NOT Ola Mize, Medal of Honor, Korean War - YouTube
Printable View
Paul, thank you for the link.....Frank
Yes...this has the potential of being a long thread. I've always agreed with your train of thought though, a properly placed carbine round kills as well as the next weapon. I always knew that from the sound of the strike on a steel plate at 200 yds. The other thing I enjoyed hearing was his philosophy of care for his troops welfare. It was the exact same thoughts I had about it being the Snr NCO's job of maintaining the welfare of his men. Glad to know I was on the right track...
This is in the same wheel house as the argument over .380 being an effective round for self defense. I tell you what, I know for a fact I don't want to be shot with it.
.30 carbine is guaranteed to mess up a perfectly good day.!!
Great Story, that Generation was something Special!
Great story, thanks for posting. It takes a very deserving person to wear that medal.
Great article in the current Carbine Club newsletter. Great to hear firsthand from someone there.
Thanks for sharing, Paul. Regards, Rick.
I read in a book somewhere where in Viet-Nam a couple of Rangers were discussing weapons. Sitting at a bar they got on the subject of the Carbine . They both agreed it was a POS another Soldier overheard them and said it was BS. The man said he had killed a lot of Koreans using one and he got the MOH for doing it. Hmmm could it be they were talking to him ? The Carbine and the M-16 debate will always go on . What I thought was ironic was the early AR-15 / M-16 first used in 'Nam were having reliability problems . So most of the Americans carried the M-1 / M-2s !
Units like the 1st Cav who trained and deployed with the M16s had very few problems because they had used them prior to deploying in 1965. They also were a very strac unit and had good weapons discipline. Units like the 1st Div were given their M16s in country and had zero training about how to use them and no equipment to clean them. A team of vet NCOs sent by Colt to assess the issues found that the weapon maintenance for the division was horrible and that all weapons were poorly maintained. That is a unit problem not an equipment problem.
American units who didn't have M16s used the M14. I was there in 1966-67 and M16s were in short supply with almost all going to mobile Infantry battalions, the rest of us just used our good M14s which were wonderful weapons. SF and advisers may have carried Carbines and Navy personnel (like Jim) used them by choice. But it was never an issue of only the M16 or carbine. By 1969 or so everyone had M16s.
It is my understanding that the Marines resisted giving up their M14s with a vengeance and considered the M16 to be a poor substitute.
We had 50 cals on the boat. We carried a carbine and 45 acp for close, quicker action. It's hard to run off the boat to support extracting a team with a Ma Deuce. M-16's were in short supply, M-14's went to the Infantry units.
These guys were drafted right after school. Eighteen to twenty year olds with their first weapon, basic training only. Cleaning, what cleaning. The M-16 seemed to foul quicker then the M-14. Guys I knew liked the M-14 early on for better reliability, but later the M-16 for the size and weight. Almost two pounds lighter loaded and 39" verses 44".
I saw a lot of different weapons go off my boat. Some I remember, not all inclusive, M-60's, M-14's, M-16's, M-1 Garands, Carbines, Thompsons, M-3's, M-79's, shotguns. But no kitchen sink! You used what you brought.
2014 btt
'Carbine/M-16 debate': I would love to see that solved with an AR15 in .30 Carbine. I've thought about it a lot and I believe it would be an easy one to make. In fact I have contacted a manufacturer that makes regular ARs plus several pistol calibers to see what they think. I believe the 5.56 bolt can be used without modification and a 30-round carbine mag fits inside a 30-round AR mag so its just a matter of blocking it in. This means the conversion could be an upper half with a magazine, to fit any standard AR lower. What's the point? To be able to use the incredible .30 Carbine round without putting wear on a valuable collectible. This round has some very interesting properties for a PDW, sub-gun and many other uses. 110 gr at 1990 fps and 950 ft lbs.
Didn't Olympic Arms make one years ago that didn't take off?
What Inland says has merit, the mag fits the ammo and it would take firing to see what actually happened. Does it creep forward? Do you block front? You can't push the rounds forward because of the vertical rib...and the bolt face fits fine, again whether they actually extract...all you need is the barrel blank and I'll turn it out right here...what is that...1 in 20 blank...? Carbine length of course, maybe PDW? 7.5 for Canada? Don't remember the Olympic one Jim...
Don't misunderstand; I took it for granted that anyone would know the carbine mag would be mechanically fixed inside of a modified AR-15 mag. The AR-15 mag would have its follower and spring removed and the feed lips cut off. The carbine mag exact position within the AR-15 mag would be determined partly by experimentation after which it would be made permanent. After thinking about it more, I realized that they would most likely make a new AR-type mag body for this purpose, most likely of polymer, but shorter so the floor plate serves as the floor plate of the carbine mag so you can clean it replace the spring.
