M-2 Carbine: First assault rifle?

[natedog]

NOTE
(Please don't bring up semantics with this one, Yes I know that assault is a verb, not an adjective, and that if I smacked you with a baseball bat then that'd be an assault weapon, too. Everyone knows what I'm talking about when I say assault rifle).

The technical definition of an assault rifle is "a firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire". The M-2 Carbine fits all of these categories, so why isn't it considered the first assault rifle, while the Stg-44 (introduced several years after) is? Is it the caliber? Is the M-2 Carbine more of a SMG than an assault rifle? Or does it not fit into traditional categories?

 

[Badger Arms]

Ya might have your dates mixed up a bit. The M2 was introduced after the Germans introduced their 'assault rifles.'

 

[Dionysusigma]

StG.44: SturmGewehr translates literally meaning "Storm Gun." It's the first gun to actually be called one. The M2 carbine apparently didn't have the range/power required of an Assault Rifle... and weren't M2s used more in Korea and early Vietnam than in World War 2?

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm
Source of my info. Also has a pic illustrating how much larger 7.62x39mm and 5.56x45mm are, compared to .30 Carbine.

 

[dfariswheel]

If we're talking concept, the Carbine predated all the German firearms.

The original concept for the carbine was a selective-fire weapon with a 50 round magazine.

The full-auto capability and the larger capacity magazine was delayed to rush the carbine into production.

The idea of the true assault weapon cartridge and a vague concept of a weapon for it was developed by the German General Staff in the 1930's.

The idea was for a reduced range, reduced power cartridge, which would be fired by SOME type of smaller, lighter rifle, exact type to be decided.

Other predessor's to the German assault weapon were the Remington Model 8 and 81 semi-auto carbines, which 1930's lawmen had modified with 30 round magazines.

However, of all the predessor's, the original concept M1 carbine comes closest to the true assault weapon.
As manufactured until 1945, everything was there except the large capacity magazine and the full-auto capability.

 

[DMK]

Regardless of the dates, I believe the M2 is a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. It shoots a pistol type cartridge (of about the same power as a .357 magnum), not a medium powered rifle cartridge.


How did the Army classify it? Was it M2 as in next one after the M1 carbine or M2 as in next one after the M1 Thompson? Also, wasn't the Thompson select fire also?

 

[natedog]

M-2 as in next carbine...followed by the M-3 (which had a night vision type device on it)....followed by the M-4.

The M-3 Grease Gun followed the M-1 Thompson- I'm guessing M-2 submachine gun remained the XM-2.

 

[Ant Mod]

The STG44 predated the M2. So no its not the first assault rifle.

 

[roscoe]

If the Remington Model 8 had been select fire . . . introduced in 1906.

 

[Dienekes]

MP-44 was the first such as far as I know; selective fire, intermediate power rifle round, high capacity mag and tactical doctrine to match.

I believe the first M2s were conversions and some made it into the Pacific theater very late in WWII.

Carried one quite a bit in the service, fired it very infrequently. Their real baptism came in Korea, when that very handly little piece proved to be unreliable and lacking in power.

Full auto--assuming that you could avoid jams--was impressive to hear but the cyclic rate was high and the weapon light. Didn't think much of it then and still don't.

 

[Badger Arms]

Please don't bring up semantics with this one

Well, it's all about semantics. It's how you define an assault rifle. The definition of 'assault rifle' would not be a reduced power cartridge but rather an intermediate power cartridge. In concept, it was meant to fill the gap between the submachinegun and the battle rifle.

Submachineguns are severely limited by their short range and low power while they make up for this somewhat in that they have the volume of a machinegun for short periods of time.

Battle rifles are overpowered for their weight when used in fully-automatic mode. One may increase the weight and get a squad automatic weapon such as the BAR and Bren. One may also make them 'emergency' full-auto capable much as the Russian Tokarev, German FG-42, and the later M-14 and FAL.

Machineguns are very heavy and generally crew-served. They have the advantage of a large volume of fire.

