M1 Carbine vs. Everything Else

Status
Not open for further replies.
ALL GUNS ARE SOULESS. Claiming one has some kind of inherent spirituality is blatant superstition.
Click to expand...

No but some can speak to my soul, My 11-42 barrelled 5 digit Inland certianly does give pause to wonder where in the world it was from then til 1945, was it in the sands of Iwo Jima or the woods of Bastogne?

Yet still while I love the M1 carbine and do believe it would make a fine HD weapon, it's quite OBVIOUS that it's not the best or most economical choice, which is why my Inland sits in the gunsafe and a AR stands ready at the door.
 
And a gun one has such an emotional attachment as some seem to have to their M1Carbines wouldn't be one to use defensively and have confiscated for evidence either.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Chicharonnes, that stock looks incredible uncomfortable for a left-handed shooter like myself.
 
X-Rap

It is the price of a better build. If you were to build the M1 Carbine to the original USGI specifications today it would cost $4000.00 per unit. Both the Auto Ordnance and Inland are built with cast parts. They are not bad, but they aren't built to the stringent specifications demanded by the Federal Government. (They aren't being federally funded, either). They are being built to make a profit. When parts either break, or wear out, the public will be replacing/refurbishing them, not the Government. The older M1 Carbines are built to withstand the rigors of battle. Most of today's "economy" commercial replacements are far less robust.

Both Fulton Armory and James River Armory are attempting to keep the best aspects of the Carbine alive, without pricing them out of the marketplace.
 
If you were to build the M1 Carbine to the original USGI specifications today it would cost $4000.00 per unit
Click to expand...

You have a source for that?

I know that Wikipedia isn't a great source itself, but their numbers are night and day different.

The M1 carbine was also one of the most cost effective weapons used by the United States Military during World War II. At the beginning of World War II the average production cost for an M1 carbine was approximately $45, about half the cost of an M1 rifle at approximately $85 and about a fifth of the cost of a Thompson submachine gun at approximately $225.
Click to expand...

$45 in 1942 comes out to about $700 today.
 
Mosin Bubba said:
You have a source for that?

I know that Wikipedia isn't a great source itself, but their numbers are night and day different.



$45 in 1942 comes out to about $700 today.
Click to expand...
Kevin Gibson, a man that has refurbished/rebuilt more M1 Carbines than you or I will likely see in our lifetime, posts regularly on a Forum known as Gun Hub. Kevin lives in Northern Nevada and has amassed more knowledge than any other person I know. I trust his information and judgement.

By the way, it isn't just the cost of materials, but the cost of labor and other large investments: (forging plants, barrel cutting along with the forging of trigger group parts, hand assembly) all of these cost huge sums of investment capital. The entire nation sacrificed to make these "investments" not one company in and of itself.
 
Last edited:
My M1 Carbine I received from a Buddy, he bought two, gave me one. At the time I only had a Green Card, so not quite right, but now I am a US Citizen.

This carbine was parked in an Austrian Armory, unissued since the end of the war. Very good condition, the barrel like glass. But magazines are cheap Korean crap! Would love to have GI Mags. Cost me $500.? The wood is a bit banged about, otherwise lovely.

If used in Security, with soft point ammo, would be excellent at self defense distances. Very fast handling. Minimal recoil. We tried to get Rifles authorized? No go.

Squirting right off topic... Again. My Steyr AUG with it's fixed 1.5 power built in scope, ideal, and very short. Love Bull-Pups.
 
I have both a carbine (IBM) and an AR. I shoot a lot of different guns often (home range, sporting clays, skeet, etc.) and have been doing this for decades. Almost all have stocks of traditional "sporting" configuration. The M1 carbine fits in well with this bunch. The AR does not. Even basic training in the early 70's could not make the AR a natural fit for me as I began shooting more than a decade prior with "regular" guns. I realized the AR is a "better" gun, but in my house it sits in the safe and the carbine is the one handy and ready for use. It is instinctive and a natural for me.

Now we have zillions of younger guys who began shooting with the AR. Different story.
 
QUOTE: "...The .30 Carbine isn't launching a 55 grain .22 caliber Pointed Soft Point out to 400 yards. It wasn't meant to be used beyond 200 yards. Tell me the truth. Just how many home defense/personal defense rounds are fired at a range of 200 yards? 100 yards? 50 yards? 25 yards? 10 yards perhaps, but no further..."

Just because a cartridge is useful at relatively longer distances (i.e., the 5.56) doesn't disqualify it for uses at shorter ranges. The converse of this bit of logic is not true. A cartridge most suitable for relatively short range uses (i.e., the .30 carbine) most likely is not appropriate for using at long distances.

I'm not "for" or "against" either of these two cartridges being compared. But there's little question that the 5.56 cartridge is far more versatile than the .30 carbine; is much easier to find and lots cheaper to buy (and, thus, shoot).
 
I enlisted in the Navy on 7/19/1973. I was part of the "AR" generation, but never liked it. While the AR is a fine rifle, it never fit me the way the M1 Carbine does. Being bombarded by the "gunzines" with all the articles made me sick to death of the rifle. The "Mighty Mouse" 5.56 x 45 never appealed to me.

If I wanted a rifle chambered for the cartridge, a bolt action with a beautiful walnut stock would suffice.

The M1 Carbine fits my purposes well. While all of my reloading equipment is currently in my storage unit, Where I live has a press that is sitting in the Utility Room that can be used to load ammunition. A set of dies, a powder trickler and scales. Some primers, brass and bullets are all that I will need to get thing "up and running".

Eventually I would like to run about 6000 rounds a year through my Carbine.
 
Last edited:
On. Side note, if you reload, you can use 85 grain .308 bullets, and load up .30 carbine rounds that have a muzzle velocity of about 2400 fps and around 1100 ftlb energy. That's a pretty snappy little round for its size.
 
AR/.223 bashing get old too. In fact all bashing gets old.

I have passed on owning the M1 Carbine.

I have shot both the M1 Carbine and AR in matches. I am of the mindset the M1 won't do anything an AR can't and the the AR can out do the M1 In areas. Shoot out to 200 yds and compare results. I am comparing an M1 to an M4. Comparing to a NMAR would not be fair.

As a collectors item the M1 carbine is a clear winner. Having any WWII era weapon has a certain attraction. Then again some guys love the Vietnam era AR's.

As far as self defense I'd keep the option of downrange performance and accuracy. Low percentage possibility but so is a self defense encounter using a rifle as opposed to a handgun.

The #1 thing I don't like about .223 bolt guns is finding one with a fast twist rate. Most need a new barrel right out of the box to shoot 600 yds. The .223 will do fine out to 600 for sure. I can just shoot my .308 without having to have another rifle.
 
The problem with a "self defense" shooting scenario beyond 200 yards will generally be considered very questionable! Ask any attorney and at those ranges, he'll remind you of your 'duty to retreat'. The odds of your being in a protracted firefight in which the courts will find you justified to keep shooting is between onionskin thin and none.

If a malefactor is "attempting to escape" an attorney will advise, "let him/her go". Unless someone is still committing a grievous, class A felony (a specific, ongoing continuous threat to your life, or the life of another) you won't likely have any legal grounds to use deadly force. Yes, range is an issue.

I won't be shooting at people beyond 100 yards. 25 yards or less is even more likely, and 3 yards is more than a distinct possibility. I can shoot a .30 Carbine even better at these ranges, and 970+ foot pound of energy on an area of .308" on a human target will have a profound effect on an evildoer. (Let's just say that he/she will likely never play the violin again). ;)

I am not bashing the 5.56 x 45 but I can't see the use of any "extra power" provided by the cartridge for my applications. I simply haven't any need for the longer range or extra power provided by the cartridge. I don't have any "manhood" issues, I just believe in using the right tool for the job. More power isn't always appropriate.

Have fun and use the rifle that best suits your needs; neither the .30 Carbine nor the 5.56 x 45 is best for everyone.
 
Last edited:
I own two M1 carbines and just recently sold an M2. I carried one in the Army many moons ago. I like the little rifles. But to suggest a carbine for a police or HRT sniper rifle is absurd. So is the idea that a .30 carbine will be more effective or more accurate than an M16 or an M4 carbine. The M1/M2 carbine was never intended to be a battle rifle or to substitute for the M1 rifle. The whole idea was to replace the pistol for most of those troops who could not easily carry a rifle due to their other burdens or duties. Most such had previously been issued pistols or revolvers and generally could not hit much of anything with them; it was hoped that a rifle, even a low power one, would be more effective. The most common carbine users were not "cooks and bakers" as the myth goes, but company grade officers. (Cooks and bakers were issued M1 rifles and expected to fight as infantry when needed.)

Sure, the little .30 carbine deserves praise. It served well and continues to be a "fun gun" for many. It can be an effective home defense weapon, though if I had to use a long gun for that purpose, a semi-auto or pump shotgun would be better.

But to overrate it, to claim it is some kind of magic "weapon for all purposes" is plain silly.

Jim
 
That is what I was saying. But there is a possibility and then it would be up to my judgement and not the limitations of my rifle. Otherwise you would only need a handgun.

As far as any self defense scenario I will concern myself with saving my life as a priority over what any aftermath may be. If that means keeping behind cover and not returning fire then that is what I would do. If it meant having to do something else than I would do that. Plan A is to not be in the scenario at all so all the aftermath, laws and such aren't really a reason not to own a rifle with some range to it. Sorry but the the whole unjustified shooting is not a big concern to me. That argument can and will be made no matter what. If I shoot anyone it will be because I was forced to. That in itself may not keep me from facing civil or criminal charges. Since all of my rifles are in safes it is a very low percentage of a possibility it would even come into any scenario. If it did happen I am certain there would be tons of gun guys ready to throw me under a bus without even hearing any facts.

If it came to it that I needed a rifle for defensive purposes I would choose and AR over an M1 Carbine.

I have shot 6K rounds in a 6 month period with air rifles. It is a fair amount of shooting for accuracy. Spray an pray could go a lot quicker. M1 should be able to use some relatively inexpensive bullets.
 
I'm not "for" or "against" either of these two cartridges being compared. But there's little question that the 5.56 cartridge is far more versatile than the .30 carbine; is much easier to find and lots cheaper to buy (and, thus, shoot).
Click to expand...

In other words, it's not 1954. It's the 5.56 world of 2016. :scrutiny:
 
Jim K said:
I own two M1 carbines and just recently sold an M2. I carried one in the Army many moons ago. I like the little rifles. But to suggest a carbine for a police or HRT sniper rifle is absurd. So is the idea that a .30 carbine will be more effective or more accurate than an M16 or an M4 carbine. The M1/M2 carbine was never intended to be a battle rifle or to substitute for the M1 rifle. The whole idea was to replace the pistol for most of those troops who could not easily carry a rifle due to their other burdens or duties. Most such had previously been issued pistols or revolvers and generally could not hit much of anything with them; it was hoped that a rifle, even a low power one, would be more effective. The most common carbine users were not "cooks and bakers" as the myth goes, but company grade officers. (Cooks and bakers were issued M1 rifles and expected to fight as infantry when needed.)

Sure, the little .30 carbine deserves praise. It served well and continues to be a "fun gun" for many. It can be an effective home defense weapon, though if I had to use a long gun for that purpose, a semi-auto or pump shotgun would be better.

But to overrate it, to claim it is some kind of magic "weapon for all purposes" is plain silly.

Jim
Click to expand...
The "light rifle" (M1 Carbine) was not a "pistol cartridge" (contrary to popular belief). It's pressure levels (38,500 psi) exceeded any handgun, even the .357 S&W Magnum (35,000 psi) wouldn't match it during WW2.

