M1 Carbine - Why the dislike?

[scudrunner]

I also have read account after account of the PROS and the CONS of the M1 Carbine. I have read that the round would actually bounce off heavy winter clothing at ranges beyond 300 meters. This doesn’t seem too unbelievable to me if you look at its ballistics. A 110gr bullet @ 1700 fps at the muzzle would lose a bunch of energy way out there.
On the other hand I have also read that at close range it was a very quick shooter and easy to keep on target because of the low recoil. More then adequate to dispatch the enemy. WWII accounts from the Germans were that it was a great little weapon and they just loved to get there hands on them. Why would you trade in your 7.92X57 bolt action rifle for it? Hummmm lets see: Quick shooting fire power with lots of ammo in the mag. Lighter weight ammo so you can tote a bunch. Much quicker to reload, provided you have the mags. loaded and ready. Don’t have to work a bolt after every shot. Easy to stay on target with the low recoil.

What I see in the M1 Carbine is the continuing evolution towards the perfect compromise between long range power of the rifle and short range ease and fire power of the sub-machine gun. Today we know it as the "assault rifle" in which ever form you choose, AK or AR.

LIVE FREE OR DIE

[wolfgang2000]

The .30 carbine has it place. The fact that it is still around is a testament. Israel has show interest in it for civilians. They have made a little bullpup that is intresting. As long as it is used within it's disigned parameters it will work and somebody will like it.

[MnHunter]

Well I thought I would share what I learned in my ten plus years in the service. Our services prefer smaller rounds such as the .30 carbine or the nowadays .223 with good reason. Here starts the lesson, what would you rather use when you have 500 plus tangos coming in on your position and you are standing them off with your squad/team or platoon of less then 100? Would you prefer the ak-47 with the 7.62-39 which will kill a guy on impact which leaves one dead or would you prefer the .223 that may be a fatal shot but yet three tangos break the offensive to deal with the wounded? Our service focuses on making the odds even fast therefore we carry the .223's that alot of time does minimal damage but involves more tangos to forget the fight to deal with there wounded. So with 100 out of that 500 that are trying to attack/take your position but are now wounded by gun fire and has now cost at minmum 2 tangos to drag off there every 1 wounded equals this 1 wounded takes 2 rescuers equaling 3 now if there are 100 wounded that brings are out of fight tangos to 300 and only 200 left to deal with. Tangos will not stop for there dead but will for the injured..90% of the time. But yes times are changing and they are changing fast.

[flopshot]

accurate short range, easily trained substitute for a handgun. battle rifle, no. assault rifle, no. easier to keep on target ? nothing easier than the garand. and there should have been three times as many in action. given a carbine and watching those with the garand was enough to make you look down on it. not that i don't like it. i have two but would never consider them as tools of the trade.

[whip]

My Uncle served in the Army during WWII. During his time at the end of the war he was stationed in a small German town in a forest area that had been a hunting perserve. He and another fellow made regular trips out at night spotlighting on the roads through the perserve. They killed a variety of animals from hares to red deer. He loved the little M1 carbine for making small holes and being amazing accurate out to 75 yards or so. All of the deer were head shots but he claimed they dropped on the spot. He also claimed they fed a lot of people that winter with their night time excursions. He felt the little M1 had gotten a bad name. He was an outstanding rifleman whom I will always remember. He passed away 8 years ago but to the end he talked about that winter and the M1 carbine.

[stash247]

Not a dislike, but a wish for more. A MBR ought to be just that; a Battle rifle: anything claiming to be such ought to hit like a sledge, not a tackhammer.
A pistol is useful, until one can get to a rifle, but ought to weigh less than two pounds.
At 100 yds, the venerable old M-1911A-1 would 'keep your head down', and then some, in good hands. The Garrand would simply take it off. Seems to me, the carbine qualifies as 'neither fish nor fowl', in the comparison, ie, too heavy for a pistol, too weak, for a rifle. Sorta like the M-16, today.
If I say 'Hello' to you, at 400yds, with a .308, you go home in a bag, or tin foil; not so with the .223. Same answer, close up, with the 1911A-1, compared to the carbine.
Admittedly, I am a shooter, and qualified "Expert" in basic, without any sweat, both rifle, and pistol.
I will refer to a previous post, wherein the Military no longer teaches marksmanship. Terry

[Pistolenschutze]

Aww, come on, Stash, fess up. Anything less than a .375 H&H qualifies as "too light" in your book. Bring back the .600 Nitro as an infantry weapon, I say!

