M1 Carbine vs. Everything Else

[Ironicaintit]

I love my Winchester carbine. It suits my style better, and just feels right.

I enjoy my AR too, but.....they are the Honda Civic of the firearm world, sort of. I use it, I can run it and know how to work on it...but it just doesn't reel me in like the M1.

I think the ARs simplicity and Lego style build-ability is part of its mass appeal.
I know quite a few people who have like 1 or 2 guns....an AR and a pistol (usually a glock).

They aren't my choice, but I surely am not going to knock a capable, battle proven platform, that has successfully kept the vast majority of citizens armed.
That's the point, right? That every man be armed? Eugene stoners baby is filling that role well!

If the doodie ever hits the fan, I'll grab my AR....lots and lots of spare parts floating around, and everybody and their uncle has 223.

 

[Snowdog]

I do very much like the M1 Carbine and there's plenty it can do. Unless you have a pride of lion jumping through your window, the M1 Carbine will take care of you.

 

[Mr_Flintstone]

I'm relatively new here, and admittedly less knowledgable in many situations than several of you guys, but I'm going to throw in my two cents anyway. It seems to me like some of you are arguing two different things. The thread starts with the M1 carbine being touted as a good home defense weapon; then the discussion shifts to the AR being better at long range shooting and hunting. Well, your both right. Accept it and move on.

During a home invasion, which gun am I going to use??? The first one I can get my hands on. When I'm long range shooting, I'll probably choose my 8mm Mauser. If I'm deer hunting, I might use a 30-30. If I'm fighting a war, I'll use what they issue me. If I'm defending my home from the government, then I'm probably screwed anyway because they'll have tanks, helicopters, snipers, and other things that far outclass me. My point is that there will rarely be a one size fits all weapon that works best for every situation. The fact that a Thompson can shoot 600 rounds per minute has nothing to do with whether a 1911 is a good pistol (even if they do use the same round).

 

[GooseGestapo]

I've got three AR's, owned several more. Also have a 1943 Saginaw M1 Carbine that was obviously rebuilt circa 1950's.

The AR' s are soulless compared to the Carbine. With a little tweaking per the sticky on the CMP web site, I shot 10th place at the Talladega 600 carbine match, and "yanked" two "0"'s for my first two shots off hand. "nerves"! It's ~2.5moa with match grade ammo. It's just a darling with personality. Like a Labrador retriever waitng for you to come home, holding your slippers in its mouth.

After owning two Carbines (a Plainfield- not legal for matches- and the Saginaw); I can unequivocally say the Carbines problems were mostly ammo related. And, being compared side by side to the M1 Garand.
Apples to oranges if there ever were a such s thing.

 

[md7]

I prefer a basic, 16" AR with collapsible stock. Throw a light and sling on it and I feel that it's serviceable for me. That'll be enough to get by as a general purpose carbine at the ranges I'd need around my land. With a railed upper receiver I can easily add an rds or scope if needed/wanted later on. Nice option to have as my eye sight worsens.

That ammo, mags, and parts are available locally and are reasonably priced are nice perks.

To each his own. Make mine an AR.

 

[Captain O]

The .375 H&H folks don't seem to be all that concerned about perceived recoil. And, odds are, beyond a few shots for sight-in, their use is in the field where recoil is generally little noticed.

My father's bring-back Carbine shoots just fine. For the relatively near distances for self-defense at home? Probably as useful as any other long gun. So's my AR, though. And I gotta say that I've had no difficulty in maneuvering a 12-gauge around the house.

My fan-boy-itis has to do with my desired results, not the tool. I'm more concerned with skill and accuracy than a particular weapon or cartridge.

Funny: I was stationed at Inchon in 1955. Occupation duty. I was the only guy in the whole battalion who thought it was fun to "liberate" a 600-round can of Carbine ammo and go plinking on the beach with my M2. Rough on seagulls and seashells.

Boy, you certainly know how to irritate the local populace, don't you? I'll bet the Koreans loved that "offhand target practice", didn't they? I'd be willing to wager that you burned through 600 rounds in short order, didn't you?

I don't hate the AR-15. I have just tired of hearing about every "whiz-bang" alteration, iteration or "improvement" associated with it. Every time I have opened a "gunzine" for nearly 50 years has touted some new and fabulous development for the AR-15 or M16. After a while, it all began to run together, becoming a screaming, crashing bore. I began to analyze the attributes of the 5.56 x 45 and realized that what I needed couldn't be found in the 5.56. It stopped generating any "fascination" at all. IMHO, the "gunzines" were "ramming it down my throat". I gagged, vomited and grew more resistant with each and every passing day. It may be popular with the preponderance of the shooting community, but it never held my interest.

