The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

(I know, I know, I should stop replying, but like I say, it's just kind of fascinating, & funny.)

The point is, that ad hom invites ad hom.
The dread spectre of 'you started it' then comes in. See Circular Fallacy.
I'm laughing, mate. More than I have done on a forum for a while. No feelings hurt here, but much bemusement.

Again, either deliberate misinterpretation or massive oversensitivity of a passing mention of time. No attack offered based on shortness of tenure (I like new blokes. Great believer in the level playing field), your own massively sensitive stance sees it as an attack based on absolutely nothing. I'm impressed by cramming so much intransigence into a couple of weeks. That's all. People contest points here all the time, it's a good thing, but they don't usually do it from such an entrenched & sensitive position that disallows any & all disagreement, then get all twitchy about it.

And, again, nobody really has to prove anything is wrong or right in matters of opinion, particularly to satisfy some random stranger's anger.
Sources & personal experiences differ. It's a discussion.
The world is 100 shades of grey. Subjective & objective history can live alongside one another (grudgingly), but the second someone clings to their hardened objective view on something as passing as this, it just gets weird.

You're taking the stance that everything anyone says counter to your view is irrelevant.
Claiming personal experience, and then dismissing it from others.
My liking a post is 'interesting', & then the reply/explanation is irrelevant. ('Likes' certainly are, the most ephemeral thing, almost as ephemeral as post-count or time served. You'd have to be uber sensitive to give a toss there.)


If there is one weapon that served in WW2 which 100% adored, or hated, I've yet to hear of it.
Some people think good things about the Carbine, others don't. Nobody needs to be biting so hard on the strap while growling.



Someone getting carried away with a Carbine:
Wondered if it was real at first. Surely Vampir influence. Little acorns, I suppose. Gotta start somewhere.
We probably shouldn't look at such things with KB & his Hoyt-Clagwell connections... He may be tempted.

 

A critical analysis of your sources reveals no author or presenter possessing a level of expertise even approaching that of Mr. Matunas. Simply presenting a list of un-authoritative stuff found on the interweb is not the same thing as refuting a hard source. One of your refuting sources is a "hobbyist." And other writes "practical guides" which are hardly authoritative. A third is" "Hutchison was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national web sites." And so on. The only book you present is written by a professional hack who has written no less than 38 books. This large number of books indicates shallow research aimed at selling as many books and making as much money as possible just like good old Charles Whiting.

How about someone trotting out a source by a recognized expert?

 

I fear this gentleman may be holding a similar modification wrong... (Bugger... I suggested something might be wrong. I hate zero gravity.)

Or is it attached to some kind of vest with the batteries packed behind? Which would be a bit odd...
That is surely going to sting a bit either way.

(Genuinely interesting claim of use on Okinawa, even though we can firmly file the caption under press puffery. Not ever heard much on US wartime IR stuff.)

 

Let me save you some trouble. I ask that you ban me permanently. That way your coterie of experts can resume their exploits in peace.

But please, please don't enroll me in any video games. I am too old and slow to enjoy them. Thank You.

 

That is the "search" position for using the M3 scope...Not the "firing" position.

The "search" position with the IR Search light in the overhead position was similar.

 

I am confused over how this has progressed. Why is there a heated discussion of the merits of a firearm firing at hot pistol cartridge / light intermediate rifle cartridge against a one which fires a full-power rifle cartridge ? If we can discuss how a M1 Carbine compares to a firearm in a different class, I ask that I be permitted to compare it to a 76mm Gun M1A2...

For the purposes of discussion of the merits of the M1 Carbine, why not discuss some of the issues with the M1 Carbine itself? How about - say - finickiness/unreliability with magazines, lackluster two-position sights, lack of a bayonet lug on a weapon optimized for combat at <150 yards, the potentially confusing early push-button safety? (note: the latter 3 were addressed in later production and during the refurbishment process). How about the just plain uncomfortable stock on the M1A1? Or the uncontrollably of the M2 on full auto?

 

You are quoting somebody that makes the same mistake you do, that it is a battle rifle rather than an upscale handgun. It is a poor main rifle without the range, power or long range accuracy that a Garand would give you. As a replacement for a pistol it's damn near perfect.

.

 

Way back on page 3 I noted the energy of the three relevant US cartridges of the war, so I don't know why this continues.

The .45 ACP has 355 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.
The .30 Carbine has 967 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.
The 30.06 has 3000 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle.

Arithmetic is a real thing and those numbers count. Now, could ordnance have created a more powerful bottleneck cartridge like the 8mm Kurtz in the STG 44? Umm yeah, they could, but then it would have weighed 10.2 pounds like the STG 44 and hardly be a handy little carbine for truck drivers, radiomen and whatever.

Every firearm is a series of compromises intended for a specific niche. Should the Garand have had detachable magazines? Yeah, they should. Should the 1911 have better sights in that era? Yup, definitely. Were those two arms effective firearms? Yes, they damned sure were, despite the drawbacks!

And the carbine? I can't think of any firearm before or since (within the weight parameters) that could have filled that niche.

.