[wolfgang2000]

STASH,
I have to agree. the military BADLY needs a GOOD 300 meter cartridge!!! The 5.56 is NOT it!!! The 7.62X39 is better than the 5.56 but not the answer. The 6.8 shows promise, and is most probably the best choice for the present delivery system. But I don't think we will ever see it adapted into full service. Mostly because of politics. (US and NATO)

I like the 308. I have several rifles that chamber that round. However if the military had a good 300 meter service round there would not be the glaring gulf that exist between the 223 and the 308.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

STASH,
I have to agree. the military BADLY needs a GOOD 300 meter cartridge!!! The 5.56 is NOT it!!! The 7.62X39 is better than the 5.56 but not the answer. The 6.8 shows promise, and is most probably the best choice for the present delivery system. But I don't think we will ever see it adapted into full service. Mostly because of politics. (US and NATO)

I like the 308. I have several rifles that chamber that round. However if the military had a good 300 meter service round there would not be the glaring gulf that exist between the 223 and the 308.

I have mixed emotions on this issue, I must admit. Unlike some, I like the 5.56 Nato in many ways, but like Wolf, I see its deficiencies as well. Anyone who has ever had to lug a rifle in combat knows that "lighter" and "handier" has a quality all its own. Extensive range is not often a critical factor for a grunt, though there are times when it can become very important indeed, and when that happens it can be very frustrating. My biggest complaint against the 5.56 has always been its lack of penetration power through barriers, even relatively light ones. A 55 grain slug simply won't do the job sometimes, though against personnel it's quite effective. I would like to see the military adopt the 6.8 because it seems to be the best compromise. Going back to a .308 would also work, but that means heavier rifles for the infantryman to carry.

[wolfgang2000]

Pistol,
I think we are talking on the same side of the fence. The 5.56 has it's nitch. Though not in combat I carried the M16 for 3 years. I've repaired thousands of them. It is still not a 300 meter cartridge. I use to walk to the 300 meter line and find those 55 grn bullets sticking haft way through the plastic targets.

I'm not saying go back to the 308. I'm saying the the military needs a 300 meter cartridge. You can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. I don't think you can "fix" the 5.56. I'm not knocking the M16. It's had problems, but with modifications it's been with us for 40 years. Most probably one of the longest lived service rifle in US history.

It's not just the US rethinging the small bullet. In ShotGun News, I believe the Dec. 20th issue, there was a article that stated that the Russians, expecially their Special Forces, are displeased with their 5.45 round for the same reasons. Most are going back to the 7.62x39.

Is the 6.8spc round the answer? I don't know. I like it. Personally I believe politics, both in NATO and the US Military, will prevail before common sence does.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

I think we are talking on the same side of the fence. The 5.56 has it's nitch. Though not in combat I carried the M16 for 3 years. I've repaired thousands of them. It is still not a 300 meter cartridge. I use to walk to the 300 meter line and find those 55 grn bullets sticking haft way through the plastic targets.

Granted, the 5.56 Nato is by no means a 300 meter cartridge, more like 200 maximum, and at that range lethality is far from certain. Yet I would still argue that long range shooting is very seldom needed by the average combat soldier in an average combat situation. During the 13 month combat tour I spent in VN, I can remember only one instance when I wished for a longer range rifle, and in that case it was only desirable (I wanted to potshot an NVA gook I had spotted in a treeline about 400 yards away), not essential. At least 98% of the time firefights happened at well less than 100 yards, unless you count fire delivered for suppression only. I do agree though that a bit more effective range is highly desirable IF it can be accomplished without adding excessive weight to the combat load and without reducing ammo carrying capacity by individual soldiers excessively.

[stash247]

Pistolenschutze, I understand the area dictated requirements, for weapons, in southeast asia; after-action reports, particularly those of 5th SFG, made them very clear. The 5th carried Uzi's, Swedish K's, M-3's, and a lot of short range, larger impact weapons, as 'options' to the M-16.
Now move to today; in most of Iraq, the same approach would do, but Afghanistan??? Here, I want a 'target quality' 400 meter rifle, and ammo to feed it; I'll haul it on my back, if I must, but since most of our activity is motorised, and the C-5's are always inbound, weight of ammo becomes less an issue.
My point, then and now, is that, at whatever range a target is engaged, a 'center hit' should knock it down, for good.
At Urban ranges, a 9mm subgun, if 3 in the '9 ring' are applied, ends the issue; at 100, or more, it does not; (1) well applied .308, at urban, or longer ranges, ALLWAYS does.
You are absolutely right in a previous post, in that I really LIKE the .375 H&H, also the .338 Lapua, in a 'designated rifleman' role; better to have it, and not need it, than to need it, and not have it! Our troops, today, save for the products of Ronnie Barrett, are in the second group, in theaters like Afghanistan, armed with the M-4 carbine.
I'll freely admit, I was one of many, bitching about weight, when in the field, many years ago; I culled thru LRRP Rats, thru out anything but the 'good stuff', to allow more ammo. Left a lot of, in my mind, superfluous stuff behind, in the interest of saving weight, and filled the void, with ammo!
Since the M-79 was my secondary tool, my arithmetic went something like this: (3) rds, 40mm, 'bouncing betty'= (3) minimum, threats neutralised, allowing me at least (9) additional meals, which I will not have to carry.
And you thought the .375 was too big a caliber?
I was a hunter, long before I was a soldier. Game animals deserve a noble, clean, and relatively painless death; can we offer less, to those with the misfortune of listening to the 'wrong boss'? Hunters, many of them, go to the field with less than optimal caliber weapons, and wound/mutilate many game animals, every day; it's just not what I was taught.
Enough gun, enough training, enough patience, waiting 'the' shot, and ammo ceases to be an issue; delete 'training', perhaps 'patience', definitely 'enough gun', and you arrive at the carbine, whether M-1/2, or M-4, and it is a piss poor substitute, to a hunter.
Just my .02. Terry

