February American Rifleman

A telling article was published in the February AR re the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine v M1 Garand in Korea - specifically in the extreme cold at the Chosin Reservoir. I have no rock solid opinion either way on this issue but the article quotes a U. S. Marine Assaultman (3.5" rockets) saying that, in his opinion, the carbine was pretty much worthless in combat at the Chosin Reservoir. This flies in the face of many 'expert' opinions, but the difference between the 'experts' and the old Marine is that the Marine was there. One testimony does not resolve any issue but I think it deserves serious consideration. A pretty good article well worth reading. JMHO

Tangential to this discussion, there's a contemporary video in the MKL that some readers might find interesting ..

Infantry Weapons and their Effects (WWII and Korean era U.S. Training Films)

Regards,
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChipS

effectiveness of the M1 Carbineicon v M1 Garand in Korea

---

It may depend upon the mindset of the enemy. In the '70's the guard at the building where I worked was a marine who had spent time in the south pacific in WWII. His job was to perch on a tank and shoot (expletive deleted) Jap suicide bombers who were attempting to run up to the tank and blow the treads off, while incidentally blowing themselves up. After he found that he had to shoot them several times with his carbine, he traded it for a M1903. One shot would stop the most determined Jap.

By the way, after all those years you could still see the smoke rising from his collar when visitors from our Japanese subsidiary came into the building. He had some rough service.

Doug:

Meaning no disrespect, as I really do have NO 'dog in this fight', but it appears to me that these Army training films were intended to instill confidence in our troops in the weapons they had to work with at the time (may not be good grammer but you get my drift). The films have great merit for what they were intended and were made by the same U.S. Army special services propaganda (not a dirty word) teams that brought us 'The MG42's Bark is Worse Than It's Bite' film - the MG42 being arguably the best and most effective light machine gun of WWII, and possibly to date (IMHO). These WWII/Korea/Vietnam Army training films were great tools and are very interesting but, considering the source and the times, hardly accurate and dependable references (again IMHO). I like to hear the testimonies regarding combat arms and armament from the men who actually walked the walk and 'saw the elephant'. I consider only them to be the real experts. But that's just me.
Semper Fi. ChipS

I don't collect for the accuracy and outstanding effectiveness of the Carbine, so this doesn't come from the perspective of a homer. I highly doubt there is anything about the Carbine unique to the conditions stated for any comparable round.

There are plenty of accounts of people continuing an attack even after being shot multiple times even in non-combat incidents. Especially those who were drugged up. On another board I used to be on a home owner (in his own house) shot an attacking roid-raged neighbor 1 time point blank in the torso with a .45 and the attack continued briefly before the assailant walked out of the house...and then he sued the home owner who shot him.

For my naturally skeptical mind, 'being there' isn't a convincing enough argument because of the human component. How long has it been since that event now? People are fallible on many levels whether intentionally prejudiced, or by the normal makeup that all humans are impacted by which includes faulty memory.

I think this topic will continue to haunt the M1 carbine long after the last rifle is worn out, there are lots of factors in play here. Having never used the M1 carbine in either combat or casually I can't comment on what those that carried it actually experienced, but a couple of things can be drawn into the discussion.

1. Speaking frankly, and perhaps a bit gruesomely, the killing of a human with a firearm is not a 100% precise science, even today, there is only a rather small area of the body that results in "light's out" instantly. Otherwise there is a huge amount of factors that will determine the fatality of a gunshot wound; caliber, range, shot placement, individual physiology, possibly even blind luck and sheer human will to survive etc. The human body is a outstanding biological machine that continues to surprise medical science.

2. Does the .30 M1 Carbine have the capability to kill? Certainly yes, I would say without hesitation, smaller calibers can and do, however soldiers have survived being shot with much larger calibers too, see above.

3. Is a frozen woolen coat effective body armour? Certainly not, not at any range that should be considered effective for a rifle.

4. The human factor, soldier's faith in equipment is utterly important, and if something gets a stigma in service, that belief will become fact, and that fact will become military lore. There are many examples of this. It is often said that no one ever found themselves in a firefight wishing for a smaller gun, and the M1 carbine may have found itself, assigned a stigma based on soldier's wishing for the bigger M1 Garand in times of duress. This may be the biggest factor of any I have mentioned.

I don't want to discount the wartime experiences of those that went, and did, but if I had to choose to be shot with something, I certainly wouldn't don my wool coat and instruct someone to level an M1 carbine at me. LOL

We all recognize that the .30 carbine ammo is essentially a PISTOL round (not a rifle round such as .30-06, .303, .308 or even 30-30, etc) being fired our of a carbine (18") to give it more horsepower. In effect it was designed to extend the effective range for officers and support troops who might be carrying a Colt .32, .38, or .45 ACP. It turned out to be an exceptional intermediate range light weapon (25-100+ yds).

IMHO it's probably the best "compromise" weapon ever devised (until the AR-15/M16 era) effectively doing what a "carbine" is supposed to do: "be half pistol and half rifle," weighing in exactly between a 1911 Colt and an M1 Garrand.

But like all compromises, it runs the risk of being decimated by both sides. We must cherish this gun for what it is, what is was for its time, and for what it still can do (remarkably today). To me a gun is, in some ways, like a woman -- some are beautiful, some are fun, some are good in the bedroom, others in the kitchen, and others on the dancefloor; some are accurate, some reliable, some easy to handle, some great partners, some powerful, some steady, some fast, some slow -- and some were designed by the enemy. :madsmile:

Gunshot wounds are usually fatal from bleeding out. The oil tank empties and the pump loses prime. The difference in delivery is shock power. Getting hit by a baseball bat or shoved in the chest with a hand. The book "Blackhawk Down" tells of how the D boys were completely dissatisfied with the M16 stopping power. The 62gr steel core rounds would simply punch straight through. They described multiple hits with no effect beyond a flinch. Of course the wounded guy would eventually die, but he did not go down or stop (shove in the chest with a hand). Hits with the M14 would instantly put the guy down (baseball bat). In Vietnam the 55gr bullet at a barely stable twist rate brought devastating results. The 62 gr round took most of that away.

I enjoy the M1 Carbine for what it is today and the history at the time of conflict. I don't really care if it was a feared battle implement capable if one shot kills at 40 meters or 400. I don't care if it was developed as a new infantry 'assault rifle' or just a more effective replacement for a pistol or a more convenient replacement for the M1 Rifle. But, I can tell you that the perception developed by an experienced combat infantryman of ANY weapon is more than just his casual, haphazard opinion. Right or wrong, he will have faith in (or fear of) a weapon, or not, based upon his own personal experiences and I don't believe this will change for the rest of his life.

I would love to see a scientific study of maybe 1000 (or better even more) combat infantrymen from Korea (and Vietnam) asking pertinent questions about the use and effectiveness of M1 Carbines, Garands , machine guns, enemy equipment, etc. AFAIK this was not done with WWII vets and that time is pretty much lost. Korean War veterans are not that far behind. When they are gone the real truths may never be known. ChipS

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?

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

I'm a retired cop (served from the last day of 1973 to 1995 down here in paradise ,south Florida, during the height of the party....) and I have killed on the street when I had to (one shot fired in 22 years.....). I only mention it for some background on my remarks.

I recently decided that I needed a carbine (the original PDW) for the exact purpose it was originally designed for -as a personal defense weapon for my vehicle (I have a different weapon for home defense purposes). I know that the original military "hardball" ammo means great penetration - but could probably be improved upon in the civilian world. I remembered reading that a NYPD stakeout team had great results using softpoint ammo working robbery details in the late sixties.... That was specifically why I chose a carbine (the other two "possibles" were a mini 30 tactical from Ruger or an S&W sport 15 in .223 -but the carbine was just much more interesting..). I'm also a Vietnam vet (although only a pencil pusher back in 1971) and I did remember that many of the ARVNs were equipped with carbines as well...

So with all that in mind I recently purchased an old carbine in nearly new condition (not a USGI -in today's world they're out of my range). It was a Plainfield and appears to have come from the early seventies -towards the end of their production time. Haven't been to the range with it yet so that we can get acquainted. When I do it will be with hardball to verify aim, function, reliability then finally with softpoints to make sure it feeds them properly and that I can go through a box without an jams, failures to fire, etc.

Once it passes it will go into service - and I'll be pretty confident that it will be exactly what I want - something quick and maneuverable with a bit more power than .357 for the possibility that it might one day really be needed. I've read a lot of accounts about the performance issues in the Korean conflict and I can understand that concern. I also know that many cartridges don't perform up to spec in extreme cold weather (not a concern in my world).... Unfortunately, down here... if I ever need a weapon away from home I'll probably be facing more than one opponent - just what that little carbine was intended for....

