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

M1 Carbine vs Garand

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by Zefer, Sep 8, 2009.

  1. Chesehead121

    Chesehead121 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    2
    *sniffs*... Aah, the fresh scent of a new weapons thread. On the "soldiers never complained about stopping power of MPs," yeah, if someone was running at me I would take care to pump more than just a couple rounds into their body. Maybe that's just me. And in my opinion, Suvarov was wrong. The tables have turned; the bayonet's an idiot, the bullet's a fine chap now. Then again, they only had 1 round to kill, while most soldiers at that time with an MP had at least, like, 8.
     
  2. Miguel B.

    Miguel B. Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    67
    Easy. It's all in the manner energy is transfered. As Brndirt pointed, the .30 has a lesser area and more energy so it would actually pierce the body and unless it hitted any major organs, it hits vital organs, an adrenaline filled soldier would be able to keep on going even after several impacts. It's like having a needle going across you. The 9mm and especially the .45 had less penetrating power. They were more like getting punched. Made to knock you down.
     
  3. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    So you are of the energy transfer school? :D

    I wonder, though. Considering the velocity of the round involved, did the .30 had the power to shatter bones? I lean strongly towards "no", but I am not convinced that the 9mm was anything other than marginally more effective than the .30 in stopping power. It is dubious to me that WWII soldiers did experience failure-to-stop with 9mm rounds, even when fired from SMG length barrels.

    Now, what was a better weapon? The M-1 carbine, or MP-40? Unlike the M-1 carbine, the German MP-40 was issued both as a self-defense weapon for NCOs and junior officers as well as an offensive weapon. But unofficially, a surprising number of soldiers used their carbine as a primary weapon. I can recall Eddie Murphy, another CoH recipient of the Korean War, and one of our broad members (Old Hickory) liked their carbines. How would you evaluate those weapons?
     
  4. surfersami

    surfersami Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    32
    In one of the other post a WWII Vet from the pacific said the size of the carbine was handy, but they really made a lot of noise. The clips allowed the ammo to rattle around a lot, and if I remember right he discarded his for a garand in short order.
     
  5. DAVEB47

    DAVEB47 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    9
    The carbine was never intended to compete with the Garand as a battle rifle, yet it was a handy alternitive. One of the main problems with the .30 carbine round was that its bullet shape was not conducive to tumbling and therefore, accompanied by its lighter weight and lower velocity, did not do the damage that the 30-06 round the Garand fired would do. Modern expanding bullets do increase the effectiveness of the .30 carbine round.
     
  6. wph377

    wph377 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, according to "War Baby", only the very first models, produced until mid-1943, had the lugless barrel. The vast majority of Carbines did have a bayonet lug, made to accomodate the M4 bayonet, a derivative of the M3 combat knife.
    "War Baby" is a great read, by the way, for anyone interested in this fine weapon. Two distinct volumes have been published: "War Baby" tells the story of the gun itself, while "War Baby 2" covers accessories, combat stories, post-war use, variants, etc.
     
  7. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    He would not be alone in that, either. A lot of veterans ditched their M1 carbine for their Garand. The latter was just a sturdier, more powerful weapon.
     
  8. HSI

    HSI recruit

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have to keep in mind, though, that the full-auto capable M2 Carbine and the 30 round magazine came along later than the mainstream WW2 battles that I think we are discussing. Korea, yes, Viet Nam, yes, but WW2 no.

    It is interesting to read GI's personal stories about the weapons they used. Some totally loved the carbine, others totally hated it.
     
  9. lordofmacedon

    lordofmacedon Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    The carbine was used for artillary men, medics, jeep drivers, and some paratroopers. it was used to provide artillary men, medics, and jeep drivers moer fire power then just pistols. it was very trustworthy and was very accurate. the M1 Grand was used by most G.I.'s becuase of longer range which most people should understand becuase most of the war in europe needed range.
     
  10. chibobber

    chibobber Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    87
    Story told over and over again by vets.Clip flies out goes ping,enemy pops up to take shot thinking M1 garand is empty. GI's wise up take empty clip throw it on ground,enemy pops up,plow the enemy.(urban legend?,who knows)
    True story,Korean war vet bayoneted through lung after shooting enemy in the chest multiple times with M2.BAR man finished the
    fight with one round.Enemy had wrapped his chest in multiple layers of silk or rayon from discarded parachutes.More power is always better,ie,M14's dusted off and are used to good effect in the sandbox along with the 45acp.
    Death by gun shot is a process of bleed out.That is why a dead man can kill you (average 40-45 seconds).Stoppage is Psychological (oh my G i've been shot) or by skeletal damage( won't support the body).Thats why you shoot until they go down.With the advent of body armor,the double tap to the chest and one to the head is passe'. Now it is one to the groin and two to the chest.(damage to pelvis will drop the subject,damage to femaral artery will bleed him out. Sorry to be so graphic. Bob
     
  11. Old Schoolr

    Old Schoolr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    12
    Which is better?

    It's like asking which is better; the B17 or the P51? A shovel or a hatchet?
    Two different tools meant for two different jobs.
     
  12. wwt

    wwt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    5
    The M1 Garand is much, much more reliable. A major factor in an infantry weapon.

