in the Jungles of the Philippines. Guess the japs did not have the same thick clothing the Germans had, because he had no problem taking them down with the tiny M1.

I salute the M1 and am happy with its modern counterparts - in fact my favorite gun is the Beretta CX4 Storm - a contemporary version of the good old M1.

[TPAW]

Avitron says........

It served from the early 40's to the mid 50's,

The M1 Carbine was still in service during the Vietnam Conflict which I believe ended in 1973. After that, it was still being used all over the world in 3rd world countries, and still is today.

[k_dawg]

i always find it humorous that one would use the M1 Garand to knock the M1 Carbine.. yet not the M-16!

A 30-06 just isn't comparable to the .30carbine *or* .223/5.56N !!

[TPAW]

Avitron says........

It served from the early 40's to the mid 50's,

The M1 Carbine was still in service during the Vietnam Conflict which I believe ended in 1973. After that, it was still being used all over the world in 3rd world countries, and still is today.

[Crosshair]

We need to compare the 30 Carbine to something a little more in its league. Comparing it with the 7.62x39 round, you see the 30 carbine in a new light. I believe that the specifications for the 7.62x39 (M43) round was to have 400 ft/lbs of energy at 400 meters, it does this easily. I don't know the specs for the 30 carbine, but I believe it was designed to be used at no more than 200 yards. (Yes it was used at longer ranges sussesfully) Put a spitzer bullet of about 125 grain like the M43 add a little more powder and you have an excellent intermediate round for combat. We where SO close to having the first true assault rifle, but missed the boat a little bit. The M1 Carbine still is an exellent weapon though.

[gak]

Crosshair, very good points. Although the x39 had yet to be developed, we had the the 30-30 to build on...if we'd just made it rimless for auto use, and as you say spitzer pointed, put it in a package weighing somewhere round the Mini 30 or between that and M-1 Carbine--wa-la. A mega carbine. I think I just invented the Mini-30! All very achievable. War-time military industrial politics kept it or a "better" Garand from happening. As it is/was, a lot of GIs fought and came away with a lot of affection (and a lot of derision depending on their particular circumstance) for the little bugger! We heard relatively little complaint out of the Pacific Theatre (South Pacific through Iwo through Okinawa) crowd, 60/40 TO 50/50 out of the European Theatre, and about 30/70 (pro/con) out of the Korean crew. For the latter two situations, thick clothing aside, its (relatively) lighter duty parts--or other design issue? (someone else chime in here)--apparently didn't like bitter cold/sub-zero campaigns.

[Crosshair]

I think the part about American guns freezing in Korea has to do with the weapon maintanance. IIRC the US mainly used grease to lube its weapons. In harsh winters that grease turns into a semi-solid that gums up the weapon. I learned that personaly with my SKS. Just a little grease and some -20F weather turned it into a high tech club. All I use in the winter now is gun oil except for a few spots, and then only sparingly. Save the grease for the heat of summer. Also, the Koreans where armed mainly with Russian weapons that where designed ,with great consideration, to function in the heat of the Russian summer and the cold of its winters.

The 30 carbine and the M43 where introduced only about 3 or so years apart Again, we could have easily had the first assault rifle. Though hindsight is 20/20.

[farmall]

Have always heard accounts of the .30 carbine round failing to stop North Koreans. I have never heard of an account of this being a problem (within reasonable range) under warm conditions, always bitter cold. I recall reading somewhere that the powder used to load this cartridge failed to deliver good velocity at low temps. If this was the case, coupled with the thick winter clothing of the NK troops, it may very well have lead to substantially reduced stopping power.
This powder is still available as pulldown surplus. I would welcome input from anyone who has used it in the cold, as I have always been curious to prove/disprove this.
Also, if you consider that the M1 carbine was intended to replace the M1911A1 for many troops, it can be viewed much more favorably. I have always thought the carbine made a dandy truck gun, but getting too pricey to abuse any more. Just my $.02, Thanks

[impact]

I just read some of the post and laughed! :D The M1 Carbine is a dandy close range gun. I have killed many hogs with the M1 carbine.

Many years ago! I helped build this bullet proof building to protect electrical instruments. I got ahold of a piece of this fiberboard looking stuff that was one inch thick. I was made here in Texas by a company that makes bullet proof material. I shot this stuff with a 45 colt loaded to the max in a Ruger Blackhawk. Almost what a 44 mag would do! I could not belive my eyes! The back of the 300 grain bullet didn't even make it to the front surface of the material.

So I shot it with the M1 carbine. it poked holes through this material like it wasn't even there. When people say the M1 carbine does not penetrate! I say there nuts :eek: . At close range the M1 Carbine will kill a hog pretty easy. I say this because I know.

The M1 Carbine can't penetrate clothes! Now thats funny!

[gak]

I've never had a problem with penetration :) (with my Inlands, plinking variety of materials). Does amazing things to old cars in dry river bottoms! You'd never guess "anemic" as someone put it. I grant you "soft" materials such as heavy quilted fabric, etc., can be a different story with some guns, especially if multiple layered.