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by stash247

At Urban ranges, a 9mm subgun, if 3 in the '9 ring' are applied, ends the issue; at 100, or more, it does not; (1) well applied .308, at urban, or longer ranges, ALLWAYS does.
You are absolutely right in a previous post, in that I really LIKE the .375 H&H, also the .338 Lapua, in a 'designated rifleman' role; better to have it, and not need it, than to need it, and not have it! Our troops, today, save for the products of Ronnie Barrett, are in the second group, in theaters like Afghanistan, armed with the M-4 carbine.
I'll freely admit, I was one of many, bitching about weight, when in the field, many years ago; I culled thru LRRP Rats, thru out anything but the 'good stuff', to allow more ammo. Left a lot of, in my mind, superfluous stuff behind, in the interest of saving weight, and filled the void, with ammo!
Since the M-79 was my secondary tool, my arithmetic went something like this: (3) rds, 40mm, 'bouncing betty'= (3) minimum, threats neutralised, allowing me at least (9) additional meals, which I will not have to carry.

Terry,

We are definitely on the same page of the hymnal here, I think. One of the brightest things the military ever did was to bring back the role of the sniper during the VN War. For that purpose one definitely needs a powerful, very long-range rifle. Fortunately we're seeing that now with the Barret Rifles in .50 BMG that are being used by both the Army and Marine Corps, and the use of the M14 by "designated riflemen" when greater range is needed, as indeed it sometimes is. Weapons choice is always a compromise between having all the qualities in a weapon that might be needed, and thus putting up with the additional weight and bulk, and choosing a lighter, less capable weapon without the additional weight and bulk. For the average grunt, I think the latter choice is the wiser, but that does not mean that having someone in the squad armed with a larger or more powerful weapon is not also a sensible thing to do. In other words, I agree that we need rifles in at least the .30 caliber range included in the makeup. For example, I remember very well the M60 MG that we always assigned to one man and always had along on patrol. I always pitied the poor bastard who had to lug the thing, but it sure was nice to have in a firefight! Guns up!

Yeah, I always bitched about the weight too, and did much the same thing you did; i.e., I got rid of all the crap they told us to carry that was never needed, and loaded up on extra ammo, rations, and especially water. The first thing I got rid of was that useless POS helmet they issued, for which I substituted a boonie hat! Funny me, but somehow, I never had much faith in a helmet to stop a 7.62x39! You mention the old "blooper." Now that was a weapon and a half! I never carried one but I have used them and we usually had someone in the squad with one. Recoil, as I remember, was a bit on the stout side, but they were wonderfully effective in the right hands.

Overall, I really don't quibble with your general conclusions, Terry. Viet Nam was a separate kind of combat environment from what we have faced in some conflicts since that time. Ideally, we need to tailor the weapon to the specific combat conditions, but that is not really practical on a general, Army-wide basis. Any weapon we choose for general issue will always have some defficiencies in some situations. I simply think we need something a bit more powerful and long-ranged than the 5.56, but still able to fit into the parameters of reasonably light and handy. From what I have read, that new 6.8 may be the best answer available.

[wolfgang2000]

Pistol,
First the 5.56 and M16a2 are not the same as the 5.56 M16a1 of the 60's and 70's. The M16a1 used a 1 in 12 rifling, and shot a 55 grn bullet moving roughly 3200fps. That combo gave the bullet a slight yaw. This made the M16a1 a pretty efffective close range, (100 to 150 meters) fighter with pretty fair terminal ballistics. To keep good terminal ballistics, the 5.56 rn must keep the muzzle velocity over 3000fps and not over stabilize the bullet. Todays 5.56 rn is a 62 grn bullet with a muzzle velocity of 3000fps out of a full sized M16a2, and 2800fps out of a M4 carbine. The 1 in 7 rifling in these guns have almost eliminated the yaw, thus reducesing the overall terminal ballistics. The USMC is useing a 77grn round with a vol of 2800fps, but with the same 1 in 7 rifling. Very accurate, and a little more penetration at 200 meters, but without the yaw, thus less terminal ballistics.

