The US M1 Carbine was...

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by ysacres, Mar 7, 2003.

  1. ysacres

    ysacres Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2001
    Messages:
    2,764
    Location:
    Wazzu WA
    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2856
    (2/14/02 10:47:55 pm)
    Reply The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BlackGun's new toy got me to thinking...

    This topic MAY get a doozy of a discussion going, because this is such a love/hate weapon, sometimes by the same person!

    And just maybe we can get some posters who actually carried on in the service, or even used one in combat, to chip in with their opinion, and we all can learn...

    But remember, this ISN'T Florida...you have to WORK a little besides just voting...PLEASE hit "Reply" at the bottom, after you vote, and check the results, even if just to say hi, but PLEASE tell us WHY you voted that way...

    We LOVE to argue and discuss opinions, , on their merits, and in the process we all learn....and remember, opinions are neither RIGHT or WRONG.

    (Except mine, but that's another story... )
    a failure as a military weapon.
    a GREAT design, that did what it was supposed to do.
    the WORST rifle ever adopted by the US Military.
    an accurate, reliable, valuable battle weapon.
    an inaccurate, weak piece of CRAP.

    Show results

    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2857
    (2/14/02 10:53:32 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think that the M1 Carbine was both a GREAT weapon and design, that was good at what it was intended to do, but actually a FAILURE also at what it was intended to do...in a way.

    It was NEVER designed to be a "rifle." Most people who carried it and HATED it tried to USE it as a rifle, and it WASN'T that accurate, or powerful.

    It WAS intended to be a "Cook and Baker" rifle, a rifle to replace the handgun as the main weapon of Non-front line soldiers, or support, or gun teams, etc. Plus, it was supposed to replace the SMG, which was usually carried by non-coms and officers, as well as other combatants.

    It COULD have done that well, it WAS easier to carry and shoot than the .45, or any other pistol in the military service, mainly because most people without more training than merely familiarization CAN'T hit anything with a pistol outside of belly-button range, and most soldiers could NOT handle the Thompson, or any other SMG in full auto...and the round IS a pretty hot pistol round by itself, even from a PISTLOL length barrel, much less a longer one....

    So, because it did NOT replace them, and in fact the demand for handguns and SMGs CONTINUED throughout WWII and after, it MUST have been a failure, right?

    Well, it WAS a great design, and it served it's purpose well, even IF the gunbunny carried his .45 AND his carbine. Or the Top carried both too...

    ...as long as you remembered it WASN'T a rifle, it was a TREMENDOUS weapon. But if you had used a Garand, or a BAR, or even a 03A3, and thought this "cute" little easy to carry "rifle" was just the ticket, and took a shot (and another and another and another) at a Jap at 150-200 yds and he didn't go down, you thought it was CRAP.

    But if that Jap was at 50 yds, the range you were told you COULD engage with the .45, and you were a Cook thrown in the line in a provisional company... you MIGHT just hit him and put him down with the carbine....while you could NOT say the same if you used your .45 on him at that range....

    I'm wondering if the "replace the pistol/SMG" was just a smokescreen...to get an innovative weapon on the drawing boards and adopted....or did they REALLY believe it would happen?

    And here's some personal anecdotal stuff...

    My Dad, who trained in the infantry after being drafted in 1942 and trained with the 03A3, and in fact his unit went to England for DDay WITH those same 03s (He never fired a Garand in his entire service...) but he was transferred at the last second to a new towed 105 artillery unit forming at Bragg after the his first unit shipped out for England. He said they were then issued the carbine, and he had to carry it later when he guarded prisoners. (He acted as a truck driver and guard for German POWs too, on work details around Fayetteville)

    He said it was "a piece of crap." Couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, puny cartridge, not ANYTHING like the Springfield he first used...

    On the other hand, his best friend and our neighbor, was a Marine Sergeant in Korea. Lost both legs on a Chinese mine, leading a patrol. When I was a kid, he used to hire us neighborhood kids to do odd jobs for him, and once in his house, we looked at his guns, he had a carbine...told me it was the BEST gun ever designed, THAT one had saved his life many times on night patrols, if he ever had to grab a gun to save his life, and had time to get to the cabinet, he'd grab his old carbine first.... (I don't know HOW he got his issue weapon back with him, unless on the hospital ship, then back home...then he DID marry his nurse on the ship, maybe SHE hid it for him... )

    Anyway, two best friends, two different wars, two DIFFERENT experiences with the same weapon!





    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 2/14/02 10:55:48 pm

    TallTLynn
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 3177
    (2/14/02 10:55:42 pm)
    Reply
    Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    polish, I don't know anything about the M1 Carbine but would like to participate in this debate. The more people who participate in this debate the more I can learn.

    Edited by: TallTLynn at: 2/14/02 11:40:02 pm

    Xracer
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 1650
    (2/14/02 11:19:46 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ....a weak, inaccurate piece of crap.....BUT....it did the job it was designed to do!

    I agree with most of what you say Polish, but not all......it was designed as a 20 to 60 yard sidearm (far beyond the range the average GI could hit anything with a .45)....15 quick (but small) rounds. It probably served more as a confidence builder for those who carried them (the cooks, bakers, engineers, etc.) than any real threat to the enemy.

    A real fun plinker though.....I put a lot of rounds through one of these. At 25 to 50 yards, a sure coffee can killer.

    warpig883
    *TFF Staff*
    Posts: 2435
    (2/14/02 11:28:41 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It did what it was supposed to do but I think it was under powered and not accurate enough to be of real use.

    It was good for spray and pray--laying down covering fire fire for example.


    Kind of like the grease gun
    We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans... -- Bill Clinton, US President (USA Today, 11 Mar 1993, page 2a)

    kdub01
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 245
    (2/15/02 12:15:56 am)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having lugged the heavy (but fairly accurate) M-l, then switched to the M3 greasegun (heavier still, with full mags), finally got to carry an M2 (full auto) carbine thru the hills and valleys of Korea - thought I'd died and gone to Heaven!

    No, the little carbine was (is) a sorta puny round for man stopping, unless you hit him fast and often - but, it was by far a more effective combat weapon for that type of fighting than a .45 semi-auto sidearm. The "cooks and bakers" in our outfit had M1 rifles issued to them. The support people that needed both hands full of other gear generally had the carbines (some opted for the sidearm as it wouldn't interfere as much with loads), plus the officers normally had both the sidearm AND the carbine.

    The "spray and pray" doctrine probably came about in WWII, gained popularity in Korea and became accepted practice in VN. I'll have to say, having a weapon that handled 15 to 30 round magazines, didn't weigh a ton, was light and easy to get into operation was considered a plum type of ordance by the groundpounders I associated with.