[JohnKSa]

I've never figured out the "M1 Carbine won't penetrate" argument either.

The 7.62x25 pistol round kicks out a 30 caliber 80 something grain bullet about 1500fps and is well-known for being able to penetrate body armor that most pistol rounds won't touch. In fact, there is a special class of body armor designed specifically to defeat this round due to it's amazing penetrative powers.

So we add another 20 something grains to the bullet and another 200fps to the bullet to get to M1 Carbine performance (.30 caliber 110gr bullet @ 1700fps). And now, suddenly, magically, even with the extra weight and velocity, the bullet won't even penetrate heavy clothing.

Just doesn't sound right to me...

[63Belair]

I'm going to have to agree. I dont think if I put on a couple shirts, a wool sweater and a jacket or 2 that I would be immune to bullets from an m1 carbine

[Wildalaska]

Guess we need a test, someone remind me in Januar, ill grease my carbine up with GI grease, leave it in my truck overnight and see if it works in the morning!

And no penetration tests on spiffy, thank you

WildlovesthecarbineAlaska

[gak]

Yes, the penetration issue has always befuddled me a bit. In my shooting (of non human targets)--which has been a lot--the Carbine has at least appeared to do pretty major damage out to 125-150yds, even 175/200 yds, just 110 grs, blunt round 'n all--to the extent I certainly would not want to be on the receiving end of same! I've heard more about the Korean situation than others in this area re heavily quilted ChiCom and N. Koreans (someone posted here or elsewhere about complaints in the European theatre re penetration in the winter--German heavy wool coats, etc.). Never heard the same about similarly blunt (admittedly .355 dia but otherwise shorter cased) MP40 9mm rounds coming our GI's direction; maybe our men weren't as heavily clad.

[silascobb]

As far as a practical test, check out the box 'o truth:

http://www.theboxotruth.com/bot08.htm

where they explicitly mention that "[r]umors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War. Let's see what happens."

The .30 carbine round FMJ went through two blue jean layers of clothes, a milk jug, three pine boards (look to be 1/2 in) and ending up in front of a concrete block.

[Wildalaska]

That little test demonstrates why I carry hardball in my Colt Defender.

WildnuffsaidAlaska

[impact]

Good first post silascobb. welcome to TFL.

[gak]

Yes silascobb, great post! Amazing array of tests. Thanks.

[Rojoe67]

Just love a debate about debate. I should pipe back in with good data and fun reading and pics. I would trail along with folks who said winter in Korea meant layers and thick clothing. The grease on US firearms might have been factor too. I have heard the NK forces would get zipped up on what was available to add octane to their blood stream? All these plus the size of a bullet wound caused by FMJ. I don't want to debate a thing about the 30 carbine. It was a carbine that offered a lot more than the 45 pistol. That is what I understood the military minds had it made for. It was a good weapon within it's fair range. If we used animal names for clasification to firearms I might call this rifle a badger. *Wouldn't advise someone to corner a person with a few magazine and a will to survive. The Garand gets the bear title. *More of the hunter variable in my view point.

I still want one of each if anyone is selling ;) Yep, I have a fixed budget too. ;) Thanks.......already know all about the SKS. ;)

[gak]

Major .30 carbine fan and owner of 40 years, having "appropriated" my father's Inlands at age 11 :) as I tromped around with him and his trusty custom 1952 FN .270. I am starting to wonder--re the military debate--if, in some circumstances poor man-stopping performance was noted it was a matter of "over" penetration. I.e., creating a relatively small hole (as did the '06, but..) but then not expanding/dumping what energy it did have, within its otherwise effective range. It didn't knock people off their feet it went through them and if not hitting a "vital" vital, did not immediately put them down. LIke I say, just wondering, as the reports are certainly out there re less than desirable results, again at least in some circumstances. (In others you would think--just like Garand stories--that the Carbine was a real godsend.).

From "Buck's War" (italics added to differentiate from mine)
http://members.aeroinc.net/breners/buckswar/index.html
Although trained at Camp Stewart, GA in anti-aircraft artillery, he was assigned to be a "scout" and spent much of his war behind enemy lines laying communication lines. Because of the weight of the spools of telephone wire, he wasn't allowed to carry an M-1 rifle. He had to make do with a carbine (4 pounds lighter). He said he never liked the carbine because of its lack of hitting-power. From what he told me I believe he almost certainly took part in some of the battle of Hürtgen Forest on the Belgium-German border in the Fall and Winter of 1944. It was a terrible and costly battle which the Allies "won".

[CarbineCaleb]

Crosshair: I read somewhere that the Russian military thinking behind the design of the 7.62x39 was that a soldier couldn't reliably hit a man beyond 200 yards with open sights.

Therefore, an optimal cartridge would only need to perform well out to this range. Limiting the target range to practical distances, allows the catridge to work effectively, yet still be lightweight, and have low recoil - thereby making it even more effective.

I am not certain if that account of the strategy is true, but it certainly is pretty clever reasoning in any case. ;)

[IDriveB5]

can anyone point me in the direction of a good M1 carbine copy? this is the weapon my grandfather used in combat(WW2) and i think itd make a great addition to my collection.

