[axeman_g]

I have read and reread numerous posts concerning backup to the A2 rifle. Many people present the shotgun, people presented handguns (current issue or new model) or going to the smaller M4 carbine with tradeoffs all noted. Distances and terrain were also discussed.

How about this possible solution... bring back a M1A carbine type weapon. The M1A has a more powerful projectile then a pistol, and is smaller and lightweight then rifles. It would be easy to carry in vehicles, maintain, reliable and training is simple and soldiers would be more profficient with it versus handguns or shotguns.

Would it be possible to find a cartridge more powerful then the current .30 used in the old M1A. Or, could that caliber be loaded up to be a profficient man stopper?

Any ideas? This should be good.

[Brian Williams]

just a correction M1A is a civie version of the M14, I think what you are refering to is the M1 Carbine in 30 Carbine. also there is/was a M2 which was a select fire version. I think that conversions have been done both up and down. There is the 22 Johnson, a 30 carbine case necked down to .224, and some have modified an M1 to 357 Mag (I think), After seeing what my 1894 Marlin in 357 does I think this would be an awsome combination. I wonder if something like the 38 AMU could be lengthened to be a 357 AMU(Army Marksmenship Unit). A 357 with a rimless case, of course someone will say use the 357SIG, but we are looking to maintain the smallerish (new word???) Straight case of the 30 carbine.

Imagine this a Short Auto with a 357 caliber, a 25 round box mag, nice peep sight, short stroke piston/ op rod operating system, with a full length Picatinny rail. Hang the operating system under the barrel which puts the barrel close to the line of sight, hang a OKO Sight up top.

[Mikul]

I'd vote for an MP5K.

[axeman_g]

.357 mag sounds good, but might have some kick and expense isssues. But I like the sound of it.

How about 9x23???

.45 acp?

[bogie]

I've got a .357 lever gun, and it doesn't kick much at all. Rings gongs in a very satisfying fashion.

[axeman_g]

what barrel length is the lever gun...

weight??

what is your acceptable distances limits?

Is it the sights or cartridge that limits the usable distance?

[Kharn]

If the M16 and the M4 are both too big, then there's the Colt Commando (11.5" .223) or the pistol caliber M16s with <=11.5" barrels (including the Department of Energy model: 9mm with a 6" barrel)

If one of those with a telestock cant do the job, not much else will. The troops have already had training on the M16, might as well keep it in the family.

Kharn

[natedog]

.30 Carbine has more energy at 100 yards than a .357 has at the muzzle. Why replace it?

[AJ Dual]

I think an FN P90 blown out from the 5.7x28 FN round to .30 carbine or the proposed .357 auto(mag?) would be ideal. Perhaps a 7.62x28 "Super Tokarev" loading is do-able and retain the feed benifits of a bottlenecked cartridge. A G3/MP5-'ish conversion to some kind of recoil operated delayed blowback locked breech action would require minimal re-tooling from it's pure blow-back operation now, and not need a gas system.

It's hardly the same thing, but I am impressed with the fast handling, pointability, and ergonomics of my Airsoft P90. It's served me well in some serious skirmishing, and I appreicaite the box-like form factor with few protrusions making prone fire and crawling around much easier. :D

Actually, an Izzy company seems to be onto this concept as well . They're re-working M1 carbines into new bull-pups with integral Picatinny rail for modern optics called the Hezi. It's gotten blurbs in some of the LEO/SWAT mags allready.

http://www.advancedcombat.com/

[Andrew Wyatt]

soldiers need a pistol for a backup weapon. end of story.


.30 carbine isn't in the inventory anymore.


the kahr t9 is about the best candidate for a backup weapon, imo.

[Master Blaster]

Ho about the new Kel-tec Sport Utility rifle in .223, uses the same magazines as the M16A2, and folds for carry in the pack light accurate at short range etc.


Or a carbon 15 pistol in .223

[axeman_g]

the .30 has more power at 100 yds then a .357 at muzzle??? Is that from the same length barrel???

A. Wyatt .... I know the M1 carbine is no longer in arsenal, but it would be cheap to build and possible to bring back. I am advocating a modern version, skeleton stock, foldable, pistol grip, sighting system and 30rd mag capacity. Strictly a urban/entry/backup weapon.

The KelTec SUR is a joke in this discussion. Durability test will not be met.


I think all soldiers should be given a secondary weapon, and the M9 or shotgun is not always the answer.

[AJ Dual]

Ho about the new Kel-tec Sport Utility rifle in .223, uses the same magazines as the M16A2, and folds for carry in the pack light accurate at short range etc.

It dosen't unfold quickly enough to be deployable. There's removal of pins etc. to be done.

Although I think it's an interesting concept for campers, and the SU-16 might make decent "truck guns" etc. and I might pick one up myself someday. But I don't think it's at all suitable for our military.

