February American Rifleman

[firstflabn]

There is a big difference between dumping a spare barrel and choosing a marginal weapon that may save your life to avoid humping a couple of pounds. SLA Marshall's somewhat believable books chronicle the Army personnel dumping everything, spare ammunition, grenades, over the matter of weight. I would not expect the same behavior from Marines. HMGs were rarely carried. I'll give you another theoretical instance that you can pick apart: Suppose your assistant gunner and ammo bearers are humping cans of belted ammunition in addition to a spare barrel in a piece of web gear that may be a genuine hassle to keep on board comfortably. You ask the SGT if it's ok to ditch the barrel and pick it up later or just forget about it. If there has been no use of it for several days, it might be a great idea to dump it in favor of bullets. Gas masks are dumped by the hundreds, was there a "lesson learned" on that?

To my knowledge, they didn't prepare "lessons learned" reports on hypothetical situations. If your research has turned up any, I'd be pleased to learn of them. However, the 1st Marine Division's post-Chosin reports do employ careful speculation, versions of "maybe this or that would help" after explaining the event.

The wisdom of retaining the carbine in the USMC T/O had already been answered before the NORK's started south in June, so your wishful thinking is pointless. It had already been answered several times during WWII during rather sweeping T/O changes. The idea that the carbine had mechanical issues during Chosin is firmly rooted in fact. The point I was striving to make (and you either ignored or dismissed) was that if you rely on anecdote in place of research, you'll miss the point that other weapons had numerous reliability problems too. If you strip the context from even factual accounts, you distort the conclusion. Is that not obvious?

Since I've endorsed context as a good thing, and since we both seem to have an interest in the weight carried by weapons crews, how about a quick peek at how the Marine infantry battalion mortar and MG elements (both heavy and light) were organized in Oct 40. I'm fairly certain this is the last version before the carbine was adopted. Piecing together some secondary sources, looks like 65 rifles and 170 pistols. I can't help but wonder if the considered wisdom of the Marine Corps thought weight might be one issue leading to this distribution.

What did the first USMC T/O with the carbine look like? Again, for the weapons crews in an infantry battalion: 1 pistol, 132 carbines, 41 '03s. That's virtually a complete swap, carbines for pistols (at least proportionately as the quantities varied a bit).

I can't prove that the reason the Corps assigned a much higher proportion of carbines to their infantry battalions than did the army was because they also assigned a much greater number of MGs and mortars (correlation is not the same as cause and effect), but, when combined with remarks about the weight of other weapons, it's impossible to ignore.

If you can tolerate one more comment: I had always been a bit skeptical about the claims that the original carbine safety was changed because of WWII GIs getting it confused with the mag release, but I'll be damned, there it was in one of those WWII lessons learned reports. Still learning (now if I could just remember where I put stuff).

[DaveHH]

Thanks for the information. No doubt the carbine was going to stay in the USMC. One of my favorite movie clips involving the carbine/USMC was the clip taken on Betio where the guy with a carbine has a group of Japanese come out running and he brings up his carbine and is obviously dry. I wonder if a Lesson learned would be to make the follower have a hold open feature like the 30 rd units? They made all of those millions of magazines and didn't put the hold open feature?

[Sentryduty]

he Korean War Educator site had the accounts of a weapons tech (Can't recall the US designation) during the war and it talked about a lot of huge issues with keeping guns running in the cold, echoing comments above. I will try to find that story as I found it surprising and awfully educational.

