"Nobody Wanted to Give Up the M-1 Carbine" Topic

"A grim-faced U.S. Army major led a group of armed men away from a tropical village he decided not to attack. Wearing jungle boots and olive-drab battle dress, Edwin Brooks grasped a lightweight, reliable, .30-caliber weapon in his right hand as he walked.

It was an M-1 carbine.

The scene could have been anywhere in the South Pacific during World War II or somewhere near the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War. But Brooks also wore a green beret with a Special Forces flash and he was leaving the then-South Vietnamese village of Ban Me Thuot in 1964, leading the indigenous forces he commanded back to base in an effort to defuse a rebellion…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

My Dad had no problem giving up his M1 carbine, he said it was a piece of something. Quite few of the men of Easy Company who should have been carrying carbines, like Winters and most of the other officers and Sgt. Lipton dropped theirs for M1s also. Two guys I knew who were Korean War vets did the same, they said that the rounds from the carbine just couldn't penetrate the heavy winter uniforms of the Chinese at any decent range. Seems like some guys were more than happy to give up their carbines. The cartridge just didn't have the knock down power of the standard cartridge.

Still, I've always had my eye on getting one of these someday, just to own a piece of history (even tho' I'd buy a modern repro). I don't expect to need to fight any Chicoms, in winter or otherwise. It's got a reliable reputation and is short and light enough to be handy for the wife, too. She's struggle with anything bigger, might as well buy a longarm that we can both shoot comfortably.

In my limited experience, I've had more fun plinking around with an M-1 than any other gun.

My Dad trained with the M1 and carried the M2 in Korea, said it was great in every respect but knock-down power. He had endless praise for the M1 Garand, though ended up carrying a Thompson SMG, that he found in a pile of debris, most of the time that he was there.

Personally, I love the M1 carbine. Easy to handle, fun to shoot.

I finally got to shoot both M1s during the 4th of July. That carbine is very fun to shoot. The garand is fun too, but heavy and has a good kick to it. I shot about 60 rounds from the carbine.

I fired a M1 carbine about two years ago at a range. It had a little more kick than I was expecting, and a large muzzle flash. I couldn't see where I'd hit the target. But it was very comfortable to hold and fire.

I think you have to remember who the Carbine was designed for; it wasn't those in Rifle Squads but those in HQ elements, such as officers, messengers, radio and linemen, those serving mortars and machine gun, and back through artillerymen and service troops. Previously a lot of those men would have been armed with a pistol, so a carbine gave them better range than a .45, but they weren't as laden down as they would be with a rifle, in keeping with their primary role being something other than a rifleman. The reality was of course that sometimes troops had to be a rifleman, in addition to their day job.

Issues with the ability of the carbine to actually stop an opponent are plentiful. I read one just the other day, of an officer in a USMC Field Depot, who shot a Japanese solder seven times with his carbine before the enemy actually fell, the final round being a head shot. It is possible that the other six rounds were not as accurately placed as the last one of course, but it's a constant criticism of the carbine's .30-cal round.

Gary

But today you can get the carbine in different calibers.

Love my Carbine and would never give it up. After shooting a huge assortment of WWII firearms (including lots of full auto stuff), the M1 is still one of my favorite weapons. The MP-40 is my second.

Nothing beats a Garand or and SVT. Especially if you do not have to carry it. I once had a WWII vet look at my Garand at a shooting range. He held it for about two seconds and gave it back to me and said "Still heavy" and went back to shooting his cut down and sporterized 98k.

This seems like another case of someone insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution to what weapon is best. It seems that, to many people who have not fired many weapons, comparing two rifles is apples to apples, but there's so much personal preference involved that in reality comparing any two firearms is usually apples to oranges.

To illustrate the point some individuals who carry pistols daily (which here in the South-Eastern United States is a large number of civilians, police, and even a few soldiers) prefer polymer framed guns because they're light and weigh little. On the other hand, some individuals prefer metal framed guns because (in their opinion) the extra weight of the firearm makes the recoil more manageable.

Another example would be single-stack pistol magazines and double-stack magazines. In theory the double-stack magazine holds more rounds and, therefore, should be considered superior, but some people (especially those with smaller hands) find pistols that fire from double-stack magazines too wide in the grip to hold comfortably, so they prefer the smaller number of round because the gun in easier to fire.

As far as the M1 Carbine goes, if you were going to have to carry either it or the M1 Garand, but you never expected to fire either the carbine is definetly the better weapon. Likewise if you are a good enough shot and confident that you can hit that other fellow in the eye at 300 yards on a cold (or hot) Korean morning than the Carbine is the better weapon since it weighs less and holds more ammo. On the other hand if you're not confident the round will go through thick winter clothing and you can't reasonably expect to hit that other fellow in the eye than the M1 has advantages. All of those are just the some of the issues that can be most easily understood by someone who has never fired a gun. However, the issues of how a gun feels in your arms, if the grip is comfortable, etc are still very subjective (and often hard to understand to those unfamiliar with them).

I know a number of people who insist the FN P90 is too light and small and doesn't feel comfortable to hold, but I'm lightly built and (the few times I've had the opportunity to actually hold one) I've found the gun very comfortable and that it just "feels right." Some people find loading a magazine into an AK series rifle is intuitive and easy, others say that it feels odd and takes too much concentration and that the M16 (and derivatives such as the C7, M4, etc.) has a much better system.

Personal preferences matter enormously when choosing firearms, even if they are difficult to quantify.

Gary Kennedy has it right – the carbine isn't meant to kill people, really. It gives non-riflemen something to make the bad guys duck long enough that said non-riflmen can get themselves behind some actual riflemen and go back to their day job.

I once read that US Special Forces liked the carbine because it wasn't, lethal. The argument was that if you shot and killed someone, that was one less bad guy, but if you shot and wounded one, then one of his buddies would stop to take care of him, so there would be two fewer bad guys firing at you.

I have no idea how this works in practice, but I thought it was an interesting theory at least.

Personally, I love my carbine (Inland, July 1943). Light, pleasant to shoot, carries a good ammo load. But if I need to defend myself with extreme prejudice I'll be grabbing my .45.

I find it funny that people are complaining about the lethality of the .30 Carbine, when that round is about as powerful as a .357 Magnum. .357 Magnum is often seen as overkill in a defensive shoot because of the noise and muzzle flash.

Put modern hollowpoints or soft-points in an M1 Carbine and you have a serious manstopper that weighs 5lbs or so and points nicely (for me). I'd really love to get an M2 selective-fire, but those are obscenely expensive these days.

Presumably the carbine was decent for suppressing fire too. Large magazine and you can get rounds on the target pretty quickly and at a good rate.

I think if I had to kit up for the Zombie Apocalypse nowadays I'd pick up a Saiga. I put a few magazines through one last month and it was light, powerful, and accurate even at 400m.

My Father fought Japanese on Luzon in 1945. He said he shot a charging enemy soldier 5 times with steel jacketed slugs from a Carbine then had to beat him to death with the butt stock.

After that, he said he carried a 12 gauge pump shotgun with lead double ought buckshot. Problem solved. :)

The .30 Carbine fires a 110gr RN FMJ or SPB to about 1,900fps
The .357mag Carbine fires a 158gr FMJ or SPB to about 1,900fps.
Also .357mag Carbine fires a 200gr HP to about 1,800fps.

:) So how is that .30 carbine round about as powerful/same lethality as a .357 Magnum?? with the 48Gr lighter bullet at the same speeds from the same weapon style???? How do you work that math?? Just asking?? :)

If you are ever in Raleigh, the NC History Museum has an exhibit of "Carbine" Williams' workshop: link

Lost Pict

he shot a charging enemy soldier 5 times …then had to beat him to death <?q>

*had* to beat a wounded soldier to death??

Whenever this subject comes up, nobody seems to remember that the M1 Carbine was developed as an alternative armament for troops who would otherwise be issued a pistol.

Shardik, the Japanese did not surrender and a wounded soldier who has not surrendered is still fair game. Also a wounded soldier who is still attacking certainly would merit additional bullets.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

must have been a monster to still be dangerous with 5 bullets in him

I saw some tv show a while back where they compared the carbine to the garand.
At short range the carbine has significantly more stopping power.
Something to do with dumping the kinetic energy better.
That energy drops off and by 300 yards the carbine round is not so good.
As has been pointed out repeatedly in previous threads though, this would be pretty academic for most ww2 soldiers.

There are repeated stories of this or that weapon being worthless and effete. Read some of those and you would think being shot by an m4 would barely sting.
I have some friends were in the Falklands. (Long time no see come to think of it). Back in the 80s much was made of the fight around Boca house. A few of the Argentinian special forces types carried on fighting despite being wounded several times. I seem to recall 5 x 5.56 rounds on one of them and he carried on fighting. They were all "that wouldn't happen with the old slr". Someone always has a story about that guy who kept on fighting. Or those vague claims about winter clothing sometimes maybe…. blaa blaa… Like they could even tell if they hit the guy 300 to 400 yards away.

