M1 carbine

[Tony50ae]

I have an auto ordnance made m1 carbine. Though not the "real deal" I find it a nice little carbine for what it is. It shoots accurate and functions well. I had it out of the safe the other day though and thought about although how it started out as a replacement for the 1911 for rear echelon troops, they did make a foldable buttstock one for paratroopers.

It seems that they got away from the original intent and started using it for frontline use. We all know that the 30 carbine round is underpowered for that role. But really how underpowered is it? I think if they designed the round with a 115 grain bullet instead of 110 and got the velocity up another 150 to 200 feet per second I think the round would be perfect for short frontline use.

The carbine wouldn't have to have been built much differently than it was to handle the power increase. True, it wouldn't be as powerful as the garand but better than it was, and a good weaopn for paratroopers. What do you all think?

 

[tyeo098]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=406258

 

[mac66]

Certainly the idea of a light weight carbine had it's merits back in the day. However it is kind of a moot point since the transition to the M16 and the 5.56 cartridge back in the early 1960s made the M1 carbine and round obsolete.

 

[amd6547]

I doubt that 5gns and 150FPS would have made much difference.
The 30 carbine round performed excellently for most of it's service. While Audie Murphy was known to have used the Garand and the thompson as well, the M1 carbine was his favorite...he liked his personal carbine so much that when he cracked the stock, he refused a replacement, and wired it together himself.

 

[rondog]

There's a helluva lot of dead German, Japanese, Chinese, N. Korean, and N. Vietnamese men, probably several other nationalities too, that would argue with you about the "underpowered" aspect of the .30 carbine round.

 

[JFrame]

I doubt that 5gns and 150FPS would have made much difference.
The 30 carbine round performed excellently for most of it's service. While Audie Murphy was known to have used the Garand and the thompson as well, the M1 carbine was his favorite...he liked his personal carbine so much that when he cracked the stock, he refused a replacement, and wired it together himself.

IIRC, stake-out squad legend Jim Cirillo also rated the M-1 carbine the stand-out performer of all the weapons he used in his multitude of shoot-outs, surprisingly rating it higher even than the 12-gauge shotgun for effectiveness.


.

 

[Tommygunn]

It's been my belief that the .30 carbine round performed well when the carbine was used for its intended purpose. A close quarters or "PDW" type of role. It suffered when soldiers wound up having to use it at long distances, which were better suited to the Garand. The carbine round was not powerful enough at those distances to be as effective as it needed to be.

 

[Cougar]

.30 Carbine round is approximately equal to a .38Spl in stopping power. Shot placement is the key. The .30Carb could do that at 100-200yds.

 

[rcmodel]

I'd have to disagree with that, but I can't prove it.

How is a 30 cal bullet with 1,900 FPS / 880 ft/lb's energy equal to a .38 cal bullet with 850 FPS / 208 ft/lbs energy?

Hole sizes not withstanding, the .30 Carbine comes much closer to .357 Magnum performance then .38 Special.
In fact, even then, the .30 Carbine is faster, and produces more energy then any .357 magnum load.

Throw in expanding bullets for civilian use and you got yourself a pretty good stopper I betcha.
Especially when you consider the 15 & 30 round mags.
No revolver has that much stopping power!!

rc

 

[carbine85]

The real solution was the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire, however the .30 M1 Carbine still kicks ass.

 

[SaxonPig]

I think the 30C is adequate for close range anti-personnel use. If I were a soldier in WWII this is the gun I would want to have. The Thompson is all cool and everything, but heavy. The Garand is powerful and accurate, but again, it's heavy and 8 rounds followed by a complicated (for me) reload under combat conditions is out of the question.

The Carbine is light and handy with detachable magazines in 15 and 30 round capacities. More ammo could be packed for the same weight of the '06 or 45 ACP. The Carbine is what I would take. If the enemy is 400 yards away call for mortar fire.

 

[mljdeckard]

I am currently training my wife to grab and use the old M-1 carbine as her primary arm. Even if you debate whether or not the round is as effective as similar pistol rounds out of short barrels, it's difficult to say you can put as many of them center of mass as quickly and easily as you can with the M-1.

Back in the day, by dad killed two deer with it in the same day. I wouldn't use it for big game, but it can certainly be done.

 

[Husker_Fan]

If I did the math right, a standard .30 Carbine round has 90% of the energy and 133% of the momentum of a .223/5.56, at the muzzle. Yeah, it's sectional density is low and it loses those numbers with distance. Inside 100 or 150 yards, though, I doubt it will make much of a difference.