As closure to this comment, I located the article and posted the link as a new thread here: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=55424

[INLAND44]

I've been listening to this argument since I got my carbine in 1991. In my view the military erred in allowing the carbine to be issued to so many troops in lieu of the rifle. The troops loved it and many of them were M2s - who doesn't like a small, lightweight machine gun? The problem was, it was never intended to be the principle rifle in an infantry unit - it was forced into that role. So any comparison of the carbine and rifle in combat effectiveness is moot because over-proliferation of the carbine was a strategic error on the part of the military. That means there should be no comparison because the M1 Rifle should have been the predominant individual arm. I'm sure it escaped nobody's attention that the Korean War marked the beginning of the end for the M1 Carbine. For that matter, for the full-power .30 caliber rifle as well, although the M14 development was brought to it's conclusion and that rifle was used for a short time before the M16 took the stage - and that's another story, now isn't it?
The oft-repeated sentiment that the .30 Carbine round is a pistol cartridge is also incorrect. The round was developed by Winchester and was based on an earlier carbine round, the .32 Winchester, but with better modern propellant and jacketed bullet. The Army wanted a 'light rifle' for certain soldiers who normally would have only had a pistol, and the M1 Carbine did that job perfectly. Comparing it to the full-power battle rifle is simply pointless.

[BudMan5]

I am late to this argument but thought I would add a couple of comments. The carbine was designed as a PDW in lieu of the 1911 pistol. It was never designed to replace or compete with the M1 garand. If you read a number of WW2/KW Medal of honor citations, there are a number of them that describe the recipient as being armed with a carbine. Of particular note, Lt Audie L. Murphy, the most decorated combat solider of WW2 really liked the M1 carbine. In his book, "To Hell and Back" he describes numerous actions that he participated in while armed with a carbine. It is also a well known fact that after the war, he collected a number of M1 carbines and quite frequently gave them as gifts to people that he associated with. In the action that resulted in his award of the MoH, he was primarily fighting with an M2 machine gun mounted on a burning tank destroyer but his personal weapon at the time was an M1 carbine.

I am a retired police officer and also a retired Infantry senior (Army) NCO. During the VN war, I served as a helicopter crew chief/door gunner on a UH-1C Huey gunship for thirty-two months. My personal weapon was a Browning HiPower but we always had at least one, and often three or four, M2 carbines aboard the aircraft. They were a great asset for those times when we went down which happened all to frequently.As a police officer I had one occasion to use an M1 carbine and that was to put down a raging 90+ pound German Shepard. As he charged me I stopped him with a single snap shot and he was DRT.

That was impressive enough to me (the round penetrated his chest and exited through his hindquarters) that I purchased my own carbine to keep in my various cars/trucks over the years.

[DaveHH]

I worked with a retired Coastie who was stationed up in Alaska. They had a renegade Polar Bear on a runway and this guy said that several people killed the bear with shots from a carbine. That is an impressive feat. Making it through several inches of fat and hide to get inside and kill one of those fellows is a difficult task.

[Seaspriter]

The oft-repeated sentiment that the .30 Carbine round is a pistol cartridge is also incorrect. The round was developed by Winchester and was based on an earlier carbine round, the .32 Winchester, but with better modern propellant and jacketed bullet.

This is technically very correct -- the round was based on the .32 Winchester. But the reality was this was considered a very underpowered rifle round and never caught on -- too little power.

In reality, the .30 carbine cartridge was really an extra-long .32 ACP cylindrical pistol round (think of it akin to a ".30 Magnum" -- the old 1905 .32 Winchester with the advantage of more advanced propellant chemistry several decades later.)

At the time of 1940, a true "rifle" round would be considered akin to a the common full-bodied .30-06 or .303. To illustrate, take one .30-06 (or .303) cartridge in one hand and two .30 carbine cartridges in the other hand -- they weigh just about the same (about 25 grams).

At the time of early WWII, there was already a well tested tradition of using pistol rounds as a "mini-carbine" otherwise known as a "sub machine gun" -- this is the principle of the Tommy Gun: using the .45 ACP in a longer barrel (mini-carbine with or 12" barrel) or the M-3 Grease gun (8" barrel) designed to fire .45 ACP or 9mm Lugar or the British Sten Gun and Lancaster (9mm) or the German MP20/40 (9mm).

