The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

I'll second that. Both pictures are in their own ways great but the first one stands head and shoulders above so many I've seen.

 

I didn't "hear" it was inaccurate. I have a great deal of experience using firearms for hunting, plinking and target shooting on the range. I found the M1 carbine, as issued, to be inaccurate.

 

Actually, the M1 Carbine was issued to all sorts of soldiers, including infantry, not just those who would normally carry a sidearm. These are the men who found the weapon wanting when they needed to shoot back.

"c. The carbine is not popular with the infantry units in Italy. The main reason for this is that the personnel authorized the carbine are subject to fire chiefly from snipers, against which the carbine is ineffective. No solution or suggestions for a substitute were offered." (Report of the New Weapons Board, 27 April 1943, p. 43.)

 

"The carbine round is neither fish nor fowl. Too heavy fro small game, too slow for varmint, and too light for light big game make for a cartridge for which there is no practical application. Originally introduced in the military carbine, it was intended to replace a handgun for antipersonnel use. Even here it was woefully lacking. It is, however, a reasonably popular cartridge for plinkers. Sportsmanship should keep it from being used on deer, etc." ( Edward Matunas, "American Ammunition and Ballistics." p.34)

"Woefully lacking" as a replacement for the .45 ACP handgun.

 

A former Army Captain I wargamed with a bit back in the 70's served in the Pacific in particular on Okinawa. He mentioned he carried a carbine and he didn't have anything bad to say about it.

 

"The .30 M1 Carbine is not a highly accurate or deadly round. ... as a hunting round it should be limited to plinking and small game." (Hornaday Handbook of Cartridge Reloading, 3rd Edition, p. 207)

 

It would be interesting to hear why he thinks it was "woefully lacking" as a replacement for the M1911 or a 38 revolver. If you are looking at issued weapons I'd think it would be more accurate at anything over 20 feet or so. It's a much better melee weapon. You have a hope of hitting something at over 50 ft. A wider variety of ammo is available. It has more muzzle energy and more velocity so while it won't retain energy quite as well as the 45 the p(h) at any distance is going to make up for that IMO. not as easy to carry I guess but that's got little to do with the round.

 

According to what I've read, the carbine was more popular in the Pacific where combat distances in dense foliage and jungle were short. Further enhancing the troops' appreciation of the carbine was it lightness made it more appreciated in hot humid atmosphere of the region. In addition, the short barrel made it easier to handle in the bush. So in a way, and in a somewhat limited sense, the carbine found a place in the Pacific.

 

Bit of selective quoting there. From:
GunTech | WeaponsMan | Page 32

It's also on page 19 and page 45 of the actual report.
And weren't you complaining about the M3 submachine gun in another thread? From the same source:

It's also on page 19 and page 47 of the actual report. Which I found at:
http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/Report-on-The-New-Weapons-Board-1944.pdf

As to your quote PLS also note the "no solution or suggestions" part of the quote. So there was a problem and the carbine wasn't the solution but rather obviously the Garand wasn't either or it would have been suggested.
From the report itself on page 1

On page 19 it also mentions that rifle and carbine grenade launchers were well liked.

 

Don't we have a thread where there are a fair number of instances of Germans adopting the M1 Carbine?

 

Well, the author and I agree the carbine was a poor replacement for the .45 ACP sidearm, but he did not feel the need to elaborate. Matunas was, however, a recognized expert and even if I had not already come to the same conclusion, I would give his assessment serious credence. Matunas was "an award winning gunsmith, engineer, designer of bullets and reloading accessories, a Director of the National Reloading Manufacturers Association, and now [the time when the book was issued in 1979], Manager of Component Sales for Winchester-Western."

So to elaborate just a bit, the carbine was unfit for hunting anything, but wascally wabbits and such -- not man sized critters like deer. See the problem?

"Melee weapon" Only after troops rigged the carbine to fire full auto did it become a "melee weapon."

 

Not really. One shouldn't hunt anything man sized with military ball ammo either. Most states discourage one from hunting man sized game with pistols as well.

No. In melee a pistol is just a clumsy set of knuckle dusters where a carbine isn't a bad short staff.

 

They are quick little devils and wily. I used to hunt them routinely when I lived in Colorado and latter Kansas. Shot a few in New Mexico too come to think of it. Great fun and very much appreciated by the land owners. You are right about the NRA card. Mine got me onto a lot of properties back in the day and I was always doubly sure to pick up my brass, follow the rules, and generally act in a gentlemanly manner. That way I didn't ruin it for the next guy, and was pretty much welcome to come back whenever I could.

 

The .45 ACP was developed specifically for melee situations based on the inadequacy of the .45 Colt during engagements during the Philippine insurgencies so your "knuckle duster" comparison and claim of unsuitability for shooting people are way off target.

"The 230 grain [45 ACP] full metal jacket case bullet makes itself useful as a self-protection, police, or military round." (Matunas p. 87)

So why the FMJ? Cause they jamb a lot less often than flat nosed rounds like hollow-points while retaining more than enough knock down.

Pretty sure you have doubled-down on your position so continuing the discussion is probably a waste of our time.

 

When I say melee I'm not talking about shooting. That should be pretty clear. If you are talking close range the M1 Carbine has significantly more muzzle energy and a bigger magazine both pluses in my book.

Lets take a closer look at some of the information in the New Weapons Board Report though.
The big negative appears to be the not well like in Italy statement. But as noted when you look at it what it says is that in Italy (and I've seen nothing to indicate it was that big of problem elsewhere which raises a number of questions in and of itself) they had a problem with snipers targeting people issued the carbine. Now if they thought there was a weapon that they could carry that would better address the issue they could have made suggestions but it's clear they didn't. So was this really a problem with the carbine? It doesn't look like it in my book.
Then there's the mixed reception by officers. Note however that the clear implication is that most who preferred another weapon to the carbine preferred either a Garand or an smg with only a small number preferring a pistol. So it appears that they by and large considered it an improvement over a pistol.
Note that you could also launch rifle grenades with the carbine which you couldn't with a pistol and the Captain I gamed with mentioned he used tracers in his carbine to direct fire from his troops. I don't think you are doing that with a pistol either.
In summary I don't see the carbine as the greatest thing since sliced bread but it appears to have had its place and was judged to do so by a fair number of combatants in WWII.

 

I failed to check the report on the M3. Thank you for pointing out the M3 information.

Who exactly found the M3 to be reliable, etc.? It doesn't mention the troops.

 

My understanding was that as issued the 45's weren't particularly accurate but were extremely reliable even with mediocre maintenance. I also understand that they could be tuned up to be considerably more accurate but you had to take better care of them.

*** edit for ***
I've only had the opportunity to shoot a 45 a couple of times. IMO the gun shot a lot better than I did.

 

Since the report dealt with findings in North Africa and Italy it would have been the troops there. The report may go into just which units were interviewed I didn't look for that. It also might be telling with respect to the sniper issue.