USMC small arms in the Korean War

[Tom in N.J.]

Gyrene.. You guys didn't finish those 'C' and 'D' and 'K' rats off... We had them, complete with green Luckys, at Amarillo AFB, TX in 1956! ! ! My weapon was a M1 carbine, never saw a M2, and it worked both times I fired it in familiarization in three years!..

[Stumbler]

I haven't had a chance to finish the book yet, but I've read enough to reach some conclusions:

1. It is a very good book. I highly recommend it. (I'm just one of those a**holes who hates to see technical details messed up in something that is supposed to be history...)

2. The authors don't have a lot of military background (maybe Air Force or Navy, but not Infantry, for sure.) They're telling a story based on anecdotal information in the form of war stories from people who were there a long time ago. And not all of the people who were there were professional marines. A lot of technical details are bound to get messed up.

3. I wish they'd been a little less 'definite' about things they really didn't know. An early statement "the 7.92 Mauser was the standard rifle of the Chinese Army"...is flat wrong. The Chiang Kai-shek rifle was a 7.92 Mauser, and no doubt some were in the hands "volunteers" who entered Korea, but it was an obsolete Nationalist rifle. Most of the good ones went to Formosa with Chiang Kai-shek! But they weren't standard. The Chinese were more likely to have a lend-lease '03 Springfield or Thompson, or a captured Japanese rifle than a Mauser. (Russian weapons existed, but were far more common later in the war.)

4. They refer to "light machine guns" very often, and describe the weapon as having a bipod. The only LMG used by the US at that time was the 1919A6, and I don't think the Marines even had them. There weren't that many made. I could be wrong. But the normal LMG was the tripod-mounted 1919A4.

5. They describe a capturing a "Belgian-made" LMG, and then distributing it's box of ammunition- so it would have to be 30-06. In 1950. Was it a Belgian BAR? What else could it have been? They don't say.

Enough again...I'll finish the book.

[talucah]

I've never had to use any of the wepons that I was trained on in anger, so I was hopeing that others would answer. Yes the 1919 BLM had a butstock and a bipod that could be added.
Bob

[Dan Wilson]

Well the 1919A6 is more common than you think. It takes nothing to change one over to the A6 Config, all the parts were in the supply system (and are still readily available - kinda pricey though). The conversion should have been able to be done as low as the unit level since the hardest part of the conversion is bucking three rivets.

As for the "Belgian-made" LMG it could have been the FN-D (thier version of the BAR) or the FN produced 1919 variants (of which almost all parts will interchange with US versions) as they were both produced by FN in 30-06.

Dan

[Vern Humphrey]

I understand that the C-rations and K-rations were surplus US Army lefftovers from WWII, but when you are hungry, they are very good!

In 1969, my company, A-1/61 IN, was issued C-rations dated 1944. They were edible. The cigarettes, not so good. :-)

My brigade (1st Bde, 5th ID) was part of the 3rd Marine Division -- the second Army-Marine division in American history to see combat (the other being the 2nd Infantry Division in WWI.)

[Stumbler]

The M1919A6 was really the first US attempt at a GPMG, to counter the MG34 or the MG 42. It was generally considered to be a failure because it was still too heavy and the bipod was too weak and not very stable. (bipods were a common weak point on early LMG/GPMG attempts.) I guess it's possible that they were present during the Chosin period- I don't know-, but most units stuck with the M1919A4 config, with tripod. Far more stable and effective.

As far as the .30 Carbine, I think most of the stuff about it's "lack of stopping power" is urban legend- or old wives tales. Consider: The .357 Magnum was long rated as the top fight-stopping handgun. They used to talk about it being able to crack the block on a car. The FBI swore by it. so: .357 = 125 grain bullet, MV 1400 fps, ME 584. .30 Carbine 110 grain bullet, MV 1992 fps, ME 965!

The .357 benefits by not having to be a fmj, since it isn't an official military round. It is a tiny bit bigger around, and a tiny bit heavier. But the .30 Carbine wins, hands down, in terms of striking power. Not to mention accuracy from an 18" barrel.

