Shooting paratrooper .30 cal carbine

Balrog said:

I have collected M1 Carbines for years. There are a few things I would tell anyone thinking of collecting these. First, the number of "paratrooper" carbines that are out there is pretty small. You should assume that anything called a paratrooper carbine is a fake put together by Bubba in his garage. This is a general rule, but generally true.

Second, some collectors, especially guy's trying to sell carbines at gun shows, will try and claim a carbine is "correct", meaning it has all parts by one particular manufacturer. This is unimportant to me, and should be unimportant to anyone who knows the history of the carbine. Not all manufacturers made all parts. Of the manufacturers who did, it was not unheard of for them to use small parts made by a different manufacturer. In other words, many carbines left the factory with mismatched parts.

Third, when a carbine was re-arsenaled, no attempt was made to keep all the parts original. Everything got mixed up.

So if you see an all original, correct M1 Carbine at a gun show, the chances are that it was made that way by Bubba in a garage pulling parts of one manufacturer's gun and putting them on another til he got all the parts matching.

Very few carbines that saw military service should have parts by only one manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Very very true.

When built stories are out there of this or that being out of stock at here or there and train loads of parts being shipped to get it up and running.

The carbine is a different duck over most other rifles. And the above post is spot on....the chances of you getting a "correct" one is about nil...it is not going to happen.

There is also a great deal of mis-information on them out there.....I have two, a winchester and an IBM....both shoot well, the winchester does not have the type 3 but a type 2 band, and you would be shocked at those that think it is not a "real" carbine, and both have the "newer" rear sites.

And if you really want to make your head spin, read up on the M2. You can have a semiautomatic and still have it marked M2. making a carbine full auto is a bit different from other guns....no changes to the receiver is needed a little change to the stock for the switch to fit is about it.

When I was a kid I wanted an M1A1.....until I got to play with one.....then fixed my sights on one of the after market MP-40 style stocks, felt better but was wobbly, then decided I had to have one of the Federal three legged MP40-ish stocks as I was sure that would be sturdier....I only have M2 stocks and an after market M1 stock at the moment........

Jumping static line with a T5 parachute in the 1940s was a bit hairier than jumping static line with a T10 or T10 Mod. You hit the ground a bit faster. An M1A1 did make a lot of sense in 1944.......until it saw combat.

There were even projects in the early 1960s to put a folder on the M-14 the two front runners were an MP40 or AK type under folder that I would bet would have been brutal or a left side folder something like was on the AR-18. Full length rifles were found to cause injuries on occasion when strapped onto a trooper in such a way he could get out the door and still retain the gun.

A various points in time most countries' WWII era jumped without long arms, having a team or squad's rifles in a seperately delivered package.

One of the advantages of glider delivered troops was they arrived fully armed and with crew served weapons crewed.

The Brits developed the drop bag.....and initially had problems with them. By 1944 the M1 Garand found a nice bag that fit under the arm and alongside the thigh......and was still like jumping with a 44 inch long steel pipe tied to you that by catching here or there could prevent you from doing even an "Abbreviated three point" PLF (Parachute Landing Fall). Because of that a good many US paratroopers that jumped over the night of 5-6 June 1944 attempted to do so with the rifle broken down and attached to the drop bag......and so lost their rifle when the bags departed from the trooper at the door or landing at high across ground speed. As weak and uncomfortable as an M1A1 might have been, it would have been with the trooper once he recovered from landing.

-kBob

CoalTrain49 said:

People sometimes set a ridiculous price hoping some fool will part with his money. Were those asking prices or did you actually see them sell? Gun shows are a lot like gunbroker. Most of the stuff never sells.

Click to expand...

Well there were only the three to be seen in the whole show, and it was a dealer's table.
But, over all the shows over the last three years, only the imported junkers are on tables at all, and they are all over a grand (even if only really worth about $400 in a sensible universe).

