Ode to the lowly M1 Carbine...

I was in my gun safe today, changing desiccant crystals, emptying the accumulated moisture in the collection bowls. (Though I live in draught ridden central California, my swamp cooler is in the same room as the safe...so better safe than sorry!) Anyway, I decided to wipe everything in the safe down with a fresh coat of Ballistol to help keep them rust free.

I pulled out my 6 digit Inland post war rebuild, and as I was wiping it down, I realized it has been at least two years since I shot it! Whenever I have had a chance to shoot, I have only been shooting my AR and AK for the last couple years. As I fondled it (don't tell my wife), it was almost like re-discovering it. The little M1 Carbine is so incredibly light and handy compared to the AR or the AK.

I had been planning to go up and sight in my latest AK acquisition later this week, and I have decided to take the Inland, also. I am actually more excited about shooting it than the new AK! It has an ME of about "0" and it is an awesome shooter. I'll have to dig out some of my 15 grain WW296 loads with Berry plated bullets.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._zpsa0a1-1.jpg

I just had my Winchester M1 carbine out at the range last week. It has been extremely wet for weeks here in Ohio so I was able to safely play with M27 tracers at 300 yds. Great fun! I had no problem consistently hitting a target half the size of a man @ 300 yds., even standing and shooting off-hand. I had a 5" diameter AR500 plate at 200 yds., too, and was able to hit it a few times until the cable snapped. The M1 Carbines are great little rifles!

TNOUTDOORS did a great series of videos on Youtube shooting the carbine a 12" and 18" AR500 plates out to 300 yards. The results were amazing! I guess I have been too busy drinking the AR and AK Kool Aid for awhile, to appreciate my little warrior.

The M1 Carbine's 1970 FPS for a 110 JSP gives 980 ft lbs ME,. Out at 100 yards, it still has 600 ft lbs -more than almost any pistol (including 357 Magnum) AT THE MUZZLE! The .44 mag 240s will break 700 ft lbs ME at the muzzle. AT 200 YARDS the M1 Carbine STILL has more energy than a 45 ACP, 9mm +P, or 40 S&W does AT THE MUZZLE.


Great little video, with a big surprise for the shooter. Start in at about minute 5:00. He regurgitates the "pistol caliber" BS in the video before he shoots, but eats crow after he shoots the clay block.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXbrP-9vL0

Also, A good thread I started last year for the new folks with the TNOUTDOORS videos:

SOme interesting carbine videos Accuracy and ballistic tests

I never had any doubt about it's capability. I used to shoot steel at 200 yds offhand, and the report when it hit was as respectable as a 30-30...

It is so easy for us to drink the "modern is better" koolaid. Look at the infatuation that Military/LE has with PDWs. Everybody loves the FN 5.7 and HK 4.6 as PDWs. They are very cool and sexy, but...the FN gives 350 to 400 ft lbs ME and the HK gives 370 ft lbs ME at the muzzle (about the same as a standard velocity 9mm pistol). The lowly old 30 Carbine gives 980 ft lbs ME, and 100 yards still gives almost twice the ME that either the 4.6 or 5.7 do at the muzzle! With an M1A1 side folder paratrooper stock, it is almost as compact as either, but more versatile. We played with an M2 in a side folder on the PD as an entry weapon in the 80s. Not as sexy, but very effective.

Sure, they say that 4.6mm and 5.7mm rounds defeat body armor (IIIA and below), but I put a 30 carbine round through both sides (front and back) of an old IIIA vest (with no one in the middle), and a 110 JSP through both sides of an issue PAGST Kevlar helmet.

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

I'm not saying that the FN or HK PDWs aren't any good, just that they are not the "end all" that some think they are. At just over 5 lbs, I'll happily keep my Inland 30 Carbine.. I killed a 200 lb. deer at 100 yards with a single heart/lung shot from my .30 carbine with a 110 JSP in 1988.

Anyway, I didn't really intend for this thread to regurgitate my "M1 Carbine effectiveness" post of last year (though not bad info for new forum members who have joined since then, though). I just meant to share my "re-appretiation" of an old friend, and my confession that I had drunk too deeply of the AR/AK Koolaid!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

"re-appretiation" of an old friend, and my confession that I had drunk too deeply of the AR/AK Koolaid!

---

Actually you did us a great service imarangemaster. The videos on shooting accuracy at +200 yards were a real eyeopener. I had always considered the M-1 carbine a 100 yard and under weapon. There is too much emphasis on "horsepower" (the AR/AK mentality or BIG Ammo mentality) and not enough on what many consider the "right priorities:"
1) Reliability
2) Ease of Handling
3) Accuracy
4) Rate of Fire
5) Force of Impact

Too many have got the priorities reversed; most of these people have never been in combat and experienced the realities of the battlefield.