    Did I ever tell you of the Asiatic Barking Deer I took down along the Imjin River while on patrol one time, while carrying the M2 and had the selector switch on full auto?...............

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2862
    (2/15/02 12:26:12 am)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EXCEPT the Grease Gun was designed to be lighter than, and have a slower cyclic rate than the Thompson, as well as being cheaper to produce...

    MAINLY because nobody could hit anything with a Thompson.

    Then they found, that with the M3, they had a cheap, lighter, reliable, easy to produce SMG....that nobody could shoot any better than a Thompson!

    It WAS capable of VERY accurate fire at pistol ranges and a little beyond...I betcha X could KEEP it on the coffee can at 50, 75, MAYBE even 100yds...(if it was a 3 pounder, )

    NOBODY could do that routinely with ANY handgun, or SMG...

    You are STILL comparing it to a rifle...it was NEVER intended to be one.

    You're right in one sense, a "confidence gun." The typical cook, clerk, driver, gunbunny, even OFFICER was pretty damn CONFIDENT he could hit a target at 50-100 yds with the carbine, when he WASN'T so with the .45 or any SMG...

    And one other "mistake" I think you are making...belittling the "spray and pray..."

    On the other side of the world, the Germans were developing the MP44, and the Russians were watching...all the while realizing their Nagant was too slow and the PpSH was too wild...and the Bits were teaching "assault fire" with the SMLEs, working the bolt with thumb and trigger finger, using the middle finger to pull the trigger, from the hip, 10 rounds in 10 seconds....

    George Patton was teaching and preaching "Walking fire," shooting from the HIP, to get close enough to use a grenade...he thought his infantry was taking too much time trying to SEE much less HIT a specific target, instead of shooting without aiming and advancing...

    Infantry tactics were right in the middle of changing...and the carbine was AN answer, maybe not THE answer, granted.


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 3601
    (2/15/02 12:10:23 pm)
    Reply
    Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I had 4 M1-Carbines and 3-M2-Carbines and my
    last a Winchester did beautiful out to 200yds.

    The only thing I didn't like was on the M2's and
    that was the select fire switch, everytime you
    removed the stock you had to be ready to catch
    the selector and selector spring because the
    left side of the receiver was the only thing
    holding them in place against the cut-out
    space on the left side of the stock, so if
    you weren't paying attention the spring
    wire would fly out to who knows where.

    I always kept spare selector switches
    and selector springs just for that reason.

    I did like to shoot it on full auto at plastic
    water jugs behind the house here though,
    they are fun to shoot!
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2870
    (2/15/02 7:42:27 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kdub, we musta posted at the same time, I didn't see your's in front of my reply to Pig until I came back today.

    Good post!

    Tell us about the deer, was it like a 60 or 70# button buck or doe I sometimes shoot when I have a taste for veal?

    The carbine would prolly be better at that than my slug.

    I'm surprised at the general opinion that the carbine was NOT accurate at least out to 100, I've only got a few rounds, if I remember, a 15 rd mag, through one a guy I knew had, but we were at 100, and had no problems keeping it at least NEAR the black, if I remember right.

    And we used to shoot water jugs at 100 with our .45s, BUT we had to "walk" them into the first jug, but after that you could hit them fairly regularly, and actually could SEE the bullet in the air!

    Hitting a water jug at 100 with a carbine WOULD be much easier....and we were all IPSC shooters, some "A" class, and I bet THEY'D rather have a carbine at 100....

    And don't the juniors at CMP matches shoot carbines now? That's at 100, too, isn't it?
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    kdub01
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 251
    (2/15/02 9:53:25 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike -

    The carbine had acceptable accuracy out to around 200 yds - far enough away so it wasn't in-your-face personal, such as using a handgun would be. Just didn't have a whole lot of "umph" left when getting there. 'Course, we're talking of a .308 full jacketed round nosed slug that only weighed 110 grains!

    The deer was actually an Eastern count 8 point - but the minature rack (perfectly formed) could be cupped in both hands. It had spots like a yearling fawn, or the Asian Stag. Now, the unbelieveable part - it is also called the "Musk Deer" because it secrets an odor similar to a javelina. They have musk glands that they rub themselves down with, plus marking vegetation. The weirdest part was the upper cannine teeth that protruded down thru the lips, like some vampire! Have absolutely no idea what they were for!!

    We spotted a small line of deer paralleling the Imjin River bank and thought they would break over the bank for the river, however, they crossed in front of us at a diaginal and came within about 80 yds of our squad patrol. Our leader, our 2nd Looie platoon leader, said "Someone get that buck at the rear!" Being a hunter before a soldier, I already was tracking him with my carbine, from a kneeling position. Took only a fraction of a second to flip the safety off and squeeze the trigger. Forgot the selector was on full auto! Let off a half dozen rounds in one burst before the sights were framed in blue sky only. Hit the little sucker from the lower front belly, up thru the heart/lung area and into the whithers before the torque had me looking at the sky. Got 4 hits into him. He went down in the tall weeds and kicked out.

    When we got to him, we saw what he was and stood around admiring him for a bit. There was a village not far away and after the dust settled with no big firefight in progress, several local men came out to see what had our attention. When they saw the deer they got all excited and intimated to us they would like to have it. By this time, a close visual disclosed the carcass was literally covered with ticks - I wouldn't have touched it with your 10' pole!

    We did some looking around and found they had some cages by their thatched huts that contained some of the biggest pheasants I have ever seen (lived in Colorado and Nebraska before, too!). We worked out an acceptable trade - one deer for 2 dozen of the pheasants. Wrung the necks, stuffed them into empty sand bags, hustled them to our jeeps and split for the company compound. That night, we feasted on fried pheasant (1st fresh meat we'd had in over 12 months!) while the Officers divved up and popped for champaine - drunk from canteen cups, at a candlelight (only light source we had) supper!

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 76
    (2/15/02 9:53:47 pm)
    Reply Knock down power
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I've wanted a m-1 carbine for many years. I'll always regret that I didn't get a bunch when I was stationed in Miami Fl. with the Coast Guard. Woolworth's had a couple of barrels of them. They were recent re-impoports, in realy bad condition. But they were only $75 each. If I had bought three, I could have probably had at least one decent one after parts.

    My dad carried one in Korea, but he was in the artillery, and they had plenty of .50 and .30 machine guns around for local defense. He never fired a shot from his m-1 in Korea.

