February American Rifleman

My insurance agent was a Marine survivor of the Chosen. I have spoken with him about both the M1 and the carbine. He stated that the carbine was no better or worse then the M1. The big factor was the carbine had limited range and most of the time the Chinese were on the tops of mountains shooting down at them in the valleys well out of range of the carbines. Both the M1 and the carbine would freeze up if not kept somewhat warm and yes they would have to **** on them to get them free to work properly. Up close the carbine worked as well at the M1 he said.

Two things to think about: the carbine was not designed to be a front line infantry weapon, it was pushed into that roll (remember the Garand was not intended to be a .30 weapon).

The second thing: my uncle USMC was a Chosen survivor, he told me with the cold they had sleep with their grenades inside their over coats for them to function, the same thing is repeated several times In "The Last Stand of Fox Company" the rear guard of the withdrawal from the Chosen Valley. Nothing worked well in the extreme cold, men were able to fight on after being wounded because the cold aided the blood clotting.

Let us just hope that we are not pressed to test any of our Milsurps in combat.

The 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.

What so often gets left out of the discussion is the hit-to-shot ratio. Within its range, I'll bet the M1 Carbine was more accurate than many other weapons because of its light weight and ease of maneuver. You can shoot it one handed (try that with a battle rifle).

IIRC, the hit ratio in Vietnam was something in the order of 1 in 3000. In a recent Los Angeles County study, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. (better in daylight, worse in the dark) When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent.

The accuracy of a weapon at a target range has little to do with it's accuracy in battle with adrenaline flowing, fear ripping through the veins, the horror of your buddy being blown up, the crescendo of noise, and the overwhelming uncertainty of where the enemy might actually be.

During the decent down to the coast from Koto-Ri a Chinese force was made to double time to get ahead of the Marines. The result was that these soldiers broke a sweat and then dug in. The result was that almost to a man they froze to death in their holes. That is cold.
Here's another reason to favor the M1 rifle: Imagine you are using a carbine and are attacked by a regiment of Chinese assault troops. You have at most 5 magazines. That is expended quickly. What next? go into your butt pack and pull out boxed 30 cal ammo, strip your gloves off and attempt to reload those magazines. With the Garand you simply grab another bandoleer and keep shooting. If things get bad a Marine will take loose rounds and reload 8 round clips which would be lying everywhere. The same rounds that are belted for the 30 MG. If you survived an attack like that, you would be down at the medical tent picking up a Garand from the pile at the first opportunity. The other advantage that anyone who used am M1 or M14 will attest to: Push comes to shove you can easily beat a man to death with either weapon. I had to whack a few folks with my M14 and they go down right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

M1 or M14 will attest to: Push comes to shove you can easily beat a man to death with either weapon

---

:madsmile:

I think this is why bayonets have been mounted on US Army rifles since the Revolutionary War. But you are right -- you can swing it like a club and create a much higher impact than with a carbine.

BTW, I was trained on the M14 and would rather load it in cold weather than the Garand. I've been in -40F weather, and can't imagine how the heavy gloves could be used for shooting. And if you take off your gloves, they'd freeze fast on the metal. And if you miscalculated and your thumb got in the way when releasing the bolt, you'd get whacked like it was a hammer. Having done some roofing jobs in sub-freezing weather, and the hammer hit my thumb instead of a nail, I can attest your thumb will split wide open because skin is so brittle in cold weather.


Always liked the idea of having one man on a rifle squad carrying a BAR -- that's a heavy-duty weapon. I couldn't handle one in full-auto mode, way too powerful. M14 wasn't easy in auto mode either. IIRC (1965) we were trained to shoot 3-4 round bursts, recover, then shoot another short burst.

The entire Corps worked a number of miracles just in getting a force to Korea. From a standing start on July 7, they added personnel, packed their gear, loaded it aboard ship, sailed half way around the world, and fought three major actions (four if you want to count Inchon and Seoul as two) - all in five months. That's before you consider the weather conditions they faced at the Chosin.