Even the military is recongnizing the problem. They are refurbishing M14 as fast as they can. Should we go back to the 308? Again NO. Will we change from the 5.56? I doubt it. Why, Politics. If the US changes, then NATO will have to change. I don't think we can convince them to accept the cost.

Either we need a good 300 meter cartridge, or we have to be a 2 rifle military.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

Even the military is recongnizing the problem. They are refurbishing M14 as fast as they can. Should we go back to the 308? Again NO. Will we change from the 5.56? I doubt it. Why, Politics. If the US changes, then NATO will have to change. I don't think we can convince them to accept the cost.

You may well be right, Wolf, though it does seem the military is thinking seriously about switching back to the .45 ACP for pistols, so one may hope that common sense will prevail over politics for the rifle as well. It seems to me our first concern should be for the effectiveness of OUR military, not what the Europeans think. Sooner or later we must change to a new rifle. The M16 has had a long, and I think successful, history. Yet, technology does improve over time and we should take advantage of it. The M14 is a good weapon, but I agree that going back to the .308 can only be a short-term solution.

[wolfgang2000]

I got it!!!! How about a GLOCK rifle in 6.8spc

[flopshot]

i knew i liked the wolfman seriously. since we went off the road a little from the carbine issue, what would you guys like to see ? if the .308 is too heavy and the .223 is not enough, where do you go and not lose the ammo portability of .223 or have to heft a heavier rifle? do you add mass to the little guy or put the heavyweight on a diet and speed him up a bit ? was the 7.62 x 39 that far off ?

[inplanotx]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

I got it!!!! How about a GLOCK rifle in 6.8spc

A GLOSH couln't handle the pressure. Why do you think they had to invent a .45 GAP instead of using the regular .45 ACP?

Plastic is not condusive to pressure! Besides, what has this GLOSH crap have to do with the M1 Carbine????????? Can a GLOSH handle the .30 cal. Carbine round? Not on your life. A Ruger can though and so can an AMT Automag III (Gee, a JMB design look alike)! Then again a Ruger or AMT ain't PLASTIC!!!!!

[wolfgang2000]

Well the 45 gap is just a improvement on the 45 acp, just like the Glock is an improvement on the 1911.

The history channel had a program on weapons, and they showed a rifle that ther receiver was all polymer. The only steel parts were the barrel, bolt, and some small parts. I believe it was a H&K. It was a 5.56 caliber. I just threw in the Glock part to make the 1911 crowd grind their teeth.

The 7.62x39 is a pretty good 200 meter cartridge. Maybe with improvement it could be made a 300 meter cartridge, I don't know. The 6.8 shows a lot of promise. Actually we are reinventing the wheel. In 1954-54 ?? the British came up with a 7mm round that is basicly the same ballistics as the 6.8. We (USA) forced the 308 on NATO.

As far a weight goes, weight the M16a2. Its pushing if not passing the 8lb mark. My fn fal scout is only 9.5 lbs.

As far as the 30 carbine goes, I guess we did get off thread a little.
Sorry

[polishshooter]

SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!


We NEVER go off thread in THIS forum, Mister!

[wolfgang2000]

Polish,
I guess I need to follow your example closer, right?

[polishshooter]

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by wolfgang2000

I got it!!!! How about a GLOCK rifle in 6.8spc

A Glock rifle? An idea whose time has come! It wouldn't jam, be accurate to within 1/2 MOA, light to carry, and simple to operate. Of course, if the military proposed such a thing, all those 1911 fanatics would insist that we should go back to a bolt action rifle chambered for the .30 Krag, or maybe the old Remington rolling blocks in .45-70 .

[JohnK3]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

A Glock rifle? An idea whose time has come! It wouldn't jam, be accurate to within 1/2 MOA, light to carry, and simple to operate. Of course, if the military proposed such a thing, all those 1911 fanatics would insist that we should go back to a bolt action rifle chambered for the .30 Krag, or maybe the old Remington rolling blocks in .45-70 .

Heck no, PS. Not in .30 Krag.

7.5X55mm is the way to go! Use the good ol' GP11 round! MATCH-GRADE SERVICE AMMO

Sweet!

[polishshooter]

Now dontcha go dissin' the .45-70, Pistolashuetzenpheffer! Next thing you know you'll be dissin' the .50BMG...

(I GOTTA get me a "Guide Gun" )