I had a Colt 9mm AR-15 at one time and loved it at short range. It was one of those weapons that was simply hard to miss your target with. I am guessing that an AR-15 chambered in .30 carbine would have some of the same characteristics at short range as the 9mm. Lots of fun no matter what! :thup:
Isn't the 300 BLACK OUT close to the round size of a .30 carbine?
Same bore, different cartridge shape. I'd need a barrel blank still. The twist might be wrong, although they make them in several. Mine here is a 7 inch twist so I can use big long bullets going sub...
---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 PM ----------
True, I'd try the original first just to see if I can get away with it. 'Cause I'm cheap like that...Quote:
Originally Posted by INLAND44
Maybe one of the m16 5.56 blank magazines that are tinted red. They have a short followerand block in the body.
The block would be in the front...maybe...the cartridge would have to jump a bit and that's never desirable. It might mis-feed. This is sounding more like something I should try. Problem is, it will become a one-off and I might never be able to sell it when I get tired of it...
I've meet Mr.Mize.Just talking to him you can tell he's a tough guy.
The ultimate debate weapon ! The .30 Carbine and the M-16 / AR Platform . Both steeped in controversy to this very day .
You mean the baby .30 cal and the .22 super magnum....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmolinekid
Incoming!!! Ducking for cover...
Didn't know that, so spent a couple hours last night reading articles about the Olympic Arms PCR-30 and K-30 rifles. Found a good one started by Inland44 about 8 years ago on the old Battle Rifles (now Gun Hub) site. I can't find that link right now, but just read this one this morning that has a lot of good pictures of how Olympic Arms addressed the magazine issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimF4M1s
http://www.oa2.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=10748
:clap: - Bob
Thanks Bob, they used the pistol gas and a definite dedicated upper. 1 in 12 barrel? Sure, that'd be better.
You could probably sell it. A lot of Carbine guys have AR platform too.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
btt feb 14
Feb 23 :)
I still like his original story about encountering bandoleers for the first time, telling his troop "Aw , you're just stupid!"...sounds familiar...pretty funny.
Getting back to the original comment, the M1 Carbine did have some serious issues in Korea. A Marine unit in the deep of winter was surrounded by the enemy and the M1 was not stopping them. They were bundled and wrapped in so many layers of clothing that the rounds were not penetrating. When this was discovered, they were ordered to shoot only at the heads and in this they were effective but it's a lot harder to hit a head than a center of mass. The North Koreans had in effect a form of body armor the 30 carbine round could not overcome. Doesn't make it bad, in normal circumstances it is a fine round and gun but in this particular situation it was outmatched.
I've heard that story also.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
I’m sorry but I still find such stories hard to believe. The fact that it is often gets repeated does not make it any more believable. I’m sure I have seen video of people trying to reproduce this myth and not being able to. How many layers of padding would it take to stop a carbine round? Could a soldier dressed up like a Michelin man run, let alone shoulder a weapon? I doubt that there is one person on this forum who would be prepared “dress up” and shot to confirm this belief.
Barry
Then I suggest you find a copy of "The Last Stand of Fox Company" by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin so your disbelief can be dispelled. It's often repeated because it happened and is fact. 10,000 Marines of the First Division surrounded by 100,000 Chinese in November of 1950.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barryeye
It's not only a matter of penetrating, it is a matter of penetrating with enough remaining energy to stop the individual. When you increase the amount of material a bullet has to travel through, that material is absorbing the energy of that bullet.
These soldiers of Fox company on these bitter cold winter days found that their M1 Carbines were lacking in stopping the Chinese forces which were attacking them unless they aimed for the heads. If you still don't believe it, tell it to the guys that were there that they are wrong.
I believe the M1 Carbine was being used beyond it original intent. The M1 carbine was suppose to replace the M1 Rifle and M1911 pistol as personal defense weapons for technicians, cooks, drivers, NCOs, commanders who assigned mission tasks are other than squeezing bullets at the enemy. As with any new weapon the tactical infantry folks are very quick to adopt a weapon that is light, high capacity, and have a reasonable degree of hitting power. The US military went along with the use of the M1 Carbine as a first line tactical weapon. Late in WWII we saw the development of the M2 Carbine and conversion kits as a direct result combat feedback from front line troops requests for a full automatic capability. The M1 Carbine was not an M1 Rifle and was not designed as its replacement. The Carbine does not have the reach and longer range power of the M1 Rifle. At close range the Carbine can be very effective but it may take more than one shot to take an individual down.