There were plenty of special forces types in 50s and 60s who decided the carbine was their weapon of choice.
Audie Murphy preferred the carbine.

Some hits:
link
link
link

There are a bunch more.

AONeill, those are great links.

When I was a youngster the standard deering hunting weapons in eastern NC were 30 cal carbines and 12 gauge shotguns (slugs or 00 buckshot), me and a lot others lost deer that inexplicably thought they were not shot. In fact, I switched to a ruger .44 Mag carbine and put a round at 20 yards through a buck's two lungs and shoulder bone (with the bullet stopping under the skin on the other side) and other than dropping his tail, he ran for a mile. Only proof I had to show my dad was one leaf with a splash of blood. Another shooter dropped him with a shotgun and when we skinned him, we uncovered the very traumatic wound and the bullet. I have had the same type of thing happen with a .308. Just goes to show that stopping power and ballistics don't always match.

Personally, I would take any carbine over a pistol any day of the week when going into harm's way. The US military still tends to issue pistols only to non-infantry officers – I was delighted to talk my way into a M-4 when I went to Iraq. Perfect it may not be, but a small caliber carbine is great for folks whose primary job is not to kill the bad guys.

Lost Pict

I agree with AONeill regarding the 'dumping,' or in this case, the not dumping energy having a huge impact on perceived stopping power. Some rounds are just so high velocity that they travel straight on through. I personally never saw or heard of anyone being hit center mass and not going down, it's just with high velocity weapons he got back up because the damage done to his body wasn't nearly as bad as a slower round. The best example is with US military pistols, i.e., the .45 vs the 9mm round.

On the one hand, there's no denying the .45 is a big round, but we used to joke that it was so slow you could see it in flight. The point is that the slow round transfers all its energy and tears up a lot more stuff in the body; it's like the difference between getting hit by a laser that goes straight through and a sledgehammer.

I have a funny anecdote; before the war(s) started I was on a team that used MP-5s for CQB, and we'd spend time in shoothouses a couple times a week. We had these metal pop-up targets that would go down when you hit them. In 1998 the Corps replaced our MP-5s with M-4s. The first time we went through our course we had a big kerfuffle: guys were going through but the targets weren't going down. The first guy goes through and we're laughing; the second guy goes and we figure we've got an issue with BZO/sights. I swapped out with a guy and went through third, and still the targets refused to go down.

We called a stop to the exercise and went and looked: the 5.56 rounds had indeed hit, but had gone straight through, transferring no power to the 1/4 or 1/2 inch targets (I don't recall which), thus leaving them standing. Never once had that problem with M-9s, 1911s, MP-5s, or 870s…

Lost Pict – who were you with?

V/R,
Jack

A Navy officer loaned to the 354th Civil Affairs Brigade in Baghdad or did you mean the Old Mill Hunt Club in Scotland Neck, NC? ;-)

Lost Pict

The whole story with shooting a guy 5 times with a carbine gets me thinking:

Is this one of those instances where it happened a few, rare times, then gets circulated on the internet as facts?

I mean, I'm sure there's a story out there of a .50 cal MG getting a one in a billion hit on a Tiger tank and somehow putting it out of action but that doesn't make the .50 cal an anti tank weapon.

I once treated a guy who had been shot 6 times by the Philadelphia Police Department after he shot a cop and stole his squad car! He was high on crack cocaine at the time and when he came into the hospital had to be restrained by 2 police officers to stop him absconding.
In contrast I lost a patient with a single pistol shot to the groin, but it happened to hit the femoral artery and he bled out on the way to hospital, arriving in hypovolaemic cardiac arrest. Even he had run 2 blocks before collapsing.
A fit young man can lose 25% of his circulating blood volume before, his vitals will be significantly affected. So unless you do an immediately disabling wound, such as brain or heart, or fracture a major long bone in the leg, then there is a good chance the guy can keep going.

that doesn't make the .50 cal an anti tank weapon.

Actually the .50 was first introduced as an anti-tank weapon with a capability of completely perforating 0.875" (22.2 mm) of face-hardened armor steel plate at 100 yards (91 m), and 0.75" (19 mm) at 547 yards (500 m). More than adequate in 1921!

Piper909: if your wife shoots, she will love the M1 Carbine. Mine loves hers and won't shoot anything else!