    I don't have the tables here in front of me, but I do know that a m-1 carbine round has much more muzzle energy than the .45. And at 100 yards it has lost very little were the .45 has lost a lot. I have a little pocket pocket guide to the m-1 carbine. It said the carbine was designed to be effective out to 400 yards, but most felt accuracy was good out to about 300 yards after that it droped of rapidly. At 50 or more yards the m-1 carbine has much more energy and is much more effective than the .45. My "Guns and Ammo" miniguide to the m-1 carbine has a sectoin comparing the relative stopping power of various rounds called the "Hatcher Momentum Relative stopping Power rating system". The higher the number the more stopping power. The 9mm comes in at 28.4, the .45 at 60.0, and the .30 carbine m-1 at 32.5. So even though the m-1 carbine round has more muzzle energy (I think twice as much, I'm sure some one who is home has a table) it has only 54% the stopping power of the .45 according to this test. I would guess that this is because the relativly light .30 bullet at high speed over penetrates and does not transfer all it energy to the target.

    I think the m-1 carbine did a good job for what it was designed for, but when it was used in roles other than what it was designed for such as a main battle weapon it was obviously out classed. If they had used a heavier bullet, and sacraficed a little range it would have probably performed better. According to the "Guns and Ammo" mini book, the round was designed first and the rifle was designed around it.

    Edited by: 17th FA Bn at: 2/15/02 10:39:45 pm

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 120
    (2/15/02 10:07:33 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A nasty little weapon! I just like 'em! Probably the easiest rifle for me to hit with at under 150 yds. And I can get some pretty mean lookin rapid fire groups with my 2 favorite carbines, out to about 100 yds. A man that I knew years ago and had the utmost respect for was highly decorated in WW2 and Korea. He always stressed the fact that when things got crazy, he could always maneuver, manipulate and maintain a high rate of fire through all sorts of unbelievably hellish conditions. He said that his carbine did crap out from time to time but that by then it was usually pretty thick H2H, time to grab a Garand an' start swingin' it like a bat!
    Never been there myself, hope to GOD I never have to go there, but I think he was probably right.
    God Bless Him, Wherever He Is!
    Your Buddy,
    MO JENKINS



    LIKTOSHOOT
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 3803
    (2/16/02 9:36:29 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You old guys crack me up, spit on one and praise another. Maybe your just to close to really look at it ole US .30 Carbine and it`s buddits. It seems to me another buddit comes very close to this, what direction you take, usally means the end. LTS






    toot-sweet!

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 122
    (2/17/02 7:32:26 am)
    Reply The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A reliable, accurate and DEADLY WEAPON! Maybe not as good as some....a HECK of alot better than some others!
    All who strongly disagree, line up down in my back yard, a way out in the scrub back there. Remember that YOU THINK it's NOT an accurate and deadly weapon!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    Xracer
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 1671
    (2/17/02 10:50:36 am)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Carbine "effective at 400 yards"? What do they mean by"effective"?

    Kill or wound a man-size target at that range? Frighten him? Maybe he'd laugh himself to death.

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 123
    (2/17/02 1:46:52 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't see you out in the scrub back there yet, XRACER! 400 yds is way beyond it's "effective range". But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about a "SERIOUS" battle rifle, noboby even hinted at that being the standard we are holding it to. Remember what the Germans and everyone else has found out since, it all happens at under 300 yds. and most of it happens a heck of alot closer. At 100-150 yds, if you can't put out a hail storm of well aimed fire with a good carbine, maybe the weapon isn't the problem! If you think that won't put a serious hurtin' on somethin', maybe I'm wastin' my breath! Penetration? NOPE! A hail of bullets, at close ranges , maintaining fire while moving thru confined spaces? YES! Would it be my first choice in a battle/assault rifle? Definately NOT! Has it earned a respected place in my arsenal? ABSOLUTELY! Personally, I wouldn't want anything less than a full .30(M14, Garand etc) if I was a rifleman in an infantry unit. Maybe a combat shotgun if the cirumstances were such that it was suitable. Am I a biased old SON OF A B!TCH? NO DOUBT! Do I think that black plastic and aluminum rifle is a piece of crap? YES! Is it an effective weapon under suitable cicumstances? YES! I was stationed in the Pacific many years ago and we were pretty drunk and hangin around outside a stripper bar. My ears pricked up and I noticed what I thought (for a second) were bees zipping between me and my buddies. Then I heard a "crack..crackcrack" coming from out in the hilly jungle across the main highway(really just a road) I'll never forget the feeling of having my blood LITERALLY CURDLE IN MY VEINS! Anyway, I dove behind some cars, screaming at my buddies to take cover. To make a long story short, it turned out in the end to be an irate native with an M16. BY ANY REAL STANDARD, I still think the AR/M16 series falls FAR SHORT of being a serious battle rifle, but I don't dare affect a pose that it's not an effective weapon! Maybe you boys that scoff at the old CARBINE might try to rethink your opinion that it's nothing but a toy!
    Just my .02!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2887
    (2/17/02 7:16:26 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "400 yd Effective Range for the M1 carbine" means about as much as the warning that the .22lr "Can still kill and wound at 1 1/4 miles..."

    Both technically are correct statements, in the extreme.

    But if you look at ANY weapon, it's "manual" will have pretty "optimistic" effective or "maximum" ranges....

    According to the manual, the the 2.36" Bazooka was "effective" against armor to 400 yds, and had sights up to there, but everyone using it knew it was iffy at 30 yards even against the side of a Panther....but it STILL was a good weapon.

    The question still comes down to...if you had an enemy shooting at you at 200 yds, and you did NOT have a rifle, what would YOU rather have in your hands? A carbine, an SMG, or a .45? THAT is the comparison you have to make, and the answer is clear, the carbine! We are talking about replacing the SMG and pistol, PERIOD, for those troops normally carrying ONLY them...and you HAVE to admit, most troops did NOT carry Garands in WWII...the ratio to actual combatants to non is really astounding. And not every FRONT-LINE soldier or marine carried a rifle either, even before the carbine...

    And again, at night, the Carbine IS a better choice on patrol than even a Garand...

    The other thing we have to consider is Rifle Grenades, they were used a HECKUVA lot more than most people realize in WWII, in fact many veterans claim they were more effective than the bazooka against armor...

    The Garand, until long after the war, did not have a launcher that could be "shot through," meaning when you were assigned to be the grenadier, you had a weapon that could ONLY fire grnades, until you ripped the darn thin off. The Springfield, AND the carbine, could fire regular ammo THROUGH the launcher, so you could defend yourself after firing the grenade, or when a member of a patrol, with the launcher attached...

    While you see many Springfields in units armed with the Garand with the launcher attached, you can just BET the grenadier wished he had a carbine instead...and every Garand grenadier definitely did ...


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 124
    (2/17/02 7:49:22 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thanks Polish! Now how 'bout meetin' over at the "best bolt gun" debate. Kids these days, they got no respect!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 78
    (2/18/02 9:31:36 pm)
    Reply Rifle grenades?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish, I thought all the U.S. W.W. II grenade launchers used blanks. Polish are you saying that the M-1 rifle had to have the grenade launcher removed before regular rounds could be fired through it? Did the blank 30-06 rounds come on a stripper clip?