[CarbineCaleb]

IDriveB5: I have heard good things about the Auto-Ordnance replicas - they are made right off the original blueprints, and are still very reasonably priced. See:
http://www.auto-ordnance.com/ao_aom110_f.html

P.S. I have read that Marvin Fackler himself has an M1 carbine for his home defense gun - if it's good enough for him, I am sure it is an excellent choice.

[CarbineCaleb]

As an aside, the M1 Carbine cartridge case has exactly the same length as the .357 Magnum cartridge case (1.29"):
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=14040&stc=1

So these two would appear to be close cousins. In fact, if we compare the .357Magnum with a 158gr bullet versus the .30 M1 with a 110gr bullet, the two are close analogs:

- Sectional density for the M1 is a smidgeon lower, at about 94% of the .357Magnum.
- When fired out of a 6 lb, 36" length lever action carbine (similar to the 5.5lb, 36" M1 Carbine), the .357Magnum velocity is a smidgeon lower, at about 96% of the velocity of the M1.

So, a Marlin 1894C, shooting 158gr softpoints, is rather like a lever action M1, with a little fatter bullet. :D

- M1 advantage is a little faster firing rate, and much faster reload rate
- 1894C advantage is benign appearence, and a much wider variety of ammunition types, including hunting rounds.

[gak]

IDrive: there are four, maybe five routes I believe which are valid--in no particular order except price (note #5 then would be out of synch):

1) The Auto-Ordnance (Kahr) already mentioned (and made more charming by their getting rid of the cheap looking ventilated metal handguard (which was never on the standard issue GI models) in favor of the original wood. Choice now of birch or slightly more expensive walnut (per the original GIs)

2) about the same price would be a decent but not outstanding original GI; at this price these days you can find a matching parts" weapon in this price range but are more likely to have pieces from several manufacturers (indicating it's likely been through an armory refurbishment)--which is fine for a shooter...these were made to be completely interchangeable from manufacturer to manufacturer. But like an old Corvette, "matching numbers" = greater collectibility if that's a factor

3) Matching parts GI in excellent condition now (typically) runs in the upper $00s approaching $1,000 (over if a rare one in original/NOS condition). RockOlas are the most collectible (and therefore priciest) to some due to rarity/low production numbers. Winchester next because of the name, then IBM and Inland and a number of others. Inlands are the most prolific.

4) Fulton Armory - In teh $1,000 territory...Completely rebuilt, "essentially new" condition (some would say "better than new" in terms of fit as supposedly all hand assembled using original parts, forged receivers, etc.--all in original GI configuration, likely of the later part of the war (which would also mean Korea) = round bolt, adjustable rear sight (windage, etc), lever safety, etc. All walnut stock'd I believe.

A 5th; would be just a cheaper "commercial" model just for a shooter: IAI (Israeli Arms), or older Universal, Plainfield or Iver Johnson commercial "copies," some with the cheap metal handguard.

[IDriveB5]

gak, caleb, thanks for the information. one day, one of these things will find their way into my collection

[Crosshair]

Actualy CarbineCaleb, the Russians used SMG's in WWII at ranges up to 200 yds. (About 100 yds effective.) What they needed was something with the rate of fire of a SMG with the range of a rifle. The Germans with their MP44 was used to help design the M43 round (7.62x39). Again, most combat DID happen within 200 yds, but you wat more range for the times you need to take longer shots. The Dragunov was used for shots past 400 yds.

[gak]

CarbineCaleb, interesting post on the .357 comparison. Always wondered what the LeMag M-1 Carbine would've been like in a .357--sounds like maybe not that much difference...but I guess moot since the rim design does not lend itself to semi-auto use?

[CarbineCaleb]

gak: Yes, certainly the .357 and M1 would as you say, not be interchangeable, however I found the similarity between the two designs fascinating - they are both cylindrical cartridges of the same length, which admit similar pressures - which implies analogous bullet velocities and ballistics (just a wider path).

After seeing the comparison between these two, I looked for more cylindrical cartridges of length 1.29inches, and found three more - and created a thread in Handguns General - A Tale of Five Magnums - Brothers in Arms:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176073

This is just so cool! :D

[gak]

CarbineCaleb, this is certainly some fascinating information. I was not bashing your .357 analogies, just the opposite, but pointing out (to myself if no one else!) the likely reason the LeMag, for instance, wasn't chambered in .357--that being the rimmed case design...that the .30 Carb was designed from the outset as a semi to full auto round. Interestingly, CarbineWilliams ( :) )/Winchester could have taken a .38/created .357 and "de-rimmed" it for a, presumably, slightly more powerful Carbine..but within the same package size would've meant the disadvantage of a slightly less magazine capacity and who knows what (real) advantage other than the larger hole. Your posts are good stuff!

[Marko Kloos]

I am not certain if that account of the strategy is true, but it certainly is pretty clever reasoning in any case.

