" M1 Carbine: Reputation vs Reality" Topic

Interesting….

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting.

My grandfather gave me an M1 Carbine in 1970 when I was 12 years old. It is an Underwood, stamped 1943. He had acquired it in trade from a soldier who served in the pacific. It came with three 15-round box magazines. I've probably put a few thousand rounds through it over the years, 100 rounds here, 100 rounds there.

Have never experienced a single FTL (failure to load) or FTE (failure to eject). Have never replaced those original mags either.

It is really, really fun to shoot. Light weight, quick to get on target, and accurate for my purposes.

I think the "haters" are more about the shorter range, and reduced stopping power. But it can still get the job done.

My Dad has one and I love it. You can even get new critical defense rounds for it.

Considering that the M1 Carbine was the prototype of the assault rifle (would have been select-fire but that didn't have the bugs worked out yet so was ordered as semi-auto-only), it's still very good. A little wimpier than the 7.62x39 used in the SKS and AK47, but good enough.

Lighter than the AR15, even, which makes it very nice indeed.

And still solid enough to crack a zombie's head with the stock!

I had one made by IBM. Worked perfectly with 15 round or 30 round magazines. A friend had one made by Singer Sewing Machine Co. that could not get through a 15 round clip without some sort of problem.

The carbine with as not a prototype assault rifle, it was a PDW(personal defense weapons)
It was originally only ment to take the place of the 1911.

Like most Allied gear – good enough and available in large quantities.

Gunfreak +1

People who like to criticize everything American, like to bash the M-1 carbine as a terrible rifle, but they miss the point. The M-1 carbine was not designed to replace the M-1 Garand. The M-1 carbine was designed to replace the pistol for rear echelons and other troops. While I am a huge fan of the M-1911 as one of the top five pieces of equipment the US Army ever purchased, in most situations I would rather have the M-1 than the M-1911. It allows me to reach out and touch someone much farther away.

I really enjoy firing mine, but the ammunition is crazy expensive, so I don't get it out as much as I'd like.

I have an IBM-made M1 carbine. A beautiful weapon, but I have had trouble with the loading process. It will fire nine or ten rounds from the 15-round box magazines (new made), but then mis-feed a round. Just about every time. I'm wondering if the trouble is in the magazines? Maybe the spring is too weak? I don't do enough shooting to really worry about it, but it is puzzling.

Very popular with the NVA in Vietnam. I always wanted to get one.

The carbine arguably has more stopping power than the garand. I've seen experimental results seem to fairly convincingly support that.
Personally, I think they'd have done better issuing carbines instead of garands. To regular units at least.
Amongst other very experienced veterans audie murphy preferred the carbine.

If you can't hit the broad side of a bus ( or even really try to ) beyond 100 yards then a bigger mag and better short range stopping power are winners.

The purpose of fire is suppression. If you can't suppress past 100 yards, you have a problem.

No one could hit anything, anyhow.

Amongst other very experienced veterans audie murphy preferred the carbine.

When he was a private? When he was a sergeant? or when he was a lieutenant? Might make a difference.

And Murphy was a rather small man, which might also have influenced his choice.

Andy, I'm curious about your claim that the carbine has more stopping power than the Garand. Why would that be? A smaller projectile (same diameter, but much smaller overall), smaller propellant charge, and a shorter barrel. I'm no expert but I'd intuitively think the Garand would have much more stopping power. I also recall reading claims that in Korea they found that even the heavily quilted Chinese winter uniforms could sometimes stop a carbine round. Just curious.

Hocklermp5 – If your friend still has his Singer carbine, he should check current pricing in the collector market. Singers are pretty rare.

I have a 1943 Inland carbine, which my father brought home from the Pacific. Lovely weapon. Haven't fired it in a long time, but never had a feed failure (I have nice, fresh govt-issue 15-round clips; a full 30-round clip weighs a TON and I won't use them for that reason.). I have suffered the odd mis-fire which I assume is due to the age of my (WW2 era) ammunition – clean strike on the primer but no cartridge ignition (still have some, LOL).

More M1 carbines were manufactured during the war years than M1 Garands and they saw plenty of front line service. From what I have read, they were favored in close-quarter combat (built-up areas, forest, jungle, cave clearing, etc.) due to their compact dimensions and quick point and fire characteristics.

I'll be hanging on to it.

B

Andy, I'm curious about your claim that the carbine has more stopping power than the Garand. Why would that be? A smaller projectile (same diameter, but much smaller overall), smaller propellant charge, and a shorter barrel. I'm no expert but I'd intuitively think the Garand would have much more stopping power. I also recall reading claims that in Korea they found that even the heavily quilted Chinese winter uniforms could sometimes stop a carbine round. Just curious.

The .30 carbine had muzzle energy of 1300J(that's not horrible at all, about thrice that of standard .45ACP)

But it's less than half of a 30-06.

And while energy isn't the only thing that matters. It's very hard to see how something with half the energy but basically the same bullets could have more stopping power.