    My "Guns

    Edited by: 17th FA Bn at: 2/19/02 6:12:02 pm

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2906
    (2/20/02 9:00:33 pm)
    Reply Re: Rifle grenades?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My original post was not quite right, you COULD fire standard ammo with the launcher in place on the M1, but is couldn't be fired semiautomatically, the action had to be worked for each shot.

    The blank grenade firing round vented too much gas into the gas tube so originally, the M7 launcher was mounted after removing the screw plug at the end of the gas tube, to vent the excess gas...with it attached, it was an 8 shot straight pull bolt action with regular rounds.

    Later they developed, and I've seen it on some DCM Garands, a plug that was like a "poppet" valve, so you didn't have to remove it, and a modification to the launcher held it in to vent, and removing the launcher closed it, allowing semi operation with it off, but then the grenadier was forever putting the launcher on and off, losing parts or whole launchers under fire.

    The 03 didn't need to vent obviuosly, all the gas went right out with the grenade, and the carbine had a different gas system, and not as much gas...so it too could be fired semiauto with ball ammo right after the grenade was launched by a blank. It wasn't until after the war they figured out how to make the one on the Garand work right.

    Interestingly, many GIs claim the rifle grenade was a better tank killer than the bazooka, probably because the same charge was delivered from the top in plunging fire, where the armor was thinner. Seems like it would be harder to hit a tank though that way...there were surprisingly large amounts of rifle grenades used by the US in WWII, you don't hear much about them though.

    It was portrayed in "Patton," which was about the ONLY realistic thing about that movie.

    The 2.36" bazooka rocket was essentially the AT rifle grenade head on a rocket body, that's why the 2.36" size...that was the diameter of the standard AT rifle grenade...
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 80
    (2/22/02 7:44:43 am)
    Reply Bazooka
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I remember seeing or reading that the bazooka charge was original a grenade launcher war head for a .50 machine gun. That didn't work out to well so they had to figure another way to fling it out. Some ordinance officer made the prototype bazooka out of an old fire extinguisher shell. I guess they didn't have the billion dollar development programs in the 40's

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2856
    (2/14/02 10:47:55 pm)
    Reply The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BlackGun's new toy got me to thinking...

    This topic MAY get a doozy of a discussion going, because this is such a love/hate weapon, sometimes by the same person!

    And just maybe we can get some posters who actually carried on in the service, or even used one in combat, to chip in with their opinion, and we all can learn...

    But remember, this ISN'T Florida...you have to WORK a little besides just voting...PLEASE hit "Reply" at the bottom, after you vote, and check the results, even if just to say hi, but PLEASE tell us WHY you voted that way...

    We LOVE to argue and discuss opinions, , on their merits, and in the process we all learn....and remember, opinions are neither RIGHT or WRONG.

    (Except mine, but that's another story... )
    a failure as a military weapon.
    a GREAT design, that did what it was supposed to do.
    the WORST rifle ever adopted by the US Military.
    an accurate, reliable, valuable battle weapon.
    an inaccurate, weak piece of CRAP.

    Show results

    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2857
    (2/14/02 10:53:32 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I think that the M1 Carbine was both a GREAT weapon and design, that was good at what it was intended to do, but actually a FAILURE also at what it was intended to do...in a way.

    It was NEVER designed to be a "rifle." Most people who carried it and HATED it tried to USE it as a rifle, and it WASN'T that accurate, or powerful.

    It WAS intended to be a "Cook and Baker" rifle, a rifle to replace the handgun as the main weapon of Non-front line soldiers, or support, or gun teams, etc. Plus, it was supposed to replace the SMG, which was usually carried by non-coms and officers, as well as other combatants.

    It COULD have done that well, it WAS easier to carry and shoot than the .45, or any other pistol in the military service, mainly because most people without more training than merely familiarization CAN'T hit anything with a pistol outside of belly-button range, and most soldiers could NOT handle the Thompson, or any other SMG in full auto...and the round IS a pretty hot pistol round by itself, even from a PISTLOL length barrel, much less a longer one....

    So, because it did NOT replace them, and in fact the demand for handguns and SMGs CONTINUED throughout WWII and after, it MUST have been a failure, right?

    Well, it WAS a great design, and it served it's purpose well, even IF the gunbunny carried his .45 AND his carbine. Or the Top carried both too...

    ...as long as you remembered it WASN'T a rifle, it was a TREMENDOUS weapon. But if you had used a Garand, or a BAR, or even a 03A3, and thought this "cute" little easy to carry "rifle" was just the ticket, and took a shot (and another and another and another) at a Jap at 150-200 yds and he didn't go down, you thought it was CRAP.

    But if that Jap was at 50 yds, the range you were told you COULD engage with the .45, and you were a Cook thrown in the line in a provisional company... you MIGHT just hit him and put him down with the carbine....while you could NOT say the same if you used your .45 on him at that range....

    I'm wondering if the "replace the pistol/SMG" was just a smokescreen...to get an innovative weapon on the drawing boards and adopted....or did they REALLY believe it would happen?

    And here's some personal anecdotal stuff...

    My Dad, who trained in the infantry after being drafted in 1942 and trained with the 03A3, and in fact his unit went to England for DDay WITH those same 03s (He never fired a Garand in his entire service...) but he was transferred at the last second to a new towed 105 artillery unit forming at Bragg after the his first unit shipped out for England. He said they were then issued the carbine, and he had to carry it later when he guarded prisoners. (He acted as a truck driver and guard for German POWs too, on work details around Fayetteville)

    He said it was "a piece of crap." Couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, puny cartridge, not ANYTHING like the Springfield he first used...

    On the other hand, his best friend and our neighbor, was a Marine Sergeant in Korea. Lost both legs on a Chinese mine, leading a patrol. When I was a kid, he used to hire us neighborhood kids to do odd jobs for him, and once in his house, we looked at his guns, he had a carbine...told me it was the BEST gun ever designed, THAT one had saved his life many times on night patrols, if he ever had to grab a gun to save his life, and had time to get to the cabinet, he'd grab his old carbine first.... (I don't know HOW he got his issue weapon back with him, unless on the hospital ship, then back home...then he DID marry his nurse on the ship, maybe SHE hid it for him... )

    Anyway, two best friends, two different wars, two DIFFERENT experiences with the same weapon!





    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Edited by: polishshooter at: 2/14/02 10:55:48 pm

    TallTLynn
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 3177
    (2/14/02 10:55:42 pm)
    Reply
    Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    polish, I don't know anything about the M1 Carbine but would like to participate in this debate. The more people who participate in this debate the more I can learn.

