M-1 Carbine Myth vs Reality

Ian at Forgotten Weapons site, has an interesting clip up talking with a gentleman about the myths and reality of the M-1 Carbine: http://www.forgottenweapons.com/ken-...on-vs-reality/ Included is the item, that GI's using the carbine in combat, would ditch the GI magazines after about a month and use new ones, until they were ditched again in favor of new ones. Because according to the gentleman, the GI carbine is a P.O.S. And that Korean made ones are a much better built magazine.
Just thought I'd toss this in.


R. Brown

I've seen that clip Richard and my take on what I saw is not the same as yours. I thought it was a rather fair review. I did find the apparent need to change old mags for new on a regular basis unusual but he never indicated that the carbine was a P.O.S. I thought he said that the Korean magazines were good but not better than G.I. He did say that all carbine magazines were on the fragile side.

It's not always the fault of the magazine. Many times the magazine release is to blame. It wears out too and will not hold a magazine in a proper position to feed the rounds into the chamber and allows the magazine to sag and sometimes move more should in the magazine well. The US military aimed at 100 magazines per carbine so times 6.2 million is one heck of a lot of magazines made in WW2. I don't know if they got that many made but they may have come close.

Mags get bashed around a great deal when you're trying to not get shot. As a result the lips can get bent in or out a wee, tiny bit that will stop 'em feeding properly. Easily fixed with needle nosed pliers, but a troopie wouldn't carry those and didn't have to buy his mags.
Have one 30 round mag I had to tweak the lips open a tick(a very small tick at that) to get it to feed reliably. Haven't had to fiddle with it since, but I'm not being chased around by people I don't know.
Mind you, Ian at the Forgotten Weapons site seems to have a lot of preconceived notions.

The only thing I disagreed with Ken Hackathorn is that Americans at that time were willing to accept a lower level of reliability in their weapons. I think that is BS. I think the M1 Garand and the carbine both ran well when taken care of. Just like the Thompson submachine gun. I have had all three of these items and they all ran like a Swiss watch if you took care of them. If my life was on the line, I would not be prone to accept "a lower level of reliability".

I've got a M1 Carbine and I would take it over a 1911 in a fire fight. That is what it was designed to do. At 50 yards it is very accurate. At 100 it not so.

The carbine was designed to be effective out to 300 yards. Granted it only had the hitting power of a 38 spl at the muzzle of the 38 at 300 yards but you could hit a man size target at that distance reliably. Can't do that with a handgun. Magazines were used till empty then dropped and left where they landed or if possible taken with you. But to loose a magazine or more of them was no big thing during battle. There were plenty of them in the rear with the ammo. Most carbines shoot between 2 and 3 inches at 100 yards. Max set by the military was 4 inches.

Not to h jack the thread, but I have read. that the much maligned Reising gun main problem were the magazine feed lips. Apparently they were used as disassembly tools which resulted. in them being damaged or bent. causing malfunctions. Can't claim any experience with the Reising, so I am just passing this along

Hmmm, when he was talking about the .30 carbine ammo he misspoke regarding a comment about it was designed to use non-corrosive ammo because of the short stroke piston design of the M1 carbine. Actually, the .30 carbine ammo was designed/developed well before the rifle itself was, therefore, the gun was designed around the ammo, not the other way around.

That is correct. It was the ammo that was design first by Winchester. Samples sent to different companies to develop new rifles and then testing of the new rifles. All were asked to improve their design. Winchester was asked to submit a design which they did in a 30 day period and it won the testing. The Military decided to make the ammo with non corrosive primers. It was felt that solders would take apart the gas system to clean them and loosing the castle nut and or the piston. Then they might also not get the nut on properly and the rifle could malfunction. So the USGI did not take the gas system apart and the primers meant no corrosion in the system. An added benefit was the amount of throat ware was minimal because of the non corrosive primers.

Attachment 45359

There's a lot of variation between M1 carbines when it comes to accuracy. My CMP Italian return is capable of quite good accuracy, certainly better than I expected when I got it, but the Italians took real good care of it. The attached picture shows a target I put 15 rounds of S&B fmj into at 100 yards using my range bag for a rest. The flyer is entirely my fault. It isn't M1 Garand accuracy but still not bad at all The little rifle will definitely hold "minute of thorax" at 200 yards.

My carbine as I received it, did have occasional failures to feed, about once every 100-150 rounds or so, but re-springing it fixed that almost entirely and now any failure is very rare. I should also say that an M1 carbine feed or ejection malfunction is very, very easy to clear in my experience.

Magazines are always semi expendable and damaged magazines are always a source of malfunctions. Add to that the fact that M1 Carbine magazines aren't the most robust I've ever seen and I can understand a high turnover rate.

Shot Snow shoot match at the Souther Michigan range, with a M1 Cabine, first five sighters, were @ 1 o'clock on the 9 ring, all five in a row touching.

Have known retired Marines that were South Pacific or Korean, with comments on the effectivenes was is specific events. Basically was 50/50 but aznything was nicer that nothing.