I had asked my father-in-law this question about the Carbine effectiveness. He was in an Aviation Construction Battalion in the Pacific in WWII. He stated to me his unit was issued primarily M1 carbines. The islands he was on were "secure" and his unit would go in to build air bases and strips for the US Army Air Forces. But he indicates that a lot of times there were still plenty of Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle close to the air strip. He related having been attacked by a Japanese soldier with a bayonet while working on top of a bulldozer. He said it took several shots from his M1 Carbine to bring the attacker down. He said the second time he was attacked by a Japanese soldier he had a M1 Rifle, it only took one shot to bring the attacker down. He stated that a friend of his was killed by three Japanese soldiers while on top of his bulldozer. He manage to kill all three of the Japanese soldiers with a Carbine but not before himself being killed by one of the soldiers. My father-in-law says that after that attack his unit had enough of these attacks and a "hunting party" was organized with all of the unit personnel that could be mustered. By the time the "hunting party" was finished they had killed over 100 Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle. My father-in-law has since passed on. He says he was just an ordinary "joe" doing his job. One of the "greatest generation".
--fjruple
Specifically Turkey Hill, was a kill or be killed situation. I think that an M1 carbine might be defeated by clothing at say 200 yds or further, but up close, not so. The fact that it lacked stopping power is another issue altogether. The Marines were using Tommy guns collected from dead Chinese as well as carbines. That round is another candidate for the layered clothing stops bullets theory yet no mention is made to that weapon. Comparing the power of an M1 rifle to a Carbine is like comparing a Ferrari to a Ford truck. The best argument against the clothing stops bullets is the hundreds of dead Chinese littering the fields many shot dead by the carbine, most by the heavy 30 cal machine gun.
I'm with you on this and I have read those accounts. A FMJ carbine round is very good at zipping right through a body unless it hits something hard like bone. Very much the same thing the old round nosed 38 Special rounds did before the advent of soft point and hollow point bullets.
A missed shot, a through and through hit, Chinese soldiers on drugs. I will believe these. Bouncing off padded clothing? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barryeye
We had this exact same thread about a year ago. I still think shot placement has a great deal to do with stopping...
Those who lack a basic understanding of physics are susceptible to fervently expressed opinions. Only the incurious accept implausible claims without hard evidence. They're mostly in it for the entertainment value anyway. Energy transfer is about 98% myth. If it mattered, then the shooter - who absorbs roughly the same force as the target - would also be injured. Energy matters as to the ability of the round to keep on going - and thus crush additional tissue. Longer wound channel, better chance of striking something vital. Bleedout becomes a factor at some point, but even an Aorta shot gives the victim 15 seconds or so - seemingly well outside the typical timeline in these accounts.
The location and extent of the permanent wound channel is what injures and kills. Hitting brain, spine, major nerve in lower back or legs, or load bearing bone is what puts on the brakes immediately. Hit one of those spots with a .22 Short and your chances are very good your target will stop advancing. When a round tumbles, it crushes more tissue. In that regard, the carbine round being about half the length of the .30-06 would be expected, on average, to do less damage. However, there are so many variables resulting from shot placement that even animal testing is impractical.
Misses and poor shot placement somehow are never mentioned in these tales as the good guys never miss. And almost never seen is any mention of examining the victim afterwards. If vets' memories are infallible, then the myth of getting decapitated by the overpressure from a near miss artillery round when the chinstrap is buckled must also be true (hint: it's not) and it must also be possible to get crabs from a toilet seat.
If energy mattered, why would anyone carry an M1911? What sort of magic happens (in the mind of the gullible) where the carbine round is ineffective, but a slower round is OK?
Really guys, come on. Chinese in the snow, what about Germans in the snow? No doubt there are limitations with different calibers. Did we always put the proper caliber into the correct setting, NO. Did we learn from it, I think maybe.
We can debate over what this or that did/will do. Yesteryear verses today. Bottom line is cartridges were all designed for different applications at different times in history. Long range, up close, caliber, bullet weight, FMJ or HP, case length, gr's of powder, barrel length, weapon size & weight, etc.
Garand: 30-06 Ball, M2 weighs 150 gr and has a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s and muzzle energy of 2,655 ft·lb from a 24" barrel.
Carbine: .30 carbine ball weighs 110 gr and has a muzzle velocity of 1,990 ft/s and muzzle energy of 967 ft·lb from an 18" barrel.
M-16: .223 55 gr Nosler has a muzzle velocity of 3,240 ft/s and muzzle energy of 1,282 ft·lb from a 24" barrel.
By comparison,
Revolver: The .357 Magnum revolver firing the same weight 110 gr CorBon bullet from a 4-inch barrel has 1,500 ft/s for about 550 ft·lb from a 4" barrel.
1911: .45 acp 230 gr bullet has about 830 ft/s and about 352 ft·lb from a 5" barrel.
M-9: 9mm 124 gr bullet has about 1,200 ft/s and around 382 ft·lb from a 5.9" barrel.
