Why wasn't M1 carbine celebrated like the STG44 or AK47
- Thread starter rocinante
- Start date
- Status
Who said it was?
A large contingent of soldiers and huge contingent armchair commandos* who considered it wholly inadequate. A whole heap of folks over the years compared the M1's to each other. Covered in several posts along the way.
You know; the ones who like to use the Patton quote.
The WW2 M1 carbine was only in semi automatic, the later M2 carbine was select fire from semi to full auto go was issued in 1945 and for a long time was the fastest shoulder firing weapon in the US military inventory. A great many M1 carbines were converted to M2,and for that reason they were never released as surplus to civilians. Over 6.5 million M1 carbines were produced in WW2, all American made ammunition for the carbines was noncorrosive.
I was issued and qualified with the M2 in 1956 and when clicked on automatic, it could empty a 30 round magazine in the blink of an eye. Some of the Korean war noncom vets at the time said when the Chinese mass attacked and things got close, the M2 was the weapon to have.
M2 full auto video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xz_qffdVXk
I was issued and qualified with the M2 in 1956 and when clicked on automatic, it could empty a 30 round magazine in the blink of an eye. Some of the Korean war noncom vets at the time said when the Chinese mass attacked and things got close, the M2 was the weapon to have.
M2 full auto video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xz_qffdVXk
4895
Member
I think the M1 Carbine is a great little rifle. I think many of you have the right answers. When you approach different terrain, you must adapt. The M1 Carbine was designed for support troops and we all know how support troops are hardly recognized for their contribution. Macho chest-bumping wins out to the fact that the little M1 Carbine is great for what it was designed for. The M1 Garand is a REAL man's rifle cause only REAL men saw front line combat. That kind of thinking tends to sour anyone's affection for the weapons in the rear with the gear.
The M1 Carbine...the ugly red headed step child built to specification set by a committee to accept a cartridge which itself was the ugly freckled red headed step child whose parameters were set by committee. Designed to do a job which it was well suited and adapted and used for a variety of jobs some of which it was ill suited for.
leadcounsel
member
I believe ZERO of the claims that a .30 caliber bullet with twice the energy of a .357 was ineffective against ANY foot soldiers...
mortablunt
Member
30 Carbine ain't 30-30 ain't 7.62x39.
jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
picture yourself in world war 2... a lot of marching, a lot of movement, US forces advanced fairly fast and troups were often on the move... so what are your choices?.. a 15lb BAR, an 11lb thompson, a 9.5lb garand, or the 5lb carbine?...
now imagine many of the soldiers did in fact pack a thompson... the carbine had about twice the muzzle energy, greater range, and less than half the weight. so vs the thompson i would have GLADLY taken the carbine..
but its true.. though the energy was greater than the thompson it was still only about 1/3 or less the energy of the garand with significantly less range...
i have thought about getting a reproduction M1 carbine and having it chambered in .357 or .44 magnum (same overall length).. or also possibly the 5.7x28mm.. though i think .357 would be the best choice
now imagine many of the soldiers did in fact pack a thompson... the carbine had about twice the muzzle energy, greater range, and less than half the weight. so vs the thompson i would have GLADLY taken the carbine..
but its true.. though the energy was greater than the thompson it was still only about 1/3 or less the energy of the garand with significantly less range...
i have thought about getting a reproduction M1 carbine and having it chambered in .357 or .44 magnum (same overall length).. or also possibly the 5.7x28mm.. though i think .357 would be the best choice
jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
youre not comparing the .357 energies from a pistol to the .30 carbine energies from a rifle... are you?.. see what energy people get firing .357 magnum from similar length rifle barrels and youll see the .357 is about twice as powerful as the .30 carbine
kingcheese
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Messages
- 677
It shot the 30carbine it was closer toa smg, its full auto version was the m2 carbine, it isn't celebrated by very many people because in war use it was replaced a lot quicker, and it had a 15 round box mag, it was really not that great of a weapon compared to the mp38, ppsh the sten the m3 the Thompson, get it? really it was most like an artillery luger role wise
Husker_Fan
Member
IIRC, at the muzzle, the M1 fires a projectile with almost 80% of the energy and 133% of the momentum of a 55grn 5.56 from an M4. Sounds effective to me, at least at close range. The BC of the carbine bullet is pretty poor and it bleeds energy downrange, but for any soft target within 100 to 150 yards I can't imagine it not being effective.
I put together a homemade three-point sling for mine and ran it through a carbine class where all the other students had ARs. That was a lot of fun.
I put together a homemade three-point sling for mine and ran it through a carbine class where all the other students had ARs. That was a lot of fun.
ApacheCoTodd
member
I was always fascinated by the German admiration of the M1 Carbine in the form of the degree to which they carried them on their Western front when the opportunity to capture the carbine and sufficient ammo presented itself. This was seen on their Eastern front in the appreciation of a couple of Russian SMGs.
The German soldier seemed to identify and exploit a level of utilization of the Carbine which we ignored in over-focusing on it being a direct replacement for the 1911 or expecting too much as an alternative (limited) to the Garrand and later the M-3 and Thompson.
The German soldier seemed to identify and exploit a level of utilization of the Carbine which we ignored in over-focusing on it being a direct replacement for the 1911 or expecting too much as an alternative (limited) to the Garrand and later the M-3 and Thompson.
jason41987
member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2012
- Messages
- 1,293
as an alternative to the thompson, the carbine was superior.. it was less than half the weight, double the power, far more range and compact... theres obviously some places a garand would not be appropriate, so the carbine had more of a PDW role for tank crews and such
oldpapps
Member
"rocinante
Why wasn't M1 carbine celebrated like the STG44 or AK47
It was a short piston design and it came out in 1941, long before German or Russian equivalents.
The 30-30 round is ballistic equivalent to the AK 7.62x39. True it is not a necked down chopped off rifle round but so????
It was lightweight, a mere 5.2 lbs empty. Compact at 36 inches, even more so with paratrooper folding stock.
It had detachable high cap 30 round magazines.
Some versions were full auto.
It was produced by the millions and in active use from WWII to Vietnam.
Is it that they put it in a wood stock and it lacks a pistol grip?
Weight, ballistics, magazine makes it equal to if not better than european stamped receiver "assault rifles". Or was that ease of manufacturing the distinction?"
The STG44 and that family, fired a 125grain 7.9MM bullet at around 2250fps.
The AK47 and that family, fires a 123grain .311 bullet at around 2400fps.
The M1/M2 Carbine fires a 110/111grain .308 bullet at 1900fps. More or less a rip off of the WWI Pederson pistol round.
The .30 Carbine round is not the 30-30 round.
The STG44 got a lot if not most of its fame because it was the first heavy machine pistol in offensive use with a high volume of fire. With in the ranges encounter in house to house fighting, the round was very suitable.
The AK47 round is more of a leaner and meaner version of the 7.92X33 with greater range and energies. By far the simplest and loosest mechanism, making it as reliable as inaccurate. A suitable trade off for a battle weapon.
The M1/M2 Carbine, don't confuse it with the M1 Garand, was to supplement the more costly and slower production of the 1911 pistol. It also provided a more stable platform than the pistol. The round is in it's military loading a poor pistol round. Too small of diameter with too slow of velocity and that hard full metal nose.
Slick little rifles, easy to carry and normally reliable. But no better than the old .45 in a fire fight (not that the .45 isn't potent).
So, a mediocre pistol substitute being compared to a 'ground breaker' and the quintessential assault weapon of the world. Nope, the M1 Carbine just doesn't make it.
Full disclosure. I have owned a number of M1 Carbines in the past and a Ruger pistol in the same caliber. I have never, nor will I ever own an AK or any variation of it. I see the positives and know my views. I don't like anything that me or mine has been shot at with.
Why wasn't M1 carbine celebrated like the STG44 or AK47
It was a short piston design and it came out in 1941, long before German or Russian equivalents.
The 30-30 round is ballistic equivalent to the AK 7.62x39. True it is not a necked down chopped off rifle round but so????
It was lightweight, a mere 5.2 lbs empty. Compact at 36 inches, even more so with paratrooper folding stock.
It had detachable high cap 30 round magazines.
Some versions were full auto.
It was produced by the millions and in active use from WWII to Vietnam.
Is it that they put it in a wood stock and it lacks a pistol grip?
Weight, ballistics, magazine makes it equal to if not better than european stamped receiver "assault rifles". Or was that ease of manufacturing the distinction?"
The STG44 and that family, fired a 125grain 7.9MM bullet at around 2250fps.
The AK47 and that family, fires a 123grain .311 bullet at around 2400fps.
The M1/M2 Carbine fires a 110/111grain .308 bullet at 1900fps. More or less a rip off of the WWI Pederson pistol round.
The .30 Carbine round is not the 30-30 round.
The STG44 got a lot if not most of its fame because it was the first heavy machine pistol in offensive use with a high volume of fire. With in the ranges encounter in house to house fighting, the round was very suitable.
The AK47 round is more of a leaner and meaner version of the 7.92X33 with greater range and energies. By far the simplest and loosest mechanism, making it as reliable as inaccurate. A suitable trade off for a battle weapon.
The M1/M2 Carbine, don't confuse it with the M1 Garand, was to supplement the more costly and slower production of the 1911 pistol. It also provided a more stable platform than the pistol. The round is in it's military loading a poor pistol round. Too small of diameter with too slow of velocity and that hard full metal nose.
Slick little rifles, easy to carry and normally reliable. But no better than the old .45 in a fire fight (not that the .45 isn't potent).
So, a mediocre pistol substitute being compared to a 'ground breaker' and the quintessential assault weapon of the world. Nope, the M1 Carbine just doesn't make it.
Full disclosure. I have owned a number of M1 Carbines in the past and a Ruger pistol in the same caliber. I have never, nor will I ever own an AK or any variation of it. I see the positives and know my views. I don't like anything that me or mine has been shot at with.
- Status
