sight question

[goo]

how much of an improvement was this:
...
http://www.championgunsights.com/pro...s/M1-02-RS.jpg
...
over this:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd_i...od/MCB-098.jpg
...
for ranges up to 200 yards?
...
also , i see flash supressors for sale all the time for carbines but i've never seen a photo of them being used by gi's in ww11 or korea. were they used by gi's?

thx, goo

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.

[lbelflowers]

In my opinion, a vast improvement. Adjustability without using tools was the purpose I believe.

Loren

[LittleCrane]

On the adjustable sight, I guess I would say, "why not"? Cost difference was surely trivial (the stamped adjustable sight may actually have been cheaper than the machined leaf sight for all I know). In my experience, point of impact with a given sight setting often varies by shooter -- eyesight, how people hold the rifle, and so forth. An adjustable sight can accommodate these differences.

On the flash hider, I have no idea. Something you would use at night to avoid blinding yourself, and with the M3 I suppose. That would mean photos of flash hiders in actual use would probably be rare. Just speculation.

[TerryS]

And, remembering what these weapons were made for, does it make any difference to hit a man on the left side of his belt buckle, or the right ?

[LittleCrane]

And, remembering what these weapons were made for, does it make any difference to hit a man on the left side of his belt buckle, or the right ?

From what I've read it sounds like the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a "light rifle", and not just a pistol substitute for support troops. For use at longer ranges the adjustable sight definitely was a boon.

Or look at it this way. If the adjustable sight increased hits by just 1% or 2%with no downside, wouldn't you adopt it?

[BrianQ]

From what I've read it sounds like the adjustable sight clamor resulted from the carbine being really used as a "light rifle", and not just a pistol substitute for support troops.

The M1 carbine was not developed as a pistol substitute for support troops. It was developed for the Infantry to provide greater fire power to infantrymen whose primary job was not as a rifleman.

[phil441]

TerryS,
You're absolutely right. These carbines were not designed for precision target shooting or sports hunting.
As long as you put a big hurt on the guy, mission accomplished.

[FTD1167]

It also sped up production considerably, Sighting in procedure went very fast.
I put flippers on my non-shooters in order to Display all Makers stamping.
Some of the Late sights cover everything up. I purchased an IBM 2 weeks ago
and the CMP would not let me have it because they were not sure of SN.
They mailed it no charge..They removed the I.R.co and put a H in shield.

[goo]

au contrair, mon ami:
...
"M1 Carbine Family: M1, M1A1, M2, M3
The M1 Carbine was developed as a lightweight shoulder weapon to replace the .45 caliber M-1911 pistol to be carried by weapons crews and company grade officers. The objective was to provide better protection to service troops than standard issue pistols, when caught under surprise attack during envelopment movements by enemy forces."

M1 CARBINE FAMILY: M-1, M-1A1, M2, M3

[BrianQ]

au contrair, mon ami:
...
"M1 Carbine Family: M1, M1A1, M2, M3
The M1 Carbine was developed as a lightweight shoulder weapon to replace the .45 caliber M-1911 pistol to be carried by weapons crews and company grade officers. The objective was to provide better protection to service troops than standard issue pistols, when caught under surprise attack during envelopment movements by enemy forces."

M1 CARBINE FAMILY: M-1, M-1A1, M2, M3

For the most part that is unsubstantiated internet myth.

The initial requirement and design specifications for the weapon that became the M1 Carbine is spelled out in a memorandum from the Chief of Infantry, dtd 25 March 1938. In a follow up memorandum on the same subject from the Office of the Chief of Infantry, dtd 16 Sep 1938, says “The Chief of Infantry considers that the number of men in the infantry regiment who must be armed with some other weapon other than the service rifle establishes a distinct military requirement for a special weapon and that such weapon should be developed.” The second memorandum was endorsed by the Chief of Calvary and the Chief of Artillery. The requirement for a “Light Weight Rifle for the Infantry” was approved by the Chief of Ordnance in August 1940, signed by R.E. Fraile, Adjutant General.