    The M2 carbine is a great submachine gun....if painstakingly cleaned and cared for.

    The M1 carbine is much, much better than a pistol for "clerks and jerks."
     
  13. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    As I pointed out in many of my own posts, the sweet little Carbine is a tool for a specific job. Not meant to replace the main combat rifle, but as an intermediary between the pistol and the rifle. I would dearly love to pick up one of the Ruger Blackhawks in this chambering. With the 7.5 inch barrel it has impressive specs.

    Here is a portion from a page on the Ruger.


    The U.S. Ordnance Dept. decided that a light carbine would have advantages over the 1911A1 .45 ACP pistol in many combat situations. The thinking on the eve of World War II was that in a coming conflict involving large numbers of civilian-soldiers, many ground troops, including mobile strike forces and mid-level officers, would be better off hitting something with a light, quick-shooting carbine than hitting nothing with the hard-to-master .45 sidearm they might otherwise have been issued.

    After reviewing several designs, a Winchester gun/cartridge package was selected. The semi-auto US 30 M1 Carbine was officially adopted in mid-1941, intended for troops who would need more firepower than the pistol alone but also required a more compact rifle than the M1 Garand. The M1 Carbine was not an assault rifle; it was an intermediate tool: "more than a pistol, less than a rifle." The cartridge itself was a simple, downsized modification of the .32 Winchester Self-Loading round of 1906.

    After the war many veterans remembered the light, fast-handling carbine with fondness. When the U.S. government began releasing surplus .30-caliber M1 Carbines for sale to civilians through the National Rifle Association at the moderate price of around $20, thousands of them went into sporting use.

    Goto:

    Ruger’s .30 Carbine Blackhawk Revolver Is a Winning Tool

    I bought my M1A1 "folding stock" Inland back in the fifties for less than that $20 listed at a Gambles hardware store. Mr. Schaeffer took sympathy on my young butt when he had sold all the full stock models before I could get to town, and sold me the "folding stock" at a $5 discount, since nobody else wanted them. He only had ten of the M1A1, and a full crate of the full stock models which he had sold out in the first few days. So I had an original paratrooper model for years and years, that only cost me $15, and he threw in a box of ammo, the canvas leg holster, and a spare magazine. At the time I still though I got "the short end of the stick". It wasn't until years later that I found out what a unique little weapon I had. Too bad I lost it in one of our range fires here in Montana about five years ago. Ah well, such is life.
     
  14. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    Yes the Carbine is a nice and in my case an extremly accurate rifle. I like it very much and it was well developed for its tasks. Often a bit underrated. I have an Underwood with an M2 Stock, good one.
     
  15. chibobber

    chibobber Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2010
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    87
    Brndirt1,
    Ruger in 30 carbine is one LOUD,FLAME THROWIN' hand cannon.If you get a chance,shoot one,at night. At least a 2ft flame.
    Don't use it indoors it will knock all the dust out of the rafters.:D
     
  16. jaxson50

    jaxson50 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    5
    I had a Ruger chambered in .30 cal. Carbine and a WWII M1 Carbine but sold them off years ago. I enjoyed them but with the cost of ammo it's cheaper to shoot a AR-15.
    As for the comparison between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine it depends on the use...any "machine pistol" will do well in a confined area, door to door fighting in a city, or in caves and trenches...and the M2 Carbine (full auto) was IMO as good as any WWII machine pistol.
    But the Garand was a better rifle (long gun) better range and better knock down and out classed any bolt action weapon in use during WWII. But there is a reason it was replaced. Application made the difference.
    The M1 carbine had it's place, the .30 Cal Carbine round was IMO better then a 9mm. The full auto version could throw out a lot of lead, and without a lot of recoil, making it easy to stay on target, if you hit someone with three or five or ten rounds of .30 carbine they are done.
     
  17. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    as i understood it, paratroopers were not so worried about weight as much as adequate firepower. a para can drop with more than 100 pounds of equipment and it won't hurt him (load is dangling from a line below him so it hits the ground before he does.)

    what the paratrooper wants is instant firepower as soon as he hits the ground. they liked garands, thompsons and even the 1918 machine gun which can be fired as soon as you land. they didn't like the BAR or the carbine so much.
     
  18. ozjohn39

    ozjohn39 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    31
    In Europe's open terrain, the Garand, In the Pacific Islands jungle, the carbine.
     
  19. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    The Carbine wasn´t that bad it was only the shape of the bullets they were allowed to use. The same is with our police ammo today. They have to use the RN bullets instead of TC´s or HP´s. If they were allowed to use the semi jacketed version, they had more succsess. The Carbine is helpfull at an urban territory during an house to house engagement too.
     
  20. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    While this is of course a propaganda style film made to bolster the US Army morale, it does show some real footage of the weapons available to and used by the US Infantry in WW2. The little carbine makes a pretty good show of itself against a German helmet at 100 yards, but the .30-06 round is simply lethal.

    Goto:

    INFANTRY WEAPONS AND THEIR EFFECT | War Movies, Military Videos, Rare Battle Footage | Real Military Videos

    While it is, as I said a propaganda film it is interesting to watch none the less.
     

Share This Page