[mtnbkr]

.30 Carbine has more energy at 100 yards than a .357 has at the muzzle. Why replace it?

I don't see how. A quick check at www.reloadammo.com shows the 30 carbine doing 1500-1900fps with a 110gr bullet. A 125gr bullet does about 1700fps. That's from the M-1. A 357mag with 125gr bullet will do well over 2000fps in a short barreled rifle. Heck, my 180gr load will reach over 1500fps in a 16" barrel.

How does that make the 30 carbine more powerful at 100yds than the 357mag at the muzzle?

Chris

[axeman_g]

lets be honest, the m1 Carbine was always derided for being a weak rifle. But .... if you pack a 125 gr or larger projectile at 2000 fps out of a 16" barrell. Now you have stoping power, easy to shoot, handy little carbine. 357 mag rounds do have the most favorable stopping rating.

Now, somebody needs to build it.

I know ruger and marlin built pistol cartridge carbines that are semi succesful. And dont tell me that the 9mm out of a longer barrel is not powerful enough. Plenty of men that died 59 years ago today in front of MP38s will beg to differ with you.

I think the services should consider this. In a squad you have one light machine gun, then A2 equipped riflemen. Then intermixed as backups would be shotguns, handguns and a few carbines.

[redneck2]

some of them squatty little machine pistol rounds from WWII

at the shop we had a 7.92 Kurtz (IIRC) round. 8mm projectile. 2,200 fps. Dunno what the weight is, but I'd think mebbe 175 grains range. Knockdown oughta be pretty good. For the short range deal these are designed for, I'd think the larger diameter the better.

I believe these were designed by the Germans. Tough to beat a lot of their concepts. I don't know diddly squat about military weapons, but I'll betcha the Krauts had exactly what we need.

[Blueduck]

Seems to me you could make a M-4 type weapon with an original (lighweight) profile bbl and be done with it... No need to tool up for a new weapon, no need to have a new caliber in inventory, mags and most parts would be the same, and anyone trained on either would be comfortable with the other. Can't really imagine anything a M1-Carbine would be substantially better at than a slightly lighter M-4.

Sorry to say it about the M-1 Carbine (I got one and love the little sucker) but I think getting away from the "Battle Rifle" concept in general and M-14 in particular made the M-1 Carbine obsolete :(

' Course why we went to a "light" intermediate rifle then fattned it up till it weighs nearly as much as a full battle rifle still confuses me:scrutiny:

[mons meg]

I don't get it...my backup weapon, if not a pistol is probably the 159 other guys in my company. ;)

[Haycreek]

Well, my 16" EAA Saiga is one heck of a close quarter short rifle. {just kidding}

[Thumper]

My choice:http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=314011

[lapidator]

I guess i'm getting to the party alittle late, but exactly why does a soldier need a backup weapon?

Now, i've never been a member of the armed forces, but as i see it...

1) those who need "defensive weapons" (i.e. MPs, officers, pilots, SF) already have them, and generally don't carry much ammo anyway -- less than or equal to 4 mags full. In any event, these folks are carrying M9's and so any backup arms should be 9x19 -- maybe a USP9compact or a G26? (actually, they should junk the M9 for a combination of Glock G19's and G26's -- interchangeable magazines!)

2) those who do most of the fighting from their feet these days (i.e. Rangers, MEU, 10thMtn, Recon, etc.) generally carry as much primary ammo, .223, as they can, *plus* they carry some crew-served ammo, .30 or .50BMG, and then a few out of a platoon will carry a short barreled scatter gun and maybe 20-30 rnds of 12ga. slugs and/or 00-buck and then probably a M9 or M1911 with what 5 or 6 full magazines. Not to mention the few that are also carrying M203 grenades, LAWs, TOWs, etc. If you ask these guys, they'll tell you that the last thing they want is yet another calibre to lug around -- so if they're going to get anything as a "backup weapon" then it should be either .223, 9x19, or .45, period. Although, if it were me, i think a nice Mossberg 12ga with a 15" barrel and 15rnds each of 1oz slugs and 00-buck would be nice.

3) mechanized troops aren't going to train much with their issued M4 so why bother to give them something else they'll just have to clean every day? Though if you do want them to practice cleaning an unshot weapon, you should make sure it works with what the guys from #2 are using, i.e. .223, 9x19 or .45 -- atleast then when they link up the Rangers will trade them some tabasco for some ammo :D

I guess what i'm saying is that whatever you choose for a backup weapon, you should consider how much ammo the soldier should carry to supply that weapon -- and does this makes sense?

lapidator

[OEF_VET]

I'm wondering, who's going to be carrying this proposed 'back-up' weapon, and what primary weapon would this soldier have? If the intention would be to issue it to most every soldier, I say forget it! Today's soldiers have TOO MUCH equipment as it is nowadays. Those of you who want to issue an M-1 Carbine style weapon to every grunt who's already packing an M-16A2 or M-4 should try walking in those soldiers jungle boots for an FTX. The modern grunt is already loaded down with a weapon, NVG's and other STANO devices, PLGR's, ammo, grenades, AT-4's, radios (sometimes several at a time), binos, and a whole host of other equipment with which to perform his day to day mission. If you add to that another carbine sized weapon and the accompanying ammo, you're going to be doing more detriment to these soldiers than good.