???? .40 165 gr Remington has about 1,150 ft/s and around 485 ft·lb from a 4" barrel.
What do our guys have today? An A4 .223 and an M-9 9mm. Trending back to 45 acp.
What would you chose today??? Choices are purely personal, and always different for each individual. Today if I had to chose, one rifle and one pistol for all around protection and get rid of all the rest, I would go with an M-16 and 1911. One designed in 1956 the other in 1906. Many will have differing opinions. I don't think there is a right/wrong.
As an aside, I have never shot padded clothing, frozen or otherwise with an M1 carbine. I did however, shoot a USGI Kelvar helmet with a carbine using a FMJ bullet. From 15 yards it passed through both sides of the helmet. Shot the rear of the helmet with a 45 Auto FMJ at the same distance. It did not pass through but left a bulge on the inside rear of the helmet.
Nothing scientific but I did find it interesting.
Did you have a mellon in there too?? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by bonnie
I'm not sure if this helps or not, but has everyone viewed the video in the "sticky" at the top of the forum? :)
Infantry Weapons and their Effects (WWII and Korean era U.S. Training Films)
Regards,
Doug
You can sit and debate and speculate all you want on it, or you can learn from those that actually experienced it. The choice is yours to make. There is a reason it got a bad reputation in Korea and it wasn't a myth. I don't have a particular stand on the issue. I wouldn't want to be shot by one with or without padded clothing as it is foolhardy to make the attempt. But I'm not going to sit back and say the veterans that experienced it first hand are lying about it either.
I know what the particular rifles were designed for, what the limitations of the FMJ bullets are and why, the differences between them and a soft point tip. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions are limited to FMJ. An FMJ bullet is not specifically designed to kill, it is designed to wound. If they wanted to kill, they would use soft tips or hollow points. Wounding removes three people from the battle and ties up resources in the rear. Killing removes one from the battle. So when battling fanatical troops, who deliberately wind heavy cloth around them to both stop bleeding and hide the pain from a bullet hit with little regard to whether they survive or not, you see the problem with a bullet that does not have a comparatively high stopping power.
A hit with a 45 will knock you off your feet whether it penetrates body armor or is stopped by body armor. A smaller round such as the 30 cal will not. 22's are dangerous to some forms of body armor because the small bullet and high velocity will often send them through the weaves where a larger bullet simply will not fit.
So even with a pass through strike, the stopping power isn't there as evidenced by those that used the rifles in Korea and as noted by one other in the Pacific in WWII.
No, Dang it! Bout twenty years too late for that good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimF4M1s
The first 6 1/2 minutes shows the Carbine and Garand.
Situations and conditions vary. No one is or should discount different veterans experiences. WW2, Korea, Vietnam. We weren't there.
I had first hand experience with a Carbine in Vietnam. It was fine for close quarters action, I'm still here.
I have read the Russians were less than impressed with the stopping power of the 7.62x25 round and in post war testing it was revealed that when fired from a SMG length barrel it would penetrate something on the order of 42 inches of soft tissue. It is also rumored to be capable of penetrating modern level 3 body armor. On paper the .30 carbine round from an 18'' barrel is a fair bit more powerful so it stands to reason it will do anything the 7.62x25 round will and a bit more provided bullet construction is equal.
As far as a .30 carbine bullet being stopped by heavy clothing is concerned I think it's entirely possibly under the right circumstances and beyond a certain range but I wouldn't bet my life on it happening twice. What happened in Korea is probably just an isolated incident. Never heard of that happening in WWII.
I have had FMJ .30 carbine bullets completely penetrate a 3'' thick cured white oak plank and go about half way through the one behind it at 75 yards, thats roughly 4 1/2'' of wood. And cured white oak is some tough stuff.
Unless I'm mistaken it was the Hague Convention of 1899 that outlawed the use of expanding bullets and interestingly enough the U.S. never ratified that ruling. We must have at some point as I read where the use of BTHP bullets by snipers in actual combat had to have some level of legal approval first.
I don't believe FMJ bullets were designed to only wound, all pointy and some round nose FMJ bullets will yaw to some degree upon impact with soft tissue and the wounds they produce are equal to and sometimes greater than those caused by bullets designed from the ground up to expand.
FMJ was for simple max penetration. Hold things together.
My understanding also. The United States never signed the Hague Convention but we have always abided by the agreement concerning the banning of expanding bullets by the military. Read about the legal ruling on the use of BTHP bullets for sniper use also. I believe the USA recently ruled for our military that these are non-expanding bullets and the hollow point was only for long range accuracy. Same as match grade bullets.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
Have to disagree there Jim. Seeing as how all pointy FMJ's will yaw and nearly all will break up or fragment in body tissue that more or less rules out the max penetration idea. I still say military FMJ's were designed to meet the requirements of the 1899 Hague Declaration concerning expanding bullets. All other attributes were just unintended bonuses.