CapnMac said:

Well there were only the three to be seen in the whole show, and it was a dealer's table.
But, over all the shows over the last three years, only the imported junkers are on tables at all, and they are all over a grand (even if only really worth about $400 in a sensible universe).

Click to expand...

I sold an Inland import about 18 months ago for $675 on the CMP forum. It took a few days to sell it. Imports aren't worth $1000 to a knowledgeable buyer. No doubt there are people out there that might pay that much for one. You can get a decent example (non-import) with a good barrel, wood and all USGI parts for $900 if you look around. That's why the repro rifles aren't selling real well at $700 with MIM slides, sights, trigger housings and cast receivers.

CoalTrain49 said:

That's why the repro rifles aren't selling real well at $700.

Click to expand...

Nor at the $995-1495 MSRPs, either. (Rockola is MSRP at $1300, the new inland is $995-1100, down from $1200.)

The various carbine fora tend to be specialized, and not where "general" buyers will go look.

I have a pretty decent 5-digit Inland from the serial block that could have been an actual M1A1, so I put one of the SARCO repop folders on it. It makes for a nice compact package that doesn't take up a lot of space in the Jeep. The regular stock is much better for shooting, though.

kBob... the only problem with gliders was the really bad casualty rate on landing... My Dad was trained as glider-rider (engineers) all those years ago... And as he said, "thank God they cancelled that program before it was my turn to go"... It allowed him a long career with the engineers that ended 28 years later when he retired out in the very early seventies...

My father served in WWII, fought in some of the most heated battles. He did not like the Carbine, or for that matter, the M3 Greasegun. While he wouldn't talk much about the war, he did say that he preferred the Garand. I've read similar accounts from other soldiers in WWII and Korea.

That being said, it's funny that the Carbine, a somewhat controversial weapon re: stopping power, also the most produced American rifle during WWII with over 6.1 million copies, seems to be one of the most desired and highest priced WWII rifles at this point. No doubt its low recoil and light weight has much to do with that.

CoalTrain49 said:

... Great for jumping out of aircraft, not so great to shoot.

I can't imagine anyone being able to shoot one of those as well as a standard carbine.

Click to expand...

This.

Back in the '60s I had occasions to shoot both types. Quite frankly, I was unimpressed with both, but, to me, the full(kid)-length wood-stocked version was the better/more-comfortable shooter.

In Summer '07 right after the M1Carbines first became available via The CMP, I talked myself into buying two Inlands for $495/ea (one/ea round-bolt 7digit & flat-bolt 6digit), although I felt, considering my memories of shooting them when I was a youngster, that the price was on the high side.

I knew that they would substantially appreciate and in the meantime I would get reacquainted with the little rifles.

I discovered that they are de-light-ful and surprisingly accurate ... and worth every penny of the $495.

I recently found a 1967 Sears wish book in a house of a deceased relative. While looking at prices of random things I noticed that, believe it or not, many things listed costed as much or more in 67 than they do now.
But anyway, I went to the guns and noticed they sold M1 carbine rifles and m98 mausers, along with the other standard guns I knew they sold. They sold 2 models of M1. Both listed as "entirely new and not rebuilt". The standard model had a gi stock with oiler and sling for 88 dollars. (Or 119 with 3x scope) The deluxe model, listed as having "the finest bluing and bedded barrel for accuracy" had a walnut Monte Carlo stock. This one was listed as 99$ or 129$with 3x scope.
There was no mention of brand however, i guess you took what they shipped you. Should these rifles not have had all matching parts?
Also in the book is an article on "the bob cat" apparently the first red dot sight. As well as $80 marlin 39a, $120 94 octagon barreled Winchesters, $130 dollar 99f savages, $199 Browning deluxe magnum shotguns and $283 dollar 101 over and under Winchester s. It was funny to see how some guns have went up in value exponentially while other guns that sold for the same price or more aren't as desirable

Speedo66 said:

My father served in WWII, fought in some of the most heated battles. He did not like the Carbine, or for that matter, the M3 Greasegun. While he wouldn't talk much about the war, he did say that he preferred the Garand. I've read similar accounts from other soldiers in WWII and Korea.

That being said, it's funny that the Carbine, a somewhat controversial weapon re: stopping power, also the most produced American rifle during WWII with over 6.1 million copies, seems to be one of the most desired and highest priced WWII rifles at this point. No doubt its low recoil and light weight has much to do with that.

Click to expand...

Yea...I can see that...the 30 carbine only hits in the same ballpark as the 357...who would think that wimpy round would be a good stopper.

crestoncowboy,

Most likely the guns Sears was selling in 1967 were commercial guns such as the Universal or Plainfield. Those would have been new. A neighbor bought a Universal from them at about that time.

A lot of carbines came into the market "sideways" through various programs to help local police. Around '68 a pile became available to departments for about $27 each and they were sold to individual officers and reserve officers by the departments and so became privately owned weapons.

-kBob

SO QUESTION TIME!

When did Blue Sky begin importing carbines and marking the barrels of M-1 Carbines?

When did ANYONE begin placing importers marks on barrels Carbines?

I recently read on a board also that the Importer mark must not be defaced......so what happens when your imported carbine that used some foreign corrosive ammo for a couple of decades with little or no care needs a new barrel? Is it even legal to remove the old sewer pipe and replace it?

-kBob

I was a cop in NJ in the early 1970's. One could buy a Carbine, mags, sling & oiler, with a 50 rd box of surplus ammo....on a Dept Letter...... for WELL under a C note. There was always one for sale when the guy got tired of it or needed divorce lawyer money. I bought several for $75 to a hundred bucks.

I'm 6'-3" with 36" sleeve length for shirts. A Carbine is SO ridiculously SHORT for me I never cared for them. But they ARE a true piece of US military history. I can see the appeal to them in that sense.

Have an uncle who served in tanks in Korea. Did some tough times in Korea. He talked a few times about how worthless his Carbine was on the Red's. Ended up somehow finding a GI M1 Thompson and using that instead. And they always kept a few Garands in their Tank as well.

FN in MT

fpgt72 said:

Yea...I can see that...the 30 carbine only hits in the same ballpark as the 357...who would think that wimpy round would be a good stopper.

Click to expand...

The Carbine round was about 1/3 as powerful in energy as the Garand round. While I realize it's not powerless, that alone says a lot.

I know Wiki is not the end all, be all, but this is what they had to say about the Carbine, with included cites:

In Europe: "The M1 carbine gained generally high praise for its small size, light weight and firepower, especially by those troops who were unable to use a full-size rifle as their primary weapon.[36][37] However, its reputation in front-line combat was mixed and negative reports began to surface with airborne operations in Sicily in 1943,[38] and increased during the fall and winter of 1944.[39]"

In the Pacific: "Soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient penetration and stopping power.[43][44] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.[43][45]"

Later in Korea: "There were also many complaints from individual soldiers that the carbine bullet failed to stop heavily clothed[56][57][58][59] or gear-laden[60][61][62] North Korean and Chinese (PVA) troops even at close range and after multiple hits.[52][54][63] Marines of the 1st Marine Division also reported instances of carbine bullets failing to stop enemy soldiers, and some units issued standing orders for carbine users to aim for the head.[64][65] PVA infantry forces who had been issued captured U.S. small arms disliked the carbine for the same reason.[66]"

Personally, since chances are I'll never have to use it in combat, I like the fact there is diminished energy vs. a Garand. Lot less recoil means I can shoot a box of 50 with no problem, probably wouldn't enjoy shooting 50 30-06's in a row from a bench.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#cite_note-39

Speedo66 said:

The Carbine round was about 1/3 as powerful in energy as the Garand round. While I realize it's not powerless, that alone says a lot.

I know Wiki is not the end all, be all, but this is what they had to say about the Carbine, with included cites:

In Europe: "The M1 carbine gained generally high praise for its small size, light weight and firepower, especially by those troops who were unable to use a full-size rifle as their primary weapon.[36][37] However, its reputation in front-line combat was mixed and negative reports began to surface with airborne operations in Sicily in 1943,[38] and increased during the fall and winter of 1944.[39]"

In the Pacific: "Soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient penetration and stopping power.[43][44] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.[43][45]"

Later in Korea: "There were also many complaints from individual soldiers that the carbine bullet failed to stop heavily clothed[56][57][58][59] or gear-laden[60][61][62] North Korean and Chinese (PVA) troops even at close range and after multiple hits.[52][54][63] Marines of the 1st Marine Division also reported instances of carbine bullets failing to stop enemy soldiers, and some units issued standing orders for carbine users to aim for the head.[64][65] PVA infantry forces who had been issued captured U.S. small arms disliked the carbine for the same reason.[66]"

Personally, since chances are I'll never have to use it in combat, I like the fact there is diminished energy vs. a Garand. Lot less recoil means I can shoot a box of 50 with no problem, probably wouldn't enjoy shooting 50 30-06's in a row from a bench.

Click to expand...

It's been my understanding that the carbine had a good reputation in the Pacific Theater, one marine officer even claiming it was "the ace weapon of the war." The carbine round would penetrate the metal body armor Japanese officers sometimes wore, while .45 Auto would not.
In Korea a myth surfaced that the quilted, layered winter coats the NorKs wore would stop the .30 carbine round. This was proven false during the war when one commander literally had his men go out and examine corpses of Korean soldiers wearing those jackets who'd been killed with M1 carbines. There were clear entry AND exit wounds showing through and through wounds.
The round had certainly enough power to go through both the coats as well as bodies. "Lack of power" was in fact poor merksmanship. A lot of rounds of all calibers don't hit their intended targets in war....and even full power rifle rounds often do not "instantly" stop adrenaline charged enemy soldiers---- and the Japanese soldiers had a surfeit of adrenaline.

The .30 carbine round does not have the range or power of its big brother, the .30-'06 round, and it's no use to pretend it does any more than to pretend a .22 is a .44. But it did always have more penetrating power than its size would suggest it ought to, and at close range it served well.
Long range.....not so well, but if you could hit with it, you'd make the enemy angry...

Speedo66 said:

The Carbine round was about 1/3 as powerful in energy as the Garand round. While I realize it's not powerless, that alone says a lot.

I know Wiki is not the end all, be all, but this is what they had to say about the Carbine, with included cites:

In Europe: "The M1 carbine gained generally high praise for its small size, light weight and firepower, especially by those troops who were unable to use a full-size rifle as their primary weapon.[36][37] However, its reputation in front-line combat was mixed and negative reports began to surface with airborne operations in Sicily in 1943,[38] and increased during the fall and winter of 1944.[39]"

In the Pacific: "Soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient penetration and stopping power.[43][44] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.[43][45]"

Later in Korea: "There were also many complaints from individual soldiers that the carbine bullet failed to stop heavily clothed[56][57][58][59] or gear-laden[60][61][62] North Korean and Chinese (PVA) troops even at close range and after multiple hits.[52][54][63] Marines of the 1st Marine Division also reported instances of carbine bullets failing to stop enemy soldiers, and some units issued standing orders for carbine users to aim for the head.[64][65] PVA infantry forces who had been issued captured U.S. small arms disliked the carbine for the same reason.[66]"

Personally, since chances are I'll never have to use it in combat, I like the fact there is diminished energy vs. a Garand. Lot less recoil means I can shoot a box of 50 with no problem, probably wouldn't enjoy shooting 50 30-06's in a row from a bench.

Click to expand...

The problem with the reports above are that they are examples of situations where the carbine was being misused. Its original intent was not as a front line infantry weapon. It was intended for troops who might need a gun, but probably not, and they wanted something that could be shot more accurately than the 1911. These would include some officers as well as various rear echelon support troops. Because of the its lighter weight and handy size, some front line troops opted to use it rather than the Garand, only to discover that it was not well suited for that purpose. It looked like a rifle, so they treated it like one. Basically those troops traded their battle rifle for a pistol caliber carbine. Not a good switch.

The carbine is fine if it is used as intended. It is a handgun replacement, not a battle rifle replacement.

My first MOS was half track driver in an 81mm mortar squad in an ACR; was armed w/the M1 carbine. Moved to gunner and carried 1911a1, finally worked my way up to a Garand and never looked back.

Years later, 1959 or thereabouts, picked up an M1a1 in a pawn shop for $65. As has been stated, the stock was wobbly so not pleasant to shoot & not very accurate. I swapped it for a very clean GI 1911a1, a can of 45 ACP ammo & got $30 boot. Wish I had kept that one, though. Last carbine I bought in the '80's , had to pay somewhere just south of $300 for IIRC.

Regards,
hps

Speedo66 said:

The Carbine round was about 1/3 as powerful in energy as the Garand round. While I realize it's not powerless, that alone says a lot.

Click to expand...

Actually it was a great weapon.

Audie Murphy thought the M1 carbine was great. He used it often. In his book, "To Hell and Back", he says:

"Within a moment I am involved in a duel with a German who climbs upon a cannon to get the advantage of elevation. I see him as he lowers his rifle upon me and whip up my carbine. He fires. The bullet kicks dust in my face as my carbine goes off. Frantically I try to blink the dirt from my eyes, knowing the German will not miss again. It is only a few seconds, perhaps, but it seems much longer before I can see. The kraut is sprawled in front of the gun. Later I discover that my lucky shot got him in the heart." (Chapter 15)

"Grasping the carbine in my left hand and a grenade in my right, I step suddenly from behind the rock. The Germans spot me instantly. The gunner spins the tip of his weapon toward me. But the barrel catches in a limb, and the burst whizzes to my right. I lob the grenade and grab the carbine trigger with one movement. Before the grenade has time to burst, two krauts fall with carbine slugs in their bellies. I quickly lob two more grenades into the position; four of the eight Germans are killed; three are put out of action by wounds. The eighth, a squat, fat man, tries to escape.....I squeeze the trigger. The helmet jumps. The man falls as if struck in the head with a club." (Chapter 17)

"Before reporting to company headquarters, I carefully clean my carbine. ‘I want to go up and try to get that sniper,’ I say....There is a rustle. My eyes snap forward. The branches of a bush move. I drop to one knee. We see each other simultaneously. His face is a black as a rotting corpse; and his cold eyes are filled with evil. As he frantically reaches for the safety of his rifle, I fire twice. He crashes backwards....At headquarters I make my report. Then I go to the room that serves as a kitchen, take my carbine apart, and start cleaning it." (Chapter 17)

"Crack! It is like being struck with a ball bat. The ricocheting bullet digs a channel through my hip and knocks me flat....I raise my carbine and with my right hand fire pistol-fashion. The bullet spatters between the German’s eyes." (Chapter 18)

"'Wonder if I could get a carbine. I don’t like an M-1 for this woods fighting.'" (Chapter 19)

"The [German] officer hesitates. My finger begins squeezing the trigger of my carbine. I think perhaps with a quick rake I can put most of the Germans out of action, but at this moment, I would give my chances in Paradise to have a tommy gun in my hands." (Chapter 14)



Lt. John George, of Guadalcanal and Merrill’s Marauders fame (and author of "Shots Fired in Anger"), thought the M1 carbine was an ace weapon.

"The M1 carbine turned out to be the ace weapon of the war, as far as I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably accurate ... The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helmet, and to perforate the plates of the Japanese bulletproof vest, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than 200 yards ... For many types of offensive fighting, such as sneak raids and infiltration tactics, it was often superior even to the M1 (Garand), penetration being the only point of difference."

Captain C Shore, a British Sniper who got a hold of a M1 Carbine after Normandy, felt it was an ace weapon to.