No cold weather training, no cold weather lubricants, no time between operations for maintenance. It's a wonder anything worked (or lived through it).

Almost a decade before Chosin, the Marine Corps had fully committed to developing light infantry divisions - equipped with maximum heavy weapons. In 1950, a USMC division had 20% more men and 20% fewer trucks than an army infantry division. 2-1/2 times as many LMGs and over twice as many BARs as their army counterpart. Somebody has to carry the extra weight of those auto weapons and the additional ammo. Do you want the gunners, assistants, and ammo bearers to carry a carbine or a pistol?

Anyone who has ever been caught in a rain storm wishes he had brought an umbrella. Every piece of gear is a compromise. There's no way to calculate the lives saved by the extra 5 lbs. of MG ammo or mortar rounds carried by an ammo bearer who had a carbine instead of a Garand.

Since anecdotes are the coin of the realm here, how about one from the 1st Marine Division's Chosin report in a special section on cold weather operations:

It was reported that a number of the M1919A4 (air cooled) guns became relatively ineffective due to burned out barrels. Spares were not available in some cases because, due to the extra weight, gun crews were forced to abandon the spares during their arduous climbing about on precipitous terrain.

So an MG crew can't carry a spare barrel - part of its authorized equipment - but they can carry a heavier hand weapon?

No weapon performed normally in the impossible weather conditions; all types reported malfunctions. If the carbine was so bad, where is the official inquiry? Where is the revised T/O?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

Anyone who has ever been caught in a rain storm wishes he had brought an umbrella.

---

Excellent analogy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Allow me to steer the discussion in a slight direction for the purpose of thinking about weapon performance vs weapon opinion.

Let's apply the same magnifying glass to the next caliber down, the .45 ACP fired from a non-pistol barrel. Take those Thompson's, M3 Grease guns, and even the 9mm subguns of similar vintage. Each round has lower ballistic "specs" than the .30 Carbine round, but each of these weapons seems to be held in the opinion as being good by their users.

Now each sub gun, will feature full-auto and a generous magazine, and would generally be used in short bursts, but did those traits alone lend a more positive opinion to those weapons, possibly even over-confidence? The M2 carbine was full-auto and later offered with a more generous magazine, but the stigma of the round underperforming still maintains. Does the rattle of an automatic regardless of caliber inspire confidence and fear greater than single pops of semi-automatic?

---

That's a good direction to take when making the endless Garand/Carbine comparison.


We all acknowledge that the M1 Carbine is not a full power battle rifle, yet persist (me included) in talking about how ineffective the carbine was as a full power battle rifle. Which again we all acknowledge that it was never intended to be.

While the Thompson was fielded in large numbers it was never mistaken for a full power battle rifle and was used for it's intended mission. The M1 carbines' misfortune was being very early looked upon as a battle rifle and then being utilized in that role. Which it could not always successfully do.

Imagine how ineffective the Thompson would have been if it had been issued in such huge numbers and utilized as a battle rifle. Which we would all readily acknowledge it was never intended to be.

Arms of the Chosin Few...This is a Article in American Rifleman in 2010. Nothing has changed in 6 years about the Perception on the M1 Carbine problems and then has to be rewritten again in this last article in AR. This Topic has been talked about so many times here and other Sites and Magazines. To me no matter how it performed in the Korean Conflict it's the Best Carbine by far in that era. The number of casualties will never let us know how many were due to the M1 Carbines, but I bet it's a lot more than the problems some soldiers didn't like about it. I have read and heard stories about some Marines saying it was a great Carbine to use. To me I only see bad Reviews about this Wonderful Carbine in Korea. I never seen or maybe I missed reading anything bad about the M1 Carbine in the European Theatre. Is the Author of this Story in AR the same man that wrote a book about it ?

American Rifleman | Arms of the Chosin Few