    Edited by: TallTLynn at: 2/14/02 11:40:02 pm

    Xracer
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 1650
    (2/14/02 11:19:46 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ....a weak, inaccurate piece of crap.....BUT....it did the job it was designed to do!

    I agree with most of what you say Polish, but not all......it was designed as a 20 to 60 yard sidearm (far beyond the range the average GI could hit anything with a .45)....15 quick (but small) rounds. It probably served more as a confidence builder for those who carried them (the cooks, bakers, engineers, etc.) than any real threat to the enemy.

    A real fun plinker though.....I put a lot of rounds through one of these. At 25 to 50 yards, a sure coffee can killer.

    warpig883
    *TFF Staff*
    Posts: 2435
    (2/14/02 11:28:41 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It did what it was supposed to do but I think it was under powered and not accurate enough to be of real use.

    It was good for spray and pray--laying down covering fire fire for example.


    Kind of like the grease gun
    We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans... -- Bill Clinton, US President (USA Today, 11 Mar 1993, page 2a)

    kdub01
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 245
    (2/15/02 12:15:56 am)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Having lugged the heavy (but fairly accurate) M-l, then switched to the M3 greasegun (heavier still, with full mags), finally got to carry an M2 (full auto) carbine thru the hills and valleys of Korea - thought I'd died and gone to Heaven!

    No, the little carbine was (is) a sorta puny round for man stopping, unless you hit him fast and often - but, it was by far a more effective combat weapon for that type of fighting than a .45 semi-auto sidearm. The "cooks and bakers" in our outfit had M1 rifles issued to them. The support people that needed both hands full of other gear generally had the carbines (some opted for the sidearm as it wouldn't interfere as much with loads), plus the officers normally had both the sidearm AND the carbine.

    The "spray and pray" doctrine probably came about in WWII, gained popularity in Korea and became accepted practice in VN. I'll have to say, having a weapon that handled 15 to 30 round magazines, didn't weigh a ton, was light and easy to get into operation was considered a plum type of ordance by the groundpounders I associated with.

    Did I ever tell you of the Asiatic Barking Deer I took down along the Imjin River while on patrol one time, while carrying the M2 and had the selector switch on full auto?...............

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2862
    (2/15/02 12:26:12 am)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EXCEPT the Grease Gun was designed to be lighter than, and have a slower cyclic rate than the Thompson, as well as being cheaper to produce...

    MAINLY because nobody could hit anything with a Thompson.

    Then they found, that with the M3, they had a cheap, lighter, reliable, easy to produce SMG....that nobody could shoot any better than a Thompson!

    It WAS capable of VERY accurate fire at pistol ranges and a little beyond...I betcha X could KEEP it on the coffee can at 50, 75, MAYBE even 100yds...(if it was a 3 pounder, )

    NOBODY could do that routinely with ANY handgun, or SMG...

    You are STILL comparing it to a rifle...it was NEVER intended to be one.

    You're right in one sense, a "confidence gun." The typical cook, clerk, driver, gunbunny, even OFFICER was pretty damn CONFIDENT he could hit a target at 50-100 yds with the carbine, when he WASN'T so with the .45 or any SMG...

    And one other "mistake" I think you are making...belittling the "spray and pray..."

    On the other side of the world, the Germans were developing the MP44, and the Russians were watching...all the while realizing their Nagant was too slow and the PpSH was too wild...and the Bits were teaching "assault fire" with the SMLEs, working the bolt with thumb and trigger finger, using the middle finger to pull the trigger, from the hip, 10 rounds in 10 seconds....

    George Patton was teaching and preaching "Walking fire," shooting from the HIP, to get close enough to use a grenade...he thought his infantry was taking too much time trying to SEE much less HIT a specific target, instead of shooting without aiming and advancing...

    Infantry tactics were right in the middle of changing...and the carbine was AN answer, maybe not THE answer, granted.


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    Tac401
    Administrator
    Posts: 3601
    (2/15/02 12:10:23 pm)
    Reply
    Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I had 4 M1-Carbines and 3-M2-Carbines and my
    last a Winchester did beautiful out to 200yds.

    The only thing I didn't like was on the M2's and
    that was the select fire switch, everytime you
    removed the stock you had to be ready to catch
    the selector and selector spring because the
    left side of the receiver was the only thing
    holding them in place against the cut-out
    space on the left side of the stock, so if
    you weren't paying attention the spring
    wire would fly out to who knows where.

    I always kept spare selector switches
    and selector springs just for that reason.

    I did like to shoot it on full auto at plastic
    water jugs behind the house here though,
    they are fun to shoot!
    The Firearms Forum Vietnam Memories Bulletin Board Contact Administrator

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2870
    (2/15/02 7:42:27 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kdub, we musta posted at the same time, I didn't see your's in front of my reply to Pig until I came back today.

    Good post!

    Tell us about the deer, was it like a 60 or 70# button buck or doe I sometimes shoot when I have a taste for veal?

    The carbine would prolly be better at that than my slug.

    I'm surprised at the general opinion that the carbine was NOT accurate at least out to 100, I've only got a few rounds, if I remember, a 15 rd mag, through one a guy I knew had, but we were at 100, and had no problems keeping it at least NEAR the black, if I remember right.

    And we used to shoot water jugs at 100 with our .45s, BUT we had to "walk" them into the first jug, but after that you could hit them fairly regularly, and actually could SEE the bullet in the air!

    Hitting a water jug at 100 with a carbine WOULD be much easier....and we were all IPSC shooters, some "A" class, and I bet THEY'D rather have a carbine at 100....

    And don't the juniors at CMP matches shoot carbines now? That's at 100, too, isn't it?
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    kdub01
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 251
    (2/15/02 9:53:25 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike -

    The carbine had acceptable accuracy out to around 200 yds - far enough away so it wasn't in-your-face personal, such as using a handgun would be. Just didn't have a whole lot of "umph" left when getting there. 'Course, we're talking of a .308 full jacketed round nosed slug that only weighed 110 grains!

    The deer was actually an Eastern count 8 point - but the minature rack (perfectly formed) could be cupped in both hands. It had spots like a yearling fawn, or the Asian Stag. Now, the unbelieveable part - it is also called the "Musk Deer" because it secrets an odor similar to a javelina. They have musk glands that they rub themselves down with, plus marking vegetation. The weirdest part was the upper cannine teeth that protruded down thru the lips, like some vampire! Have absolutely no idea what they were for!!

