Is the M1 Carbine a More Effective Combat Weapon Than a Submachinegun?

[Gun Master]

M-1 Carbine & SMG's

I was glad to see someone finally mentioned "the other SMG", M3 and M3A1 or "Grease Gun", which was made and used in WWII. It was considered to be cheaper, lighter, and more accurate than the Thompson SMG (both being chambered in .45 ACP). A soldier could "spray" a room, or otherwise be used most effectively, in other close combat events, delivering the large and powerful .45 "Bumblebee" bullets. It was used by the US Military as late as the Gulf War.

Also, there was a lack of mentioning the Korean War "Burp Gun" SMG, or PP Sh-41 & 43 (7.62 x 25mm "Tokarev"), which was based on the Soviets and Chi-Com version of the Finnish Suomi M31.

I do not own, want, or think I shall ever possess a SMG, but I do believe they definitely belong in, and fill a special niche of the military forces.

Surprise ! I am not an M-1 Carbine "basher". I like the M-1 Carbine, and even owned and enjoyed shooting it. I doubt that I will ever be able to afford to own one again. Although it will not fill the gap, I do enjoy my cheaper, but reliable and effective, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I do enjoy my cheaper, but reliable and effective, Hi-Point 9mm Carbine.

A couple months ago I was in the local gun store when a Hi Point 45 Carbine was delivered. I impulse bought it.......just because.

Darn if it isn't a good gun. A little overboard on the "tactical" look but a surprisingly good gun. IMO well worth the money.
I ordered some extra magazines.

 

[JShirley]

No, as mentioned elsewhere, tactics and logistics are many times as important as specific caliber or even individual weapon.


To state the M1 Carbine is not as effective as a modern, accurate, and reliable PCC of even lighter weight would require:
1>Believing such a paragon existed (it doesn't);
2>Ignoring the OP's actual question.

The M1 Carbine is a good little SD/HD piece, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS HORRIBLY PENETRATIVE IN BARRIERS WITH TRADITIONAL AMMUNITION.

Why yes, that was yelling. I have seen a 110 SP penetrate 20" of water, a log, and an undertermined amount of dirt exceeding 18".

 

[Gun Master]

Hi-Point .45 Carbine

A couple months ago I was in the local gun store when a Hi Point 45 Carbine was delivered. I impulse bought it.......just because.

Darn if it isn't a good gun. A little overboard on the "tactical" look but a surprisingly good gun. IMO well worth the money.
I ordered some extra magazines.

Mine is one of the older and plain styled Hi-Point 9mm Carbines.

Man, that is some snazzy looking piece of weaponry ! And in .45 ACP, too !

 

[Gun Master]

No, as mentioned elsewhere, tactics and logistics are many times as important as specific caliber or even individual weapon.


To state the M1 Carbine is not as effective as a modern, accurate, and reliable PCC of even lighter weight would require:
1>Believing such a paragon existed (it doesn't);
2>Ignoring the OP's actual question.

The M1 Carbine is a good little SD/HD piece, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS HORRIBLY PENETRATIVE IN BARRIERS WITH TRADITIONAL AMMUNITION.

Why yes, that was yelling. I have seen a 110 SP penetrate 20" of water, a log, and an undertermined amount of dirt exceeding 18".

I like the gun too, but why hasn't any military of any country / nation manufactured it , since ours stopped in August of 1945 ? Apparently, none consider it of any consequential value today.

 

[phil dirt]

The .30 M-1 Carbine is a great little weapon for it's intended purpose. It definitely beats the crap out of a 1911 at all but close range. At 200 yards, even out to 300 or so, a man had best keep his rear end low to the ground if he is being shot at with one. In the military, I think it got a bad rap from those who tried to compare it to a battle rifle like the M1 Garand. The full auto M2 version could spit lead at about 775 rounds per minute. I'd like to have a bunch of them.