Both indicated that magazine were expendable and readily replaced. A USA officer with Merrills Marauders, had a shorten Magzine due to limited supplies that still function.
Mine carbine is on HD duty with two mags ready to go. I have polished /smoothed the feed ramp to minimize "stutterring' of soft-nose ammo/

A long story but love to tell it. When I was 15 back in 1953, I spotted an ad for a M1 Carbine completely assembled from a legal govn surplus purchased receiver in the Shot Gun News...This was years before the Government released carbines to the public for sale and only stolen ones were around..Talked my brother who was 21 to send for it for me. I missed the post man at home but he left the pick up notice at the PO...Had my mother drive me there to get it. The clerk brought the package out and asked, is it your birth day as it looks like some one send you a 22?. Lol, Long story, shortened. Went to the range with it, Quite an interest in it as it would still be a number of years before the government released any carbines for sale.. Fired it standing at 100 yrs at the steel plate. 15 hits out of 15. People were amazed at the accuracy and so was I .

My cousin, who saw combat in Korea and was seriously wounded, said the carbine would not reliably stop a a North Korean soldier dressed in winter gear. Bullets would not penetrate his clothes. My cousin's comrades would swap/steal a M1 garand whenever they could to replace the "pop gun".

Nothing to do with the clothing, Testing found the bullet would through it easy as well as through a good number of wooden boards behind the coats. The coats would not stop the bullets. Stopping all depended where the NK was hit. Nothing to do with the clothing..Of course the Garand would do a better job of stopping him..

That and many of the men who were sent into Korea had little to no range time with their rifles. Many had a hard time telling distance and using the adjustable rear sight had it set too high or too low to make hits on target. Those who still had the original rear flip sight did much better with hits on the enemy.

Superstitions evolve from a series of unverifiable anecdotes, endlessly repeated. The Army tested, investigated, and explored every conceivable element of ground warfare. Instead of endlessly repeating fantastical anecdotes, adherents should use their time to look for "actual tests" by Aberdeen, Infantry School, etc. (not just by well intentioned websites).

There were numerous complaints lodged in "actual reports" about the carbine's cold weather performance in Korea; none I have seen on penetration. Since no one has yet turned up test reports on these subjects, I would suspect the reason is, in both cold weather and supposed penetration complaints, that the claims were too dumb to justify any followup effort.

I would be happy to be proven wrong. Until then, 'not established' would be the most generous interim verdict for the rational amongst us. However, the anecdotes retain their entertainment value.

When will people learn that Carbines and Garands are two totally differ firearms. The .30 carbine and 30-06 are not the same. Use a little common sense, if you have any left! IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Art

Attachment 45359

There's a lot of variation between M1 carbines when it comes to accuracy. My CMP Italian return is capable of quite good accuracy, certainly better than I expected when I got it, but the Italians took real good care of it. The attached picture shows a target I put 15 rounds of S&B fmj into at 100 yards using my range bag for a rest. The flyer is entirely my fault. It isn't M1 Garand accuracy but still not bad at all The little rifle will definitely hold "minute of thorax" at 200 yards.

My carbine as I received it, did have occasional failures to feed, about once every 100-150 rounds or so, but re-springing it fixed that almost entirely and now any failure is very rare. I should also say that an M1 carbine feed or ejection malfunction is very, very easy to clear in my experience.

Magazines are always semi expendable and damaged magazines are always a source of malfunctions. Add to that the fact that M1 Carbine magazines aren't the most robust I've ever seen and I can understand a high turnover rate.

---

I count 16 rounds in this target but the group is about what I expect from my 1961 DCM gun at 100 yds. (including the flyer).

Lt. Col. John George who served on Guadalcanal and in Burma with the Marauders stated in his book "Shots Fired In Anger" that his testing showed the .30 Carbine would penetrat a Japanese helmet which satisfied his requirements.

This is a Paul Harrell video on the power of the M1 Carbine. In addition to testing a variety of brands and bullet types of .30 Carbine ammo; he compares it to three different .357 Magnum loads fired from a lever action rifle. He also compares it to 5,56mm NATO M193 ball with interesting results.

It is a bit long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Eg3TKkpTY

The carbine round is not a bad little round and in a handgun it is "hot" to shoot. I load mine with a Lee 120 lead gas checked at 1400 fps using Lyman #2. In many carbines never a problem with leading of the gas system. I once ran 1800 rds straight in my carbine one afternoon to get it to stop, it wouldn't and it was sizzling! :evil6:
Sam

Two of my seven carbines can hit a torso target regularly at 300 yds. They group 1 & 1/2 - 2 inches at 100 yds while the other five group about 4 inches at 100 yards.

Fact is the carbine is always compared to the M1 Rifle and then found wanting. If we had test subjects , I think we'd find the carbine was exactly what it was intended to be ...replacement for a 1911 pistol. So, in a perfect world , line up a squad of North Vietnamese soldiers (see I told you in a perfect world..my perfect world for test subjects), shoot some at 10 yards and some at 50 yds with a carbine and same test with 1911, one would find the carbine did as good or better than the 1911 and % of hits with carbine far better because in the military, we never trained to shoot the 1911 very well. In Special Forces we always did but in normal Infantry Divisions, they trained poorly with 1911 and qualification was not too hard to do.

Now I have no combat experience with the M1 Carbine but my wife as a teenager helped defend her house during Tet 68 with a M1 Carbine . She has no complaints with how things shook out ! She has a carbine under her side of the bed to this very day. She's deadly with it.