It was around '90 or '91 when the use of BTHP bullets by snipers for combat use got the nod of approval.
Army JAG lawyers made the argument that since nearly all pointy military bullets yaw or break up in body tissue they all cause needless suffering and injury so all violate article 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 which out laws arms, projectiles or material that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and since the BTHP's open tip did not actually expose any of the core as outlawed by the 1899 Hague Convention and that it was part of the manufacturing process designed to provide better aerodynamics and not for expansion it was not in violation of the Hague rulings and thus legal for use in combat.
Box O Truth shot Frozen towels with the M1 carbine. Zipped right through.
The Box O' Truth #8 - The Rags O' Truth - Page 1
Much of the carbines lack of stopping power was usage at 250-300 yards (past intended ranges) and uncontrolled untrained full auto fire. I also put a 30 carbine round through both sides of a kevlar helmet. I used a 110 JSP. The exit hole on the opposite side showed expansion and was larger than the entry on the top.
The carbine does yaw and tumble: Here's a youtube of the Lake City FMJ:
30 Carbine Lake City 1952 110gr FMJ slow motion ballistic gelatin - YouTube
Federal Soft point:30 Carbine Federal 110gr Power-Shok RNSP slow motion - YouTube
Hornady Critical Defense
Critical Defense® 30 Carbine from Hornady® - YouTube
I don't know. I've seen lots that have gone through various targets and expended themselves with minimum weight loss and are mostly still integral. I don't know which ones you mean fragment? 303? 8Mmm...30 cal M2? .50 Browning? I have seen bullets that lay on the street after fighting in a walled city and they were complete...bent, but complete. The new ones tend to go to pieces...yes, they all yaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
Nice video clip , it would seem it was hot when that attack happened , also would be interesting to find out if he used a M1 or a M2 carbine ?I owned a new Iver Johnson M1 carbine a long time ago , and liked the light weight , compact size & light recoil , didnot like the way it stripped down ,and that you could not clean the tappet piston , with out a armourers tool .
Its not in the same league as the Stg44 or AK47 , they stripped & cleaned easier & more reliable .
From the limited info I have on the Carbine , its seems , when it was modified to fullauto ( M2 ) , and the 30rd mag used & in subzero ( cold ) temps , it failed to function well .
The M1 Garand & BAR seemed to handle the extreme cold OK .
Later Chris
The bullet for that weapon has a point with an air space inside. It upsets at the slightest provocation and is a deadly round. Technically, it isn't a hollow point round but kills like one.
I really think that the debate here is kind of silly. There are members who have used the carbine to deadly effect and recommend it and yet others who just dismiss that, citing something that they read in a book. I absolutely don't want to get shot with a carbine. I had a LRRP buddy in the war who was shot twice in the thigh by carbines, both bullets within an inch or two and probably spent or ricochets. Those were nice holes. He eventually didn't return from an outing.
AMEN! I have mentioned numerous times before, I dropped a 200 pound deer with a single heart lung shot at almost 100 yards with a 30 Carbine 110 JSP. I could get most of my hand in the exit hole.... Made a believer out of me!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
IMHO; 30 carbine does what it was designed for. As 'most' know it is not a high powered, long range cartridge. GK
IMHO, Phillydude hit the nail on the head: It is good at doing what it was designed for: a PDW for those who did not use a rifle. In the Pacific, it was a great jungle weapon for ranges of less than 100 yards. My dad on Iwo Jima and his brothers on other islands, all had M1 Carbines in the Pacific in WW2, and loved them. Said it never let them down, but it was close up and personal fighting. I knew a guy who was an NCO in France in the ETO. He carried a rifle as a rule in the countryside, but when they were in a village or town, he switched his rifle for the RTO's M1 Carbine. He said it was a superb house cleaner, and made a lot of Nazi's martyrs for Hitler. As far as jungle, it seemed to kill a lot of VC in Vietnam, or for that matter, GIs when used by the VC.
I don't think anyone is disputing it's effectiveness in the jungles or Europe. It was good for what it was designed for. It met it's match in the bitter cold Korean winter. That's all anyone's saying and that is backed up by documented testimony by those that used them there. Disputing that by arguing apples to oranges is pointless. It is what it is.
IMHO; Cold weather affects anything mechanical in general. The colder the more it effects. If a weapon has been in the snow and then warmed up it could leave moisture in the action, back in the cold then the action could freeze. There are many variables as to what freezing tempuratures will do to machanical things. Example. look what happened to the germans in Russia. GK
Not only does cold effect all things mechanical but it also effects the "potency" of smokeless powder. I have no opinion either way just pointing that out....
