Musings on the M1 carbine
- Thread starter Faulkner
- Start date
It handily beat out seven other designs for the same cartridge. It seems to work pretty well in all of the testing and field reports. It's weakness was rain and sand. After action reports from Tarawa indicate the M1 carbine could be quickly cleaned and kept running. The M1 rifle suffered less so, and the balance of increased firepower overcame the USMC initial caution to adopt it for beach landings and similar operations.
Surely one could call out the early troubles with the M16 as a fault of the gas system. But in fact it was overcome and in the end has proved enduring. It wasn't the fault of the system alone but a confluence of mis-steps during adoption that made it seem inappropriate for a service weapon.
Someone not liking the M1 Carbine - even someone as well known as Jeff Cooper - is not much of an explanation. A bunch of guys in this thread used them at work and had favorable thingsto write. Audie Murphy thought highly of them. I assume you've heard of him. He knew a thing or two as well.
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
They’re fun to shoot little guns.
Well can't fault AJ for not knowing the nickname of a youtuber.
Ian McCullum is a better than average historical interpreter. I don't think he'd dispute that description of his videos. He has published a couple books which seem to be based on original research - so I think its fair to also say he is an historian. I like the fact he tries to check his sources, and cross check things that don't make sense based on his experience on his experience and knowledge. So this is why I say he is better than average, and has information far better than most social media personalities.
All that said. I think I've seen most of Ian's videos about M1 Carbines and don't recall that critique coming up. So if you can point us to that video, that would be great., Maybe with some context it will make sense.
Ian McCullum is a better than average historical interpreter. I don't think he'd dispute that description of his videos. He has published a couple books which seem to be based on original research - so I think its fair to also say he is an historian. I like the fact he tries to check his sources, and cross check things that don't make sense based on his experience on his experience and knowledge. So this is why I say he is better than average, and has information far better than most social media personalities.
All that said. I think I've seen most of Ian's videos about M1 Carbines and don't recall that critique coming up. So if you can point us to that video, that would be great., Maybe with some context it will make sense.
AJ
US Veteran
For those that like the M1 Carbine just let this drop. There are 108 posts in this thread and about maybe five are naysayers about the M1 Carbine. You can not convince them any other way. It is not worth trying to teach them to sing. All it does is frustrates you and irratates them. Have fun as I have better things to do.
Also relatively easy to learn to operate and shoot decently.
That's a point Ian tried to test in one of his videos, and Paul Harrell found in his video.
But at the matches I go to, the majority consider it a difficult gun to shoot as good as or better than the full size service rifles (Krag, Springfield, Enfield, M1).
OP
Faulkner
Member
That is a common mistake. The M1 carbine was not designed to compete with or replace a full service rifle even though it was put in service side by side with them.
It would be more appropriate to compare the M1 carbine against a M1911A1 or Thompson submachine gun. Those are the firearms it was designed to augment or replace.
THE PILGRIM
Member
Gene, My Old Georgia Buddy, who became a WWII Company First Sergeant at an early age -
He was assigned to one of rapidly formed Divisions with a big number, he said he was about the most experienced Soldier in the Company. In an exponentially expanding Army a NCO with 2 years experience was an Old Head —
I have heard him complain about the shortage of Carbine ammo in the forward area - Germany.
He was assigned to one of rapidly formed Divisions with a big number, he said he was about the most experienced Soldier in the Company. In an exponentially expanding Army a NCO with 2 years experience was an Old Head —
I have heard him complain about the shortage of Carbine ammo in the forward area - Germany.
I have my Father’s M1 carbine from Korean War. I would say it is very good out to 100 yards. I do not shoot it much. I also have a 1943 Winchester Garand M1. After much practice , I became as accurate with it as I am with REM 700 with Leopold 3x9 out to 300 yards.
Patrick L
Member
Any time I'm at the range shooting my carbine and some "historian" points out that the Chinese just got up and dusted themselves off after being shot with the carbine, I repeat my standing offer: I'll give you $50 to pace off 50 yds, bend over, and let me shoot you in the butt with my carbine. I mean, if it won't penetrate a Chinese overcoat it probably won't even break the skin.
Still no takers!
Still no takers!
I agree.
The key to understanding what I posted was the first part of my sentence. The context is CMP matches. CMP has a carbine match. It's shot at 100 yards. It happens that the local service rifle matches are on a 100 yard range and particpants can use any US Krag, Springfield, Enfield, M1 rifle, or M1 carbine. Guys have won the match with the carbine, but most think its a bit more challenging. There's almost always one carbine that someone brings for various reasons. There will be at least one tommorrow.
RM Vivas
US Veteran
As it was explained to me, when the riots of the late 1960's kicked off, a large quantity of M1 carbines that were in the possession of the Property Clerks office were 'converted' to police use.
I was told that the M1 carbine with a 110 gr. soft nose bullet was well liked by the SOU.
Best,
RM Vivas
I have both and shot both extensively. I'll take the carbine if my life depends on it.
That's all I have to say about that.
That's all I have to say about that.
It depends on who is doing the defining.
The .30 carbine cartridge was based on the .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge made for the Winchester Model 1905 self loading rifle, and as such the .30 Carbine cartridge was not designed as a pistol cartridge. it was designed as a higher velocity, flatter shooting, higher magazine capacity cartridge intended to be fired in an easier to shoot accurately carbine with a maximum effective range of 300 yards. the development of the M2 variant pushed the carbine itself into the "assault rifle" class.
In most people's opinion, that puts the .30 carbine cartridge squarely into intermediate cartridge territory, even if it is still in the .357 mag energy class.
The .30 carbine with a 110 gr bullet at 1990 fps is frequently referenced as being in the same class as early intermediate rounds such as the 7.92 x 33 with a 125 gr bullet at 2250 fps. That's just 15 grs heavier and 260 fps faster.
US magazines in general were not designed for extended use. Consider for example the definite differences between the M14 and the BM 59 magazines. US tactical doctrine called for troops to carry multiple magazines, (4 or 6 in pouches and 1 in the rifle). They were designed to be reused and topped off with stripper clips but were regarded as a consumable item.
In contrast the Italian doctrine called for troops to carry just two magazines. One was carried in the rifle and topped off with stripper clips carried in the standard M1 Garand belt (itself a derivative of the belt used to carry stripper clips for the 1903) and or in bandoleers. The second magazine was essentially a spare for emergency use, along the lines of final protective fire when there wasn't time to top the one in the rifle off through the stripper clip guide in the receiver.
That tactical doctrine is evident in the design of the respective magazines. The M14 magazines, while well made, are positively flimsy compared to the very strong and durable BM59 magazines.
The M16 magazines were a further step down in durability.
It's a short stroke piston design and the M14's short stroke piston has a lot more common with the M1 carbine than it does with the M1 Garand. The FAL, AR-18, Mini 14, etc are also short stroke designs they just put the spindle on the barrel and put the cylinder on the slide/operating rod.
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
I have a very hard time believe the Italians issued only two magazines for the BM-59s.
Do you have a primary source documentarian on that? Having loaded an M1A with clips through the top, I cannot imagine what a nightmare it would be trying to do that in combat.
At that point, I would MUCH rather have a Garand.
AMEN to that...........I shoot lots of cast bullets through my Carbines, Ruger 44 carbines and Garands...........Never fouled a gas port..........Never will................The old tale about gas guns and lead bullets needs to DIE....Because it's a lie.
Show me a fouled tappet AKA gas piston............I really can't take your post seriously.
Glenn R. McMannly
Member
Similar threads
