Weird Hypothetical Question: M1 Carbine

[Nightcrawler]

Band of Brothers has gotten me thinking about the M1 Carbine. I'd like one, just as a plinker and for getting new shooters into rifles.

Anyways, today, the current rage seems to be short AR-15 clone carbines, with all sorts of bells and whistles.

Well, let's say that everything is the same in the shooter culture, except it's 1954 instead of 2004. No AR-15.

You think the people that like the AR carbines would flock to the M1 Carbine? They're both short, light, have low recoil, and are service weapons (or derivatives thereof). I can just imagine Thunder Ranch's "carbine course" being run by a bunch of guys with M1s and M2s, with the one oddball with a hard-to-find STG-44 thrown in there. Some people would shorten them down to 12" barrels and put the folding stocks on them.

Just a random thought that passed through my head...wondering if it's the design of a weapon itself, or the qualities it has, that attracts shooters to it.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Hmm...I just thought of another thing the Carbine and the M16 line have in common. Controversy! Controversy over the weapons themselves and the cartridges they fire! Both have been the subjects of endless internet debate.

 

[hillbilly]

Uh, what do you think folks bought in the 1950s and 1960s when they looked for a light, semi-automatic rifle?

By the scores, I tell you, by the scores........

hillbilly

 

[Mulliga]

A lot of people really, really dig on the AR15/M16/5.56 NATO and love the M1 Carbine and its round. I sometimes wonder...

The .30 Carbine bullet is anemic compared to the 5.56 NATO - only has about 3/4 the ME and of course a much worse trajectory. It's definitely more a pistol round than a rifle round.

If the AR-15 is a mouse gun, than the .30 Carbine must be a roach gun.

Note : Not a dig on the M1 Carbine. Just a reality check. I'd like one myself.

 

[4v50 Gary]

We would have had the Johnson Spitfire barrel put on the carbine. That bayonet lug? Well, there would have been a flashlight adapter for it. Then again, it would have been those miserable C cells that didn't put out much light.

 

[slabsides]

In the late '50's or early '60's, around the time I got out of the service, the DCM (predecessor of the CMP) released thousands of refurbed and like-new M-1 carbines at a price somewhere around $24 plus shipping to NRA members. These were bought and traded frantically for several years, with interest being especially high on the West Coast as I recall; and almost every issue of the newstand gun-rags had an article on shooting, restoring and 'customizing' (Bubba-ising) these neat little guns. Thousands of them were sporterized, some beyond reason or recognition.
The carbine is argueably the ancestor of our popular present-day 'pistol-caliber' long guns. It might have made more sense in .375 caliber. While it was a marginal military weapon in .30 caliber, it was a great civilian plinker and small game/varmint piece if the ranges weren't too long. I had an Inland/Rockola example...it was the first centerfire shoulder rifle to which my sons graduated, following their .22 rimfire period. It's still a good transitional trainer, suburban or rural HD and all-around fun gun. Because of collector and historical interest, the cost of the carbine has risen out of proportion to its utility now, and a nice .357 Marlin carbine has taken the M-1's place in my gun rack.

 

[ksnecktieman]

I have an M1 carbine. I love it. BUT, it is not a battle rifle. When the US Army in Europe was being attacked behind the lines in WW2 and found out the cooks and clerks with .45s could not hit with their pistols they built the carbine for places where a battle rifle was just too cumbersome to be at hand. Can you imagine trying to carry a standard M1 rifle to the office, and to chow, and the latrine? The carbine is a fine substitute for a battle rifle, but in all honesty it is designed for close in (100 yards or less) defense.

Mine is a fun gun to shoot. It would be a fine one to teach a newby to shoot on. It would be great for close range defense, but it is NOT a battle rifle.

 

[DMK]

Well, let's say that everything is the same in the shooter culture, except it's 1954 instead of 2004. No AR-15.

You think the people that like the AR carbines would flock to the M1 Carbine?

Yes. I think the people that like the AR carbines would flock to the M1 Carbine. I just don't think there were as many of those folks around back then.

There was a different culture back then. We didn't see the soldiers slogging through the battles of Korea with their M1s on CNN and USA Today.com. We didn't have a culture that would succumb so easily to the Iwannacoolgun virus. Folks bought guns as tools. It was utilitarian.

Today, many folks buy AR carbiness (and AKs) for image. They like the look of the M4. They want guns that look evil. They like the modularity. They like the fact that you can bolt on a lot of toys and gizmos. I'll be the first to admit, it's one of the reasons I bought an AR. I love red dots and quick detach scope mounts.

In 1954, I'll bet a lot of M1 carbines were bought as plinkers and kids rifles. For more serious use, I'll bet 12 gauge shotguns were preferred as many still are today.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Yes. But an 11.5" barreled .223 weapon is hardly an ideal battle rifle either. Yet they're quite popular (not so much anymore, as the M4-lookalikes are all the rage now, with either 16" barrels or 14.5" barrels with long muzzle brakes).

Basically, though, during the time period, you choices for military style semiautos were the M1 Carbine and the M1 Garand. I'm theorizing that people who prefer AR carbines aren't usually (and I'm generalizing here) the types who like long, heavy battle rifles (ala the M1 Garand).