The Assault Rifle concept seeks to have a weapon that fires an intermediate-power cartridge that is controllable yet as effective at short to intermediate range as the full-size cartridge is at long range. It is as light and handy as a battle rifle but can sustain full-auto fire much like the MG and SMG. It is truly a compromise weapon in all respects. Efforts since its initial development in Germany has centered around improvement of these compromises. The M-4, for instance, is smaller, lighter, more accurate, and able to sustain fire longer than the original assault rifle. The AK-47 took a different path toward reliability and cheapness of manufacture along with a more powerful round. The British were fans of compactness, the French favored weapons that could be dropped easilly, etc.

 

[Trebor]

The M-2 Carbine and the STG 44 were both Johnny-come-lately's to the real FIRST assault rifle: The Federov Automat of 1916.

The Federov was a SELECTIVE- FIRE (semi or full auto) Russian weapon that fired a reduced charge round of intermediate power (the Jap 6.5) out of a large capacity magazine (25 or 30 rounds).

The weapon was produced in small numbers starting in 1916 until it's production was halted by the fall of the Czarist regime. There is some evidence the weapon saw service in WWI, and it definately saw service in the Russian Revolution. After the Bolshivieks took over, the weapon was returned to production in small numbers in 1925. It was used in the Winter War against the Finns in 1939-40 and may have seen very limited use in the early days of WWII. I've seen total production estimates ranging from 3,000 to 9,000 rifles.

The Federov became a forgotten weapon for several reasons: The Russian Revolution interupted the production at a critical stage and the design never had a chance to be fully developed. From all accounts the weapon was well liked, but problems with parts breakage in service were never resolved. The fact that the weapon used a non-standard round also worked against it. The military establishment of that time wasn't quite ready for the intermediate powered assault rifle concept. It just didn't fit into their thinking.

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

The British were fans of compactness, the French favored weapons that could be dropped easilly, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA I almost spit on my monitor when I read that.

 

[Tony Williams]

The answer to the basic question is that the M2 Carbine was not powerful enough. My own definition of an assault rifle is as follows:

"A military rifle, capable of controlled, fully-automatic fire from the shoulder, with an effective range of at least 300 metres".

That .30 Carbine round is really only effective out to around 200m. The significance of 300m is that this is the generally accepted normal maximum range for rifle combat (in that at least 90% of engagements take place within this range).

For a brief history of the assault rifle and its ammunition (which starts with experimental weapons even before the Federov) see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

For a longer and more detailed history you'll have to wait a few months until 'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition', by Max Popenker and myself, comes out

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[Dr.Rob]

Nope, the M-1 was a replacement for the .45 cal pistol, intended to be issued to cooks and clerks instead of thge expensive to produce 1911. this was a direct result of the Army's fear of "Blitzkrieg" tactics being used against our troops and finding bad guys behind our lines.

The M-2 model saw limited use in the pacific, but I've read a few books where GI's in the Hurtgen Forest learned to make the M-1 full auto by filing on it here and there.

"Assault Rifle" is a German term, based on tactical information learned on the eastern front... more or less that if you give every foot soldier a full auto rifle that can reach out to 300 or so yards... he will USE it.

 

[Badger Arms]

Thanks for chiming in on this, Tony. It's true what you say about the M2 not being an assault rifle. In fact, its development was drastically different from that of the StG-44. When first devised, the Carbine was envisioned as a replacement for the Garand and the M1911 Pistol for support troops who were generally not expected to see action. The round was anemic, yes, but generally good for the type of ambush defense and rear-area security envisioned for it. Engagement beyond 200 yards was unnecessary.

As with all plans during warfare, this one fell by the wayside too. Troops found value in the light weight, low recoil, and firepower of the Carbine. It was magazine loaded and had a high capacity of 15 rounds. Up close, it would poke 30 caliber holes quickly. It was easy to master and handy. The only major complaint was that it lacked stopping power. Often troops NEEDED them extra rounds.

The Army responded by adding a selective-fire capability to the little carbine and doubling the magazine capacity. This certainly increased the hit probablility at short range and turned the Carbine into a decent substitute for a Submachinegun. The Submachinegun in the form of the Grease Gun hit harder and was used in essentially the same manner as the M2. There was a great deal of crossover in these two guns but neither was a true Assault Rifle as the concept was devised in Germany and perfected in Russia and the USA with our M-16A1 and the Russian AK-47 and AKM.