No, it isn't a 300+ meter weapon. Bad bullet design for longer ranges. But under 200 meters, its intended envelope, it's plenty powerful enough not to be stopped by padded uniforms! Don't shoot me with one.

[PhillipM]

As far as the .30 Carbine, I think most of the stuff about it's "lack of stopping power" is urban legend- or old wives tales. Consider: The .357 Magnum was long rated as the top fight-stopping handgun. They used to talk about it being able to crack the block on a car. The FBI swore by it. so: .357 = 125 grain bullet, MV 1400 fps, ME 584. .30 Carbine 110 grain bullet, MV 1992 fps, ME 965!

The .357 benefits by not having to be a fmj, since it isn't an official military round. It is a tiny bit bigger around, and a tiny bit heavier. But the .30 Carbine wins, hands down, in terms of striking power. Not to mention accuracy from an 18" barrel.

No, it isn't a 300+ meter weapon. Bad bullet design for longer ranges. But under 200 meters, its intended envelope, it's plenty powerful enough not to be stopped by padded uniforms! Don't shoot me with one.

Up the street from my office lives a Korean vet who served in the artillery. He isn't a gun enthusiast, although he used to hunt and carries a pistol for self defense. While speaking to my father, another Korea vet, I asked what he carried and he said a carbine. I asked if there was any truth to the lack of stopping power, not penetrating the uniforms, etc., he just looked at me and said, "I didn't find that to be the case."

I related that on the 03 board years ago and an Army Captain from Vietnam said he saw an enemy soldier shot in the magazine chest pack with one that knocked him down but did not injure him. I still wouldn't want to be shot by one.

[Stumbler]

I related that on the 03 board years ago and an Army Captain from Vietnam said he saw an enemy soldier shot in the magazine chest pack with one that knocked him down but did not injure him. I still wouldn't want to be shot by one.

Incidents of shootings and bullet performance are strange things. The ones that don't go as expected are the most remembered and retold (and sometimes exaggerated? no...!) I don't doubt that story. A lot has to do with factors like angle, range, etc. I've seen a few odd ones personally- like a 7.62X39 glance off a metal button (not mine)- but at an extreme angle. Left a helluva bruise.

But you can often question the "everybody knows" stuff. Like "everybody knows" the 5.56 from an M4 won't stop a man. BS! I'd rather have a 6.8, given a choice, but the M4 mostly works just fine.

So, "everybody knows" the .30 Carbine was useless against the padded Chinese. Well, maybe so, if you hit the padding and not the person. Or, if you tried to shoot him at 500 meters. But, although it wasn't as effective as a 30'06, in a straight on solid hit to near center of mass, at under 200 meters, it's a very effective weapon indeed. The authors of Fox Company, I'm convinced, were just repeating "war stories".

[jon_norstog]

.30 carbine -

When we lived in Window Rock, my wife and I used to go down to for weekend or 3-day minivacations in winter, including New Years. We'd stay in fleabgs on van Buren, spend the days in city parks, the zoo, etc.

New Years, maybe '91 or '92, it was the usual scene. Bang bang! the next day I was loading up the car and saw something on the driver's seat. It was a .30 carbine fmj slug. Came straight down through the roof and headliner bt couldn't penetrate the seat upholstery.

I still have the slug!

[Sgt. Rob P.]

My brigade (1st Bde, 5th ID) was part of the 3rd Marine Division -- the second Army-Marine division in American history to see combat (the other being the 2nd Infantry Division in WWI.)

Hello Vern, yours would be the third instance of combined Army - Marine Regiments in one Division. the 1st time as you mentioned was the 2nd Infantry Div. in WWI. But on Gualdalcanal in January 1943 General Patch created the Composite Army-Marine or CAM Division from the 147th and 182nd Army Regiments and the 6th Marines, and attached artillery components from the Americal and the 2nd Marine Divisions, with the latter also supplying the divisions headquarters elements.

Gyrene - you are about the 7th or 8th Korean War vet I have talked to that mentions using pencil lead to lubricate their weapons during the winters in Korea.

Semper Fi, Rob