The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

I know or atleast knew how to handle the Gvt. Model .45 ACP. I say knew because after several hand surgeries and a missing finger my control is not has good as it once was. That said I can darn sure it a five gallon bucket at 30-35 yards with my .45 ACP. Of course the barrel and link are about worn out, but it still works good enough.

 

You are right. The Gvt. issued .45 M1911 was made with loose tolerances so it would operate reliably in mud, sand, and so on. I've accurized a few Gvt. models and when tuned correctly they drive tacks a 25 yards. I probably still have the special tools I made for that purpose when I was in gunsmiths school many, many moons ago. Most civilian production models are more accurate than the gvt issue. If you pick one up and shake it the thing will actually rattle. Good for combat, bad for target shooting.

They just take practice and some getting used to. I caught some Remington ammo on sale recently (they quit making it you know) and bought another 200 rounds. Added to what I've already got sitting around I hope to make some targets nervous after things warm up.

 

Look, it is simple arithmetic.

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.

So, compared to the .45, the Carbine has more than double the energy, as well as range that is unthinkable with the .45 (or any handgun).

Yet, compared to the Garand (30.06) it seems weak, because it is. Relatively.

As issued, it was intended for truck drivers, mortar men, officers, radiomen, etc; people who had other gear to worry about and were best served with a light arm. In the nomenclature used today, it was a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), not a battle rifle. That doesn't mean that in the free hand given divisional officers of the time, the Carbine wasn't issued to soldiers that would have been better served with full powered battle rifle, but that was a mistake.

.

 

Thanks for the info. I have two carbines because the girls liked them and did not want to wait their turn. One a "Universal" made post war with a scope that shoots better than it should and an old Paratrooper type with the folding stock. Both great guns to shoot for the fun of it, at least back when the surplus ammo was dirt cheap!

 

Love that gun! I have to find out if I can legally convert one or two of my Paras? As far as I can tell from the pics, it looks like two, maybe three parts to swap and a detachable stock to buy and I'd bee in business?

 

T/O 7-11 26 Feb 1944 an Infantry Regiment had 836 carbines, 1990 rifles, and 293 pistols.

T/O 7-15 26 Feb 1944 an Infantry Battalion had 219 carbines, 571 rifles, and 81 pistols.

T/O 7-17 26 Feb 1944 an infantry company had 28 carbines, 143 rifles and 10 pistols. Nine carbines were in Co. Hq and the remaining 19 were in the hands of combat troops. Three of the 19 were with platoon leaders.

This indicates 19 carbines were with front line troops. This is plenty of opportunity for the deficiencies of the carbine to make themselves felt on the battlefield.

 

I think it depends on the situation? I like the W R Poss up close, about a foot out indoors and at arms length outside when I do not have access to any long gun, even a Carbine.

 

Impossible!

 

An infantry company had an entire weapons platoon w/ mortars and machine guns, many of whom were armed with personal defense weapons (carbines). In addition, each rifle platoon of the company had officers, radiomen, runners, etc, armed with carbines.

All of those men were better served with a carbine than a pistol.

.

 

Never liked the SKS, or AK47 for that matter, but the AK74 is a much nicer rifle. Still not nearly on a par with the AR family, but probably the finest AR round in service on the planet?
I am an M-14 guy and have two, an original E2 with pod, scopes and M-21 treatment and a Chink clone with the Archangel stock. Both of which shoot better than I do these days! I used the E2 for my first 500m qual at the Beloit Rifle Club. Made it 4/5 the very first try on a windy day, no less! I am also getting to like the DPMS LR-308 HFB more than a little! They shoot like a house on fire and even puts white box Winchester MG ammo into 1.125" at a hundred! The Hornady TAP ammo goes into .505" and the Sierra 168 MK into .476! My -14s like the white box Winchesters, but are not close at about 1.5-1.6". I know because I can't afford to feed anything the Match ammo all that much. I also have a little AR in .300 BLK that shoots like gangbusters and used it to earn a 500 badge, also on a windy day with the 125 Rem OTM load at about 2250, IIRC?
All of which goes to show that the little Carbine has it's place and it's dangerous out to about 600 yards, If you know the range and crank the sight to the right elevation.

 

What was the title of that movie???

 

They used soft point ammo and like it so much they made a new version of the Tavor, IIRC, in .30 Carbine! The JHPs made it a wonder weapon!

 

Please do not disparage "Yellow" sun glasses as they definitely help in the right light! Any tool that helps is good!

 

PS. Move to America! I would gladly sponsor you and family if you want to come. We can go Elk hunting and owning an M2 version is perfectly legal as long as you did the paper work, but too expensive now that the prices of both gun and ammo are through the roof.

 

I believe the M1 Garand was the mistake! It was originally designed and built in .276 Pedersen Caliber and would have been a very much better weapon for so many different standpoints and reasons! The M1 Carbine is easily arguably the worlds first Assault rifle! Every Army on the planet has come to the conclusion, both through test and eval and combat that any AR is better than any Battle rifle! And rightly so! Every study shows that the typical average soldier can not get hits past 150 M! Combat eval shows that the effective range is much shorter, just under 100M in combat! This obviously has little to nothing to do with the gun and everything to do with the shooter! The only new, circa '70s research, shows that to get any large improvement a much less powerful round of ammunition is required! Look up the Interdynamics MKR rifle and ammo, project Salvo and the ACR Competition? I'd give my eye teeth for an MKR and source of ammo!

 

The point is..... they would have been better served with a better weapon. You seem to think this is a binary issue. It is not. The carbine was simply not up to the job on the battlefields of Europe. "Neither fish nor fowl" to quote a quote from a previous post.

I realize some folks find the carbine a fun plinker and a link to the war, and that is OK by me. From a personal standpoint I don't understand this affectionate attachment to what was an ineffective combat weapon.

 

Did you know that the typical military "Standard" for infantry rifle accuracy in most armies world wide was 4-5 MOA? Only in America did they require more accuracy! 3.5 MOA during WW-II and 2.5 MOA starting with the M-14. There was no change in the standard of cartridge accuracy, but the combo of gas block placement, mass and placement of the flash hider made the M-14 uncommonly accurate, (<2.5 MOA) due to the harmonic node being near zero at the time of bullet exit! This was at the time of issue a revolution in accuracy of military weapons! Current M-16s are typically much more accurate than this! Back in the forties an accurate rifle like most that are sold off the shelf today was a keeper to be cherished and lovingly cared for, not to be shot too much to preserve the life of the BBL, etc... Most coml rifles back then could not shoot much better than military standards and many were much worse.

 

I would dispute that. Hunting requires soft point ammo of some sort, FMJ ammo should never be used for hunting anything larger than rabbits. With soft point bullets it has much more energy than required for deer sized game and is certainly as effective as the .357 Magnum handgun which is legal in most, if not all states where hand guns are legal to hunt deer.
What we have here is a continuation of legends that are certainly lacking in merit as proven by the Israelis issue of carbines with soft point ammo!

 

What better weapon? Nothing else in that era even comes close. A Thompson weighed twice as much, had less than half the power, and a third of the range. The thousand foot pounds of energy delivered by a carbine is not "ineffective." It is more effective than any other shoulder fired weapon short of a full powered battle rifle using the 30.06 cartridge.

.

 

As to "Accuracy" I had a TC Encore in .30 Carbine with the 14" Heavy BBL and it was a tack driver, easily hitting golf balls at over 100 yards. So I think we need to discuss exactly what we mean by the words accurate and accuracy!