 

As you note, quite a few of these deficiencies were recognized and corrected during production and service. I recall an interview with one experienced carbine shooter (somewhere on the net, can't find it now) who said that some of the complaints about the magazines arose among postwar users who attempted to re-use wartime mags. During the war this was not done, the magazines being thrown away after one use.

As to comparing the carbine with another weapon in its own class that is difficult because from what I can tell it was almost unique. It's not a full-size combat rifle, not a modern assault rifle, not an SMG, yet it has some characteristics of all three classes of weapon and others which don't fit any of them. Really I think the only weapons you could compare it to fairly are the Winchester self-loading rifle series, models 1903, 1905, 1907, and 1910. The carbine was a Winchester design and the .30 carbine round was based on the .32 Win SLR, as I recall. The Model 1907 saw a lot of service as a police rifle and it also showed up in military service in small numbers in both world wars. The 1907 had a pretty good round, caliber .351, and was sometimes called "the gun you can shoot through a wall with." I think there may have been a mistake in the original specification for the carbine round and .351 would have been more effective. Of course the weapon would then have been heavier, and weight was one of three most important characteristics in the army's requirement (15%; simplicity was 15% and general functioning 25%). Actual specified weight was no more than five pounds with a sling, and you can see why. If a weapons crew member, say, has to carry some mortar bombs or a couple of cans worth of ammo as well as a personal weapon, then any increase in the weight of the personal weapon means that much less weight is available for the primary weapon and role he is serving. A Model 1907, be it noted, weighed about 8 pounds raw, about 9 with sling and a fifteen-round magazine. The 1907 was pretty handy, but it wasn't much lighter than an M1 Garand (9 1/2 lbs., I think).

Anyway, I think we can have a reasoned discussion about the carbine even if we don't come to any earthshaking conclusions.

 

One correction there, while it was originally intended that magazines would be discarded, the army in practice nixed that idea from the beginning on cost grounds. The GI magazines are pretty good, though I suppose they could be heavier gauge steel. I noted on the previous page some newer Korean magazines I just found are seemingly heavier steel.

A few days ago I dropped a GI magazine and the bottom popped off. It took me a while to find the floor plate, and I never did find the spring. This would never happen with say, an AR 15 magazine or just about any other magazine. So, while those GI mags function just fine they are a little too fragile for the intended purpose and once the idea of discarding them went away they should have gone back and demanded a sturdier magazine.

.

 

Otto,

Thank you for your kind, thoughtful, and insightful remarks. They are much appreciated. More importantly they provide me with feedback about some of my earlier interactions with others here that give me good cause to reconsider my overly sensitive reactions to certain comments. With this in mind I will do my best to moderate myself in future discussions.

To Poop, KB, and others I apologize for my ill-considered approach in some of our past discussions. One of my great failings is to to call down a corps wide "Time on Target" as an initial response when a few stray rounds from a .30 Cal. Carbine might do the job --

 

I was a bit curious about Matunas.so googled him. Just looking at his book list on Amazon I think yields a bit of insight:
Amazon.com: Edward A. Matunas: Books
unfortunately much in the biographical area. Looks to me like the M1 Carbine was a gun that just didn't fit in with his vision of such. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say about other similar guns.

 

THE RELIABLE M1 CARBINE IN ACTION !!!

"In one case, Holly [Major Hollingsworth c.o. 2nd Bn., 67th Armored Regt.] in his jeep encountered a German soldier who stepped out from behind a tree. Holly tried to engage him with his carbine, but it malfunctioned. He threw down the carbine and killed the German with his pistol before the German could return fire." Willbanks, "Danger 79er: The Life and Times of Lieutenant General James F. Hollingsworth," p. 50.)

 

I provided his bio earlier. Did you learn anything that suggests he was not a recognized firearms expert?

What "similar guns" do you have in mind.

Please explain why the following is a "vision" statement. Keep in mind it was made by a recognized firearms expert, a real one, not the sort we find on the interweb these days.
"... it was intended to replace a handgun for personal defense. Even here it was woefully lacking." (Mantuas as previously cited.)

 

Looked back through the thread and didn't find anyting with much detail.

Not at all.

The other late war and early post war weapons that used less than combat rifle caliber ammunition.

Even experts have their biases. In this case the data suggest he's wrong. The carbine has more power and more accuracy from the muzzle out to the maximum effective range as well as a larger magazine than most if not all the pistols of the time. His focus seems to be hunting which is not what the M1 carbine was designed for. It's also clearly not the weapon of choice for personal defense for a civilian. That doesn't mean it's not a good choice for certain roles in the military. Indeed does he address the military use of the weapon at all?

*** edit for ***
I do see a quote where he was of the opinion that it wasn't as good as a pistol for military usage but no reasoning or supporting information. I'd like to know if he had any military experience he obviously doesn't like the carbine or the round his comment about it not being sporting to use it for hunting is very telling as well as questionable.

 

lwd,

For some reason, you and others are satisfied with the "it served its' purpose" argument. If you are all so convinced of this why are you so insistent that I join your incurious group? It's almost as if I've touched a forum wide nerve by presenting sourced information that is contrary to certain, preconceived notions.