If you had a choice of weapons... - Page 3

SMLE shooter · #51 (**permalink**) June 26th, 2009, 05:09 PM

"I do like to wonder what kind of impact the garand would have had shooting the .276 round. (.276 pedersen) A smaller recoil, and two more rounds of rock and roll. If you ask me the .276 round was ahead of it's time compared to what some would call overpowered rounds such as the 30-06 or 8mm, but was obviously never put into service. "

The .276 was hard on barrels...That is why they didn't adopt it.

John Dudek · #52 (**permalink**) June 27th, 2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marc780

M1 garand. Anything you shot with it tended to stay down. Not so the M1 carbine, just like other people are saying, the round is simply too weak ballistically and a good chance your enemy will have a chance to shoot back at you. I have read many accounts of this happening in both ww2 and korea where the carbine often could not even penetrate the thick quilted jackets of the commie hordes.
Also the garand used the same 30.06 ammo as the BAR and the m1919 machine gun so in a pinch you were more likely to be able to find some. Im sure someone figured out how to reload the expended clips if they had to.

Agreed. 30.06 is a proven man killer cartridge. Give me an M-1 Garand. Like Patton said. "The greatest battfield rifle ever designed."

Wolfy · #53 (**permalink**) June 27th, 2009, 08:56 PM

Patton also said "I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did."

joeguyperson · #54 (**permalink**) June 30th, 2009, 10:22 PM

I would choose the Garand

MVHAGEY · #55 (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 03:12 AM

Assuming I was as tall as I am now (I'm 5 foot 1 for god's sake), I would like the carbine, since it could be used as a field weapon since it's range was around 300 meters. If I were a normal sized person, it would be Garand all the way.

brndirt1 · #56 (**permalink**) July 13th, 2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MVHAGEY

Assuming I was as tall as I am now (I'm 5 foot 1 for god's sake), I would like the carbine, since it could be used as a field weapon since it's range was around 300 meters. If I were a normal sized person, it would be Garand all the way.

I owned and shot a WW2 paratrooper model (M1A1) .30 carbine for years. I bought it in the fifies out of a Gambles store, where it and a bunch of its "big brother" Garands were for sale. I was only a punk kid, but I figured I got robbed when I got to the store, and all the full stock carbines were gone. I used that little sweetheart for whitetail deer hunting in the breaks and brush of Montana until I lost it in a range-fire accident.

I had taken it to a gunsmith friend for a re-stock with NOS parts from Numrich, and he was going to re-parkerize it as well. A range fire swept through his area, and the small shop were he kept all his gun works was destroyed. My little M1A1 was in the mix. Took a good amount of time to get his insurance company to pony up with its true value (they claimed they would replace it with a replica), but eventually they did. Fortunately I had all the serial numbers and such recorded, and they couldn't deny it was an original, made in 1942.

I wouldn't shoot anything larger than say a coyote over 100 yards, it just doesn't have enough power for a clean kill. Under that distance though, I have dropped many a deer over the years. Of course that was using 110 grain PowrShok hollow points (not FMJ), with a bit of an upload on powder type and power.

Niles23 · #57 (**permalink**) August 5th, 2009, 01:05 AM

M1A1 carbine lighter(folding stock),fires more rounds and has less recoil. Popular with the air borne. Its a great hunting rifle i use mine all the time for deer with in 200 yards.

marc780 · #58 (**permalink**) August 11th, 2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfy

I read an account from an 82nd Airborne NCO's memoir years ago where he talks about sneaking up behind an Italian infantryman and shooting him twice with his M1 carbine. The Italian turned around and fired his rifle at him. The NCO had to shoot him three more times to drop him.

There are similar stories of US personnel having to hit Chinese and North Korean assault infantrymen several times with their Carbines to actually stop them from attacking. (In the Korean war)

I have read many similar accounts exactly like this. Everybody loved the carbine because it was light and had larger mag capacity than the Garand. But reports of the weakness of the round against enemy are numerous and well documented. In many cases during the Korean war, bullets from it were not even capable of penetrating the quilted jackets of attacking Chicom troops. Gimme a good old Garand any day.

Proeliator · #59 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 01:31 AM

Just a small correction on an earlier post;

During WW2 the M1 Garand was fed with M2 Ball ammunition, not the heavier M1 Ball which was fired by the M1919 machine gun.

