February American Rifleman

[INLAND44]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Seaspriter]

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.

[Captain O]

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.