And about the stories of the carbines lack of stopping power. It's probably because they kept using it at to long range.
It was a big pistol not a small garand.
But soldiers kept using it at "garand ranges"

Anecdotal but I remember my dad saying he and the guys he served with hated the carbine in the Korean War. He had good things to say about the Garand and M3 Grease gun however

How to Identify an Original M1 Carbine

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

The Carbine lacked the range. But I'd think in capable hands it would kill you just as dead as an M1 Garand. And statistically most firefights take place at @ 250m or less … In many cases much less. E.g. "in my day" on a US Army rifle range the max target was at 300m. Which just is down right tiny. So it is more about the soldier behind the weapon generally. In many situations …

The carbine was accurate up to 200 meters. But it's doubtful it was effective on humans at that range (it could of course kill, a .45 can still kill you at 200 meters)
But it only seemed to be very effective at around 100+meters. That's still twice that of the Thompson, and 4-6 the range of the 1911.

If you're a commander you're interested in things like "suppressing" fire. If you're a grunt your life depends on being able to knock enemies on their butt so they can't shoot, bayonet or club you to death with an entrenching tool. I had a friend from Nam to shot two VC with his M16. They died but not before hitting him with a burst from an AK47. His flak jacket saved him. But ever after he carried a shotgun loaded with buckshot. The M1 Carbine was great for putting out rounds. But the Garand had the knockdown power. So the OP's question depends on your perspective. Cheers!

The claims from the comparison experiments were that the carbine round dumps energy more effectively.
If you're hit with either round it'd leave a mark.

It's perfectly possible it does (hence the .45. Doesn't actually have only a 3rd the stopping power of the .30 carbine) and at say 100 meters it's possible that the carbine has 75% of the stopping power of a 30.06 and not half as the energy might suggest. However it does appear that past 100++ range the effect droops fast for the .30 carbine.

How and to whom was it decided which person carried the said Carbine?

By memory … in the "Combat" Series the Sergeant was carrying a Thompson and the Lieutenant an M1 Garand … but in the movie "Saving Private Ryan" … it was the other way around … the platoon sergeant was carrying a M1 and the Captain a Thompson …

thanks in advance for your guidance.

Amicalement
Armand

The carbine was accurate up to 200 meters. But it's doubtful it was effective on humans at that range (it could of course kill,)

At 200 meters it is still a pretty small human sized target. But usually most can hit it.

a .45 can still kill you at 200 meters)

If you could hit a target with a .45 at 200m. The longest range targets on the US ARMY pistol range was, IIRC, 50ms. Generally an easy shot. Basically we were told the .45 is a close range weapon. Our SGM said, "About 8, 10 feet !"

What you can hit and what the bullet can kill you at are two very different things.
If you're hit by a musket ball from 300 meters. Meters it's random fluke, but it can still hit you.
If you're firing your Thompson at the enemy some of those bullets might go high and some random German ammo runner might get a random .45 in the head at 250 meters distance.

You're right, conceptually the M1 Carbine was a PDW, something to have better range than a pistol.

But functionally, the select-fire .30 Carbine is an assault rifle (not that a civilian can get an M2/M2A1). Good to 200 yards, just like the StG44 or AK47.

Again, not to mention that the M1 Carbine is a full pound lighter than even a CAR-15/XM177E2/Colt Commando!

What you can hit and what the bullet can kill you at are two very different things.

Generally speaking if you can hit it you can kill it. I wouldn't want to stand at @ 200m and let someone shoot at me with either the M1 Carbine or M1911 .45. Call me old fashioned …

How and to whom was it decided which person carried the said Carbine?

In rifle companies, it was officially issued to crews of support weapons (60 mm mortar and M1919 MG) and to officers.

It was also issued as a personal defense weapon for various rear echelon support types.

I imagine as the war went on, a lot of carbines ended up in the hands of people who really weren't supposed to be armed with them. I once asked a veteran who mentioned that he carried a Thompson SMG, how he had gotten it since we wasn't an officer or an NCO. His answer? "Simple, I stole it." :)

Scott, Scott, Scott, he didnt steal it. In the military we never steal it. He should have given the stock answer, he appropriated it!

Well, he said he stole it, and who am I to argue with him? :)

I imagine as the war went on, a lot of carbines ended up in the hands of people who really weren't supposed to be armed with them.

Probably also Germans managed to capture a bunch of them. And they eventually needed a number of American weapons at the beginning of Ardennes offensive which was preceded by a number of Germans intent on slipping past the front line disguised as US forces.

Many thanks… I pick up the stollen theory… it's true… I have been there…. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Yes, there are very few thieves in the military. However, there are an immense number of 'acquisition specialists'.

(A thief in the military is someone who takes personal property of another troop. 'Acquisition specialists' take stuff from the government for the use of their unit.)

+1 Lion

;-)

B

I came across a site with an analysis of pictures in NWE a while ago.
It seems the m1 carbine was quite popular with front line infantry.

On the range thing.
Although training has people shooting at longer ranges, most rifle fire is under 100 yards and effective rifle fire at even shorter.
This is based on interviews of soldiers in Iraq:
link

Obviously, they would be using m4 but…
At the 25-50 yards ranges that interviewees reported, the carbine has plenty of power.

Very much so … but as always it comes down to terrain & situation. And generally e.g. in urban terrain in many cases you have limited LOS, FOF, etc.

Jungle as well … You can only shoot as far as you can see in some terrain.

And as always just because you can see it does not mean to can hit and/or kill it. A number or variables to consider, etc., …