Let's stop bad-mouthing the .30 Carbine

[moxie]

Mike Irwin makes some good points and I agree with most. Here is a little more info. In addition to the training problem mentioned, many, if not most, 1911s I saw in active service were maintained terribly over the years. Reliability was down and they were really sloppy (having been shot a gazillion times) guns, with fairly lousy accuracy. A gun not up to snuff shot by a new guy with poor training equals many misses. Take the same guns, maintain them to mil specs (nothing fancy!) and give the shooter some decent training, and he gets hits. The M-1 Carbine was more easily fired with little training and an acceptable level of accuracy than the 1911, in my opinion. That's just the difference in ease of teaching someone who's never fired a gun to shoot a rifle versus a handgun. That's the way it is. A point of clarification: the fully auto M-1 was called the M-2. I my opinion, the main problem with the M-1 carbine is the bullet. With a good hollowpoint it would be a lot better. In military use, however, it had to be FMJ ball ammo (Hague Accords). The FMJ fired from the Carbine was certainly no match for the FMJ fired by the Garand, or even the 1911.

 

[moxie]

Another point. We had the same problem with the S&W .38 Special in the Air Force. Few would say that the S&W is not an accurate handgun. But after having been shot much and maintained little, they were no better than the Army's 1911s, for the same reasons. Some shot the way a Smith should shoot, that is, very nice. But many were just terrible. And it wasn't unusual for sights to fall off, cylinders to lock up, etc. Despite all that, it was easier for the average person to qualify with the AF Smith than with the 1911, even with crummy examples. Two reasons. The .38 Special has less recoil than the .45ACP and the S&W Combat Masterpiece has far better sights than the GI 1911.

 

[JShirley]

Interestingly enough, I have heard more blatant misinformation regarding firearms since I've been in the military than in all my previous 29 years (in all fairness, I have heard plenty of fact, too).

Regardless of what many may assume, just because someone is in the military doesn't make them Wyatt Earp or Gunny Hathcock with their weapons. I was the only one of my squad that shot expert last time we qualified, and that was my best shooting for record, to date.
...oh, yeah. I like the li'l carbine. One should always shoot twice with intermediate power cartridges, anyway.

John

 

[BigG]

...heard more blatant misinformation regarding firearms since I've been in the military...

So true. And NOT just about firearms. The service is the BS capital of the universe. If the BS emitted by servicemembers was natural gas you could heat Alaska.

 

[ChairborneRanger]

Carbines are cute to look at, a joy to carry and fun to shoot. They did, however, receive a fair amount of 'bad press'---much of it well deserved---whenever there was an attempt to use them as a substitute for the/a main battle rifle. That aside, they are a great plinker----a nice, handy, close-in defensive firearm---wish the likes of Wolf or Baranul made some of that inexpensive steel cased ammunition for them----a lot more of them would 'come out of the closets'.

 

[ShaiVong]

Last time I fired my buddies Carbine, it would jam every 1-3 shots.. With origional plastic mag and 3rd party metal mag.

 

[DFBonnett]

critter
Senior Member

wrote..
"Finally, he was told that one of the older guys he worked with was in 'The Big War' and might have an idea on the carbine. When he asked the guy, he was told, " Well, alls I know about it is that hit ain't worth a DAMN for killin' Germans". (He was in Normandy in WWII.) Kinda busted the kids bubble."

That seems to fit a pattern. WW2 vets who served in Europe seem to love the Garand and Thompson and hate the carbine. Pacific vets seem to have the opposite opinion. A Marine vet of the Korean Chosin Reservoir battle who I spoke to had only good things to say about the carbine. He picked one up when his Garand had problems. Opinions do seem to vary but that Europe/Pacific dichotomy seems prevalent.

 

[curt]

Last time I fired my buddies Carbine, it would jam every 1-3 shots.. With origional plastic mag and 3rd party metal mag.

Well, there ya go. There is no such thing as an original GI carbine plastic mag. So you proved that with crappy mags a carbine will jam. Your buddy should spring the big $10 to by a GI mag or two.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

What I don't understand is why folks wish to argue over the reputation of a non-living object that isn't exactly being manufactured in large quantities anymore. So some people don't think the .30 carbine does an adequate job. What those people think has no bearing on how the gun performs for those of you who feel it does what is needed. There is no need to defend the honor of your gun. It can speak for itself when needed and the decision made at that time directly by the parties involved.

If y'all want to argue firepower, I'll gladly take you on with my NAA Mini Revolver in .22 lr as I feel perfectly secure in knowing that I have it with me all the time and that it will bring any conflict to a quick end. Um, okay on that last part, it is only going to end the conflict quickly if I use it on myself. I may have neglected that point when I offered my challenge.

Seriously, every gun and caliber has the potential to be applied well in the correct types of situations. Few guns do everything needed in all situations. Pick the right gun for the right job given the parameters of the situation and things will be fine. Make the wrong choices and things won't.

 

[Baba Louie]

FWIW, read Audie Murphy's book To Hell and Back to see what a WWII vet thought of his "lucky" carbine.

Seemed to work for him just fine.

Of course, he was kind of a good shot to begin with.

From memory, I seem to recall him telling one of his buddies that he preferred it to the Garand for city (and woods?) fighting.

They're fun. Up close, they're better than throwing rocks. YMMV

Adios

 

[Art Eatman]

I never did have much use for the firearms training during my Army stint from 1-'54 thru 5-'58. I shot a Garand more before I went to Basic than during Basic. In Korea, we took our ack-ack to the range one time, and the ammo was limited for the quad-fifties and twin-forty-mm.