 

[Gun Master]

The .30 M-1 Carbine is a great little weapon for it's intended purpose. It definitely beats the crap out of a 1911 at all but close range. At 200 yards, even out to 300 or so, a man had best keep his rear end low to the ground if he is being shot at with one. In the military, I think it got a bad rap from those who tried to compare it to a battle rifle like the M1 Garand. The full auto M2 version could spit lead at about 775 rounds per minute. I'd like to have a bunch of them.

I agree with you 100%, but IMHO, it is not "the best choice" for a modern day combat weapon. Please see post #69 and #75 for some possible candidates .

 

[Tommygunn]

I like the gun too, but why hasn't any military of any country / nation manufactured it , since ours stopped in August of 1945 ? Apparently, none consider it of any consequential value today.

The carbine had a great following in the years following WW2. Many were shipped to Japan (and later returned) and to Korea. Israel made very good use of them up to recently and apparently still have some in reserve service. I recall German police liked them in the postwar years and restocked the weapon. They also developed blanks and a blank firing device for them (I own one of the devices; it attaches to the muzzle to restrict the barrrel so the weapon will cycle with blanks) for tactical exercises.
It is true that today most of these guns have been retired as newer guns are introduced in modern, more available calibers. Such is the nature of progress.
One may as well wonder why very few sheriffs' offices will be equiped with Winchester 1892 lever action carbines in .44-40 today. A hundred years ago or more they represented handy longarms in a commonly available caliber.
Just not.... so...much....today -- even though lever action rifles are available in .44-40 today. Cowboy Action Shooters love 'em.
The carbine has largely gone the same way.
Even when these M-1 carbines were being used in quantity after WW2 I don't think very many places made them. There were 6 million made during WW2 and plenty on hand to pass around ... but I do seem to recall the Japanese making a copy of the gun way back.

Probably the one weapon that truly went international and has been made in other countries aside from the country of origin was the renowned AK-47. Does that mean the AR series was not or is not successful?
Things are what they are.
The M1 Carbine was and is a lightweight handy longarm that is very effective in a PDW type of role that can be had by American civilians who don't want to go the NFA route.
For those that have them as family heirlooms they remain effective.
For those who don't have them and would like the equivelant in a modern obtainable weapon then I woud suggest a trip to Wal-Mart (or other LGS type place) and pick up a Colt M4, or a BCM/Noveske/Daniel Defense/*Insert your choice of brand here* AR type 5.56mm. longarm.

 

[max popenker]

M1 carbine weak?
It's bullet has about twice energy of the 7,62 bullet fired from Soviet PPSh-41 subgun at all practical distances, from zero to 300+ meters.
And I've never heard about anyone complaining that PPSh is an underpowered gun

 

[mavracer]

I like the gun too, but why hasn't any military of any country / nation manufactured it , since ours stopped in August of 1945 ? Apparently, none consider it of any consequential value today

You seem to be obtuse in you're ability to ignore the M-1 carbines roll in the evolution of military arms. While it's original intent was to just give rear echelon troops something better than a 1911, it was found to be infinintely more useful, to the point that now the intermediate power carbine has made the subguns all but a non factor in todays military in any but very mission specific rolls. They are really only used now for their ability to be very quiet when suppressed and even that roll is being threatened by the subsonic 5.56 ammo and 300 Blackout in a M-4 platform.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I know exactly why the carbine lost ground to pistol round subguns and semi auto carbines. Back in the early 1970's, I had a GI carbine, but found it very hard to locate any serious quantities of GI ammo. For some reason the government didn't dump large quantities of it on the civilian market like they did .30-06. Maybe it all went to Viet Nam or South America as foreign aid. Anyway, the cost of carbine ammo was too high for my limited budget, and finding surplus 9mm or .45 was a lot easier for plinking. Enter a growing marketing and manufacture of pistol carbines, and a wider variety of ammo for them. The M1 Carbine was getting passed over for newer guns. Still, I remember a strong following of older guys for the Carbine, and even lots of customizing, accurizing, caliber conversions, etc. THAT probably added to the shortage of ammo at the time. It was just frustrating owning a cool little gun, and not being able to shoot it as much as one would like, due to a shortage of ammo. Much like the ammo shortage now, except now darn near EVERY gun and caliber is in shorter supply.