    We spotted a small line of deer paralleling the Imjin River bank and thought they would break over the bank for the river, however, they crossed in front of us at a diaginal and came within about 80 yds of our squad patrol. Our leader, our 2nd Looie platoon leader, said "Someone get that buck at the rear!" Being a hunter before a soldier, I already was tracking him with my carbine, from a kneeling position. Took only a fraction of a second to flip the safety off and squeeze the trigger. Forgot the selector was on full auto! Let off a half dozen rounds in one burst before the sights were framed in blue sky only. Hit the little sucker from the lower front belly, up thru the heart/lung area and into the whithers before the torque had me looking at the sky. Got 4 hits into him. He went down in the tall weeds and kicked out.

    When we got to him, we saw what he was and stood around admiring him for a bit. There was a village not far away and after the dust settled with no big firefight in progress, several local men came out to see what had our attention. When they saw the deer they got all excited and intimated to us they would like to have it. By this time, a close visual disclosed the carcass was literally covered with ticks - I wouldn't have touched it with your 10' pole!

    We did some looking around and found they had some cages by their thatched huts that contained some of the biggest pheasants I have ever seen (lived in Colorado and Nebraska before, too!). We worked out an acceptable trade - one deer for 2 dozen of the pheasants. Wrung the necks, stuffed them into empty sand bags, hustled them to our jeeps and split for the company compound. That night, we feasted on fried pheasant (1st fresh meat we'd had in over 12 months!) while the Officers divved up and popped for champaine - drunk from canteen cups, at a candlelight (only light source we had) supper!

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 76
    (2/15/02 9:53:47 pm)
    Reply Knock down power
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I've wanted a m-1 carbine for many years. I'll always regret that I didn't get a bunch when I was stationed in Miami Fl. with the Coast Guard. Woolworth's had a couple of barrels of them. They were recent re-impoports, in realy bad condition. But they were only $75 each. If I had bought three, I could have probably had at least one decent one after parts.

    My dad carried one in Korea, but he was in the artillery, and they had plenty of .50 and .30 machine guns around for local defense. He never fired a shot from his m-1 in Korea.

    I don't have the tables here in front of me, but I do know that a m-1 carbine round has much more muzzle energy than the .45. And at 100 yards it has lost very little were the .45 has lost a lot. I have a little pocket pocket guide to the m-1 carbine. It said the carbine was designed to be effective out to 400 yards, but most felt accuracy was good out to about 300 yards after that it droped of rapidly. At 50 or more yards the m-1 carbine has much more energy and is much more effective than the .45. My "Guns and Ammo" miniguide to the m-1 carbine has a sectoin comparing the relative stopping power of various rounds called the "Hatcher Momentum Relative stopping Power rating system". The higher the number the more stopping power. The 9mm comes in at 28.4, the .45 at 60.0, and the .30 carbine m-1 at 32.5. So even though the m-1 carbine round has more muzzle energy (I think twice as much, I'm sure some one who is home has a table) it has only 54% the stopping power of the .45 according to this test. I would guess that this is because the relativly light .30 bullet at high speed over penetrates and does not transfer all it energy to the target.

    I think the m-1 carbine did a good job for what it was designed for, but when it was used in roles other than what it was designed for such as a main battle weapon it was obviously out classed. If they had used a heavier bullet, and sacraficed a little range it would have probably performed better. According to the "Guns and Ammo" mini book, the round was designed first and the rifle was designed around it.

    Edited by: 17th FA Bn at: 2/15/02 10:39:45 pm

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 120
    (2/15/02 10:07:33 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A nasty little weapon! I just like 'em! Probably the easiest rifle for me to hit with at under 150 yds. And I can get some pretty mean lookin rapid fire groups with my 2 favorite carbines, out to about 100 yds. A man that I knew years ago and had the utmost respect for was highly decorated in WW2 and Korea. He always stressed the fact that when things got crazy, he could always maneuver, manipulate and maintain a high rate of fire through all sorts of unbelievably hellish conditions. He said that his carbine did crap out from time to time but that by then it was usually pretty thick H2H, time to grab a Garand an' start swingin' it like a bat!
    Never been there myself, hope to GOD I never have to go there, but I think he was probably right.
    God Bless Him, Wherever He Is!
    Your Buddy,
    MO JENKINS



    LIKTOSHOOT
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 3803
    (2/16/02 9:36:29 pm)
    Reply Re: The US M1 Carbine was...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You old guys crack me up, spit on one and praise another. Maybe your just to close to really look at it ole US .30 Carbine and it`s buddits. It seems to me another buddit comes very close to this, what direction you take, usally means the end. LTS






    toot-sweet!

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 122
    (2/17/02 7:32:26 am)
    Reply The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A reliable, accurate and DEADLY WEAPON! Maybe not as good as some....a HECK of alot better than some others!
    All who strongly disagree, line up down in my back yard, a way out in the scrub back there. Remember that YOU THINK it's NOT an accurate and deadly weapon!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    Xracer
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 1671
    (2/17/02 10:50:36 am)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Carbine "effective at 400 yards"? What do they mean by"effective"?

    Kill or wound a man-size target at that range? Frighten him? Maybe he'd laugh himself to death.

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 123
    (2/17/02 1:46:52 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I don't see you out in the scrub back there yet, XRACER! 400 yds is way beyond it's "effective range". But that's not what we're talking about. We're not talking about a "SERIOUS" battle rifle, noboby even hinted at that being the standard we are holding it to. Remember what the Germans and everyone else has found out since, it all happens at under 300 yds. and most of it happens a heck of alot closer. At 100-150 yds, if you can't put out a hail storm of well aimed fire with a good carbine, maybe the weapon isn't the problem! If you think that won't put a serious hurtin' on somethin', maybe I'm wastin' my breath! Penetration? NOPE! A hail of bullets, at close ranges , maintaining fire while moving thru confined spaces? YES! Would it be my first choice in a battle/assault rifle? Definately NOT! Has it earned a respected place in my arsenal? ABSOLUTELY! Personally, I wouldn't want anything less than a full .30(M14, Garand etc) if I was a rifleman in an infantry unit. Maybe a combat shotgun if the cirumstances were such that it was suitable. Am I a biased old SON OF A B!TCH? NO DOUBT! Do I think that black plastic and aluminum rifle is a piece of crap? YES! Is it an effective weapon under suitable cicumstances? YES! I was stationed in the Pacific many years ago and we were pretty drunk and hangin around outside a stripper bar. My ears pricked up and I noticed what I thought (for a second) were bees zipping between me and my buddies. Then I heard a "crack..crackcrack" coming from out in the hilly jungle across the main highway(really just a road) I'll never forget the feeling of having my blood LITERALLY CURDLE IN MY VEINS! Anyway, I dove behind some cars, screaming at my buddies to take cover. To make a long story short, it turned out in the end to be an irate native with an M16. BY ANY REAL STANDARD, I still think the AR/M16 series falls FAR SHORT of being a serious battle rifle, but I don't dare affect a pose that it's not an effective weapon! Maybe you boys that scoff at the old CARBINE might try to rethink your opinion that it's nothing but a toy!
    Just my .02!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2887
    (2/17/02 7:16:26 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "400 yd Effective Range for the M1 carbine" means about as much as the warning that the .22lr "Can still kill and wound at 1 1/4 miles..."