I have to agree with their line of reasoning. The M43 Soviet is the perfect example of a tailor-made rifle cartridge that does exactly what it is supposed to do, nothing more or less. It's not a good 600 or 800 yard round, but it was never meant to be one. For what it is, an intermediate-range, low-recoil .30-caliber rifle round for 0-200 meter infantry combat, it's just about perfect.

For my money, the M43 is the best compromise for infantry combat anyone's invented so far. Less recoil and ammo weight than the .308 or .30-06, makes bigger holes than the .223, and does the job perfectly well inside typical infantry engagement ranges.

Dunno about today's U.S. Army, but from my experience in another army, iron-sighted rifle fire at moving targets beyond 200 meters is largely a waste of good ammo. If the target is further out than 200 yards, and it's worth shooting at, you let the squad's GPMG do the honors, or you call in the heavy gear.

Oh, yeah...regarding the .30 Carbine: it always amuses me how people deride 900 foot-pounds out of .30 Carbine out of the War Baby as "anemic", but consider the same energy in a .357 Magnum the Hammer of Thor in terms stopping power. I have shot quite a few rounds of .30 Carbine at quite a variety of targets, and I have to chuckle at the notion that .30 Carbine ball ammo won't go through a winter coat.

Let's see...stick a 100-pound North Korean or Chinese soldier into big and bulky quilt clothing. I can see how someone can shoot at a small-statured Asian clad in such a fashion and mistake bullets zipping through excess clothing as "bullets not penetrating the winter coat."

That's even discounting the people who missed with their shots...well, obviously the Carbine lacked stopping power, since the bad guy didn't go down, right?

On the M1 Carbine itself...the War Baby is a dandy little gun. Light, handy, good sights, good capacity, low recoil, fairly accurate. It only comes up lacking when you compare it to the M1 Garand, since it was never meant to be, or replace, a full-powered battle rifle. On its own merits, and used within its limitations, the M1 Carbine is a very good design.

[gak]

Marko - great post. Nice sum-up! Garand comparisons are futile. But equally ridiculous is relegating the Carbine to the "behind the scenes" rear echelon jeep driver/communications line runner/assistant-to-the general role as in reality it took on much more (than perhaps originally intended) than that in both theatres of battle and then of course in Korea. I'm with you on the penetration issue. In its post war glory days, my Inland has made a real mess of many a dry-river-bottom old (real steel) car and 50 gallon drum--and not just from 50 feet away--and pretty accurately too..always a surprise to companions looking on and then trying it for themselves!

Where/when it was derided typically (like any weapon) was when--in some manner--it did not do what the shooter "wanted" or "needed" it to do (of course), regardless of whether it could have been expected to or not in that circumstance for what it was. "A long range shot was needed" and it couldn't comply. OR "penetrating a major barrier was called for" and it couldn't cut it. Etc. The Garand's version of this same logic stream for some circumstances would have been "a light, handy weapon for close-in, high firepower combat" was needed and the G could not comply. "More ammo was needed (on one's person or in the weapon itself)" and the G could not comply. Etc. Fill in the blanks with any number of other weapons...Thompsons and M-3s, BARs, etc. All excelled or came up a bit short or flat out failed in a variety of circumstances.

[CarbineCaleb]

Marko: Dunno about today's U.S. Army, but from my experience in another army, iron-sighted rifle fire at moving targets beyond 200 meters is largely a waste of good ammo. If the target is further out than 200 yards, and it's worth shooting at, you let the squad's GPMG do the honors, or you call in the heavy gear.

Yep, the same article that I read regarding the Russian strategy also said that their convention was to have the squad equipped with the 7.62x39mm for the vast majority of the work (out to 200 meters). And, every squad was also required to have one trained sniper with an accurate long range rifle for those instances where it is desired to effectively engage someone at long distances.

Again, that is smart - since the times they will be needed is rare, the personnel/equipment are weighted towards what is required 95% of the time. And, for the rare times when long range shooting is necessary, since it can't be done well with open sights anyway, you can take your time a little bit in responding (your opponent faces the same range issue). There, use one weapon and trained soldier optimized to solve that particular problem. Very logical.

[gak]

Hate to say it but this Vietnam Vet has some points. Just goes to show how objective I am posting this! :-) Still think the little bugger's a great gun but--going by this--has its limitations (of course). Accounts like these don't diminish its effectiveness in civilian hd/sd. Reference to "small hole" must be that it was not tumbling upon entry-that presumably it was going straight in...otherwise the x39 and .223 would have similar comments.
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9908a&L=wwii-l&T=0&P=29898
More discussion in the same thread
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind9908a&L=wwii-l&D=0&H=0&O=T&T=0
One example of discussion, in response to someone interested in buying an M1 Carbine. As with most everything, read the entire thread for a better picture.
Well the real question is "what do you want?" As a historic collectable,the carbines, M1 and M2 certainly qualify. If you want a "Plinker" to shoot cans, the ammo is probably cheaper than M 1 rounds. If you are
planning on becoming a mercenary in Africa, buy an AK 47 or 74 off the
black market some where. If you are going into combat, join the Army or the
Marines and they will issue you a weapon and you can save your money for
something else.