 

[Cougar]

Don't get me wrong, I love the .30Carbine - in fact I have two of them and a Ruger Blackhawk in .30Carb!

 

[Tony50ae]

Rondog,

When I meant underpowered, I meant for serious frontline use. Inside of 150 meters the 30 carbine was decent. But if they had made the round just a bit more powerful to reach out effectively say to 200-250 meters, I think it would have been the ideal weapon for paratroopers back then. But the way it is now its still a decent round for close up work.

I consider the carbine an excellent long arm for my wife as its the only long arm outside a 22 magnum lever action rifle she can handle that I own. That is till I get my ar15

 

[rondog]

I have one set up just like this that I keep ready for H/D, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to run up against it. It works very well with a red-dot sight and Ultimak rail.

 

[USAMP1980]

I too love the M-1 Carbine for historical reasons and use to own a newer Auto Ordinance one... but I'd half the agree that the M-4 (AR-15) has made it obsolete. Similar in cost, weight and round capacity, the AR is far for versitle and accurate. AR s can be chambered 6.8, 6.5, 7.62 Soviet, .300 BLK, and many other man-stopping rounds.

 

[Justin]

The real solution was the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire, however the .30 M1 Carbine still kicks ass.

After reading this post, I've just spent the last twenty minutes reading up on the 5.7 Johnson Spitfire and other .22 M1 Carbine conversions.

I literally had no idea that there had been a movement of Wildcatters who created a number of different .22 Wildcat rounds for these guns. If you hadn't mentioned it, I would have remained ignorant about these guns.

 

[NG VI]

Justin, what's your take on those different .224 Carbine-based cartridges?

 

[memphisjim]

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=16086
this has been posted before, but it shows the army proving effectiveness of the 1911, m1 carbine,and the garand

 

[SwissArmyDad]

What do people think of the Iver-Johnson carbines? I found a pre-1986-7 model at my LGS.

(not sure of the cutoff, but from what I gather, it was produced before the quality control issues)

 

[Justin]

Justin, what's your take on those different .224 Carbine-based cartridges?

Mostly, it's just kind of fascinating.

I have to say, part of me wants to draw a parallel between the development of .22 Wildcat M1 Carbines and the development of the M-16/AR-15.

While I doubt that the actual history is so clear cut, it seems almost sort of like there were two different groups of people working on creating light, handy, center fire .22 carbines in about the same time frame, but approaching it from completely different starting points, with the M1 Carbine conversions ultimately losing out to the AR platform for various reasons.

Some of the guys here who actually remember these guns being on the market, or have experience with them could probably offer more insight, but from my cursory reading of what's available on the web, it looks like these cartridges could be described as ".223 lite." The bullets used seem to be smaller (40 grain bullets are mentioned a lot) and the velocities are less than you'd see with .223, but overall I can't help but think that such a cartridge chambered in an M1 Carbine would make for a neat little shooter for hitting targets out to about 200 or so yards.

That said, everything I've posted is mostly just idle speculation from poking around on Google for a bit.

 

[NG VI]

I've read about them a little, probably not much more than you, maybe less, but they do strike me as a neat way to get a little more useful range out of the carbine for recreational shooting. I'm always interested in alternate calibers for guns, they usually have an interesting backstory or purpose for existing.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

What do people think of the Iver-Johnson carbines? I found a pre-1986-7 model at my LGS.

I had one in the early 1980s. The bolt was improperly heat treated so the locking lugs started to peen. I had to send it back to the factory for a new bolt. I had less than 1K rounds through it.

You'd be better off getting a USGI Carbine.

 

[Vaarok]

I have to say, part of me wants to draw a parallel between the development of .22 Wildcat M1 Carbines and the development of the M-16/AR-15.

Um, 5.7 Johnson Spitfire was created by Melvin Maynard Johnson. Melvin Maynard Johnson of Project Salvo. The same guy who invented the Johnson Rifle and the M-1941 Johnson LMG- the first US produced firearm to combine all the modern features of an "assault rifle", including the raised sightline and pistol grip. And whose bolt and barrel extension lug arrangement ArmaLite used in conjunction with their aluminum receiver and a gas-blowback system borrowed from the MAS-49 to create the AR-10 and later the M-16.

It's no coincidence.

And interestingly, Carbine Williams and Melvin Johnson HATED each other. To the point they couldn't be in the same room despite working in the same building for the same company after the war.