Was the M1 Carbine a more advanced weapon than the Garand?

Status
Not open for further replies.
wounding instead of killing? US soldiers do not kill, they merely extend the policies of the US government by means of fire and maneuver.

Un-hu right....

This silliness about wounding for individual weapons is miss understood. Dr. Fackler used to laugh at it. When developing new individual arms and ammunition one consideration is "wounding power". What this means has nothing to do with a desire to cause wounds over death, but that a single shot of cartridge A will do the same damage as cartridge B if they both hit the same place. Thus all that 5.56mm M193 ball having the same wound potential as the M80 7.62mm NATO ball was about a hit in the thigh, buttucks, earlobe, pinky finger or foreskin with either caused comparible destruction of flesh and bone. Nothing about wounding to cause logistics and personnel problems!

If I were a big planner thousands of miles from the action yeah I might like wounding the dickens out of the enemy. On the other hand I may have to answer to someone's mother about giving him a weapon that is expected to wound.

Lots of wounded guys have done a lot of damage.

If you have ever heard that "odd angry shot" snap by or seen frags "mowing the grass" you have very little interest in wounding anyone out where you heard or saw it.

"Leave no Man Behind" is actually a sort of new concept...even in the US. The statement "March or die" is not gone from many languages.

Yes I have heard and read all sorts of barracks tales about the failure of the Carbine and have no doubt it is less "effective" as a full power rifle at causing debilitating wounds and death or penitrating cover ( thus turning it into concealment) but it was not designed with a mind to cause the enemy to need more medics and ambulance personnel but to keep the bad guys off our good guys.

Shoot at the ranges carbines were to be used a wounded enemy would take up OUR Medics and stretcher details!

-kBob
 
But most of the R&D had been done on the Winchester G30, G30M, and G30R chambered in 30-06. The 13 day design was basically spent scaling down the G30R to the Winchester Cal 30 Light Rifle per the specs put forth in the War Departments request for a light rifle; and the following month was spent tweaking the design for the second round of trials.

Yeah, so the claim it was developed in just 13 days really isn't true.
 
All truth has to be weighed by the quality of your assumptions. And, Wars [and by extension wargames] tend to get fought using the weapons, tactics, and strategies needed for the last war.

That said, I would have a spot in my safe for a good, vintage carbine. A Garand would be more appreciated by some one else. The Garand is a fine weapon, but I like to shoot my toys. After the second shoulder rebuild a carbine would be a lot more fun...
A Garand weighs about 10 pounds. A real drag to carry around, but the weight makes 30-06 a lot easier to shoot.
 
It was made outdated and obsolete incredibly quickly by the likes of the STG44 and the AK47, but for the time and in the context in which it was developed I think the carbine was a big step forward except for one thing, the cartridge. Had the carbine been chambered in something like a 300 blackout or 277 wolverine or the like, I think it would have been a huge hit and a probably would have started to supplant the Garand as the war went on. I am not a fan of the 30 carbine in any way. It gives up so much accuracy potential, range, and I think the blunt nose and straight wall is a big part, if not the major part of why carbines have the reputation of being unreliable. I think an M1 in a better bottleneck intermediate round may have even influenced the army to move away from the full power battle rifle about 20 years earlier than we did, and we may have never had the M14.
 
I am going to make another point in defense of the carbine and intermediate rifles in general. Now keep in mind that I have never served in the military, so I am only speaking to the books that I have read and interviews and such I've watched. In my readings one thing that I've gleaned is that infantry warfare is not all about actually killing the enemy. If the enemy is suppressed or overwhelmed with fire to the point that they either retreat or stop their attack, then you have won, regardless of if you have actually killed the enemy or not. Unlike video games, most engagements are won by forcing a retreat, a withdrawal, or a surrender rather than actually wiping out the opposing force. If every engagement was a fight to the death it would be pretty unsustainable. That was the a big part of the logic of why the army eventually went to the M16 over the M14. They determined that in most engagements with equal numbers, the force that is able to put the most firepower in the direction of the enemy wins, regardless of how many are actually killed or wounded. If you look at the statistics of ordinance used vs enemy killed for any war, it is staggering how much ammunition is expended to kill one enemy. In WWII I believe I saw a figure once of 45,000 rounds of small arms ammunition expended in total for all armed forces for every enemy killed.