Our beloved M1 Carbine is a really a hybrid -- half pistol, half rifle -- one of the best compromises between the pistol and rifle that still fills a niche 70 years later. Because of its versatility, some military people expected it to be the "universal" gun was expected to do more and more --an unrealistic expectation. The M1 is like a good friend, a good partner, a reliable buddy, a great protector, but she's not an assault rifle, not a sniper, not a long-range blaster, nor a machine gun.

The reason the M1 is loved by many is that we understand her qualities and limitations. Conversely, the reason she was despised by some is because they were expecting her to perform beyond her design expectations.

If I had to survive in the woods for several years, and had the choice of only one weapon, it would probably be my M1 30 carbine. Second choice: my PTR-91 (HK G-3) .308/NATO.
Both are quite reliable, very accurate, easy to handle, powerful enough to hunt and protect.

[Captain O]

This is technically very correct -- the round was based on the .32 Winchester. But the reality was this was considered a very underpowered rifle round and never caught on -- too little power.

In reality, the .30 carbine cartridge was really an extra-long .32 ACP cylindrical pistol round. At the time of 1940, a true "rifle" round would be considered akin to a the common full-bodied .30-06 or .303. To illustrate, take one .30-06 (or .303) cartridge in one hand and two .30 carbine cartridges in the other hand -- they weigh just about the same (about 25 grams).

At the time of early WWII, there was already a well tested tradition of using pistol rounds as a "mini-carbine" otherwise known as a "sub machine gun" -- this is the principle of the Tommy Gun: using the .45 ACP in a longer barrel (mini-carbine with or 12" barrel) or the M-3 Grease gun (8" barrel) designed to fire .45 ACP or 9mm Lugar or the British Sten Gun and Lancaster (9mm) or the German MP20/40 (9mm).

Our beloved M1 Carbine is a really a hybrid -- half pistol, half rifle -- one of the best compromises between the pistol and rifle that still fills a niche 70 years later. Because of its versatility, some military people expected it to be the "universal" gun was expected to do more and more --an unrealistic expectation. The M1 is like a good friend, a good partner, a reliable buddy, a great protector, but she's not an assault rifle, not a sniper, not a long-range blaster, nor a machine gun.

The reason the M1 is loved by many is that we understand her qualities and limitations. Conversely, the reason she was despised by some is because they were expecting her to perform beyond her design expectations.

If I had to survive in the woods for several years, and had the choice of only one weapon, it would probably be my M1 30 carbine. Second choice: my PTR-91 (HK G-3) .308/NATO.
Both are quite reliable, very accurate, easy to handle, powerful enough to hunt and protect.

This sounds about right. I'm an old Sailor that served stateside during the last days of the Vietnam Conflict. I owned a Universal Carbine and it shot very well. I want to replace it, but cant afford a USGI that will be in decent shape by the time I can afford to buy one. This makes me upset beyond belief.

People keep throwing up the USGI Carbine's superiority, thrusting it into my face. They can't understand how rude such boasting is. Any that are worth owning will be well out of my price range or will cost the proverbial "arm and leg". Those that are affordable will cost upward of $1300.00-$1450.00 (purchase price + restoration costs + transfer and shipping costs) to restore them to "reasonable shooting condition". Those that can afford these don't understand that not all of us are "flush with funds" and can afford such an expenditure.

As an admirer/adherent of the M1 Carbine, it pains me to wait until early 2017. I'll be saving $200.00 dollars per month from August through January (or February) in order to pay for the piece. Not only is it embarrassing, but I'll be reducing my expenditures on food to $200.00 per month to do this. I receive no Food Stamps and survive on a VA Pension for now. (Less than $1100.00 per month). Obviously, money is tight.

Thinking before you write would be appreciated.

[USGI]

Keith's in Gresham, OR has a "real" Inland for $600. - Bob

[Captain O]

Keith's in Gresham, OR has a "real" Inland for $600. - Bob

Thank you, Bob. I have a feeling it won't be there very long. They never are. Without money, it just won't happen.

Again, thanks.