If you want an all round weapon, good for home defense that both you and
wife can easily handle and shoot, it is a good weapon.

If you plan to do much shooting of it, buy the newer ones. If you plan to
shoot it once and put on the wall, then the older ones. Just remember the
older it is, the older and more worn are the parts.
Bill Howard
THE WILLIAM L. HOWARD ORDNANCE TECHNICAL INTELLIGENCE MUSEUM
e-mail [email protected] Telephone AC 727- 585-7756

[gak]

Just about everything I've read has indicated that almost all negatives on the carbine's reputation (among many) for relative lack of hitting power in combat can be attributed to the FMJ bullet (combined with, unlike the '06 and its same .308 dia., its pistol length design) which, despite the fact that it produces more muzzle energy than the .223, punched "a small hole and didn't deform much/doesn't dump much energy on the way through the BG, (especially at longer ranges)...but modern ammo changes things considerably...as an effective HD/SD weapon, bringing the round much closer to the .357 Mag in performance/ effectiveness, which is seldom accused of being anemic..." -- to paraphrase (consistently, patching together various compatible pieces of discussion) many, many accounts. This suggests that, if placed back in the modern-day combat role--meaning no change--it would (because of FMJ-only restrictions) still/again portray these limited attributes...but that in civilian duty--without military restrictions--it can be called upon for very reliable SD use.

[KaceCoyote]

Yaknow, if Auto-ordinance made an M1 carbine in .357 mag with the folding stock I'd own one by now. Its that simple.

[JohnKSa]

Load up some carbine rounds with JHP or SP bullets weighing between 130 and 160 grains and it should perform virtually identically to a .357 Mag.

[KaceCoyote]

with .357 however I have a much wider selection of ammunition to choose from, aswell as the fact that I already have revolvers around the house chambered in .357.

[gak]

KaceCoyote, unfortunately the rimmed design of the .357 round means we won't be seeing that variant any time soon. It does point out that (as a recent thread or two noted the identical case length of the .30 Carb vs the .357M (and .41M and .44M)), would otherwise mean a fairly easy conversion to the larger round and "they" had the opportunity (by coming up with the .357 concept earlier!-so this is all hypothetical) to make the carbine a ..357 by designing a rimless round in that caliber for the M1 format: wa la a "super carbine"! In literally the same package, would've reduced capacity maybe to 12 and 25 for the "15" and "30" rd mags respectively but it might have been a nice tradeoff--or just make slightly longer mags! I gather this (rim vs rimless issue) is the reason the LeMag M1 Carbine was never made in .357.

[FrankDrebin]

That said, we know what many airborne troops took into battle too. It was light and very adaptable for many troops with many specific missions.

For what it's worth, the WWII Airborne guys I talked to almost universally hated the M1 Carbine, and grabbed Garands at the earliest convenience. The ones with the most trigger time disliked them the most.

[Marko Kloos]

Lieutenant Audie Murphy spoke very highly of the M1 Carbine, and he wasn't exactly a REMF.

Check out the picture below, as well. It's the first (original) flag raising on Mount Suribachi, Iwo Jima. While they were putting the flag up, there was still fighting going on all around them...one member of the flag party had to kill a Japanese officer who charged them with a sword minutes before the picture was taken.

Check out the rifle that just about all the trigger pullers in the picture are carrying.

[DT Guy]

I wouldn't want to charge a position defended by Carbines; while the Garand is a legend, in close-up and personal fighting I tend to think of the Carbine as a .357 magnum with a 30 round magazine, if it's loaded with SP or HP ammo.

Don't forget, ergonomics come into play here, too-in a bunker (or a front room) the Carbine can be brought to bear quickly, handles well, can be shot with control very quickly and just generally WORKS. In that sense, it does things a Garand won't do.



Larry

[Whitworth]

Ok, it's American, and it will find support from that direction. And it's "fun" to shoot. [Perhaps, not so much in combat]

Ballistically, the 30 M1 Carbine is anemic or relatively anemic, when compared to other military rifles of the WWII and Korea era. When you see the word anemic, you should pop up and ask, why was it invented?

It was invented or developed because many of the new soldiers, such as the 90 day wonders becoming officers, could not qualify with the .45 caliber Colt service pistol. Rear echelon soldiers would not have extensive training and practice in firearms, so the 30 M1 Carbine was better than equipping them with a box of rocks or a slingshot.

That brings on the next question, -what do you mean every American soldier in WWII wasn't Wyatt Earp or a Daniel Boone or a Alvin York? Sure!

The 30 M1 Carbine fired a 110 grain full metal jacket bullet, at just under 2,000 feet per second. Compared to the future AK-47 and the M-16, the 30 M1 Carbine ballistics are on the weak side.

Sometimes the truth hurts!

[JohnKSa]

It was invented or developed because many of the new soldiers, such as the 90 day wonders becoming officers, could not qualify with the .45 caliber Colt service pistol. Rear echelon soldiers would not have extensive training and practice in firearms, so the 30 M1 Carbine was better than equipping them with a box of rocks or a slingshot. Never seen a thing to support this allegation. As far as I can tell it wasn't ever considered or used as a replacement for pistols, but rather as a replacement for rifles among the troops who would be hampered in one way or another by carrying a full-size rifle.