 

[DMK]

This was a direct result of the Army's fear of "Blitzkrieg" tactics being used against our troops and finding bad guys behind our lines.

That's an interesting point. After reading about the confusion caused by tactics used in the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia in the book "No End save Victory", that statement makes a lot of sense.

 

[Dr.Rob]

And 'The Bulge' proved that US troops were ready for it.

 

[natedog]

Thanks for the corrections, guys.

Tony, do you cosider the M-16 and M-4 Carbines to be effective out to 300 yards? According to stats that I've seen, the M193 round will fragment out of a 20" barrel only out to 200 yards, and out of a 14.5" barrel will only fragment at 75 yards. Or does the 5.56mm not need to fragment to be considered "effective"?

 

[Tony Williams]

Interesting question. According to AR15.com, the M193 fragments out to 200 yards in the M16 with its 20" barrel, but only to 90-100 yards in the M4. The M855 similarly manages around 150 and 50 yards respectively.

There is no doubt that the 5.56x45 gains some extra effectiveness from the fragmentation, but they will still probably tumble out to 300 yards from either gun, so they're not exactly harmless.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[Correia]

It doesn't need to fragment to be effective, that is with me defining effective as putting a hole deep enough into your internal organs to kill you, incapacitate you, or otherwise ruin your day.

Does anyone have a picture of the Fedorov? I've heard about them for years, but I do not recollect ever seeing one.

The Italians also developed a intermediate caliber magazine fed rifle. I believe that it was only in prototype form early in WWII. I have no real information about the rifle, but I did get to see a speciman at the Berman collection in Anniston Alabama.

It would have been really interesting if the military had shown interest in the early Browning designed Remington autoloaders. With some tinkering, those could have turned into some really impressive early assault weapons.

 

[SDC]

Here's a pic for you: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ARavtomat.jpg

 

[grendelbane]

The carbine is the perfect example of a weapon becoming popular in spite of itself. Most of what is wrong with it is its cartridge. When used with Remington JHP's, (not an option for the military), it produces reasonably good results. I understand that a larger caliber cartridge was considered, but dropped. A 10 mm carbine cartridge would have been interesting, but would have started to get away from the concept of light and handy.

Personally, I think that if they wanted a carbine to issue instead of the pistol, they should have designed something more along the lines of a pistol caliber, semi-automatic, short barrel carbine. Imagine something along the lines of a 10" barrel Mech-Tech, with a stamped lower which would take 1911 magazines. Of course, everyone would have wanted to modify that into some kind of sub-machinegun.

Jeff Cooper's idea of a "Thumper" is good. I am trying to describe a "Thumper jr.".

 

[WilderBill]

The Fedorov looks a little like the SKS's daddy.
I like the M1 carbine and at least the idea of the M2.
I think they could have saved a lot of time, trouble, money and logistic confusion by designing a select fire M3 for support troops that would probably never use it anyway.

 

[Jim K]

The term "assault rifle" is a direct translation of the German "Sturmgewehr". The word "sturm" can mean "storm" or "assault", in the sense of "storming the fortress", or "taking the enemy by storm". The term was made "popular" in this country by importers of Chinese AK-47's who wanted to hype the guns and appeal to the "tactical" nut fringe who buy black nylon jock straps. Had the sellers been less eager to "push the edge" and called the rifles "plinking rifles" or "sporting rifles", a lot less grief would have resulted.

As to the definition of an assault rifle, the Federal law has already defined the term; let us not redefine and broaden it to let the anti-gun gang try to ban more rifles. There is already a movement to ban all semi-autos, let's not help them by calling the carbine an "assault rifle". And yes, they do monitor these sites and YOUR post could turn up in anti-gun propaganda.

Jim

 

[DMK]

I think they could have saved a lot of time, trouble, money and logistic confusion by designing a select fire M3 for support troops that would probably never use it anyway.

Actually, the M3 greasegun was very popular with rear area troops that could get their hands on them. In historical pics you see a lot of staff officers carrying them instead of M1 carbines, although sometimes they are carrying a 1911 on the hip also.

I wonder if the M3 had come along earlier, would the M1 carbine have even been fielded?