****************
Guess I couldn't resist sharing two of my favorites -- a real Inland M-1 and it's baby brother -- a 1980 Marlin 995 XLE M2 in .22 caliber with target sights.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...220XLE_z-1.jpg

Thanks

My dad carried an M1 Carbine (Inland) on Iwo Jima in 1945. His brothers carried them in other campaigns of the Pacific war. All three love the carbine, and all three came home. My love for the carbine probably stems back to my dad's less than frequent stories about Iwo, and my uncles talk of Saipan and Tinian . These Carbines were very popular in the Pacific campaign, which is not surprising since few engagements were over 100 yards, maybe 200 at tops according to what my dad and Uncles told me.

While in Europe, there were more engagements in the open fields of France and Italy, so the Garand was king. I have talked to two guys, however, who used them (Carbines) in Europe with great effect. One was an NCO. He carried a Garand, except when clearing a village or town. Then he swapped his Garand to the unit Radio operator, and took the RTO's Carbine to clear buildings, and for house to house fighting. The other guy carried it all the time, and it never failed him. He said he limited himself to 200-300 yards and under. Old Audie Murphy did well with his M1 Carbine in WW2. Also, in Vietnam, the carbines were very popular, as the fighting was generally short range.

Korea is another matter. One problem was the long range of engagements and the human waves. Carbines were used at 300-500 yards, which is beyond their designed range. Also, untrained troops using full auto fire was a problem. The M2 climbs very easily, and most shots probably missed the target, especially at distant ranges. Ola Mize, the Medal of Honor winner, used and loved his Carbine in Korea.

I have fired M2s. They are easy to use, but work best in 2-3 round bursts. As proficient as I am with the Carbine, I could not keep a 30 round mag on target in a single full-auto burst, even at 50 to 75 yards .

I salute your dad and uncles -- brave men in very difficult battles. (My father was at Iwo Jima and Okinawa)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

NCO. He carried a Garand, except when clearing a village or town. Then he swapped his Garand to the unit Radio operator, and took the RTO's Carbine to clear buildings, and for house to house fighting. The other guy carried it all the time, and it never failed him. He said he limited himself to 200-300 yards and under.

---

I think you really hit the target on this one -- knowing the right weapon for the right circumstances is sooo important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

untrained troops using full auto fire was a problem. The M2 climbs very easily, and most shots probably missed the target, especially at distant ranges......
I have fired M2s. They are easy to use, but work best in 2-3 round bursts. As proficient as I am with the Carbine, I could not keep a 30 round mag on target in a single full-auto burst, even at 50 to 75 yards .

---

You make such a good point about inaccuracy and auto-climb. I wonder what the actual % hit-rate is of any rifle in automatic mode. Bullets that miss are as useless as nothing at all.

I recall being off the coast of Vietnam in 1972 doing gun-fire support with a 1911 .45 by my side. We threw a garbage bag over the side while we were just cruising at a few knots. The old grizzly Chief Gunners Mate challenged the officers to put the highest number of shots on the garbage bag the fastest with one magazine. I was a pretty good shot, but old Chief Russell beat me every time with his ancient 1903 Colt .32 semi-automatic (the predecessor to the 1911). Lesson: the low recoil of the 1903 enabled more shots on target faster, thus more effective. My 1911 was powerful, but had to be re-aimed after every shot.

Then came the next challenge -- a Browning Automatic Rifle. The challenge was to put 10 shots on target shot shooting from the shoulder. The biggest fellow on the ship was a Boatswain's mate named Clark -- an Iowa farm boy who stood about 6'3" and had arms like thighs. The BAR in automatic mode went into auto-climb. The first two shots were on target, but even the strongest mate on the ship could not hold the gun down. I tried it, and got the first shot on target, then auto-climb took command. Chief Russell then emptied a mag of his 1903 on target and just smiled.

Thank you for your service. I enlisted in 1974, but the closest I got was Oakland Army base guarding occasional caskets and material coming back. After that, I did 5 more years reserve (Army and Air Force), and then 20+ years as a LEO, finally getting my back permanently disabled by a violent subject on PCP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

You make such a good point about inaccuracy and auto-climb. I wonder what the actual % hit-rate is of any rifle in automatic mode. Bullets that miss are as useless as nothing at all.

---

The accuracy depends on the firearm. Full auto is only good for two things in my opinion. 1 Suppressive fire (i.e. making the enemy get there heads down), and 2 Point blank range/room clearing.