[Picher]

I was very fortunate to be able to shoot my brother's minty carbine with a flip rear sight many times. This was back in the fifties and the rifle may have been stolen, but was passed through relatives, along with several magazines, thousands of rounds of ammo, cleaning supplies, etc.

The guy who "appropriated it" had died and his mother gave it to my aunt, who gave it to my brother. My brother got in an accident and didn't have insurance, so had to sell it. Darn...darn...darn!

Anyway, I found the rifle very accurate and a lot of fun to shoot. The only reason I haven't bought one is that I can't find one as nice as my brother's and don't want to shoot a rough copy.

Picher

[CarbineCaleb]

Ballistically, the 30 M1 Carbine is anemic or relatively anemic, when compared to other military rifles of the WWII and Korea era. There is no denying that the M1 Garand, in .30-06 hits harder and is a better long range rifle (beyond 150 yards). But before you pronounce the Garand as simply better, consider the following:


M1 Carbine has ballistics at 100 yards similar to a .357 revolver at the muzzle
Marvin Fackler, the combat surgeon and ballistics expert, chose an M1 Carbine for his own home defense
Most military shots are supposed to take place within 100 yards
Iron sights (as on the Garand) are largely ineffective on mansize targets at 200 yards
Most experts say that the .30-06 produces flinch in the average hunter
I have read a military historian who said that the .30-06 produced flinch in the average soldier, causing big problems with accuracy, and absolutely dismal hit rates in WWII
The M1 Carbine will be faster handling and faster for followup shots (important at close range)
The M1 Carbine will be easier to carry, as will it's ammunition, and many military experts say logistics is one of the big challenges for military operations


I am not saying the Carbine is better for everything, but I don't think you can just look at a cartridge and just say - bigger is better. There is a lot more to it than that for any shooter, and in equipping an army, you need also to consider the performance of the average soldier, because that's what it's made of.

[JohnKSa]

I don't think you can just look at a cartridge and just say - bigger is better.I agree. But that's the American way--especially when it comes to guns and bullets... ;)

[gak]

Whitworth: Geez- enough with the comparisons of weapons that came later or with the Garand -- apples and oranges (and as far as later designs go (AKs etc.) moot). They BOTH did things the other couldn't and had their great place in history because of it--reason alone for both to be in the same battery.

For every one you find that didn't like the carbine (or Garand if you reverse the bias) -- because it didn't do what he needed or wanted it to do in a circumstance(s), REGARDLESS of whether it should've been expected to by design in that circumstance ...you'll find another who is very thankful they didn't have to hump that under-capacity'd boat anchor through the jungles of Burma, Guadacanal, Okinawa or sand and lava crap of Iwo. For every Garand guy who extolled the virtues of his weapon (powerful, long range/accurate, rugged), you'll find one who eye'd his buddy's carbine with great envy for its rapid fire under control, extra capacity, strip-clip reloadable mags, near half weight and size. wieldability, etc., etc. AND for every one that liked the carbine for those same reasons, there was likely another grunt who'd give his eye teeth for the powerful Garand because of something he ran up against once, twice or daily.

The carbine was a great weapon -- for what it was, and regardless of original war dept. design intent (whatever that was), it ended up performing a major--in some cases primary--front line role in many campaigns, esp the Pacific theatre. On the positive side for both, my guess is that carrier's of both weapons have many stories of how their particular weapon's characteristics (the "other" didn't have) saved their or a buddy's life, and because of that experience(s) wouldn't have traded it for the world.

[migrantmigraine]

Pardon the intrusion/off topicking.
I'd thought that a new M1 Carbine would only come from Springfield Armory at $1500+ - thanks a million for the Auto-ordnance link. Loved semis from the time I got a .22 Marlin... would like to ramp up caliber somewhat.

Is the .30 Carbine just incrementally louder than a .22 magnum, or more along the lines of a .30-06? Or 12 gauge - I know those reports reasonably well (30-06's still echoing in my eardrums, 10 years later), but no others.

Is .30 Carbine respectable for hunting deer, or just the demonic armadilloes which prowl the Texas wastes and wreak havoc?

[FrankDrebin]

Is .30 Carbine respectable for hunting deer, or just the demonic armadilloes which prowl the Texas wastes and wreak havoc?

No deer, unless you really hate deer....I'd stick to the armadilloes....

[gak]

MigrantMigraine, about half way inbetween the .22M and '06 or where you might expect it. But definitely more toward the latter in overall impression--though still nowhere's close. If a 22LR's a 1 and a .22M's a 2 or 2.5 and the '06 a 10, then about a 6. Probably somewhere between a .38 Special and a .357, maybe a .40 SW. Though you should always wear hearing protection whatever you shoot, it's actually shootable without (or at least apparently without; not prescribed! Huh? What did you say?! Like anything else, It'll leave a ring in your ears , more than some, less than many)--A good pop to it nevertheless...enough to make you know you've definitely got something more than a .22Mag. It is definitely louder than a .32 Mag and 9mm. And you definitely want to wear hearing protection if shooting a Ruger Blackhawk .30. Plenty unpleasant.