It is not a "full rifle", but more powerful than most modern handguns. With a folding (Paratrooper) stock, you can use the butt plate as a forward pistol grip and "slice the pie" around corners better than you might think. You can shoot it as you would a long-barreled pistol. (There are videos of this being done). When folded the Paratrooper stock is 25 3/4" long. You can legally remove the folding stock and shoot it that way if you wish. (No $200.00 tax stamp needed).

Remember that the 10"-12" M2 select-fire handgun version served in Vietnam and acquitted itself quite well with the "tunnel rats". That's a service record that is known to this day. Heck, even Inland is currently making an "Advisor" version of the Carbine with a 12" barrel.

Lots of variety with the M1 Carbine and it's variants.
 
The person that said the 5.56 x 45 is the .30 Carbine of the 21st century is incorrect. The 5.56 x 45 has greater muzzle blast, higher velocity, more recoil. This is not conjecture, but fact. The 5.56 operates at a much higher pressure. This alone creates enhanced muzzle blast. There's no denying that. The higher velocity, while advantageous at longer ranges has to be harnessed by a more frangible bullet construction. Again, more pluses (and minuses). In a household setting, increased muzzle blast means increased hearing damage. Unless the rifle is suppressed, there's no advantage to it. It is far more disorienting than a lower-pressure rifle cartridge. Muzzle flash will be increased. A "flash hider" helps a little, but there's still a detrimental effect to your night vision from it.

I'll take the shorter range detriment as opposed to the advantages. The M1 will work well enough at the ranges I'll be employing my carbine.

No harm no foul... on this end.
 
I won't be shooting at people beyond 100 yards. 25 yards or less is even more likely, and 3 yards is more than a distinct possibility. I can shoot a .30 Carbine even better at these ranges, and 970+ foot pound of energy on an area of .308" on a human target will have a profound effect on an evildoer. (Let's just say that he/she will likely never play the violin again).

I am not bashing the 5.56 x 45 but I can't see the use of any "extra power" provided by the cartridge for my applications. I simply haven't any need for the longer range or extra power provided by the cartridge. I don't have any "manhood" issues, I just believe in using the right tool for the job. More power isn't always appropriate.
Click to expand...

Again, I'll ask you: Why then do you need even an M1 Carbine? Why are you saving $1300 for one when a $275 HiPoint 9mm carbine would fill every role you've described? Why is an AR in .223/5.56 overkill but a .30 Carbine not equally overkill?
 
Last edited:
I already have a Suomi M31 (Finnish) with a new receiver by TNW of Vernonia, Oregon in 9mm Luger. Unfortunately, it is too heavy to wield quickly in an emergency. I'm not going to invest in a Hi-Point that will have a far more limited lifetime.

I am willing to save my money and pay for a good carbine that won't weigh 9+ pounds and fire a lighter weight pistol cartridge. What I have is nice, but I have owned an M1 Carbine and enjoyed what I had. I was required to sell it in order to bury my wife. That was in September of 1999.

I have waited a long time to replace it.
 
I am not interested in tailoring a higher-powered, smaller caliber cartridge in an AR platform. I already have a .22 long rifle, and was never interested in owning a .22 Winchester Rimfire Magnum. Why would I want a higher powered .22 caliber rifle? I just can't see it.

I already have a 7.62 x 39 and a .308. I'll stick with the .30 caliber rifle.

Thanks anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
.357 lever action rifle vs M1 .30 Carbine?
2
Replies
47
Views
13K
JFrame
J
H
  • Locked
AR15/M16, M1-Garand/M14/Carbine MATCH (ends 9/08/09)
2 3
Replies
65
Views
6K
ForneyRider
F
TTv2
  • Locked
Why is .30 Carbine not made in rifles other than the M1?
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
10K
Robert
Robert
P
  • Locked
M1 Carbine w/Softpoints vs. AR with your Favorite Ammo
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
130
Views
10K
Richard Head
R
C
  • Locked
carbine vs rifle
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
jjohnson
J
Back
Top