Now, I support the idea of issuing more soldiers sidearms. Heaven knows I'd have liked to have had the ability to sling my M-4 while and relying on a holstered M-9 while walking patrols. But then again, I was an artillery observer, so I had an M-4 in one hand, a compass in another, a map in another, a PLGR (GPS) in another, a radio hand mike in another, and a set of binos in yet another. Oh wait, that's already 6 hands. Where should I keep my new uber-tactical, gee-whiz, neo-retro, suped-up, M-1 Carbine on steroids?

Just the opinion of someone who has walked the walk, and can therefore talk the talk.

Frank

[Blueduck]

OEF_VET and lapidator,

If I understand axemans post it's not that infantry guys need to carry two rifles but rather "backup" as in the pistol/carbine/shotgun role for guys like cooks and officers who are expected to do more damage to thier own troops than the enemy. ;)

[lapidator]

Blueduck,

Ah... well in that case, the caliber they use should be the same as everyone else, such that everyones ammo is interchangeable.

[axeman_g]

to be honest, I really wasnt not thinking of the normal grunt carry another rifle, although some do carry shotguns nowdays with their full kit.

This thought in my head started with a thread discussing the ranges at which a majority of the engagements were fought in the Iraqi cities, approx 30m. There were many comments thrown around that the A2 was to large for urban and house clearing duties.

My initial thought was to deploy a smaller carbine to the soldiers currently carrying A2s when they needed a smaller weapon.

Personally, I think the M4 with telescoping stock would do fine, if the barrel was longer then 14"... say 16". Isnt that the supposed to be optimal barrel length for the .223 round.

I suppose the plan is to eventually supply all soldiers with the M4, telescoping stock, 16" barrel and let the squad level SAW or occasional M14 carry out the 300m, plus engagements.

On the other hand, I think Isreali Arms, whom is currently building the M1 carbine, should consider a slightly larger caliber. I think the M1 carbines only downside is the smaller cartridge, but then again I dont want to get shot with one either.

[seeker_two]

Another thing to consider...

Why not take a note from the WWI-era Luger & Mauser pistols & make a longer barrel for the M9. You could also devise a detachable shoulder stock (ala Beretta 93R) that would take up a lot less space.

Come to think of it, the 93R (w/ a DA trigger) might not be a bad idea...

[Andrew Wyatt]

a carbine conversion unit wouldn't be a bad idea, either.


that said, the m4 is a decent enough PDW.

[Bigjake]

http://www.advancedcombat.com/

i give you the hezi sm-1, there was something about this on madogre.com a while back, check it out.

[LostOneToo]

The M1 30 cal carbine makes a great paperweight and that's about all!!!!!!!:neener:

[Dorian]

As an ex-soldier in the army, I firmly believe that every soldier should have a backup weapon. I was relieved when I became an MP from a Communications Specialist, because I got a sidearm. But the M9 didn't cut it as far as I was concerned.

It was certianly better than throwing rocks, mind you, but I think a .45 pistol would be the ideal backup weapon.

Further down that line of thinking and more specifically, I think the USP fullsized .45 would be ideal. It is very similar to the m9 in many aspects, so it wouldn't be hard to get used too, and holds 5 more rounds of .45 than a 1911.

[WilderBill]

The really simple answer is that if a solder feels strongly about neeing a backup weapon, then he/she should be allowed to buy their own Berreta 92 and be issued a holster and ammo.
Saves buying the weapon, keeps inventory simple, lets the individual solder decide if it's worth carrying something else or not.
Of course, this is much too simple for any modern military to manage and contrary to current policy.:scrutiny:
Now, if you want something to arm cooks, clerks, gun crews, etc, like the M1 was intended to do. how about the Carbon 15? Same ammo, mags , etc. as the M16 and not all that much to carry around and probably never use. :p

[Bigjake]

whats wrong with the m1 carbine or the hezi? its light, short and powerfull. the .30 rnd it shoots is just basicly a hot .357 mag, seems ideal.

[Feanaro]

whats wrong with the m1 carbine or the hezi? its light, short and powerfull. the .30 rnd it shoots is just basicly a hot .357 mag, seems ideal.

Ammunition. When possible the military prefers to use the same caliber for everything and when that's not possible to at least make it multi-functional. The last things a soldier would want, me thinks, is another type of caliber to carry. And I don't think they would want a carbine either, that's just another thing to get in the way.

