Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

M-2 Carbine vs StG-44

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by harolds, Mar 9, 2013.

  1. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    Was there any real difference between the two inside the 200 meter range where most serious infantry action takes place?
     
  2. gtblackwell

    gtblackwell Member Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,271
    Likes Received:
    678
    Location:
    Auburn, Alabama, US
    Harolds, The 9MM Kurz appears to be somewhat more powerful and I guess the question is would it make a significance. Ballistics tables vary a little but on average...

    30 Carbine 110 grains X 1990 fps = 965 ft. lbs.
    9mm Kurz 125 grains X 2247 fps = 1408 ft. lbs.

    So about a third more powerful at the muzzle. I did not look up the ballistic coefficient, how well they carry their speed over distance
    but the considerably more pointed Kurz, even is slightly larger in diameter, would seem to hold velocity better.

    I had rather be hit by the M 1 Carbine.

    This would make sense as their design purpose was quite different. People may differ but I see the Kurz as the first assault round and the Carbine as a round of convenience though it was obvious used front line.

    I have owned two M 1 Carbines and they were a delight to shoot and carry. Have only held a 44, bit more awkward to me but I am small .

    Gaines
     
  3. Earthican

    Earthican Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
    Messages:
    743
    Likes Received:
    158
    I think you mean the US M-1 Carbine.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

    I wouldn't discount the "feel" factor. Just looking at the photos of the M-1 Carbine, I think: sure self-defense; but serious infantry combat, depends on the situation.


    The 200 meter range is where aimed rifle fire is likely to cause casualties (target size, visibility, etc), but infantry combat ranges vary with the weapons and conditions. Long range rifle fire (400 to 800 meters) can be delivered by squads and platoons to suppress targets while other elements maneuver. Something I doubt the M-1 Carbine could pull-off; not sure how the StG-44 is at these ranges.

    ---------------------
    annoying to sign-in and not be taken to the page I was reading.
     
  4. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    GTB is right, they were designed for different purposes. The Carbine was intended to take the place of the M-1911 for troops who had that as their TOE weapon or for troops where a more compact weapon was desireable due to their job. Mortarmen, machinegun A-gunners, vehicle drivers, communicators etc. When compared to the pistol it had more range and accuracy. The Stg.44 was designed to be a battle rifle. It needs to be compared to other battle rifles. A mortarman's primary duty is to serve his mortar and that is his casualty producing weapon, the same with a machine gunner. A driver has the primary duty of moving men and material. A communicator on maintaining the capability to command and control. Due to battlefield conditions it may be necessary for them to defend themselves, but small arms combat is not their primary duty. The infantryman's job is to close with and destroy the enemy, his weapon needs to be optimized for that task and that task alone. So any reasonable comparison for the StG.44 would be against other main battle rifles. The M1/M2 Carbine against weapons such as the MP40.
     
  5. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    My sources show the nominal muzzle velocity for the StG was 2100fps. Therefore, the difference in MV was just over 110fps-not very significant. Both the M-2 and the StG were capable for full-auto fire. The M-2 carbine was issued to airborne units as a battle rifle. Neither would have been very effective over 300 meters due to bullet drop. The StG would have had an advantage over the M-2 beyond 200 mts.
     
  6. chitoryu12

    chitoryu12 recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    As people have said, the M1/M2 Carbine isn't really an assault rifle. The .30 Carbine round is like an overgrown pistol round, more comparable to a long .357 Magnum than a spitzer-shaped rifle round. Its lack of power was exaggerated in the Korean War (anyone who tests it against clothing, ballistics gel, plywood, or even cinderblocks can clearly see how much power is coming out of the bullet when it hits), but it's still not meant for extended combat use at long range or against body armor.

    That said, the M2 is significantly smaller and lighter and the 30 round magazines are smaller than the ones on the StG. It's a lot easier to handle and better to carry for long marches (an importance that few people remember), and infrared scopes in the form of the M3 Carbine were much more common than on the StG.