 

[torqem]

The smg is only better with subsonic ammo, and a suppressor, in a situation where the lack of noise matters. Otherwise, the 30C hits much harder than the 9mm smg can manage. Full auto is a near-worthless temptation to disaster. We made millions of carbines for the wars, so there's no shortage of them for those who wanted them, or at least, there wasn't until recently. The free-issue of 50 million AK's (and ammo, too, of course) had a lot to do with the lack of demand for the Carbine.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Here's something that M1 Carbine owners should know.

A lot of gun owners know that a full auto gun has to be registered with the ATF.
What a lot of people don't know is that some gun parts, or group of parts, just by themselves are "machine guns", even if you don't own the gun they go in. They have to be registered with the ATF as if they were a operating machine gun.

Many M1 Carbines contain M2 (select fire) parts, such as M2 hammers, M2 sears, M2 slides, etc, because they work exactly like the original M1 parts.

This is all perfectly legal as long as you don't have all the M2 parts in your possession.
If over the years you somehow picked up the parts, say buying a handful of spare Carbine parts, you have a non registered machine gun in your possession.

There are three parts that have no use in a M1 Carbine except to make it select fire full auto. So, even having them in your junk parts box can get you in big trouble.
They are the disconnector , selector and selector spring.
Unless you lave a licensed M2 or M2 "conversion kit" you have no legal business having these parts.
Along with a couple other M2 parts that might be in your spare parts box or in your M1 Carbine you have a unregistered full auto weapon.

This is what the disconnector and selector looks like.
All the other M2 parts in your Carbine are completely legal as long s you don't have these three parts in your possession.

 

[JRH6856]

M1 carbine weak?
It's bullet has about twice energy of the 7,62 bullet fired from Soviet PPSh-41 subgun at all practical distances, from zero to 300+ meters.
And I've never heard about anyone complaining that PPSh is an underpowered gun

M1/M2 carbine has a 15 or 30rnd mag. M1 is semi-auto, M2 rate of fire is 775-900/per min (depending on source) but breaks easily.

PPsh has higher mag capacity (71) and higher rate of fire (1000?/per min) and it was designed to fire at that rate and not break (probably due in part to its lower powered round).

Similar comparisons can be made between the M1 (and any other pistol caliber carbine) and any subgun.

Each have their place each fills some roles better than the other. Kind of like apples and oranges.

 

[JShirley]

I like the gun too, but why hasn't any military of any country / nation manufactured it , since ours stopped in August of 1945 ? Apparently, none consider it of any consequential value today.

Despite the title of the thread, the OP's actual question is whether Germany would have been better served with the M1 Carbine instead of their machine pistols. Not sure what that has to do with your response.

John

 

[fpgt72]

My uncle used both the M2 and Swede K machineguns in Vietnam....he did not care for them at all....he would not go into why he did not like them.

He ended up with a Car-15 and liked that a great deal when he was allowed to use it. He said he generally carried an AK47.

I could never get any real info out of him as to what all went on over there, but he was a hard drinking man from the time I knew him till shortly before he passed. I am sure there had to be some demons in there. Aside from that I do know he was over there in 1963-64, and was back in Germany in 65. He was also a Green Beret...so from my reading I know he had to be doing some interesting stuff over there.

 

[fpgt72]

Despite the title of the thread, the OP's actual question is whether Germany would have been better served with the M1 Carbine instead of their machine pistols. Not sure what that has to do with your response.

John

I have seen a small arms training video from WWII and it shows a GI shooting a German helmet with a 45 and with a 30 carbine....IIRC the 45 would just make a dent, the carbine right on through.

Now I don't know if you would live with that dent in your noggin, but I would bet that a 9mm would not hit as hard. And if it was a ricochet I am sure that the extra speed and penetration in the carbine round would be likely to do more damage then the pistol round.

But I am just guessing on that.

 

[phil dirt]

If I had to choose between a Thompson and a carbine for a fight at very close range, I'd want the full auto Thompson submachine gun. On the other hand, If I expected to need to shoot at somebody at over 35 yards or so, I'd want the Carbine.

