sight question

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

For the most part that is unsubstantiated internet myth.....

---

Not exactly. The later, formal justification for the carbine specifically referenced the inadequacy of the pistol, as shown by statistical surveys of German casualties after the end of WW I, and the carbine was promoted as a solution to that problem, since hard facts were available to make the case. The justification was (as is not uncommon) a little deceptive, since there were other reasons too, but if you are asking people to commit large sums of money to the development of a new weapon, you need a lot more than some officer's opinion that it would be a nice idea. The "internet myth" results from people taking the stated justification at face value, and silly things like the flip sight and the carbine "lineman's" holster may have had similar origins.

Once adopted, the carbine ended up being used much more broadly than originally imagined, which is why so many were made, and why an adjustable sight was deemed a useful enhancement. Which is what I was saying in the previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

Not exactly. The later, formal justification for the carbine specifically referenced the inadequacy of the pistol, as shown by statistical surveys of German casualties after the end of WW I, and the carbine was promoted as a solution to that problem, since hard facts were available to make the case.

---

Do you have that document?

The March 25 1938 document states "At the present time the only practical weapon available for the purpose is the pistol, and this without a shoulder holster would be ineffective at ranges in excess of 50 yards. , hence the range requirement in paragraph 4b for an effective range of 300 yards. The .45ACP or .39 pistol cartridge could not meet the range requirement even with a shoulder holster according to the Infantry test report referenced in the initial requirements document. The service rifle was too heavy and the new weapon was to have a weight limit of 5 pounds, paragraph 4a of the March 1938 document.

In the June 1940 document the Chief of Infantry states "It is considered that this office would be remiss if it did not again urge the development of a carbine or light rifle to be carried by personnel of the infantry regiment whose duties or equipment are such that they cannot be armed with a standard rifle without hampering their activities."

An adjustable rear sight was an initial design requirement for the M1 Carbine but at the time of standardization of the carbine design a suitable adjustable rear sight could not be developed so the flip sight went into production. The previous is spelled out in a 5 November 1942 Ordnance Committee document. Rear sight development continued and a suitable design was standardized on 14 January 1943 per the Ordnance Committee recommendation dtd 8 January 1943.

BTW I have all the documents I'm referring to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

Do you have that document?

---

Not on me as I am at work, but check out the introductory chapters of War Baby and you will find the references. You don't justify development of a new weapon based on some dufus officer's idea of what is a nice idea. You do it with data.

I think it started out with the Army looking for a replacement for the pistol in WWI when it was realized to teach and gain proficiency with a sidearm to bunches of new people took much longer than with a rifle. Remember, the Army had effectively done away with the carbine (which they’d used practically since day one) when they adopted the 1903 Springfield. After the war they adopted the Tommy Gun but that was another ball of wax and a carbine or light rifle was still needed. I read that in the 1930s the Army decided to increase infantry rifle company firepower by adding 60mm mortars and 30 cal machineguns, the personnel assigned to crew those weapons and troops other than riflemen could carry a light rifle which the Army had been needing since the end of WWI. Rear echelon and service personnel could contribute to infantry effectiveness if armed with something other than a side arm.
As for the rear sight, it must have been faster to make the flipper than to make up adjustable sights because fully adjustable sights were recommended in a report by the Chief of Infantry to the Chief of Ordnance in June 1941.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

Not on me as I am at work, but check out the introductory chapters of War Baby and you will find the references. You don't justify development of a new weapon based on some dufus officer's idea of what is a nice idea. You do it with data.

---

We’ll be standing by for the document that says the M1 Carbine was developed out of a result of the ineffectiveness of the pistol to produce casualties in WWI. BTW the report that accompanied the initial requirement for a light rifle shows the.45 ACP cartridge was very effective out to 50 yards. Past that the effectiveness dropped dramatically due to the difficulty in actually hitting the intended target.

In the mean time here is the Ordnance document that shows the adjustable rear sight was not an afterthought.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...44850755-1.jpg

[QUOTE=BrianQ;56771]We’ll be standing by for the document that says the M1 Carbine was developed out of a result of the ineffectiveness of the pistol to produce casualties in WWI. [QUOTE]

OK, see below.

"During World War I all officers, many noncommissioned officers, and the enlisted personnel of such organizations as ammunition trains and Signal Corps units were equipped with the Caliber .45 pistol M1911, later slightly modified and redesignated M1911A1. This weapon was primarily for defensive purposes since its effective range is limited to not more than 25 yards, except when handled by an expert. It ineffectiveness was well proved by the amazingly small number of casualties [it] inflicted on enemy troops during World War I as revealed by post-war inspection of German casualty lists and hospital records. While the exact form of an intermediate weapon between the standard pistol and the infantryman's rifle was not established during the years following World War I, it was agreed that the need called for a semi- or full- automatic weapon, more accurate, possessed of longer range and with a higher fire potential than the caliber .45 pistol. Appropriations for the development of Ordnance materiel were very limited during these years, and consequently no action was taken on the suggestion of the Chief of Infantry, in September 1939, to initiate a project for the development of a light rifle to be used by ammunition carriers. The consensus was that such personnel could be equipped with the service rifle.... The success of the German Wehrmacht subsequent to the invasion of Poland in September 1939 prompted further action on this matter and on 15 June 1940, the Chief of Infantry restated our need for light rifle capable of semi- or full-automatic fire. With the German technique as an example of effectiveness, the restatement of the need for such a weapon was extended to include in addition to ammunition carriers, machine gunners and mortar crews, whose positions might be endangered, and administrative and communications personnel attacked by parachutists or ground forces that had penetrated our defenses. On the same day, 15 June 1940, the Secretary of War issued orders for the development of such a weapon, and this action authorized the Ordnance Department to set in motion the machinery of design, development, test, and eventually manufacture…”