So in that sense if you are in a building that I want to control and I lay down suppressive fire into your area, are you going to notice or care if it is 30 carbine or 30-06 rounds going through the walls around you? Probably not. Now are their situation where you could be much more effective in accurately engaging an enemy with an M1 over a carbine? Absolutely. This is a balancing act that they are still trying to figure out today. From what I have read the troops in Iraq generally has a very positive opinion of the M4, but the troops in Afghanistan dislike it because they get out ranged by the enemy sniping at them with various larger calibers.
 
even the old .303 well over a hundred years old is still keeping our GI,s awake in afghanistan and the middle east and it will out range the m-4. my shots fired in anger were to kill, if they only wounded the door was open for them to kill other GI,s. not all wounded soldiers lay down, but still try to carry on the fight. the japanese fighting in the south pacific proofed that many times over.
 
Considering the military ended up with a plastic rifle firing the 5.56, an M1 carbine with better magazines and something with a little more range than the .30 carbine could have succeeded as a bridge between Garand and M16. But we must remember that it was never ever viewed as a primary infantry rifle, so whether it was technologically more advanced than the Garand is rather immaterial. Given the thinking and decision that gave us the ill-conceived M14/7.62x51, what is truly amazing is that the military ever got to the M16/5.56!
It would have been really great in .30 Remington, but it wouldn't have been as light and handy.
 
It's interesting to note that the Garand, developed in the mid-1930s, was effectively obsolete by the end of WW2, and certainly by Korea. The Chinese army with their SKS rifles appreciated the lighter weight and high rates of fire against the UN forces in Korea. Every leading army at the end of WW2 understood that more capacity and lighter weight were preferable to heavier rifles and slower aimed fire. Germany's rapid mechanized advance proved it and Russia proved it right back when it adopted the same tactics pushing the Nazis out of Russia and Eastern Europe. And in fact, they went even further with submachine guns being their choice.
The M1 Carbine, is really an ancestor of the AR-15 platform in spirit. The Army and Marines both recognized the benefit of the light weight carbine with faster shots, compared to the heavier round and accurate, aimed fire over long distances. Even the M14 quickly showed the limitations of full power cartridges in increasingly mobile infantry units. The damned things are just too heavy with soldiers expected to carry them all day in full battle rattle.

It does do to remember that in WW2 and Korea, nobody wore body armor. The soldier you were shooting at, was in just as much trouble with a .30 carbine bullet, as they were with a .30-06 bullet assuming you're within the effective range of the rifle. But the carbine could put a lot more ammo on target quickly, compared to the heavier and harder shooting M1 Garand. And lets get away from the flawed notion that the .30 Carbine is weak. It packs more energy at 100 yards than a .357 magnum does at the muzzle.
Considering the rushed development of the Carbine (compared to Garand who had his rifle all but done when the Army came calling) and the fact that Winchester basically reused an old cartridge they already had developed, I'd say it compares quite favorably. It's no more modern than the Garand other than its use of a box magazine. But in terms of its usefulness, it's pretty clear that the carbine is superior.
It makes me wonder if US Ordnance had been a bit more forward thinking, they could have adopted a shortened version of the .30-06 in a slightly buffed carbine. A .30-06 with the case shortened to 1 5/8 inches (7.62x41) in a select-fire carbine that only weighs about 6lbs sounds pretty good to me, especially if I'm a young guy just getting his orders to ship out to Vietnam.
 
13 days? Are you sure about that?
That comes from the time of the Initial Carbine Testing (all entries failed) to the Final Selection testing (only Winchester's entry passed). There was significant time pressure on the development.

There's an excellent Forgotten Weapons video on the development.

(Ian also has one on the WAR, Winchester Automatic Rifle, which is where their not-a-Garand cal.30 weapon wound up.)
 
Yeah, so the claim it was developed in just 13 days really isn't true.
We’re talking “developed” not “invented”. Like many at the time, Winchester looked at what worked on previous weapons to “develop” parts for new weapons. That still holds true today.

When told by the Ordnance Department that a lightened version of the G30R would not be considered for the light rifle competition, and that only rifles using the .30 cal carbine round would be considered, Winchester began building the concept of what would become the M1 Carbine. They “borrowed” what would work on the Carbine from the G30R, but also had to create new and scaled down parts. From concept to first prototype of the Carbine was thirteen days. That is a “development” of a completely new product.

I know it may seem like semantics, but the entire concept of the M1 Carbine was born and developed into a prototype in the time indicated. Had this been a true “invention” of a new product it would have taken a much longer time.
 
To this day I value that old carbine for its light weight, quick pointing, and close quarters effectiveness. Modern softpoint ammo makes it even more effective...