 

[Gun Master]

If I had to choose between a Thompson and a carbine for a fight at very close range, I'd want the full auto Thompson submachine gun. On the other hand, If I expected to need to shoot at somebody at over 35 yards or so, I'd want the Carbine.

I would agree with you totally, except I'd prefer the M3 over the Thompson, since the M3 was considered more accurate, lighter, reliable (and cost less, which is appealing to the powers that be). The carbine is an excellent choice over the M3 (or Thompson), 35 yards or more.

 

[torqem]

The grease gun more accurate than the TSMG?

Not a chance. Especially if the tsmg has a semiauto option, which I THINK even the military variant had. If you call 10 lbs "enough" lighter than 11 lbs to amount to anything, yes, it's lighter. No WAY is the M3 more reliable. The single feed M3 mags had a mediocre rep for feeding. That worked better with the tapered, smaller OD 9mm (sten) than with the more blunt, straight-walled .45 rd.

And yes, if the shooter knows diddly about marksmanship, the carbine is a considerably more effective weapon than the smg, reguardless of type or caliber. The 30C is still quite inferior to the Shorty AR, tho.

 

[mavracer]

If I had to choose between a Thompson and a carbine for a fight at very close range, I'd want the full auto Thompson submachine gun. On the other hand, If I expected to need to shoot at somebody at over 35 yards or so, I'd want the Carbine.

That would be great if you always get to choose where the fight takes place, I'd much prefer having to use the carbine at close range than trying to make due with the sub gun at extended range.

 

[torqem]

that's right. Also, the 30C has limited range for penetration of concealable armor, while the 223 goes thru it like a knife thru butter, even with softpoints and a short barrel, out to ranges where it drops below 2000 fps.

 

[M2 Carbine]

I would agree with you totally, except I'd prefer the M3 over the Thompson, since the M3 was considered more accurate,

The only experience I have with the Grease Gun was about 1956 in the USMC.
My Platoon "volunteered" to pull targets for a outfit shooting the M3.

The targets were about five feet square.
When a target was hit we would pull it down, put a 3 inch marker over the hole and run the target back up.

Shortly before this we had qualified with the M1 Garand at 500 yards shooting at 20 inch bullseyes and the decent shooters never missed.

I don't know what distance those Grease Gun shooters were firing from but it had to be close.

We got to laughing because not only were most of those guys missing the bullseye, they were missing the whole five foot target.
Long time ago but I don't think the shooters on my target got three hits between them.

 

[clang]

Since the original question was "Is the M1 Carbine a More Effective Combat Weapon Than a Sub-machinegun?", you also have to look at the supply issue. The sub-guns shared ammo with the side arms of the day, while the .30 carbine ammo was unique. The simplification of the supply line is reason enough for a military unit to prefer the .45 ACP sub-gun over the M1 Carbine.

I was in the Army in the 1980s when our unit Combat Engineer unit went from wheeled to mechanized. The Infantry was getting Bradleys, so we had to turn in our 5 ton dump trucks and replace them with hand me down M113s.

Along with the tracked vehicles came some really old 1911s for the M113 drivers and a few M3 "grease" guns for the recovery vehicle operators. Why had the M3 sub-guns made it so long in active service while the M1 Carbines were long retired? I believe because they shared ammo with the issued sidearm.

The 9mm Beretta as the new sidearm came along right about the same time. I wasn't there for that transition, but I'm willing to bet the old M3s were finally retired along with the 1911s.

Now if I had a personal choice of an M1 Carbine or a Thompson or M3 submachine gun, knowing that I was going to be put into harms way? I'd probably take the M1 Carbine for it's longer effective range, while still being acceptable for short range situations. But resupply would need to be factored into the decision too.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Why had the M3 sub-guns made it so long in active service while the M1 Carbines were long retired? I believe because they shared ammo with the issued sidearm.

The M3 stayed in service because it was much shorter than any other shoulder arm, and that made it ideal for tank crews and other people operating in confined spaces who would rarely need small arms.