Using the Chosin as an example of carbine performance isn't fair. I don't buy the argument about the extra burden of an M1 rifle endangering the Marine Corps. The guys who are humping base plates and pig guns are always the big lads and the difference between 6lbs and 9lbs isn't going to bother most people, it's all heavy.

I'll bow out of this talk by saying that in the 60s and 70s I worked with maybe a dozen Chosin and China Marines. Getting drafted in 1965 and returning from Vietnam in 1967 made me even more inquisitive. I am a history nut and talked to these guys a lot. To a man, 100% disliked the Carbine as a tool of war.

For what it is worth. There are may thousands of dead buried enemy solders who could attest to the effectiveness of both the M1 Carbine and the Garand. I don't believe any of them would pick one over the other.

My February copy of AR arrived yesterday and I haven't had time to read the article as yet. I can recommend the book, "US Infantry Weapons in Combat - Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea" to anyone who would like to read further on the subject. It has the personal stories of 65 soldiers who were interviewed during the book's writing. Here's a link that has some notes from the publisher, Scott Duff. The notes pretty much sum up the contents. - Bob
http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Weapo.../dp/1888722150

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

US Infantry Weapons in Combat - Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea"

---

Looks like a fascinating book. Here's a quote from the Foreword by Scott Duff:
"The differing opinions of these men is fascinating. One man loved the M1 rifle and hated the M1 carbine while the next loved the M1 carbine and hated the M1 rifle." I think those opinions have not diminished in 70 years. Each was designed for a purpose, and, more than likely, was hated when used outside its scope of design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

The guys who are humping base plates and pig guns are always the big lads and the difference between 6lbs and 9lbs isn't going to bother most people, it's all heavy.

---

Except that ditching 7-1/2 lb. M1919A4 spare barrels at the Chosin happened frequently enough to warrant mention in the "lessons learned" section of the 1MARDIV AAR. Silly me, when I read the phrase "due to the extra weight" I leaped to the conclusion that weight was somehow a factor. Maybe the big boys were all toting the 81mm mortars and HMGs.

I don't have a detailed T/O for a USMC KW rifle company to see whether weapons crews had pistols or carbines. In the 1944 version, I was surprised to see that everybody in the USMC 60mm mortar and LMG crews were authorized carbines, while in the army equivalent the gunners and their assistants had pistols. Would be interesting to know their thought processes. Different outcomes perhaps, but both services were looking for an edge - to win and to save lives.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

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?

---

Without getting too nostalgic, back in the 'Old Corps' (LOL) in Vietnam (almost) everybody in a USMC rifle company carried something besides their personal ammo & gear - gun ammo, LAAWS, claymores and/or 60mm mortar rounds, take your pick, they all get heavy. Nobody was allowed to ditch nothin', and that was true for gas masks. Lose your gas mask and you would probably be standing before the man explaining and paying. That may not be true today now that the Marines will be deploying 110 pound little girls in their front line infantry units. God help us. Semper Fi.

My Marine pals tell me that the Commandant had a cow when our boy Ash Carter decided that women belong in 0311 slots. Wait until Daddy's little girl comes home with one eye and a leg missing. I've never thought it was a good idea at all but I also think it is a bad idea to have 38 year old men with families getting shot to pieces or trying to hump with 20 year olds. Not everyone is a top 2% Operator type. But it's a different time and a different war.

Chip, when I was with the 101Abn (1971) we were still there after the Marines left the area north of us (north of Hue)... That was a very lonely feeling for this guy, all those years ago. I worked with many former marines in my police career, and to a man they were first rate.... Any police recruiters would be lucky to have them as applicants -in any era...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaveHH

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).

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USGI

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.

Boasting about ownership of WWII military weapons is not being rude, just being smart! They were made to take anything thrown at them and keep on working. "All" parts are interchangeable no matter who made them. What is wrong with that??????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadycon

Boasting about ownership of WWII military weapons is not being rude, just being smart! They were made to take anything thrown at them and keep on working. "All" parts are interchangeable no matter who made them. What is wrong with that??????????

---

Pride in ownership isn't rude, throwing it in someone's face is. Humility isn't your long suit is it?