    Basically, they're different weapons for different purposes. The StG-44 hits a bit harder and has improved long range accuracy, since it was meant to be used as a primary weapon by frontline infantry. The M1 Carbine was meant to be used by rear echelon troops as a handy personal defense weapon, or by airborne troops for its compact size in small scale operations where you had to enter with most of your equipment either on your body or in a jeep. The M2's full auto fire makes it more effective for suppression and short range panicking, but it's not meant to be used as the primary weapon for every soldier.
     
  7. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The 9mm Kurz is what we in the US would call the .380 - the round fired from the Walther PP series and other small pistols. I think you meant to say 8mm Kurz (7.92x33) which is of course, a shortened 8mm rifle round.

    And yeah, that 8mm round is quite similar to the round used in the AK series and is effective out to 500 meters or so. The round nosed (and lighter) carbine round is only effective out to 200 meters.

    As mentioned above, the carbine was designed as an alternative to the 1911 pistol for service troops, not as a battle rifle.
     
  8. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    I'm not sure the 7.92Kurz would be all that effective at 500 meters. The 7.62X37 is a somewhat more potent round than its German equivilant. To me, a M-2 would be preferable to a .45 smg at ranges beyond 50 mts.
     
  9. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    The 7.62x39 suffers from a poor platform - the AK. It is nominally effective out to 500 yards, but if you've ever fired one you'll note the crude sights make hits very improbable. The STG44 had very good iron sights as well as an optic that could be fitted to it.

    Neither round has much power left at 500 yards, but those spitzers will punch a hole in a human being and render them unfit for combat at a minimum.
     
  10. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    My experience with the 7.62X39 (sorry re. the misprint) is limited to my SKS, in which the accuracy was intirely adequate. Inside 200 meters it seems like an outstanding little cartridge. My point being that no matter what the M-1/2 was designed for, the performance of the two rounds is, in my way of thinking, so similar as to make no difference out to 200mtrs. However, the 7.92mmK would have more punch after that range due to its pointed bullet and slight superiority in MV.
     
  11. KodiakBeer

    KodiakBeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    6,329
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Location:
    The Arid Zone
    I'd certainly agree with that. I think too, that ergonomics count for a lot. It's not all about ballistics. I have a carbine and it's a damned handy little rifle. You swing it around on multiple plates and pop, pop, pop, the gongs ring pretty easy.
    An STG weighs 10 pounds - almost twice what a carbine does. That weight is almost the same as a FAL, which I do own and shoot. The FAL is a great platform for long range shooting, but it's hard to swing around and make quick hits up close.
     
  12. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    However, the extra weight of the StG would make it a much more stable platform in the full-auto mode. I too like to shoot the carbine but with my long head I have to really scrunch down to see through the rear sight.
     
  13. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,006
    There were a heck of a lot more bullets for the .30 carbine than there ever were for the StG and that was the downfall of the StG /MP44/MP45 et al. and there were a heck of a lot more M-1 Carbines (almost 6 million). I am not 100%; but, I don't think the full auto variant came out until late war or maybe even after the war .
     
  14. chitoryu12

    chitoryu12 recruit

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    2
    The M2 came out in early 1945, and did indeed see service. The M3 (which is an M2 with an infrared scope) is credited with quite a few kills on Okinawa. The issue for the StG-44 series was more that it didn't see as much production as it should have to become a service rifle, and only began to see relatively heavy usage at the end of the war.
     
  15. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    According to Ian Hogg, the M-2 came out in September of 1944.
     
  16. USMCPrice

    USMCPrice Idiot at Large

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    5,168
    Likes Received:
    2,140
    Location:
    God's Country
    The M2, select fire carbine was adopted 26 October 1944, after the date you quoted from Hogg. Actual production did not begin until April of 1945, only two manufacturers produced the M2 version, Inland and Winchester, during WWII. According to the official Winchester firearms site the first unit was delivered in May 1945 (This date is for Winchester, Inland division of GM produced the majority of M2's and could have an earlier first delivery date). Conversion kits T17 and T18, for converting the M1 to M2 capability were also produced.
     

Share This Page