--Studler, Col. Rene R., Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development (Research and Development Office, Chief of Ordnance, 1946) (as cited by Ruth)


I have statistics on WW I casualties in my 8-volume Source Records of the Great War set that includes some of the data to which Studler refers, but my son has it at college. I do however have on hand General Ayers’ “The War with Germany: A Statistical Summary” (Washington, 1919), where he discusses the high demand for pistols and the difficulty in procuring them (including of course the substitution of the M1917 revolver), and notes that despite all efforts “full equipment [of pistols] was never secured.” Of course most high-ranking officers in 1940 would remember all this and not need to be reminded of it.

But what I like most is Ruth’s remark that “Considerable evidence suggests that in order to justify the development of the new light rifle, the .45 caliber 1911A1 pistol was singled out as a scapegoat.”

Which is what I said in my original post about this – “The justification was (as is not uncommon) a little deceptive”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianQ

In the mean time here is the Ordnance document that shows the adjustable rear sight was not an afterthought.

---

The memo of November 3, 1942 says that "at the time the Carbine ... was standardized Ordnance Committee action contained a recommendation that development of an adjustable rear sight be continued." The carbine of course was not standardized until late 1941; the original circular to candidate providers of October 1, 1940 called merely for a rear sight "of simple aperture type having two range adjustments only. Windage adjustment is not required." So the windage-adjustable rear sight obviously postdates original specifications and also clearly was not considered a priority item, since it was a trivial item to manufacture. The notion that even the most unskilled manufacturer would be flummoxed by constructing a windage-adjustable sight is preposterous. The tiniest parts shop could churn out thousands. The question is what eventually made something as trivial as a fully adjustable sight a priority, and why its adoption was delayed.

You should reread the first line of the 3 November 1942 document.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

OK, see below.

"During World War I all officers, many noncommissioned officers, and the enlisted personnel of such organizations as ammunition trains and Signal Corps units were equipped with the Caliber .45 pistol M1911, later slightly modified and redesignated M1911A1. This weapon was primarily for defensive purposes since its effective range is limited to not more than 25 yards, except when handled by an expert. It ineffectiveness was well proved by the amazingly small number of casualties [it] inflicted on enemy troops during World War I as revealed by post-war inspection of German casualty lists and hospital records. While the exact form of an intermediate weapon between the standard pistol and the infantryman's rifle was not established during the years following World War I, it was agreed that the need called for a semi- or full- automatic weapon, more accurate, possessed of longer range and with a higher fire potential than the caliber .45 pistol. Appropriations for the development of Ordnance materiel were very limited during these years, and consequently no action was taken on the suggestion of the Chief of Infantry, in September 1939, to initiate a project for the development of a light rifle to be used by ammunition carriers. The consensus was that such personnel could be equipped with the service rifle.... The success of the German Wehrmacht subsequent to the invasion of Poland in September 1939 prompted further action on this matter and on 15 June 1940, the Chief of Infantry restated our need for light rifle capable of semi- or full-automatic fire. With the German technique as an example of effectiveness, the restatement of the need for such a weapon was extended to include in addition to ammunition carriers, machine gunners and mortar crews, whose positions might be endangered, and administrative and communications personnel attacked by parachutists or ground forces that had penetrated our defenses. On the same day, 15 June 1940, the Secretary of War issued orders for the development of such a weapon, and this action authorized the Ordnance Department to set in motion the machinery of design, development, test, and eventually manufacture…”

--Studler, Col. Rene R., Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development (Research and Development Office, Chief of Ordnance, 1946)

---

So the ordnance document signed by the Executive Officer of the Ordnance Department is, as you so eloquently put it, “some dufus officer's idea of what is a nice idea” but a post development Reader's Digest type account isn’t.

When did ammunition carriers, machine gunners and mortar crews become support troops anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleCrane

From what I've read it sounds like the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a "light rifle", and not just a pistol substitute for support troops. For use at longer ranges the adjustable sight definitely was a boon.

---

i think i read somewhere (i don't document nothing), that the 45 pistol caused more frendly casualties than it kilt bad guys.

not sure any other weapon can come close to that.

"unsubstantiated internet myth" ( from wikipedia.org)follows:

"It was decided that a new weapon was needed for these other roles. While the range of a pistol is about 50 yards and the range of existing rifles was several hundred yards, the requirement for the new firearm called for a defensive weapon with an effective range of 300 yards, which would be much lighter and handier than the M1 Garand, but at the same time, have much greater range, firepower, and accuracy than the M1911A1 pistols currently in use, ..."
M1 carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia