What was the ubiquitous carbine before the AR15?

[Coyote3855]

I grew up on a ranch in eastern Colorado. My dad had a Winchester rifle and carbine, both in .25-35. I was something of a gun nut kid, but never saw an M1 Carbine. My buddy had an Enfield Jungle Carbine that kicked like hell and had a wandering zero. Winchesters were more popular than Marlins. So my vote for carbine of the millennium is the Winchester 94.

 

[Swampman]

I don't think that there's really anything in US firearms history to compare with the current AR craze. That's why there isn't another weapon that would have been as "ubiquitous" in its time.

A goodly percentage of the "modern sporting rifles" out there were acquired because people looked at how the political winds were blowing and decided to get an AR before they were banned.

The '94 AWB was one log on the fire, the election of Obama in '08 fanned the flames like a napalm strike. Every Hellbound idiot that shot up a school or church made it even worse.

People that had never even owned or fired a gun were buying up AR's, ammo and magazines as fast as they could be made. Manufacturers increased production to meet demand and eventually prices started to fall, this caused even more people to buy and it's still going on today.

There hasn't been another weapon in US history that's had its sales inflated so much by the very people who are trying so hard to do away with it.

AR's have been available for a long time. I got my first one for $297 at a White's Home and Auto store back in 1978. It had been sitting on the shelf for six months before I bought it, AR's just weren't a thing many people wanted back then.

They didn't become sought after and "ubiquitous" until political types tried to take them away.

 

[kb308]

I've heard that before the 1934 NFA, the Thompson sub-machine gun was popular in the civilian market. Otherwise the M1 carbine, Garand or Winchester '94..

Really?? Very cool. I figured the Thompson to have been prohibitively expensive for mass civilian sales, but maybe it was quite popular. I'd have one if I could (Expense)!

 

[kb308]

In my little part of the world, the Marlin 336 or Winchester 94 were the ubiquitous carbine.

I'm not sure why exactly (though I do prefer it, and it was the "heavy" rifle I was raised on), but here in North Alabama the Marlin 336 seems to be FAR more popular than the Winchester 94's.
↑
I believe this trend is largely caused by the trend in driving purpose for firearm ownership. A couple generations ago, most folks owned firearms for hunting. Today, most folks own firearms for the sake of owning firearms - as such, the type of firearms changed over those years.
I think you win sir...

 

[kb308]

Please delete, my apologies.

 

[MistWolf]

Prior to the AR, the Winchester 30-30 was the ubiquitous carbine, hands down. Many gun articles were written to arrest to that fact. Everybody knew that the Winchester was the gun that soon the West and everybody knew what a 30-30 was. Many writers penned that, for all the power of the latest caliber, more deer have been killed every year by the 30-30 than any other caliber.

The lever action rifle was by no means just a hunting rifle. More lawmen carried lever actions than any other rifle. Just about every prison was guarded by an arsenal of Winchester 30-30s. Almost every Western ever made shows lever action rifles. The lever action was the working man's rifle. In many places, it still is.

As numerous the SKS and AK are in the United States, they have never been "bread and butter" carbines. Curios, exotic, strange, reviled, yes. Ubiquitous, never. The lever action was America's Rifle before passing the title to the AR

 

[Tommygunn]

Really?? Very cool. I figured the Thompson to have been prohibitively expensive for mass civilian sales, but maybe it was quite popular. I'd have one if I could (Expense)!

Well, unfortunatly, the Thompson was a commercial failure. You figured right about the expense -- at $200.00 apiece the gun would not sell as in those days that was an astronomical price for a gun few thought practical.
WW2 saved the Thompson from historical oblivion.

 

[kb308]

Well, unfortunatly, the Thompson was a commercial failure. You figured right about the expense -- at $200.00 apiece the gun would not sell as in those days that was an astronomical price for a gun few thought practical.
WW2 saved the Thompson from historical oblivion.

Thanks for your reply. This makes more sense. I believe I remember "hearing on History Channel" (yikes, LOL) that they cost the U.S. Army about ~$300ish. Maybe in the 40's the price rose a bit, or maybe the History Channel was as wrong as it often is, hahaha.

I can confidently say this, (although it may get boos and anger from the crowd), that after having fired both the Thompson and the MP-40, the MP-40 was what I preferred by a long shot. The Thompson just has that weird (to me) looooong butt-stock clearance and it just doesn't feel right, especially with the really fast cyclic rate.

 

[PowerG]

In the early 1970's the 336 seemed to become more commonplace than the Winchester, I think the scope mounting advantage of the Marlin may have had something to do with that. There were M1 Carbines and Ruger .44's floating around but much less common. Each hunter (we hunted deer with dogs back in those days) usually had a shotgun, one of these rifles, and a pistol with him or in the truck while hunting.

 

[HoosierQ]

This was it!

 

[DMK]

Thanks for your reply. This makes more sense. I believe I remember "hearing on History Channel" (yikes, LOL) that they cost the U.S. Army about ~$300ish. Maybe in the 40's the price rose a bit, or maybe the History Channel was as wrong as it often is, hahaha.

It's my understanding that the US Army was paying $160ish per (though I don't know whether that was the simplified M1A1 or the earlier M1928). To put that in perspective, the M1919 Browning light machine gun cost the Army $50 per.

 

[DeepSouth]

I don't think there was one, It's kind of like asking what was the car that everyone had before the Model T. Sure there were cars out there, but nothing was the "go to." Obviously the analogy falls apart on several points, but I think both were similar in effect of popularity in the general population of the US.

After the implementation of the AWB the AR, like the Model T, started a trend that didn't exist in mass before, but isn't going away anytime soon.

And for what it's worth, I don't even like the AR platform but there's no denying it was a trend setter.

 

[kb308]

It's my understanding that the US Army was paying $160ish per (though I don't know whether that was the simplified M1A1 or the earlier M1928). To put that in perspective, the M1919 Browning light machine gun cost the Army $50 per.

Wow, so the light machine gun (1919) cost 1/3?!!!?!?! the cost of a submachine gun... They must have really really seen that the Germans had a good idea in placing a sub gun in the hands of the squads to pay such an overwhelming cost. (Of course looking back it all makes sense to have had a guy or two per squad carrying something so formidable for close range work).

Sorry guys, I realize I'm getting off the track of this thread, I'm done

 

[MistWolf]

I don't think there was one, It's kind of like asking what was the car that everyone had before the Model T. Sure there were cars out there, but nothing was the "go to." Obviously the analogy falls apart on several points, but I think both were similar in effect of popularity in the general population of the US.

After the implementation of the AWB the AR, like the Model T, started a trend that didn't exist in mass before, but isn't going away anytime soon.

And for what it's worth, I don't even like the AR platform but there's no denying it was a trend setter.

There were mass produced carbines long before the AR came along. Study history and you'll see that in its time the lever action carbine was everywhere. The AR simply picks up where the lever action left off

 

[DMK]

Wow, so the light machine gun (1919) cost 1/3?!!!?!?! the cost of a submachine gun... They must have really really seen that the Germans had a good idea in placing a sub gun in the hands of the squads to pay such an overwhelming cost. (Of course looking back it all makes sense to have had a guy or two per squad carrying something so formidable for close range work).

The Army had learned the lessons of WWI trench warfare and wanted something with substantial close range fire power for an individual soldier.The problem was, there wasn't anything that worked as well as the Thompson during the between the wars period. The Army tested many prototype replacements and failed them all. The British also purchased the Thompson in large numbers and at great expense for the same reasons.

Both armies eventually dropped the Thompson for simple and cheaper stamped steel guns late in the war (the M3 "Greasegun" for the US and the 9mm Sten for the British).

 

[kb308]

The Army had learned the lessons of WWI trench warfare and wanted something with substantial close range fire power for an individual soldier.The problem was, there wasn't anything that worked as well as the Thompson during the between the wars period. The Army tested many prototype replacements and failed them all. The British also purchased the Thompson in large numbers and at great expense for the same reasons.

Both armies eventually dropped the Thompson for simple and cheaper stamped steel guns late in the war (the M3 "Greasegun" for the US and the 9mm Sten for the British).

Yeah, I suppose the "What can we get right now!?" issue was quite a problem. I'm glad that the Army didn't go the way of the Reising sub gun that the Marine Corps tried early on with all it's little intricacies (Sorry guys, I know some people love them, but I just don't see how a guy could break a Reising down in combat and clean it in the dark/wet/etc.. Just not the best for "war conditions" in my opinion)

I've always wanted to try the Greasegun btw, those seem like they'd be fun. Heck, I'd shoot the Sten and even the Reising if they were giving out free ammo.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Mass production of the over priced, inaccurate Mini-14 began in 1974. Originally priced at under $200($200 was more money in 1974 than it is now. U.S. Federal minimum wage was $2/hour. Average annual income was roughly 8 grand. About $153 per week. ). A brand-new Colt SP1, precursor to the AR-15, ran $200 to $250. Biggest thing was that the Mini didn't look like an M-16.
Anyway, prior to 1974, it was the M1 Carbine, if you could find one. The Carbine was still in use by militaries and wasn't exactly common.
"...what was the go-to rifle..." Depended on where you were and how much money you had. Something milsurp like a 1903A3, Stateside. A No. 4 Lee-Enfield, up here. Win 94s were hunting rifles, not really defensive rifles.

I swear I could start a thread on the 1864 Burnside carbine and some would find a way to demean the mini. Do you ever consider some of us own one or more of these "overpriced, inaccurate" guns, like them and get tired of being told what junk they are?
Can you even buy semi auto rifles in Canada? Real question.

 

[kBob]

OK, I got tired of hearing the ya-ya about comparable prices and went and dug out a 1976 "The Gun Digest" to look at their listing of stuff from manufacturer's catalog prices

The only AR listed in that annual in 1976 was the Colt Sporter. It had the "new butt plate" with storage (We did not get them in Europe in the US army until 1973 and then as needed replacements). It came with a blocked to 5 rounds "20 round" magazine.

$297.50

The Ruger Mini-14 .223 carbine came with little five shot flush magazine and the factory sold 20 round magazines only to LEAs.

$200

Despite Ruger's only selling hi caps to LEAs I don't recall NOT being able to find white boxes with red eagles on them with 20 round magazines for them if I wanted and I do not recall that it was very long befor and assort ment of 20 and thirties were available.

SO the Ruger was for sale at 32 percent cheaper than the AR when only Colt was doing the AR. Besides the price difference there was a boat lat or six of us that had VERY BAD EXPERIENCES with 1960's era XM-16E1 and M-16A1 rifles with GI issue ammo and lube. Yes the Mini sold and my first blued one never hic-uped even with those horrible after market mags.

Oh we could have bought an "AK" The Finns were offering the M-62/S for a mere $329 for the tubular metal butt or $339 for the wood and 30 shot mag could come with the rifle or a 15 rounder.

The one I wanted, "AK" that is, was Valmet's M-72s in .223 also with choice of a 15 or 30 round mag (never saw a 15 round M72s mag) with the plastic stock a mere $349 and the wood stock at $359. A bit steep for a Wells Fargo Pony Express driver making a nickel over minimum wage.

Already had an M-1 carbine myself , but new ones from National Ordnance were $109 for the base model. Plainfields base model was $114 and Universals redesigned and mangled 1003 Autolading Carbine base model was $118

I went with the Armalite AR-180 Sporter Carbine at $294 catalog price, but got a deal from a hardware store owning friend that let me have dealer plush shipping so it was only $35 more than the Ruger list and $62.50 less than the Colt list.

There were a few pistol caliber semi auto carbines about though GD only listed the9x19mm PJK-68 carbine at $189.

Meanwhile Marlin sold the 336 lever action base gun for $126.95 and With the Glenfield name and cheaper wood for $118.95.
Mossberg asked a whopping $143.21 for there model.

Winchester wanted $122.50 for their Model 94 plain jane.

And there you have 1976. As you can see the Ruger WAS the least expensive of the semi auto carbines, but even it cost significantly more than Joe Next door could get a decent lever gun for.

BTW political types.....back around 1900 a number of states and smaller governmental units got all bug eyed over the powerful repeating arms coming out and passed laws such as Florida's "Winchester-Springfield Law" that required reporting the purchase of one of those deadly repeaters in modern calibers (hey .30-30 was kind of hot next to many of the BP loadings). In FLorida it was only a reporting issue and not a restriction and to the best of my knowledge was never enforced until the books finally got cleaned in I believe the 1980's.

-kBob

 

[kBob]

Got your attention yet?

Let's leap forward to 1984 (water damage got the intervening years) and "The Gun Digest again

Now in gun digest are .223/5.56 listing for Colt (basic AR R$550 and CAR 15 type for $614.

Bushmaster (their own rifle NOT and AR) (basic $484 with side folder $536)

FNC $1326

Galil $1499

AUG $1175

Valmet M76 bull pup $998

AND the Mini-14 had edged up to $335........ percentage wise even cheaper still than the AR from colt.

A bunch of listed 9x19mm and .45 ACP pistol calibers and those nasty old rifle caliber guns like MK91 and FN-LAR.

Something happened between 1976 and 1984 that made Americans start being interested in faster boom sticks. Could it have been the Carter Administration? Maybe Soviets in Afganistan? Mell Tappans "Survival Guns"? "Soldier of Fortune" Magazine? Red Dawn came out that year, but the GD went to press before that came out. Hmmmmm.....

Meanwhile the cheapest of the 336 family was still only $232 and the basic Winchester 94 was $219.

Just food for thought.

-kBob

 

[hdwhit]

So before the AR15 came to be, what was the go-to rifle?

Do you mean before the AR15 became ubiquitious? Or do you mean before the AR15 became generally available?

If you're choosing the earlier date, the M1 Carbine would definitely have to be considered.

 

[styles]

30 years ago, I knew a lot people with enfield no 4s, mk 3s, and carbines.

 

[P5 Guy]

SKS I would say.

 

[Capybara]

This...

 

[SSN Vet]

The Thompson, though available, was always an expensive weapon. Lot's of parts and complex machining. That's why the military replaced it with the Grease gun.

 

[Bbear]

not a carbine but, I remember those evil 'plastic' guns (aka Glocks) that would pass through security at the airports