    Both technically are correct statements, in the extreme.

    But if you look at ANY weapon, it's "manual" will have pretty "optimistic" effective or "maximum" ranges....

    According to the manual, the the 2.36" Bazooka was "effective" against armor to 400 yds, and had sights up to there, but everyone using it knew it was iffy at 30 yards even against the side of a Panther....but it STILL was a good weapon.

    The question still comes down to...if you had an enemy shooting at you at 200 yds, and you did NOT have a rifle, what would YOU rather have in your hands? A carbine, an SMG, or a .45? THAT is the comparison you have to make, and the answer is clear, the carbine! We are talking about replacing the SMG and pistol, PERIOD, for those troops normally carrying ONLY them...and you HAVE to admit, most troops did NOT carry Garands in WWII...the ratio to actual combatants to non is really astounding. And not every FRONT-LINE soldier or marine carried a rifle either, even before the carbine...

    And again, at night, the Carbine IS a better choice on patrol than even a Garand...

    The other thing we have to consider is Rifle Grenades, they were used a HECKUVA lot more than most people realize in WWII, in fact many veterans claim they were more effective than the bazooka against armor...

    The Garand, until long after the war, did not have a launcher that could be "shot through," meaning when you were assigned to be the grenadier, you had a weapon that could ONLY fire grnades, until you ripped the darn thin off. The Springfield, AND the carbine, could fire regular ammo THROUGH the launcher, so you could defend yourself after firing the grenade, or when a member of a patrol, with the launcher attached...

    While you see many Springfields in units armed with the Garand with the launcher attached, you can just BET the grenadier wished he had a carbine instead...and every Garand grenadier definitely did ...


    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    MO JENKINS
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 124
    (2/17/02 7:49:22 pm)
    Reply Re: The M1 carbine IS...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thanks Polish! Now how 'bout meetin' over at the "best bolt gun" debate. Kids these days, they got no respect!
    Your Buddy,
    MO

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 78
    (2/18/02 9:31:36 pm)
    Reply Rifle grenades?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Polish, I thought all the U.S. W.W. II grenade launchers used blanks. Polish are you saying that the M-1 rifle had to have the grenade launcher removed before regular rounds could be fired through it? Did the blank 30-06 rounds come on a stripper clip?

    My "Guns

    Edited by: 17th FA Bn at: 2/19/02 6:12:02 pm

    polishshooter
    *TFF Senior Staff*
    Posts: 2906
    (2/20/02 9:00:33 pm)
    Reply Re: Rifle grenades?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My original post was not quite right, you COULD fire standard ammo with the launcher in place on the M1, but is couldn't be fired semiautomatically, the action had to be worked for each shot.

    The blank grenade firing round vented too much gas into the gas tube so originally, the M7 launcher was mounted after removing the screw plug at the end of the gas tube, to vent the excess gas...with it attached, it was an 8 shot straight pull bolt action with regular rounds.

    Later they developed, and I've seen it on some DCM Garands, a plug that was like a "poppet" valve, so you didn't have to remove it, and a modification to the launcher held it in to vent, and removing the launcher closed it, allowing semi operation with it off, but then the grenadier was forever putting the launcher on and off, losing parts or whole launchers under fire.

    The 03 didn't need to vent obviuosly, all the gas went right out with the grenade, and the carbine had a different gas system, and not as much gas...so it too could be fired semiauto with ball ammo right after the grenade was launched by a blank. It wasn't until after the war they figured out how to make the one on the Garand work right.

    Interestingly, many GIs claim the rifle grenade was a better tank killer than the bazooka, probably because the same charge was delivered from the top in plunging fire, where the armor was thinner. Seems like it would be harder to hit a tank though that way...there were surprisingly large amounts of rifle grenades used by the US in WWII, you don't hear much about them though.

    It was portrayed in "Patton," which was about the ONLY realistic thing about that movie.

    The 2.36" bazooka rocket was essentially the AT rifle grenade head on a rocket body, that's why the 2.36" size...that was the diameter of the standard AT rifle grenade...
    We must make war as we must; not as we would like. - Field Marshal Kitchener, 1915

    17th FA Bn
    V.I.P. Member
    Posts: 80
    (2/22/02 7:44:43 am)
    Reply Bazooka
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I remember seeing or reading that the bazooka charge was original a grenade launcher war head for a .50 machine gun. That didn't work out to well so they had to figure another way to fling it out. Some ordinance officer made the prototype bazooka out of an old fire extinguisher shell. I guess they didn't have the billion dollar development programs in the 40's.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2003
  2. BDMerc1

    BDMerc1 New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    From a historical perspective, my impression was that the M1 Carbine was pressed into service to help with the critical shortage of M1911 pistols and give the troops a light, short range weapon that would be an alternative to a 1911. From a lethality perspective, the M1 Carbine was not the most feared weapon on the battlefield, but I could imagine at 100 yards, it would serve better than the 1911 at letting the enemy know that they were taking somewhat accurate fire.

    The M1 Carbine with one loaded mag can go "bang" the same number of times as a fully loaded M1 Garand and 1911 pistol combined. For what was available at the time, I would think it would be a useful weapon for keeping sustained fire on an advancing enemy.

    I do agree that it was a mistake not to come up with a different weapon to replace the M1 Carbine after WWII. Taking the M1 Carbine (and even the M2 Carbine) to Korea was not an example of equiping our troops with the best, most effective weaponry. We had plenty of time to study the effectiveness of the German MP44 between the wars, and I think the military was poorly advised not to develop an intermediate, more effective weapon to bridge the gap between battle rifle and sub machine gun.

    Just my opinion.
  3. cutter

    cutter New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2008
    Messages:
    635
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    My Dad used A Garand and M1carbine in Korea. He can still shoot them both!! He said he liked the garand better but the carbine was lighter to cary.(I never new much about what he went throug until the last few yrs) They also had to carry 5 gal cans of gas and water, a light carbine would be better to carry than a Garand. At 79 he can still shoot the M1 and be very deadly. The fist time I saw him shoot both my jaw dropped!! I was very impressed and he could also shoot the .45! Never underestimate a vet from one of te wars.
  4. Jim Hauff

    Jim Hauff New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,976
    Location:
    Lehigh Valley, PA
  5. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Messages:
    8,214
    Location:
    West Tennessee
    In the USAF in the 1961 era, the M1 Carbine was the standard issue weapon, and we had to qualify with it. It functioned well, but had the balistics of a sling-shot. At that time, we were issued for testing purposes the AR15. Most guys saw it as VASTLY superior to the M1, although some resisted the plastic stock, and the recoil spring caused the quip "Made by matel; it's swell!"
    In Communications as I was, we carried and qualified with the 1911, which I still love.