We never qualified with our personal weapons such as the M2 Carbine or the 1911A1.

I was the only guy in the whole battalion who would "liberate" a canister of 600 rounds of Carbine ammo and go to the beach at low tide at Inchon, and shoot whatever "targets of opportunity" were found--including seagulls. And I got chewed out for wanting to "waste ammo" and was made to stop.

Art

 

[Badger Arms]

What I don't understand is why folks wish to argue over the reputation of a non-living object that isn't exactly being manufactured in large quantities anymore.

We must make arguments of this sort so that history does not repeat itself. A healthy discussion about the merits of a certain caliber or weapon can provide insight into future caliber and weapon choices. For instance, if there is sufficient evidence to support the inadequacy of the 30 carbine in self-defense, one might consider the anemic M-4 Carbine in a different light. One might also say, "Well if the M-1 Carbine was just fine, why do we worry about the effectiveness of the M-4 that shoots faster and more effective projectiles more reliably and with greater accuracy? When we ignore history or let said history be rewritten, revised, ignored, etc., we are doomed to repeat said history. I don't want our Crunchies to be walking around with Chauchaut Machineguns because we didn't examine the faults in that design and somebody decided it was a sound concept today. Get my meaning?

 

[Sven]

These questions are basically a multivariable equation for which there is no single solution. One of the variables is the time period in which you are making the evaluation, and many of the variables are subjective.

Considerations:

- there are other powders and bullets available today for the .30 carbine that were not used in WWII

- there are other chamberings and weapon designs available today that were not available in WWII

- surplus ammo availability (and reloading component costs) changes over time... ammo that might be scrounged in a doomsday scenario will vary depending on your location and the timeframe. For example, you are not likely to find any 30-06 or .30 carbine ammo on a UN supply truck, but you probably could find some NATO 7.62mm today...

If you had to choose a weapon today, I can't think of many rational reasons to choose an M1 Carbine over an AR-15.

That said, if someone kicks my door down tonight holding a weapon, I have several rounds of .30 carbine softpoint hunting ammo waiting to introduce themselves.... I'm confident that the reception these bullets would receive would matter very little, compared to rounds coming from an AR.

The size of the holes and the penetration they make matter mostly to the worms. Which is why I feel that most "caliber wars" are for the birds.

 

[winwun]

Double Naught, your last paragraph is a jewell. It said it all better than anyone could hope for.

 

[Al Thompson]

Well, one really good reason to talk about esoteric stuff here is to educate the new folks (and us older ones).

 

[Willard]

I qualified in the 1980's with 1911A1's and one 1911 (yes, unmodified and in service). I had no particular trouble shooting expert. I feel that folks badmouthing the .45 and the stories are form folks not so good with the pistol. Lots of guys in my units would start out with that crap. Once they were taught how to shoot (Weaver stance; front sight, press) they did pretty well.

Anecdotal story- We once had a gent from the post pistol team come to the range to teach us how to shoot 1911's. He showed us the one handed firing position, holding the hammer with our thumb to prevent hammer follow ( a problem with match triggers, not our service pieces), and breath control.
At lunch I showed my friends the weaver stance and discussed the importance of the front sight. After chow the Team guys ran the range. Those of us using the Weaver stance all shot higher scores than the others trying to One Hand the pistols. Technique???

 

[Al Thompson]

Willard, during my time on active duty, the old ways still conflicted with the new ones. Good on you for making progress.

Our bane was the AMU before Lori Johnson got ahold of them.

 

[waynzwld]

Talking about a different round in the M1 carbine, I do not know if they are still made and I can't remember who was making them, but there was a company that reworked the M1 to shoot the 45 Winchester Magnun. From what little I heard on them, they were supposed to be pretty awesome.

 

[DrDremel]

The M1 Carbine had a good reputation in the Pacific theatre as the ranges were in relation to the design of the rifle. The problem is when people started to think that it would work past its effective range. If those same people were to use a Grease gun at those same ranges, they would get the same results. If you were to try to make the Garand an anti-aircraft gun, it would not be very successful either.

The real bad reputation of the Carbine was in Korea. This was due to two items. The first is the M2 version of the Carbine. And the second was the long ranges. Carbines were used at 200-500 yards regularly. The results were dismal. This should be expected as the round and the rifle were not designed for this purpose.

The addition of full auto fire made things worse. The most common war story of people that used the carbine was that they emptied a full magazine and the enemy did not seem effected by it. If you have any experience with full auto carbines you will notice that there is considerable muzzle rise. What happened was a soldier shot at an enemy over 200 yards away, the muzzle rise caused the rest of the rounds to miss and the first round did not hit due to the range of the engagement. So the enemy was not hit at all. The carbine is a very effective round when used as the firearm it was designed. It is meant for 150 yards and under use. Full-auto fire is for 50 yards or less. In this role it is highly effective and its reputation in this role has been proven.

The 1911 is a good handgun when used by a competent shooter. Its accuracy reputation is from handguns that were not maintained correctly while in use for 30-40 years. Most of the people that could not hit were using handguns that had been passed on to the next recruit every 8 weeks or so. That promotes wear as each recruit has to learn how to tear down, assemble, CLEAN properly, and then shoot it.

As for the 1911 needing a lot of tuning for accuracy, that is only for competition as does the M14, Beretta M9, M16, and every other competition firearm. The M1 Carbine functioned well, was accurate enough for its intended role, and is more effective than most submachine gun rounds. If it was as bad as some of you say it is, then it would have suffered the same fate as the Reising. It would not have been produced into the 1950’s. It would not have been copied for civilian use. It would not be used by the Israelis even to this day if it were such a terrible firearm.