[CarbineCaleb]

Is .30 Carbine respectable for hunting deer, or just the demonic armadilloes which prowl the Texas wastes and wreak havoc?

It's legal in some states for deer, but not most, I believe, which is a good indicator that even if it's legal in your state, it's questionable.

[CarbineCaleb]

FMJs are probably the best for plinking/range use, and Winchester makes a round that would be ideal for home defense they call the "110 gr. Super-X® Hollow Soft Point":
http://www.winchester.com/images/product%20catalog/hsp.jpg

At 2000 fps, that's going to cause a real problem for any bad guy who's unlucky enough to be standing in front of it.

[CarbineCaleb]

migrant migraine: Regarding the .30 Carbine ballistics, you may be interested in a thread that I wrote last week called "A tale of five magnums":
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176073

Penetration of the .30 Carbine should be about equal to carbine rifles firing the other rounds with the bullet weights indicated (357Magnum/158gr, 41 Magnum/200gr, 44Magnum/220gr, .480Ruger/275gr).

I will probably get flamed for this, but, while I don't think the .30 Carbine is a great round for deer, the more I look back at what I wrote earlier and stare at that figure, the more I am convinced it would work ok inside 100 yards with proper shot placement. It'll make the same hole the other Magnum pistol rounds do out of a long gun, just a narrower one. That's not quite as good of course, but a hole through the brain, or heart, or both lungs is going to be fatal all right, no doubt about that.

If it were me, I wouldn't use it though - I'd rather use something I am sure is adequate, and would allow some margin for error - it's just as easy to choose a 30-30 as an .30 Carbine if you want to hunt deer, and the 30-30 has been proven by lots of experience to possess the power to take deer cleanly out to 200 yards.

A quick look at the 30-30 versus the .30 Carbine shows that although they both have .30 caliber bullets, in 170 gr, the 30-30 has almost twice the muzzle energy (1827 vs 967), as well as almost twice the momentum (374 vs 209). So maybe the .30 Carbine can do it, and do it not much worse than a .357 Magnum... but likely it's still not a conscientious choice - why use a marginal round when you can just as easily use a humane one?

[KaceCoyote]

If Ruger can make a .44 mag carbine, why cant they make an M1 carbine in .44 mag?

[CarbineCaleb]

KaceCoyote: I don't know why Ruger (or other companies) don't enter the .30 Carbine market... but I don't expect there's that much to gain by choosing anything other than the Auto Ordnance M1. It's made right off the GI blueprints by a company with a long history of making quality firearms. That design was tested in 3 wars (WW II, Korea, early Vietnam) and seems to work quite well.

It's 36" long, 5.5lb, has a peep sight, parkerized finished steel, walnut stock, and is available with magazines of all sizes. It is reputed to be both accurate and reliable and costs about $525 on the street. Not a big game rifle, but seems like a great plinker/range/home defense gun.

[Limeyfellow]

<i>As far as I can tell it wasn't ever considered or used as a replacement for pistols, but rather as a replacement for rifles among the troops who would be hampered in one way or another by carrying a full-size rifle.</i>

It was considered a replacement for the handgun for non fighting troops, since they wanted something that was easier to train and maintain for drafted troops than than m1911, had more power and accuracy over a further range, since it was more dangerous than it used to be in prior wars for these troops, and the rifle was considered too big and overpowered. Thats what was the basic request for the weapon anyway. It also had big problems that it couldn't be fired one handed and lacked the same stopping power at close range of the 1911.

It just happened to be quicker and cheaper to produce than the M1 which is why so many saw frontline service. Its true value is short distance shooting such as Jungle warfare and I heard high praise from it from the troops in the Korean War (in the summer at least. In winter it just froze up like a rock).

[gak]

CarbineCaleb: No, no flame here. As a kid I used to take the carbine out deer hunting--trailing my father with a real deer gun, .270--but (perhaps thankfully) never shot one with it. I have heard several stories of ok effectiveness (as said, with proper shot placement) in the sub 100-125 yd range. That said, I would not go out an purchase a carbine for the purpose, and these days (as a more knowledgeable adult) only use it in a "survival" situation or otherwise "have to" circumstance.

Kace: Not sure, maybe something to do with the rimless design of the M1 Carbine feed vs the rotary clip fed (and maybe some other design aspect permitting rim'd feed with the Ruger) of the Ruger .44. (and maybe one reason why we don't see a nice stick mag for the Ruger?) Same reason a .357 (to my knowledge) conversion has not been done on the M1.