If you like light, short rifles not firing full-house cartridges, or like large box magazines, the M1 Carbine would almost certainly be a preferable choice to the Garand.

 

[FRIENDLY]

M1 CARBINE

People keep blaming the weapon for not being a stopper when the blame is to be put on the load.when using FMJ it will NOT stop the opponent quickly however when using civilian softpoint or hollowpoint ammuntion - whole different story. Imagine a SUPER .357 magnum pistol round in an easier weapon to fire accurately with 15/30 shot magazine.Then if you use the 5.57 spitfire round you nearly reach 5.56/.223 ballistics.

 

[Jeff Timm]

The carbine is still around, just look at the Ruger (TM) website, under 10/22 and variations.

Geoff
Who has had a 10/22 for a long time.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

People thought differently about guns back then. I grew up in an isolated rural area in the 1960s and 1970s, and hunting and target shooting were our primary forms of entertainment. Everyone had guns--they were just a part of life--but I can't recall ever hearing a discussion about ballistics of the stopping power of a given cartridge or about home defense. We would have thought all this talk was the goofiest stuff we had ever heard. The prospect of shooting human beings with our guns never crossed our minds. We wouldn't even talk about such things. We bought guns for other reasons. We knew what we needed for hunting different animals, like deer or rabbits or raccoons, and that's what we used.

We loved M1 carbines. Mostly we shot .22s. The M1 carbine was one of the few centerfire guns I shot on a regular basis.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I never wanted one until I handled one.

It's a shoulder fired 357 with a 15 shot magazine that weighs as much as a .22. You can carry a LOT of ammo.

That's pretty cool. No wonder paratroopers loved them.

And while it was designed to arm cooks, drivers and clerks, (in lieu of an expensive to produce 1911) the WW2 carbine was issued almost as much as the Garand. Watch ANY WW2 footage and the carbine is one the front line in every TO.

No it's not a deer rifle, but before the Germans created the STG 44 as an intermediate range rifle, we came up with the same solution.. to a different problem.

Ammo isn't cheap but a reloader could make the carbine sing, or zing.

Complaints about the carbine have been going on since it was introduced, much like the .223/5.56.

 

[Devonai]

I have both the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. Both are at Fulton Armory right now, the former for a new barrel and the latter for a new bolt. I miss them so much

The maximum range I have fired my Carbine is 225 meters. I could keep the shots in an 18" square every time with virtually no effort. I have a lot of confidence in the accuracy of my Carbine, but not a lot of confidence in the energy past 100 meters.

The Carbine is a fun rifle, and handy for those days out at the campsite I just don't feel like lugging around my Garand. But my Garand gets the nod in all other circumstances.

 

[johnc522]

the M1 carbine and Audie Murphy

I'm not sure where I read this, but I saw a web posting recently which claimed that Audie Murphy preferred the carbine to the Garand, citing its lighter weight. I haven't yet had the chance to fire the carbine, but I would sure love to try it.

 

[VG]

I have a nice NPM Carbine with most of the postwar mods, and I think most of the bad rap is due to people shooting worn-out imports and internet inertia.

First time I shot it at 100 yards (after starting at 50 because it was so innaccurate...) first three shots were, 9,9,10.

From "Shots Fired in Anger" by LTC (then LT) John George, a rifle champion who fought on Quadalcanal and then in Merrill's Marauders . The Marauders walked 800 miles through jungles and mountains to attack behind Japanese lines, wreaking havoc.

....The standard Japanese bullet-proof vest, which would not even slow down a carbine bullet, stopped .45 slugs cold, whether fired from pistols or Tommy guns.

...The advent of the carbine later on in the war eliminated, in my opinion, the last need for a Tommy gun. The carbine made a much more accurate offensive weapon, and a much quicker pointing and more accurate defensive weapon. The lighter weight and greater penetrating power of the .30 caliber carbine catridge increased this superiority even more."

Pages 395-396.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

As much as I enjoyed the M1 carbine for plinking on my dad's farm, when I watch "Band of Brothers," it's clear that in open combat situations like the troops were facing in Europe the M1 Garand was the best choice of the weapons available.

 

[M2 Carbine]

"johnc522
Audie Murphy preferred the carbine to the Garand "


John, I also remember seeing this statement from an interview with Audie Murphy. (don't remember where I saw it)
To me that says a lot because there's only one "most highly decorated soldier in WW2".
If he doesn't know the combat rifle business, who does.


I like the rifle.
Trying to compare it to something else is a waste of time.
It is what it is.
Like it or don't, buy it or don't.

I've got nine of them, including a 5.7 Johnson and M2.

The 5.7 "factory load" is a 40 gr Hornet bullet doing 3000 FPS.
I've chronographed my reloads and 3000 FPS is a fact.

The 5.7 round also makes a smooth operating M2.

In the early 60's something over 300,000 M1 Carbines were sold to NRA Members for $20.
That's the most I paid and it was used.
The new Springfield 03A3 & A4's were $14.50 and new ITB 1911A1's were $17.
I still have mine.

I was issued the M1 Garand in 1956 (have 2 now) and like has been said, I would rather use it to fire shots in anger than the Carbine.

Although all my cars are equipped with M1 Carbines.