Developed to replace pistols for rear echelon troops.. it really shined for paratroopers initially ( not an accident that it was Audie Murphy’s weapon of choice on the way to a Medal of Honor and becoming the most decorated soldier in the European theatre during WW twice...) but really came into its own in the close quarters combat that characterized combat in the Pacific theatre...

In places where a carbine was not as effective as a battle rifle (Korea) the troops that had to use them didn’t like them at all (surprise, surprise...). But used in close quarters it was deadly effective... so take you choice..

I’d have to say it was developed after the Garand but comparisons between the two are pretty much an apples to oranges proposition since they designed for different roles.
 
Last edited:
It was made outdated and obsolete incredibly quickly by the likes of the STG44 and the AK47, but for the time and in the context in which it was developed I think the carbine was a big step forward except for one thing, the cartridge. Had the carbine been chambered in something like a 300 blackout or 277 wolverine or the like, I think it would have been a huge hit and a probably would have started to supplant the Garand as the war went on. I am not a fan of the 30 carbine in any way. It gives up so much accuracy potential, range, and I think the blunt nose and straight wall is a big part, if not the major part of why carbines have the reputation of being unreliable. I think an M1 in a better bottleneck intermediate round may have even influenced the army to move away from the full power battle rifle about 20 years earlier than we did, and we may have never had the M14.

Just one problem. That whole family of cartridges was still in the future. The 30 Carbine is almost, but not quite, a rimless 357 Mag.

Also don't forget that the propellants that makes things like the 300 Blackout and 277 Wolverine were pretty much in the future. If I'm not mistaken the then new H110 was the powder used in the 30 Carbine. I think that the best thing that could have happened at the time would have been a flat nosed bullet.
 
On YouTube, there is a lot of raw combat footage of Americans in France and Germany. You see the Carbine in use a lot, particularly in urban combat.
I grabbed this still of a GI laying down some rapid fire in a German town...
38E1EB82-D70D-4CF2-B7D0-58A2C3202911.png
The Carbine gives me great accuracy at 100yds. Tnoutdoors9 shows fantastic accuracy out to 300yds in his videos.
Personally, I keep an Auto Ordnance folding stock Carbine handy, with a mag full of Hornady Critical Defense. I prefer it to my AR.
 
In these recent days of unrest, I have been keeping my 1944 Quality Hardware .30 Carbine handy, stoked with soft point ammo. I have AR's (along with a number of other rifles, including a Garand) in the safe(s), but the wife does better with that old carbine, and I am more confident that she would be able to use it to good effect should the need arise.
 
Things I like and don’t like about the M1 Carbine.
Likes:
One of the easiest charging handles to operate.
Very little recoil.
Very effective for any justifiable self defense/home defense distance (with proper ammo as with any gun).
Very lightweight.
Less intimidating for the novice user than “black rifles”.
Easy to learn and operate.
Quick and easy acquisition of target with iron sights.
Intuitive.
Easy to disassemble for regular cleaning.
Dislikes:
Ammo is more expensive than .223.
Needs cleaned fairly often, and likes to be run wet except around gas piston ... be careful there (I don’t think that’s an issue, but can be a turn off for the novice).
Dirty ammo and lead bullets can cause issues; especially with the gas piston.
Special tools needed to clean gas piston.
Although effective on soft targets within 100 yards, bullet drop and reduced velocity at 100+ yards detracts from its effectiveness as a main battle rifle. (But I’m not going to be using it in that capacity.
Limited case life if reloading to full charge (but you get that with most rifles).
 
In these recent days of unrest, I have been keeping my 1944 Quality Hardware .30 Carbine handy, stoked with soft point ammo. I have AR's (along with a number of other rifles, including a Garand) in the safe(s), but the wife does better with that old carbine, and I am more confident that she would be able to use it to good effect should the need arise.
Between the age of 18 when I moved out from my parents' house and the age of 21 when I purchased a factory new S&W Model 13 revolver, an inexpensive preowned Universal M1 carbine served as my HD firearm with South Korean brass cased FMJ ammunition I found in some gun shop. I don't remember ever seeing .30 carbine JHP or JSP ammo in the early 1980's. I kept that gun for a long time without using through the following years. I sold it to a work colleague in my age bracket who really, really wanted it 13 or so years ago.
 
Just one problem. That whole family of cartridges was still in the future. The 30 Carbine is almost, but not quite, a rimless 357 Mag.

Also don't forget that the propellants that makes things like the 300 Blackout and 277 Wolverine were pretty much in the future. If I'm not mistaken the then new H110 was the powder used in the 30 Carbine. I think that the best thing that could have happened at the time would have been a flat nosed bullet.