Below is a nice run down of carbine conversions, most of them wildcat rounds, over the years. This notes a .357 rimless round creation/conversion at some point by somebody, as well as .45 ACP, 10mm, etc.. The larger conversions obviously cutting down on the M1's traditional high capacity fairly considerably. For me, I think .357 is about as far as I'd be willing to compromise this nice characteristic of the M1 platform--and still keep the overall concept of a low-recoiling, high capacity/firepower fast handling gun. I think this link says a 10mm (.40 dia.) reduced the 15 rounder to an 8 rounder--and we're back to Garand land! :) But that would mean the 30 rounder would be 16 and maybe that wouldn't be so bad! . But I agree, it would be nice to have an M1 "concept" gun (meaning scaled up just slightly all around incl mag length)- shooting the .44 -- or Ruger could just do it "right" and modify their chamber/mag well for a proper stick mag! Wa la! M1 - .44!
http://www.thegunzone.com/carbine-wildcat.html

[JohnKSa]

Limeyfellow,

Again, I've never seen anything to support the contention that the M1 was issued to troops who would otherwise have pistols.

The first step in proving your contention would be to determine WHO was actually issued pistols normally vs who ended up carrying carbines. The two groups are not at all the same from everything I've seen.

[gburner]

Great info in this thread, thanks all...
Question...Do we like the War Baby better than the SKS?
Forget the rich history and all the battlefield stories.
How do the two really stack up against one another?
Which would you choose? The M1 is a pound lighter, 3 inches shorter, uses varied capacity magazines, has better sights (?), but shoots a ballistically inferior round compared to the 7.62x39 and you can buy 3 SKS and ammo for the cost of the new AO M1. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Crosshair]

We don't seem to have a problem with the 22LR feeding from "regular" capacity magazines. What would be so different from making it work for 44 Magnum. I have shot a Desert Eagle in 44 Mag (Fun time :D ) and it fed the rimmed 44 Mag no problem.

[impact]

gburner what do you like better? Keystone or Fosters? when I have the money I will take a Fosters. When I just have change in my pocket I might have a Keystone :D

[Tacoma]

Not to highjack the thread but I've been seriously considering buying a M1 carbine for plinking and (possably) competition in local military matches. I've had a love afair with this style rifle since those old war movies. Even got a Crossman M1 bb gun when i was 9 :-). Anyway, I know squat about picking a good one. Model changes? sight types? serial # significance....... Can anybody point me to a site /document that will help me get smart on these before I buy? ps. Local shop has an Inland which appers to be in excellent condition . It wears a folding stock. How can I tell if the stock is origional ? Waht serial#'s should match and where are they Is $700 reasonable if it is?

[gburner]

Impact...fair analogy, but the question was asked seriously. I have always wanted an M1 but choked on the price at $500 and up. I own an SKS and like it alot but am looking for rational justification for replacing it with the M1. What will it do that the SKS won't do except dig a deeper hole in my pocket?

[Marko Kloos]

It's legal in some states for deer, but not most, I believe, which is a good indicator that even if it's legal in your state, it's questionable.

You mean, like the current service round? The military deems it sufficient to take on the most dangerous prey in the world (armed men), but my own home state seems to think it's insufficient for the scrawny whitetails that bop around in the hills.

There's an interesting question to gauge one's confidence in one's chosen rifle round...would you keep using it if the deer had opposable thumbs and AK-47s? :D

[impact]

gburner don't replace your SKS just add a M1 Carbine. If you are looking at cost stay with the SKS! If you are a gun nut like me and others you won't need to ask a question like that. Look why do people buy Harlys that cost way more than a jap bike?

You could also look at it as an investment. sure ammo is going to cost more. But the price of the gun will go up in time if you land an military M1 Carbine. I just dropped $1300 on a M1A loaded and then turned around and traded the gun off for what I thought was a better M1A. I still can't belive the guy wanted my gun because it had a bayo lug :confused: . I took the new gun to the range sat and shot the best peep sight group at 100 yards. just over 1.5 inches. These guns just make my happy thats why I have them.

I alos like to collect these guns because they remind me of our men who went into battle. Every time I see one of these old guns I thank the men who fought for our country and did what they had to do. Makes proud to be an American.

If my buddy who is a nam vet knew I had a SKS and AK I think he would stick them up my :eek: :D . I lost interest in my SKS and AK. I'm thinking about selling the guns to help finance a Garand.

[migrantmigraine]

Thanks for all the info... is it possible for one to stick a spitzer (or whatever they call them pointy bullets) in a .30 carbine cartridge? Would it improve performance significantly if you did, or would it get stuck while loading? Just would love to have a M1-Carbine, with reasons aside from self-defense (after all, they do make the 12 gauge). Not being a hunter, I'm wondering if there's any prevalent smaller game (aside from squirrels) to be knocked over somewhere south of the Mason-Dixon and West of the Mississippi.

And 200 yards - even with a scope - for me seems stretching it with any caliber (I am not a crack shot. My rifle pattern probably looks closer to a shotgun pattern). At that kind of range, I'd have to call in an airstrike.

[jeff_troop]

spitz would be too long for an m1 carbine

[Crosshair]

I was thinking that the 30 carbine would make an exelent case for something like a 300 Whisper in performance. Ammo is common enough so that you have have plenty on hand for plinking, but you can have the special stuff for those other times. You would have to get a custome barrel with a fast twist for the heavy bullets. In a Thompson Encore that wouldn't be a problem.