And no, Chinese winter coats would NOT stop a 110 gr FMJ bullet.


Russ, Martin, Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign: Korea 1950, Penguin Publishing, ISBN 0-14-029259-4, ISBN 978-0-14-029259-6 (2000), p. 40: The failure of the .30 carbine round to stop enemy soldiers may not have been due to inadequate penetration. Marine Lt. James Stemple reported that he shot an enemy soldier with his M2 carbine four times in the chest and saw the padding fly out the back of the soldier's padded jacket as the bullets penetrated his body, yet the enemy soldier kept on coming.

Deaf

^30-06 will ball will shoot through fairly large trees. 30 Carbine will not.

HB

You can all thank the Collectors for the $1000+ carbines.

It's the Collectors with their safes full of dozens upon dozens of war babies, most never to see the light of day until the owner dies, that is the main reason why you can't get one for a solid price. Because they're gone, they bought them up.

But hey, they're collecting them for... um... history or something or other... capitalism, MURICA!!

Tommygunn said:

It's been my understanding that the carbine had a good reputation in the Pacific Theater, one marine officer even claiming it was "the ace weapon of the war." The carbine round would penetrate the metal body armor Japanese officers sometimes wore, while .45 Auto would not.
In Korea a myth surfaced that the quilted, layered winter coats the NorKs wore would stop the .30 carbine round. This was proven false during the war when one commander literally had his men go out and examine corpses of Korean soldiers wearing those jackets who'd been killed with M1 carbines. There were clear entry AND exit wounds showing through and through wounds.
The round had certainly enough power to go through both the coats as well as bodies. "Lack of power" was in fact poor merksmanship. A lot of rounds of all calibers don't hit their intended targets in war....and even full power rifle rounds often do not "instantly" stop adrenaline charged enemy soldiers---- and the Japanese soldiers had a surfeit of adrenaline.

The .30 carbine round does not have the range or power of its big brother, the .30-'06 round, and it's no use to pretend it does any more than to pretend a .22 is a .44. But it did always have more penetrating power than its size would suggest it ought to, and at close range it served well.
Long range.....not so well, but if you could hit with it, you'd make the enemy angry...

Click to expand...

This is also true....the carbine when used at the distance it was designed for did work, and all those korean stories are proven to be false....and they continue to get belted out by internet experts.

All that said my uncle had one in Vietnam....actually an M2, he said it was better then the sweed K some of the guys had but not as good as the AK he later carried. I could not get more out of him, just said he was not impressed with the carbine.

Stopping power inside of 150 yards is not a problem, and people forget in this day and age that the 3006 was a horse of a cartridge...at the time of its introduction it was in the top 3 military cartridges power wise....it smoked, and was also one of the most modern....the US moving from the 30-40 not long before, then changing from 3003 to 3006 not long before WWI.

30 carbine is not a do all and be all, nothing is, 3006 is not as well...everything has its plus and minus side, but to say something that has the same basic energy as a 357 magnum is not a man stopper is uninformed at best.

For most of us the 30 carbine now is a toy....it is such fun to shoot, can be shot real well out to 200 yards, a great centerfire rifle to start smaller folk out on after a step up from rimfire, Can be used for deer in most places....it is a good little cartridge that suffers from internet experts bad mouthing it.....now we just need to wait for them to come in with low number springfields are going to blow up if you shoot them.

Not an intentional thread hijack. Sorry but quick question. I have an original inland receiver (rock ola fire control housing) mix master carbine (with the later stamped 1 for the m1) Dated 1945. Good condition. Arlington import. What would the value be? Generally. I paid $200 for it in like 1988. Thanks. I always debate taking it to the range because it seems to appreciate well. I guess.

Ps. Just curios. I am never going to sell it.

If you're not going to sell it, SHOOT IT! I own an Inland carbine my father brought back from Korea which I will not be selling as well.
it's hard to place a value on a weapon sight unseen. The bottom line truth is it is worth what you can get for it. But then you'd have to sell it to find out, so......