    Of the three weapons, I would take the .45 and the AR as first and second choices depending on the circumstances, and the M1 Carbine a rather distant third.
    But a lot of guys absolutely loved it, mainly for the low recoil -
  6. whirley

    whirley Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    542
    Early in Korea I found the M-2 carbine cartridge was good out to about 200 yards, BUT often wouldn't keep them down at that range. The M-1 Garand put them down out to 400-500 yards. One problem was getting poorly trained young soldiers to even pull a trigger. The M-2 carbine with it's high rate of fire, convenient size was weapon of choice for night listening outposts and patrols. I'll always remember one kid that brought a flashlight to go on patrol "So I can see where I'm going".
  7. whymememe

    whymememe Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,444
    Location:
    FEMA Region IV
    I played with the M-1 In high school ROTC in the late 1960's. We did dry firing target practice. It was heavy,but I enjoyed holding a piece of history. I was lucky I never got my thumb smashed doing inspection arms.
  8. 436

    436 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    North West
  9. Palmetto

    Palmetto New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    North Carolina
    The Carbine is underrated, not overrated. My father used it in combat in Okinawa and it did the job beautifully.
  10. 17thfabn

    17thfabn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    North bank of the mighty Ohio River
    From what I've read the M-1 Carbine was built from the ground up for the role it was used in:

    1. Lighter and easier to handle than a full size rifle, e.g. the 1903 or M-1 rifle. As a matter of fact it was lighter than both the Thompson and "grease gun".

    2. Much better range and more accurate than a pistol. And also much better range than the Thompson and "grease gun".

    The M-1 Carbine was not the best weapon in the world, as I see it the weakness was not the gun it self, but its ammunition.

    But it definitely succeed in what was expected of it:

    1. It was lighter and easier to carry and handle than a M-1 rifle or 1903.

    2. It had much better range than a .45, and it is much easier to teach some one to shoot a rifle than a pistol.
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2011
  11. SF Mike

    SF Mike New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    I had to carry one of those wimpy bastards my 1st few months in RVN.
    I was an advisor and thats what the CIDG carried in 1968.
    I had them as a kid and they are fine for groundhogs and possums.
    Even skinny 3rd world guys tend to get pissed off when shot with that lousy cartridge, no matter what all your stats and charts say.
    We had M2s. I was delighted when we got changed over to M16s which were a lot better than many internet commandos admit.
    A good troop knows to maintain his gear.
  12. NVSmith

    NVSmith New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3
    -I'm actually kind of neutral on the subject. When I was inprocessing to my helo company in RVN, I went through battalion HQ and noticed racks of M-1, M-1A1 and M-2 carbines that were being sent to...?
    -Our helo maintenance company and a few other odds & sods on our company compound still carried carbines, mostly M-2s. I picked one up, talked to a few of my new buddies and then asked my platoon leader if I could go back to BN HQ and try to swap out M-1A1 stocks for the M-2s. The answer was "Yes" as long as I did a few for the pilots as well. It took me about a day to inlet the M-1A1 stocks to let the selector switch move smoothly.
    -The pilots wanted them as backups to their .45s and the folding stock carbine was easier to store.
    -I kept one in case I went to a RF/PF compund where they were standard: no point in having an M-14 if there wasn't any ammo available.
    -It also fit nicely into my AWOL bag if I went somwhere that required us to check our rifles. I still had that and some 30 round mags.
    -My first choice as a mankiller? Not hardly, but as a light, compact, backup piece you could do worse.
  13. 25yretcoastie

    25yretcoastie Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    559
    Location:
    Fort Pierce Fl
    Trained with M1 Carbines in the mid 60's alone with Garrands. Learned to love both of them but when on securty detail or OP Market Time in Country we used the carbines more than any other for searching river traffic. As I have gotten older u found a IBM mostly orginal so after all these years have one of my own and not GI issue. If you think it won't do the job don't get one after it is a matter of choice
  14. GatorDude

    GatorDude New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    50
    Location:
    Semi-Homeless
    I'll leave this debate to the people who actually served and used the M1 Carbine in combat. I'm sure it would suffice around the house or at the range. I had a chance to shoot one any years ago and it was a lot of fun.

    For those of us in the 329th Internet Legion, I'm pretty sure that the main weakness of the M1 Carbine is the lack of a rail system to hold our coffee cups, flashlights, GPS units, tactical thermos bottles, tasers, lasers, iPhones, and Foreman grills.
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2012
  15. doakjh

    doakjh New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Alaska
    Just picked up my first M1 carbine. Had to have one as my radio operator father did nothing but talk about his carbine when I was a kid. He served in Italy and never shot the thing. Loved it for its size. Bought each of us boys a 30-30 carbine based on his love of the M1. Mind you, he states that "the only combat he experienced was in the chow line".
  16. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    17,600
    Location:
    Australia
    Cool Doakjh, start a unique thread and post some pic's ,
  17. bobski

    bobski Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    947
    Location:
    va., conn., & mo.
    airborne units must have done pretty good with them in ww2. they won many an objective. folded them out, did the job, and moved on. may not have been powerful, but then again, airborne dropped right in where it was up front and personal. no need to think or see the target. he was right there on top of them.....and the M1 carbine did the job. agree?
  18. Palmetto

    Palmetto New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    188
    Location:
    North Carolina
    My father carried an M2 Carbine in the Pacific. He said with the flick of a button it was fully automatic.
  19. SF Mike

    SF Mike New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    70
    I think M2s came along very late and were not common.

    There were a great many more Garands jumped by paratroopers in WW2 than carbines.
    A brief perusal of available photographs will confirm this.
    My Dad was 506th PIR and had a Garand as did most of his cohorts.
    I have a folder-they are very innacurate due to the wobble factor in the stock.
    This is common to most folding stock weapons.
    Garands were broken down and placed in Griswold containers strapped to one's side.
    We used the same for training jumping M 14s.
  20. B27

    B27 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages:
    415
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    The carbine has more velocity and energy at 100 yards than a .357 magnum pistol has at the muzzle.

    Would you scoff at someone shooting at you with a .357 at close range?
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Taylor's 1865 Spencer Carbine Oct 13, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum Carbine M1 cal 30 Sep 30, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum M1 Carbine (Underwood) Jul 10, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum my jungle carbine Apr 17, 2013
General Military Arms & History Forum Bought my first Mosin Nagant M44 carbine Jan 18, 2013

Share This Page