Enjoy the AR-15 and the M4. I have no objection. Just don't ask my opinion, because I don't have one you want to hear.

 

[Nuclear]

Where to start? Yes, the AR is less expensive than the M1 Carbine. But one as light as an M1 is not. Is the AR going to be louder than the M1? A lot. Is the AR with the right ammo going to penetrate fewer walls than the 30 Carbine with the right ammo? Maybe. But it will still go through interior walls if you miss your target. Are both effective with the right ammo? Yep. Are both reliable with proper maintence and magazines? Yes. Can you hang more crap off an AR? Yes. But other than a red dot, which you can mount on an M1, you don't need the rest, not even a flashlight. If I'm going varmint hunting or punching paper, I'll take an AR. Anything bigger requires a bigger caliber. If I didn't already have an M1 and a 45acp, I might even be interested in the 300 Blackout.

 

[ugaarguy]

Enjoy the AR-15 and the M4. I have no objection. Just don't ask my opinion,

Then treat others with the same respect. Quit bashing rifles like ARs every chance you get, which has dragged several M1 carbine threads off topic and caused them to be locked. If you keep posting disproven false assumptions about ARs you can expect to keep getting corrected.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I prefer my mini 14 over both the M1 and the AR. Why ? Because it was bought and paid for 26 years ago. And for all the use I have for a weak semi auto it does just fine.

 

[Captain O]

Then treat others with the same respect. Quit bashing rifles like ARs every chance you get, which has dragged several M1 carbine threads off topic and caused them to be locked. If you keep posting disproven false assumptions about ARs you can expect to keep getting corrected.

If you pay close attention, I don't interject in any AR threads for that very reason. I just don't care.

 

[Quentin]

The United States has been extremely fortunate to have several great semiauto rifles over the last 75 years. Most were the best in the world in their heyday.

I love both the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine but never got around to owning one probably because in 1966-69 I was issued the next generation M14 and M16 so later got civilian versions instead.

My 16" pencil barrel AR build comes in right about 6 pounds empty. With a 20 round magazine it's not much heavier or more cumbersome than the M1 Carbine. But it's certainly more reliable than most M1 Carbines you can find at the same price.

I think we all have a good idea why the Air Force in the early 1960s wanted to dump their old M1 Carbines for the AR-15! And today most people who work with the AR grow to appreciate its advantages. That doesn't mean you have to dump everything else. You're allowed to have several good tools in the shed!

 

[ugaarguy]

If you pay close attention, I don't interject in any AR threads for that very reason. I just don't care.

But you do turn every M1 Carbine thread into an AR bashing thread. You claim that you don't care, but your actions demonstrate that you do.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I'm sorry, but I must agree with John Cooper. He had no use for it either. Shoot it if you like, but I have other rifles that shoot at longer distances with a more effective projectile.

As far as the .375 H&H Magnum is concerned, I like my teeth and nervous system. It is pointless to subject them to excessive recoil without expectation of enhanced performance. The .30-'06 has been proven to kill anything on the North American Continent. Any caliber used on this beyond it appears to compensate for a lack of either hunting skills or marksmanship. If you are on the "Dark Continent" it is an entirely different circumstance.

By any chance are you hunting in either Africa or Asia?

And your Alaska hunting credentials are what exactly? Let me tell you mine, 20 years of hunting every thing this state has to offer. And I used a 30-06 for many of them. It worked OK, but I found it marginal on big moose. And my closest shot on a moose was 20 yards, so I think my "hunting skills" are OK.
Marksmanship? You be the judge but I have shot, and never lost, many caribou out to 300 yards.
So I switched to a .375 on moose and bear, and a .300 WBY for sheep and caribou. Best tool in the drawer for me.
But I guess my nervous system is stronger than your's.

 

[Robert]

If you can shoot a 12ga with heavy field loads you can shoot my 375H&H. In fact the 375H&H is down right pleasant to shoot. I can light load with cast bullets for plinking or hunting at 30-06 levels or I can load full power 300gr solids and hunt anything up to elephants. Thought it is a bit light for that.

Most people have never even seen a 375H&H let alone shot one so the have no idea what they are talking about when they reference excessive recoil or meat destruction on game animals. I hunt elk in Colorado but have only had this rifle for a couple of years so I have not taken one with this rifle. However, proper bullet choice and a good stock make for a world class rifle. I push a 270gr bullet to the same poi at 300y as a 180gr 30-06. Let that sink in.

Any caliber used on this beyond it appears to compensate for a lack of either hunting skills or marksmanship.