Well yes nothing exists until you invent it, but the 30 carbine cartridge was a clean sheet design to meet the specs that the army gave for a new cartridge which was simply an effective range of 300 yards and a caliber of over .270". Winchester designed the 30 carbine from scratch to meet these requirements, and in my opinion it was outdated before it was designed and they could have done much better. There is no parent case for the 30 carbine and the choice of cartridge design was entirely theirs, and they designed a cartridge that was basically a continuation of the winchester self loading cartridges, which at that time were already some 30 years out of date. They could have just as easily designed an intermediate bottleneck round with a spitzer bullet but either they didn't think that was a good idea or it simply didn't occur to them. I guess hindsight is 20/20. H110 was also a brand new powder as well which was developed for the 30 carbine, not the other way around. 300 blackout actually works exceptionally well with H110 today, and it would have done so then as well had they decided to make something like it..
 
I have to laugh because this is a conversation that has been going on for at least 75 years, and it's just not a valid comparison. If you go back and read up on the U.S. light rifle trials that led to the M1 Carbine, it was very clear that it was intended to replace the 1911 pistol for support troops not normally intended to see infantry combat (headquarters staff, cooks, drivers, artillery crews, etc.) or combat troops whose main job was not shooting a rifle (officers, mortar crews, radiomen, later bazooka teams, etc.). It was never intended to replace the M1 Garand, or even the Thompson (and later Grease Gun), though there was some talk of the latter when they moved to the select-fire M2.

The real advantage of the M1 Carbine was ease of use over the 1911 pistol. Take a novice shooter and give them basic instruction and a 1911 and you'll be lucky if they can hit a man-sized target at 25 yards. Take the same shooter and give them an M1 Carbine and they'll be making hits at 50 or even 100 yards with ease. In terms of performance, the .30 Carbine round is not under-powered any more than a Mazda Miata is under-powered next to a V-8 pickup truck, both are right for the job they have to do. The best comparison for the Carbine is not Garand at all, it's a Winchester or Marlin lever gun getting a lot of extra oomph out of a .357 Magnum and serving the same purpose--the ability to reach out and hit something or someone at distances that are very difficult with a pistol.
 
I think that the only technical advancement that the carbine could claim was the short stroke gas piston.
And, while a simple and compact gas system, it was not refined enough to work with full sized rifle cartridges.
In other respects the carbine was much like a scaled down M1 Garand.
The detachable box magazine had been in use for decades in the BAR so nothing new there.
It achieved its goal of compactness and light weight which I suppose is an advancement.

The M2 full auto feature has been mentioned. But remember that this was simply added as an afterthought for the Korean war. Far from being a technical advancement, the elongated see-saw trip lever used to actuate the auto sear was crude. As well, the wobbly 30 round magazine was prone to stoppages because the M1 carbine was never designed for such an animal.

The AK-47 which predated the M2 had a much more compact full auto system, a much more secure box magazine, a far superior gas system, and a more powerful cartridge.
Overall the level of technical advancement of the AK-47 is so superior to the M2 that the M2 is an improvised toy.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the 30 round magazine was "wobbly," I think the problem was it was partially straight to fit the pre-existing magwell and partially curved to accommodate the slightly tapered cartridge. This caused problems in full auto. The M2 did require a catch with an extra .... "finger" to hold the extra weight.
I have fired many many rounds in my WW2 carbine in 30 rnd mags with no problem. I have always wondered if the unreliability problems associated with the 30 rnders was manifested only really in full auto since the mechanical action is faster .... and perhaps semiauto is more forgiving. Perhaps that's theoretical, but .... could be??:scrutiny:
 
The other problem with this thread is what is meant by “advanced.” Conceptually the M1 Carbine was definitely ahead of its time in that it was designed from the beginning as what we would now call a personal defense weapon (PDW) to provide more firepower, range, and accuracy for rear echelon troops and non-riflemen. Remember it was a 5 lb replacement for a 2.5 lb pistol for those that needed something light and handy, *not* a 9-10 lb rifle (M1917, Springfield, Garand) or 8-10 lb submachine gun (Grease Gun, Thompson).

Technically the M1 Carbine advances were the cartridge itself and the gas tappet action as well as the innovative concept. The other WWII gun that combined a revolutionary cartridge with an advanced concept was the 7.92×33mm Kurz and the MP43/MP44/StG44, the conceptual ancestor of all modern assault rifles. The StG44 served a different role than the M1 Carbine by seeking to *replace* the Kar98 rifle and MP40 submachine gun in most applications, though it was actually the heaviest of the three. Bonus points to the Sturmgewehr for innovative manufacturing as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top