The clothing myths are supposedly hits from 2-300 yds away. I don't doubt that the carbine is deadly, but I have talked to several Marine vets who shot small Japanese several times and they didn't stop. The big gun knocks them *** over teakettle every time. When walking or at route step, I'd want a carbine. When stopping some drunk Japanese with a bayonet, I'd take an M1 rifle every time.
I agree and no argument there Dave, but you know the M1 Carbine was never meant for long range shots, as we all do... It was meant for a better, more accurate extension of the officer's 1911-A1 service pistol which was for all practical purposes effective out to around 20 ft in all practicality for the average soldier.
It was a conundrum back then too.... The M1 carbine turned out to be so easy to maneuver and light to carry, and still accurate to the practical ranges in most combat, MANY soldiers wanted a carbine.
We all know a 30.06 (M-2) will tear anything to pieces and knock the recipient to the ground, but the truth of the matter is few combatants really had a lot of close combat and they hated carrying the super heavy M1 Garand...
I took one of my Garands to a gun show and 'walked' it around the gun show because I really needed the money last month... I had it slinged but after only a half hour I appreciated how terribly HEAVY it was. It still seemed like a trade off to me as I thought about it, but I understand why so many GI's opted to carry a carbine if they could get one... With a full pack and all the web-gear, canteens, etc they had to carry, and then a heavy M1 Garand cannon to carry with it, I can see why so many wanted a carbine.
I think the OP did a good job with his presentation, his work and studies, and he went far and above than anything I've seen before on this controversial and likely 'urban legend'.
He really tried to reproduce the conditions of the gear the North Koreans/Chinese would have had back then in the worst and improbable frozen conditions.
Go ahead and tell us about everything Sarge1998. I am interested in why you have your opinion.
Interesting. But, I doubt that any soldier in Korean had 2" of frozen clothing, no matter how cold/rainy it was; if your inner layers of clothing got wet & froze solid, hypothermia would cause death within a few hours.
Ballistics of the .30 carbine round are reasonably close to .357 magnum; within the 100 yd useful range of the carbine, I really don't think anyone without a ballistic vest can take a round to the chest & shake it off.
I once had the opportunity to fire .30 cal carbine tracer rounds at a military range with an impact area > 2 miles. It was pouring rain, so no danger of starting a fire. We were able to follow the trace to various distances, & the carbine can never be mistaken for a "flat shooter". Hold off even at 200-300 yds would be so great that few soldiers would come close to hitting what they aimed at.
Harlan is right. The Carbine was never meant to be a rifle, but rather the WW II version of the PDW (Personal DEFENSE Weapon). They were meant for "up close and personal," that's why it worked so well for my dad and uncles in the PTO in WW II. EVerything, by and large, was close range. The fact tha t at 100/150 or less it is nasty (as it will generally do at 100 yards was a 5.56 will do at 200) is a bonus. Many shared his sentiments. I knew a guy that was an Army Sgt. D Day on. He carried a Garand in the countryside, but when they went into a village or town, he switched for a Carbine with his RTO, since the Sgt was the one clearing buildings.
When it comes to debunking a "myth". I'll take the words of the guys that were actually there with their lives on the line over those doing the "debunking".
Check out "Last Stand of Fox Company". It discusses the problems with the M1 carbine and the Chinese troops clothing in some detail. As the solution was to shoot them in the head only, it is apparent that the problem did indeed exist.
The test is flawed is what I stated, you may well get the same results under frozen arctic conditions, and you may get something else. My opinion is a well placed shot should take out the target, but this guys video is a poor way to prove it. A sub-zero environment, weapon sluggish due to cold and elements and lack of cleaning effecting the lubrication and operation of the carbine, actual 1950-52 ammunition.
This guys target was frozen cloth which becomes brittle and will shatter is this how a Chinese or NK would actually wear their clothes (see Neals remarks)? The narrator says 100 yards as the video displays 75 yards. I don't know what the results would be under actual conditions and to say this guy debunked the myth is just wrong. I didn't need convincing to share an opinion that the .30 Carbine round would not bounce off enemy clothing, I just don't buy this videos presentation and methods.
I still think it was poor shot placement that's responsible...and excess range...
I've shot lots under arctic conditions, at least Ft Wainwright Alaska in Jan-Feb would likely classify, for example. There's lots of factors then. Like poor shooting due to too much clothing between you and your weapon and not wanting to freeze the end of your nose again by touching it to your frozen weapon. Maybe poor trigger manipulation because of goofy gloves or trigger finger mitts...things like that.
Carbine bullets bouncing off frozen clothing" myth.
PM