I do like the idea of officially allowing you to purchase your own sidearm, any sidearm, but you should have to buy your own ammo too. Unofficially many people carry pistols and the officers look the other way.

[SoCalGeek]

Is what they have now really that inadequate? The US spends more on their military than anything else, and probably more than any country in the world. Do we really need to pour MORE money into something that doesn't seem like very big of an issue? Now, i'm not in the military so i don't know. Their backup situation could be absolutely horrible, i wouldn't know. But it doesn't seem that bad.

[Devonai]

The M1 30 cal carbine makes a great paperweight and that's about all!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

My paperweight can kill at 300 yards, so I guess it's a dual-purpose item.

[Bigjake]

i belive the thread started with sugesting a carbine, if i'm not mistaken. also, why wouldn't the army want a decent carbine? seems the current isn't pushing it (from what i'm reading here), why not being back something proven? i'm a little hazy as to why we have all these problems with ammo cal and type when 50 years ago all the stuff we had worked fine. too many new toys.

[STAGE 2]

Thumper.. what exactly is that?

[Blueduck]

The "Thumper" was a Jeff Cooper idea for a short light rifle in 44 magnum for support troops. As far as I know it never got off the ground.

[tiberius]

Is what they have now really that inadequate? The US spends more on their military than anything else, and probably more than any country in the world. Do we really need to pour MORE money into something that doesn't seem like very big of an issue? Now, i'm not in the military so i don't know. Their backup situation could be absolutely horrible, i wouldn't know. But it doesn't seem that bad.


IMHO, the idea of a soldier carrying a backup/pistol has nothing to do with the overall effectiveness of the military. It does, however, have a great deal to do with the individual soldier's ability to survive in certain difficult situations.

The life of a single soldier means nothing to the effectivness of the whole system, but it means a GREAT deal to that individual soldier.

Since the cost of equiping and training everyone with a backup/pistol cannot be justified from an overall effectivness stand point, all soldiers should be allowed to equip themselves with such devices if they see fit (at least from an approved list).

[Tommy Gunn]

Why not just issue out the 9mm Uzi SMG's?

They're very compact for REMF's and they use the same ammo as the M9 pistol.

[axeman_g]

That is a great idea ....

With a slightly longer barrel, and it has a telescoping stock, it would be a perfect in vehicle, easy to carry secondary or backup weapon. Perfect for urban maneuvers, easy to use and ammo is abundant. Cheap costs also.

Now, nothing against our friends in Isreal (???) but, is there an American manufaturer of just such a piece currently????

MP5 might be a little expensive to issue to frontline troops.

[dude]

Carbon 15s?????

.............why would we want to give our troops a proven TOTAL PIECE OF CRAP that was so bad that the manufacture went out of bid'ness?? I actualy owned one and well know the POS-ness, happy to lose $$$ and see it go.




fwiw- the only 'need' for another or backup weapon for the Army seems to be from internet commandos who often prove with their posts that they were NEVER actually in our fine military.

do carry on

[Andrew Wyatt]

fwiw- the only 'need' for another or backup weapon for the Army seems to be from internet commandos who often prove with their posts that they were NEVER actually in our fine military.



Weapon Backup ~ Many infantrymen are requesting that all operators have an issued backup weapon, (i.e. M9 pistol) to augment their T/O weapon. If they can’t get pistols for secondary weapon purposes, they need more pistols available for MOUT operations to operate in very confined spaces, stairwells, etc. They request at least one per squad; minimum, one per fire team; better. <--- this is from a USMC after action report in iraq, which was posted to the lightfighter tactical forum.


unless you don't consider marines to be in the military, i'd say there is a need for backup weapons. they should be pistols, and not PDWs, which aren't as handy as a pistol and aren't as effective as a rifle.

a KAHR T9 is the IDEAL pistol for issuence to every member of the army, except for it's cost.

[goon]

The Kel-Tec guns seem to be pretty good anymore.
Why not issue a P-11 if you feel the need to issue something? Cheap and pretty good according to what I have read.
Or why not let troops carry their own back-up weapon as long as it fits into the parameters that are set for it?
Personally, I think that carrying another rifle is nuts.

[axeman_g]

I am not nuts. I know because the voices in my head say so.

I did not say carry another rifle, let alone another carbine. Jeez ... I want all soldiers to have handguns. I also think another carbine weapon should be avail for urban close in work. I think a soldier should have the opportunity to exchange his A2 for say an MP5 or UMP 45 if he is going to be going into an urban area that day.
Sort of an exchange or replacement weapon, a loaner for the day.

The comment about .30 cal M1 carbine was a hypotheticall. I still think a remade version would be cheaper, easier and usable as a "replacement" weapon then an HK or M4.