The M2 Ball is a short flat based spitzer which weighes 9 grams and runs through the M1 Garand at around 850 m/s.

The M1919 was fed with the 11.3 gram M1 Ball which is a long flat based spitzer, and through the M1919 it runs at around 820 - 830 m/s.

A very potent round.

formerjughead · #60 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proeliator

Just a small correction on an earlier post;

During WW2 the M1 Garand was fed with M2 Ball ammunition, not the heavier M1 Ball which was fired by the M1919 machine gun.

The M2 Ball is a short flat based spitzer which weighes 9 grams and runs through the M1 Garand at around 850 m/s.

The M1919 was fed with the 11.3 gram M1 Ball which is a long flat based spitzer, and through the M1919 it runs at around 820 - 830 m/s.

A very potent round.

You're not 100% correct. The '03 Springfield, The M1 Garand, BAR and M1919 series, all fired the M2 Ball. M1 Ball was discontinued in 1939 in all but Aerial applications until depleted. The M1 Ball superceded the 06 ball that was used in WW1.

( .30-06 Springfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Proeliator · #61 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 03:03 AM

Hello formerjughead,

I cannot find where it says that it was discontinued in 1939 ? According to my sources it was retained for use in machineguns only.

formerjughead · #62 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proeliator

Hello formerjughead,

I cannot find where it says that it was discontinued in 1939 ? According to my sources it was retained for use in machineguns only.

You just need to read down a little further:

Quote:

In 1938, the unstained, 9.8 grams (151 gr), flat-base bullet combined with the .30-06 case became the M2 ball cartridge. According to U.S. Army Technical Manual 43-0001-27, M2 Ball specifications required 835 metres per second (2,740 ft/s) velocity, measured 24 metres (79 ft) from the muzzle. M2 Ball was the standard-issue ammunition for military rifles and machine guns until it was replaced by the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO round for the M14 and M60. For rifle use, M2 Ball ammunition proved to be less accurate than the earlier M1 cartridge; even with match rifles, a target group of 5 inches (130 mm) diameter at 200 yards (180 m) using the 150-grain (9.7 g) M2 bullet was considered optimal, and many rifles performed less well.[4] The U.S. Marine Corps retained stocks of M1 ammunition for use by snipers and trained marksmen throughout the Solomon Islands campaign in the early years of the war.[5] In an effort to increase accuracy, some snipers resorted to use of the heavier .30-06 M2 armor-piercing round, a practice that would re-emerge during the Korean War.[6] Others sought out lots of M2 ammunition produced by Denver Ordnance, which had proved to be more accurate than those produced by other wartime ammunition plants when used for sniping at long range.[7]

Brad

Proeliator · #63 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 05:33 AM

Ah yes, but the M1 was still used in machine guns along with tracer projectiles.

formerjughead · #64 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proeliator

Ah yes, but the M1 was still used in machine guns along with tracer projectiles.

It also says that Marine Snipers in the Solomans used them becasue of their accuracey; but, once depleted the M2 was the standard round.

here's another link for ya gets more into it:

http://cartridgecollectors.org/30-06intro/

Super Heavy Tank · #65 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMLE shooter

I read that the m1 carbine's effective range was under 300 yards.

i think it's 200 - 250 max

brndirt1 · #66 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niles23

M1A1 carbine lighter(folding stock),fires more rounds and has less recoil. Popular with the air borne. Its a great hunting rifle i use mine all the time for deer with in 200 yards.

I wouldn't shoot my .30 caliber Carbine at a white tail over 100 yards, and I wouldn't even consider it on a mule deer. BTW, you do know that the M1A1 (folding stock) is actually heavier than the wooden stock stardard version, don't you?

It isn't much, but the 1/2 pound (8.4 oz) is made up of the pistol grip, the hardware for the folding stock, and the steel wire of same coupled with the leather cheek pad. I always liked the balance of the folding stock better, since the weight is toward the rear. My brother's wood stock felt "barrel heavy" compared to my own.

To verifiy this goto Numrich parts online, and compare the shipping weights for a NOS (New Old Stock) folding stock with a NOS walnut stock. The solid walnut stock is 1/2 pound lighter.

Super Heavy Tank · #67 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMLE shooter

The .276 was hard on barrels...That is why they didn't adopt it.

politics is why they didn't adopt it

sniper1946 · #68 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2009, 08:18 AM

the mp40 is for me,I've liked it from way back...