Some firearms are very accurate in full auto though, some of the WWI MGs on the tripods come to minds, as well as some other firearms like the MP-5s which just due to the caliber of the round tend to stay on target much more effectively (though the caliber limits them to point blank range anyways).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Marlin 995 XLE M2 in .22 caliber with target sights.

---

Sweet little carbine there...

I've thought for years that the .30 Carbine round makes for the best sub-gun of any 'pistol' caliber. A bull-pup in .30 Carbine would be an incredible PDW. The Israelis had one they used for certain special outfits - the Hezi SM-1. You get the benefits of the small cartridge size (magazine capacity) and the larger, slower bullet (greater energy transfer and less over-penetration). I completely get why the M2 Carbine was developed; the mistake was in thinking it could replace the rifle in WWII/Korea tactical situations.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

I completely get why the M2 Carbine was developed; the mistake was in thinking it could replace the rifle in WWII/Korea tactical situations.

---

Upon what basis did you conclude that was the case? You have to look especially hard to find any combat use of the M2 in WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firstflabn

Upon what basis did you conclude that was the case? You have to look especially hard to find any combat use of the M2 in WWII.

---

I think he meant the M1 Carbine in WW2 and then M1 & M2 Carbine in Korea. Though I believe M2s saw some use on Okinawa, as my dad said he saw a "Full-auto" M1 Carbine when he went to Okinawa briefly after Iwo Jima. He thought some GI monkeyed with the sear, and didn't realize it was an M2. I do believe the misuse of the Carbine in Korea as a long range battle rifle is the source of most of its bad rep. Merrill's Marauders in Burma LOVED their M1 Carbines.

The Israelis also love the M1 Carbine. Their "Mash Az" volunteer police (like a neighborhood watch with guns) have used them for many years. They are easy to carry, and easy to train someone to use. Though some of these have phased out by now, I understand some irregular units still have M1 Carbines. I had an Underwood that was an Israeli return, with Hebrew stamps under the handguard. Also, some of the best M1 Carine ammo I have shot is Israeli, with Hebrew headstamps. IMI is still producing it, and it can be found sometimes in stock at Widner's.

As for subguns, I agree the MP5 is the most accurate. I have fired it, Thompson, M2 "Grease Gun" , UZIs, and MAC-9s. The MP5 was pick of the litter. I also fired a Colt AR-15 9mm sub-gun. It was alright, but if I have an AR15, why limit myself to 9mm, when I can shoot 77 grm OTM MK262 MOD1 ammo from an AR shorty.

The round count for Viet Nam was between 3000 and 5000 5.56 per enemy casualty. Spray and pray were the rules of the day back then. The need to produce more 5.56 was the cause for McNamara to increase it by using the ball powder that Winchester told him was not ready. It finally was used and caused many good men to lose their lives because of jammed rifles. The switch to ball powder allowed the machines to increase from 7000 rounds an hour to 8000 rounds per machine at Winchester. If I remember right there were 8 machines running 24/7 at L.C. alone plus what ever T.W. and Remington were turning out.

Before I was drafted in 1965, I had not had much if any contact with the carbine. The folks who had purchased them through the NRA sales were hanging on to them at that point. In Vietnam I was exposed to what a handy little weapon they were. In the Army, you are married to your weapon and if the "wife" weighs 10-11 lbs and you could get one that weighs 5-6lbs, that is a lot less to carry around. I used to drive convoys on Hwy1 and the VC tax collectors would be hanging in their hammocks at the bridges always with a carbine. We'd wave, they'd wave back. The Koreans used a lot of carbines and I got to handle and shoot them a lot hanging with the ROKs. When I got home I made a point to find and buy a carbine. Used it for decades as a camp gun. It was powerful enough to take out a bear or cougar to protect the kids and a great deterrent for prowling humans. They remain my favorite weapon to shoot to this day. I guess a Ruger mini 14 might be close, but the carbine is more accurate and lighter yet. They are a timeless example of American industrial art that will never be made again. We are lucky to have a few of the 6M they made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

The round count for Viet Nam was between 3000 and 5000 5.56 per enemy casualty. Spray and pray were the rules of the day back then.

---

Bruce, that is an extraordinary figure. Thank you for this information. It settles a long-standing debate about the issue of accuracy versus fire power (rps).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce McAskill

using the ball powder that Winchester told him was not ready

---

And thank you for this note. My research shows that Olin was actually working on "ball ammo" at the end of WWII. But most people throw the word "ball ammo" around without understanding it refers not just to the "bullet" (which of course is more likely a pointed projectile) but also to the shape of the propellant. Is it the case that "ball ammo" refers only to certain ammunition produced after WWII? For example, my boxes of original Winchester Carbine Caliber .30 M-1 with the stamp "repacked E.C. 5-44" does not refer to "ball ammo.https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...33459113-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

But most people throw the word "ball ammo" around without understanding it refers not to the "bullet" (which of course is more likely a pointed projectile) but to the shape of the propellant

---

No, you're wrong. Ball refers to the type of bullet. Ball, tracer, incendiary and so on. The original was a round ball so the name stuck. The propellant is seldom discussed, especially when soldiers are involved because quite frankly, they have little or no knowledge or even care about the four major parts of a cartridge...just as long as it works EVERY time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

No, you're wrong. Ball refers to the type of bullet. Ball, tracer, incendiary and so on

---

Jim, I deeply respect your insights, and I know scores of other Milsurps members far more experienced than I would support your position. Plus, I do not profess to know the answer to this question -- I have heard too many points of view and have my head scrambled on whether "ball ammo" refers to the bullet or the propellant. I'd really like to have this issue put straight in my head once and for all. I don't want to sound at all argumentative on this point, but I'd like to stimulate a healthy inquiry. Here's what I have in my research on "ball ammunition" on the other side of the debate: (please, no one take this as the "definitive answer!!!") I've numbered these paragraph's as different people's points of view.

1. Ball powder" describes a type of powder (which is different due to it's manufacturing method). Some other common methods/types are "flake" and "extruded".

2. The name ball powder is actually used by the military to describe any non cordite smokeless powder. So going back to the early days there was the 303 british with a 220 grain round nose projectile on black powder. Then they came out with a cordite Mk7 round with a 174 grain pointed projectile -- Cordite from a Mk. VI cartridge is .027" in diameter and 1.4" long, but it burns too hot and corrodes barrels. Then came Mk8 or 303 ball ammo. Thats because it had ball powder, the name has nothing to do with the projectile.

3. So far as "Ball" powder is concerned, this was developed toward the end of WWII by Winchester as a speedy way of re-working deteriorating lots of standard powders."Ball" or "Spherical" (trademarks used by Winchester/Olin and Hodgdon, respectively) designations did not come about until true ball powders were developed following WWII. It continued after the war as a simplified manufacturing method, and to re-process surplus militray powders for the civilian market. "Ball" is a trademark of Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. which is the producer of Winchester brand ammunition. Burning rate of ball powders is controlled by deterrent coatings and rolling the ball shaped pellets into a somewhat flattened shape to vary the web thickness. Hodgdon uses the term "Spherical" to denote the same thing as "Ball", which they cannot use since it is a copyrighted name.

Experts, help me clear my head!! Thanks

It's simple, the term "Ball ammo" isn't a civilian term. It's military. We had to order ammo according to the description. It's not a guess. It's a fact. It IS a definitive answer. The reason others will support me is because It's correct.

When you discuss propellant, that's different. Ammo isn't ordered according to propellant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Ball refers to the type of bullet. Ball, tracer, incendiary and so on.

---

Correct. Ball ammunition, referring to a standard FMJ round, didn't matter what caliber small arm. Spent time as MP Company Ammunition NCO and Range NCO.

Believe me, I'm not trying to be argumentative -- just trying to understand. If Ball refers to FMJ, then why this labeling?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...byjpgt14-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...psq0mvjw-1.jpg

The term ''ball'', as used by the military in reference to a projectiles fired by small arms, is a hold over from the old days when a standard round of ammunition consisted of a charge of powder and a single round lead ball. The modern use of the term ball is synonymous for standard and the standard bullet for the .22LR round is a 40 grain lead round nose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vintage hunter

is a hold over from the old days when a standard round of ammunition consisted of a charge of powder and a single round lead ball.

---

I said that...and the marking on the box of .22 stating ball is correct. As in not tracer or AP... And FMJ is ball and so is a ball. Powder still doesn't have anything to do with it. You can't argue yourself into changing facts.

Military Ball ammunition can use either extruded or ball powders or flake powder.

LC M2 ball (30.06) uses IMR 4895, an extruded "stick" powder.
lc m2 ball ammunition picture - Google Search

M855 ball (5.56mm) uses WC 844, a ball powder.

M882 ball (9mm) uses HPC 26, a flake powder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

...I Used it for decades as a camp gun. It was powerful enough to take out a bear or cougar to protect the kids and a great deterrent for prowling humans. They remain my favorite weapon to shoot to this day. I guess a Ruger mini 14 might be close, but the carbine is more accurate and lighter yet. They are a timeless example of American industrial art that will never be made again. We are lucky to have a few of the 6M they made.

---

Least someone say they are not powerful enough to kill a bear...One of my favorite M1 Carbine pictures taken in Alaska in the 1950s or 1960s... Personally, I would want something a little bigger, but it can do the job in a pinch, especially for a smaller black bear.

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