Very True! Even the original AR15s (full auto model 601s) sucked in the cold weather tests, though there was some outright sabotage by Ordnance personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
What in particular are you referring to when you say the carbine met it's match in the bitter Korean cold?
It failed in its intended purpose as an effective weapon as noted by the members of Fox Company, 1st Marine Division. This particular time/place/combination of events was a time when this weapon systems use had to be altered or replaced by another weapon to get the job down of bringing down the enemy force.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
A little note on cold weather and firearms; I remember reading or hearing on a documentary about the Germans on the Russian front during WWII. The Germans weapons froze because of the extreme cold , but the Russians did not have this problem. The reason given was they did not oil their weapons. Being youst to the cold conditions they used a mixture of oil and gasoline or diesel fuel [don't remember which]. This kept the oil from getting 'thick' and gummy from the sub zero temp..As said I don't remember all the details. GK
Before you altogether condemn it based on the experiences of a few related in a book written years after the fact I suggest you get in some trigger time with the carbine. I think you'll find that overall it's a fine weapon that did it's job very well as long as it's limitations weren't exceeded. I have no doubts that there were isolated incidents where it failed to perform as expected but it was probably due to it being used in a roll it wasn't intended for. The carbine is not a tack driving powerhouse, and this has always lead to false accusations that it is weak, under powered, inaccurate, and lacks stopping power by those who for the most part have little or no experience with them. Try it before you knock it.
Shadycon, I have read and heard the same thing about weapons freezing. Mostly from US veterans of WWII and the Battle of the Bulge in particular. According to them it was a major undertaking to keep the weapons working. Moisture and lubricants freezing were the most common causes of weapons being rendered inoperable.
Lots of Intel briefings on the web site "Lone Sentry" of all sorts of stuff. One I read said the Russians used diesel as engine coolant!! Also one or two on weapons lube in extreme cold, or the absence of. Check the site out guys LOTS of interesting information for fellows like us....
I was wrong it was the Germans,, so sue me! I drive a truck for a living...;)
AXIS USE OF DIESEL OIL FOR ANTI-FREEZE
At temperatures running to 30 degrees below zero F. and lower, glycerine-water and glycol-water mixtures are useless as anti-freeze agents. Although two other agents, methanol and ethanol, have too low a boiling point and evaporate quickly, Axis forces reportedly used ethanol-water mixtures on the eastern front last winter.
It has been reported that the German Army, as a result of satisfactory experiments, used diesel oil as a coolant last winter. Since this oil has a lower coefficient of heat conductivity than water, the operating temperature of the engine will be raised--an advantage in extreme cold weather. While the oil is destructive to natural rubber joints, synthetic rubber is immune. Troubles may arise from corrosion, particularly in the radiator, because of a growth of acidity in the oil. At first the oil may be commercially pure, but the addition of moisture and dirt, together with the churning of the water pump, may crack the oil until acids accumulate to a harmful extent. Rust from the cylinder jacket may be present and, together with the emulsified oil, cause trouble. Such acids may attack copper and aluminum. The rising viscosity of the oil may cause mechanical troubles such as pump-shaft shearing or vane breaking.
The Russians lubricated all their weapons with oil of a specially thin arctic type, and recoil mechanisms were also filled with a special liquid. Water-cooled jackets of machine guns were filled with glycerin. All lubricants used were said to be proof down to at least -50 degrees Centigrade (-58 degrees Fahrenheit). Small arms which gummed up were first wiped entirely dry, lubricated with kerosene, and then fired, before receiving normal lubrication.
I pulled this paragraph from a report from one sector on winter fighting on the Eastern front.
I read an in depth study on Korean War complaints about the carbine a number of years ago, a study that showed that as a rule, the carbine "failures" were because they were shooting at the human waves at 300 yards, and using untrained full auto fire. As far as Carbine "freezing," M1 Garands and BARs also suffered from the freezing of the oils at the same rate, and guys would pee on their weapons to thaw them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
As far as M1 Carbine being a "pistol round" The M1 Carbine has more energy at 100 yards than a 357 at the muzzle. Untold hundreds of thousands of combatants in three wars have bit the dust from the Carbine. I am not saying it is an assault rifle, but it is a PDW. Heck an HK P90 PDW in 5.7mm has a fraction of the Carbines utility, and no one thinks of bashing it!
I'm not condemning the rifle at all. I'm simply pointing out a known issue based upon the experience of the men that were there that some here want to deny happened or they wish to pile excuse after excuse on as to why this should not count, a few calling it a "myth". It is not a myth, it happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by vintage hunter
Stating fact is not condemnation. It has an outstanding reputation in every other theater of war it was utilized in and is obviously loved by those that own it.
Thank you for the extremely valid response Imarangemaster! I for one will never understand why this argument/discussion seemingly never ends. Comparing the .30 M1 carbine to the M-1 rifle is similar to comparing a service pistol to the carbine. They are not in any way, shape, manner or form in the same league. When you cut thru all the baloney and remember what role the .30 carbine was intended to fill you will come to the realization it performed very well. Answer this question: was the .30 carbine intended to be an offensive weapon? Answer: No. What role was the .30 carbine supposed to fill and why? Answer: It was primarily meant to replace handguns that were being carried by support troops who for the most part couldn't hit a barn door with a handgun. Anyone truly familiar with firearms knows that it takes much more training time to make an average marksman with a handgun than with a shoulder fired weapon. Even with lengthy training a person firing a handgun at a target more than 50 yards away will have a difficult time hitting that target under combat conditions. The .30 carbine gave the military exactly what they needed and wanted. It was an easy firearm to train people how employ and take care of and it offered much better hit probability when compared to the handguns it replaced. The .30 carbine was never meant to be employed as a front line weapon, yet for a host of reasons it was inappropriately placed in that situation. It wasn't the fault of the carbine for being placed in the wrong role, it was the fault of people placing it where it didn't belong. All things being considered, take away the carbine and many of the troops would have found themselves carrying 1911's or revolvers. What would the results have been if these troops would only have had handguns to rely on? Let's get real and remember why the .30 carbine was developed and what role it was designed to fill. By the way, don't kid yourself for a minute, many an M1 rifle froze up in the extremely cold weather of Korea. Almost nothing was immune from the cold conditions in that region.Quote:
Originally Posted by imarangemaster
Rick
When the Germans invaded Russia they were severely hampered by a lot of things; worst being that the railroad gauge of Russians is different than German. The Russian gasoline would not work well in German vehicles and German locomotives after the gauge change would freeze up in use. Most people don't realize that the vaunted German army was a horsedrawn army throughout the war. Half of tonnage shipped during the winter by train was fodder for their horses. They used captured French and English lorries for most of the war and you can imagine how bad things got in the dead of winter hung out on a frozen rope at Stalingrad. That was the end of the German conquest in Russia, Feb 1943 it was all retreat after that. The battle of Kursk in July 1943 the Russians were waiting for them and the Germans lost about 600 tanks in 7 days.
With the exception of the above, you make some good points. BQ has worn out several keyboards posting this 1938 Ordnance letter (see Reply #13):Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick H.
Bayonet on M1 Carbine
The very first page of War Baby! contains further pre-WWII support for Brian's point.
A look at T/O 7-15 for the infantry battalion shows assignment of pistols and carbines in what is obviously the primary ground combat unit. The 1 Oct 40 edition (the last one without the carbine) shows 313 pistols; the 1 Apr 42 (the first one with the carbine) shows 60 pistols and 290 carbines - that's more than an 80% drop in pistols. In each rifle company, pistols dropped from 48 to 10; in the heavy weapons company pistols plunged from 152 to 28. (The two battalions are within 2% of each other in total manpower.) These numbers make a good case for the implementation of the plans discussed in Brian's letter. HW crews (including their ammo bearers) were the impetus for development of the carbine. Often operating away from their unit's position, moving through all sorts of terrain, they badly needed something lighter than a 10 pound rifle - and something more than a pistol.
The WWII Army's use of the term 'support' creates some confusion, so I would suggest that if you're going to use it, you need to be specific about MOS and/or unit designation.
That they aimed and fired is not in dispute. Could it be? Just could it be that they missed? Rounds fired to hit ratio in war is very high. No doubt they thought they hit or should have hit and they don’t do autopsies on survivors. Bottom line is I don’t believe winter clothing would stop a carbine bullet. I do believe that some good men did believe that it could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
How good is your accuracy when you are shivering with cold at freezing temps. and no way to warm up? GK
When we were in basic, my squad,which was a good group of riflemen, hit almost nothing in the night firing course. After the ground was littered with burning tracers and lit up like a freeway wreck, it improved somewhat. Almost all of the fighting at the Chosin was done at night. The number of hits drops off the charts unless there is constant mortar flare use like we had in RVN.
Very true DaveHH. Without night-sights, or illuminated optical sights or artificial light of some sort hit probability goes to zero at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
Rick
Firstflaban: I don't think the term "support" is confusing at all when it is used in general context. I also don't think a detailed description of "support troops" is necessary when speaking of the reasons for development of the .30 M-1 Carbine. If one were to designate MOS and/or unit designation for use of the .30 cal carbine it would get to be a very long and very detailed thread that would put most people to sleep. When a student of the M-1 carbine looks at the big picture it is pretty easy to understand why a replacement shoulder fired weapon was desired by the military instead of the then current 1911 service pistol. From a purely personal standpoint I not only understand why the carbine was developed and put in service, but what eludes me is why so many front line troops were issued the carbine if in fact it was such a poorly regarded arm. Obviously, I wasn't there so I can only surmise that troops liked the lightweight of the carbine as well as the fact it carried 15 rounds instead of 8. My Dad was in an artillery unit at the very end of WWII and he carried an M-1 carbine. He loved the carbine based on its weight versus the M-1 rifle in his role as an artilleryman and told me so on many occasions.Quote:
Originally Posted by firstflabn
Rick
Took the time to do a bit of experimenting this morning and hopefully the results will change the minds of those who still buy into the rumors going around about the carbine being weak and under powered. I decided to see for myself just how much oak wood the carbine was capable of penetrating. Ammo used for these tests was LC 44 ball and one hand load with a 110gr Sierra Pro Hunter SP. Range: 60 yards. First block tried was 6'' in diameter. Fired 2 LC and one hand load into it against the grain. Both LC ball rounds zipped right through, the SP penetrated just short of 3'' before stopping. No big surprise there. Tried a second 6'' block this time firing into it end ways with the grain. Penetration was a whopping 12 1/2''. Third and last block measured 7 3/4''. At first I didn't think it had gone all the way through but figured it was close judging by the splinters on the back side. Upon splitting the block to measure actual across the grain penetration I saw that it had indeed gone through, albeit not in in a straight line as it had the smaller blocks. It had turned and traveled with the grain exiting the top edge. The one recovered LC FMJ bullet was intact and showed no signs of damage or distortion, the soft point as can be expected didn't fair as well. Not much left but a ball of lead, jacket material and wood chips.
Wow....they ought to make a sticky out of the above reply. Would help quiet the nonbelievers. Course to disagree makes life fun and educational.
Vintage hunter; Very good! BUT as much wood that I burned this winter it would not a feasable way for me to split wood. I'll keep my log splitter powered by grandsons. They love to push the lever!GK
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadycon
Add to the cold the nerve factor of being charged and shot at, then in the dark as well. Even a seasoned soldier's aim could go a little off target.
Nothing is confusing if your criteria is squishy enough. Maybe no one will fall asleep if some basic questions are asked (I'll risk it):Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick H.
1. On the eve of the development of the carbine, would you consider all/most/some of troops in an infantry regiment's service company to be "support troops"? If not, can you come up with a single example of what "support troops" might be? Take a wild guess at how the service company was armed pre-carbine.
2. You ignored the specific case mentioned in the OD letter Brian posted previously, so I'll try again. Are WWII HW company ammo bearers "support troops" or something else?
BTW, independent artillery battalions in WWII were officially classified as "combat support." Now there's a confusing term if I've ever heard one (but maybe not to those blissfully unaware of basic army organizational structure).
WWI T/O&E data is pretty scarce, but since most army decision makers in WWII served in the earlier war, a glance at the organizations they went to war in might be instructive.
A WWI division's organic artillery brigade had 1490 rifles and 3454 pistols. Are those units support troops or combat troops?
A division's machine gun battalions had over 1800 officers and men. The exact number of pistols is not shown, but the one MG battalion serving directly under division control (as opposed to being part of the infantry brigades) had 715 pistols to go with 39 rifles. The MG battalions organic to the infantry brigades had zero rifles.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the ammunition train that supplied those artillery batteries had 42 pistols and 587 rifles. Were these guys support or combat?
Using the time honored facts first/opinion last technique, it seems to me that in the context of their WWI experience, WWII senior officers saw that artillerymen and machine gunners needed something with better range than the pistol. If the assumption is that those soldiers are somehow support troops, then your argument might have some logical basis.
I do have to laugh that so many people are enamored with HK MP7 4.6x30mm PDW, and FN P90 5.7x28mm PDW. While nifty weapons, they literally have a fraction of the stopping power of the 7.62x33mm M1 carbine! The M1 carbine round easily penetrates IIIA body armor and Kevlar helmets. The FN P90 weighs 6.3 pounds empty, and is much bulkier than a carbine with a folding stock. The Mp7 is a little better at 4.2 pounds empty, and almost as handy as a carbine.
A classic example of newer isn't necessarily better.
Col. Ola Lee Mize just passed March 12, 2014 R.I.P. A true American hero!
That was mentioned already...another thread.
I wanted to mention it again. Is that ok with you?
Of course it is. I don't think these guys can get enough recognition.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
With the three latest recipients last week, there are now 77 living Medal of Honor recipients. Definitely a select group of men.
Then why the comment from the troll?
Come on guys, comments can sometimes be misinterpreted. I am closing this thread as it seems to be heading in the wrong direction.
We are here to learn and share in a friendly environment.