Using my Win M70 375H&H from a seated position with my elbows on my knees, butt in the dirt, I can put all three rounds in an area the size of the palm of my hand at 500y. Can you? I can bit a torso sized target center of mass at 600y with an AR using a range bag for a rest ad a 4x ACOG for optics. Can you? I can ring steel all day long at 400y with my iron sighted FAL. Can you? Point being, do not take my personal choice of calibers for anything other than me choosing what works best for me.

Or maybe I should ask if you think all of the hunters that use 7mm mag, or 300 mag or 338 mag are somehow compensating for their poor marksmenship and hunting skills...

 

[agtman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain O * * *
As far as the .375 H&H Magnum is concerned, I like my teeth and nervous system. It is pointless to subject them to excessive recoil without expectation of enhanced performance. The .30-'06 has been proven to kill anything on the North American Continent. Any caliber used on this beyond it appears to compensate for a lack of either hunting skills or marksmanship.* * *

And your Alaska hunting credentials are what exactly?
Let me tell you mine, 20 years of hunting every thing this state has to offer. And I used a 30-06 for many of them. It worked OK, but I found it marginal on big moose. And my closest shot on a moose was 20 yards, so I think my "hunting skills" are OK.
Marksmanship? You be the judge but I have shot, and never lost, many caribou out to 300 yards. So I switched to a .375 on moose and bear, and a .300 WBY for sheep and caribou. Best tool in the drawer for me. But I guess my nervous system is stronger than your's.

<deleted>

If anything, the .375H&H, up in Alaska, is more useful and versatile than the 30.06. The .375 will take anything the '06 could take without worry and then go well beyond it to cleanly take moose, caribou, elk, and certainly to put down any of the big dangerous bruins.

While there are a wide variety of high-quality factory loads available for the old .375, an additional plus to its versatility is how it really shines when you handload for it. Not only is it a very forgiving cartridge for reloaders, but the huge range of bullet-weights available also means you can download it to pussycat velocities using 200gn-210gn SP bullets for taking midwest white tail deer.

The .375's alleged "teeth-shaking" recoil with standard magnum loads has always been exaggerated, but in diluted form you'll have zero recoil issues, and there's less damage to eatable meat on impact than with the hyper-magnums some guys use in the lower 48.

BRNO 602 - .375H&H.

 

[Tirod]

ALL GUNS ARE SOULESS. Claiming one has some kind of inherent spirituality is blatant superstition.

If someone wants to revere a gun that much, I question any ability to logically compare it to another. Imbuing the gun with a soul is the kind of primitive tribalistic claptrap I hear spouted from Harley owners - and a lot of others.

It's just a collection of bits of metal held together by ingenuity. The M1 carbine is also a snap shot of weapons technology from a long gone era, when tradition and conventional manufacturing were limited in what was accepted. It's underpowered and was summarily rejected for further use by the military once the M16 was introduced.

I built one that weighs 5.5 pounds and is under 26", and it has higher capacity for less money than most carbines. On a dollar basis it's far more effective and cheaper to assemble, doesn't require highly trained gunsmiths to work on it, and much of that can be done by the owner. Again - I built it. All the parts less receiver were shipped to my home and it cost less than $500. It shoots fine and holds 2MOA, with a 10.5" barrel has over 1,000 foot pounds out past 80 m, and is legal to carry concealed in my state OR openly on the street loaded. A "rifle," no. Sorry.

Nothing wrong with choosing a vintage weapon despite its shortcomings and cherishing some imaginary ability, but the reality is that AR's with 10.5" barrels have been doing the close range work since the XM177 was adopted in 1965. By then the carbine was already being taken out of service. XM's were used in CQB, urban warfare, and on special missions precisely because the M1 Carbine couldn't measure up. At best it was saddled with a primitive night vision scope but few issued.

XM177's are the basis for the Mk18/CQB weapons still in use 51 years later - in the hands of special forces, shipboarding teams, and security troops. An underpowered under capacity firearm with exposed bolt, operating rod and handle that jam the action, metal parts prone to rust and corrosion, a gas system inordinately primitive requireing major disassembly to clean, wood furniture prone to weathering and cracking, and ammunition that is far out of the mainstream in logistical supply increasing their burdon to handle it is no great gun to have at all.

It is, by age alone, a curio and relic of past ages. Nobody uses them in any official capacity - except the anti gun French government, who seem to be enamored of the Mini 14. At least it uses 5.56.

Claiming the M1 carbine is a weapon fully capable of self defense when the military moved to the XM177 50 years ago is, arguably, saying the M14 is superior to the M16. The facts are out on the table and it's more than obvious to most that the notion is pure fantasy. Collectively professionals dumped those guns after a short lived time mostly based on economic necessity - not because they were superior. Most of the advanced projects of the Western Hemisphere were already studying reduced caliber weapons long before the war, and the power thresholds they were will to accept were above what the M1 carbine provides. That is what they eventually adopted, too.

Sorry, nope, the Carbine isn't a ready for prime time player, and in fact hasn't been on the world stage for half a century. They were popular in the late '70s when you could still find an M2 at gun shows but the dream dissipated as the AR remained in service and became available to the average shooter. The current interest is by traditional collectors who understand the remaining supplies are rapidly diminishing - not by special teams who need them for operations. The Mk18/CQB does that and is what has been issued for a very long time now.

 

[Skribs]

I think part of the problem with comparing to an AR-15 is, as ugaar has said, what configuration? You can build the AR-15 into an enormous number of possible setups for better handling or accuracy, for cheaper or more expensive. Where the M-1 carbine excels, the AR-15 can excel as well. I'm pretty sure an SBR 300 Blackout could easily weigh less and have better maneuvering room than a M-1.

You run into another issue when trying to compare to an AR-15: the popularity of the AR-15 makes it better. I'm not saying "lots of people have one, so it's obviously better." I'm saying you have hundreds of companies competing to make the best one, thousands of companies making aftermarket parts, and it's probably the semi-automatic rifle that gunsmiths have the most familiarity with. Competition breeds success, and familiarity means you have a much easier time finding help with it.

Personally, I'd rather have a pistol grip, a red dot, an adjustable stock, options in what kind of magazines I use, and an attached flashlight than have something that weighs a pound less.

 

[X-Rap]

Why does it take $1200-$1500 to build a gun that shares the basic design of a Mini 14 but is smaller and operates at lower pressure?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[chicharrones]

You run into another issue when trying to compare to an AR-15: the popularity of the AR-15 makes it better. I'm not saying "lots of people have one, so it's obviously better." I'm saying you have hundreds of companies competing to make the best one, thousands of companies making aftermarket parts, and it's probably the semi-automatic rifle that gunsmiths have the most familiarity with. Competition breeds success, and familiarity means you have a much easier time finding help with it.

Good point.

Personally, I'd rather have a pistol grip, a red dot, an adjustable stock, options in what kind of magazines I use, and an attached flashlight than have something that weighs a pound less.

I don't have an M1 Carbine, but I sure would like something similar to this.

Pistol Grip - check
Folding Stock - gray area, but check for me
Red Dot - check
A pound less - probably not in this configuration, but check for me anyway

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/0118160932b2.jpg
from - http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ring-reproduction-m1-carbines-kahr-vs-inland/

 

[minutemen1776]

ALL GUNS ARE SOULESS. Claiming one has some kind of inherent spirituality is blatant superstition.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. All this bunk about guns having "souls" makes me want to . To me, it is a hallmark of an ultimate fanboy, and a person who simply cannot bring any logic or reason to the discussion.

Personally, I LOVE old milsurp guns, especially those from WW2. I've owned, used, and appreciated the M1 Carbine. However, based solely on my own experience, I've found the ergos, accuracy, and reliability of my M4-type AR15 carbines to be consistently superior to those of the M1 Carbine. Of course, what works well for me does not decide the issue for everyone. But, when I reach for a practical fighting carbine, I will take an AR first.

 

[Llama Bob]

Why does it take $1200-$1500 to build a gun that shares the basic design of a Mini 14 but is smaller and operates at lower pressure?

Lack of volume is the primary issue.

 

[badkarmamib]

"Of course, what works well for me does not decide the issue for everyone."

THANK you. If this were not the case, there would be matchlocks for everyone. Innovation drives the market. When there is something new, you either like it, or prefer the old way. Old is not necessarily outdated. I have my AR15 set up the exact way I want it, and it shoots good FOR ME. I have handled Mini-14s and M1s, and didn't care for the way they handled IN MY HANDS. If they fit you, and do what you need them to, kudos to you. But there will never be one gun that does everything for everybody. Like what you like, try new ones whenever you have the chance, and enjoy variety when it works for you.

 

[X-Rap]

I'd agree but I've seen recent posts claiming steel treatments of the better Carbines to be what sets them apart from the cheaper $600-800 variety.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Llama Bob]

I'd agree but I've seen recent posts claiming steel treatments of the better Carbines to be what sets them apart from the cheaper $600-800 variety.

Much of the cost of a high end M1 is in the small parts and the assembly labor. You can buy a very nice barreled action for $700.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/fulton-armory-m1-carbine-barreled-action-stripped.aspx

You do need to add a trigger housing though.

 

[X-Rap]

Looks like the way to go for a fella that had to have a new one. My grandad got a nice one back in 1963 that is all I'll ever want.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk