M1 carbine.. what if?

[Kaylee]

Yes, I know the conventional wisdom is that the Germans invented the assault rifle with the MP Sturmgewehr

But it seems to me that we came awful close to the mark some years earlier with the M1 carbine -- a small, light rifle firing an intermediate cartridge with fair-sized detatchable magazines. Seems add in selective fire (didn't the original spec have it, at that?), arguably beef up the power a bit, and you're there.

Which leads me to the next question.. what do you think would have happened had the Powers That Be decided to develop the warbaby into the role some twenty years prior to the M16?

For example, could the action handle a slightly beefier cartridge with spitzer bullets, something on the order of a straight-walled 7.62x39? Or would the entire project have been doomed to be a disaster from the getgo?

-K

 

[AZ Jeff]

There were experiments at Aberdeen PG in the 1950's where a M-1 Carbine was converted to shoot a .22 caliber wildcat cartridge. I believe it was an outgrowth of the study done at the end of WW2 about battlefield effectiveness of marksmanship.

The results of these tests with this carbine were a precursor to the "Project Agile" that begat the M-16.

So...I think your "what if" was actually tried, at least to some extent. See the book "The Black Rifle" by Stevens and Ezell, for more details.

 

[keederdag]

Remember, the Johnson Spitfire.....That's what your talkin. The Carbine was invented as a substitute for a pistol, that's the only reason it exists. There was never any intention for it to be a front line battle rifle. I know, it was there next to the real M1's, but anyone who has ever shot a living thing with G.I. ball .30 carb. will tell you, as a rifle, it makes a really good pistol.

 

[AZ Jeff]

What I am trying to recollect (and am failing to fully recall) is a project done inside Aberdeen. The experimenter took a single solitary carbine, and make a new barrel, machined out the face of the bolt, and modified some magazines. The rifle was tested to only a limited extent, and was an effort separate and apart from Melvin Johnson's commerical venture of the same time period.

I wish I had a copy of The Black Rifle here at work, and I could clear this up.

 

[Atlas Shrug]

It was written:

"... but anyone who has ever shot a living thing with G.I. ball .30 carb. will tell you, as a rifle, it makes a really good pistol."

First, I'm a huge .308 advocate.
Second, I love the M1 carbine (rifle) and tolerate its cartridge.
Third, I'm aware of plenty of negative comments on the cartridge.

That said, folks like John George (Shots Fired In Anger) and Audie Murphy (NMNTBS) used the M1 carbine, and damned well. Read what they said about it and you may reconsider it as a weapon. Remember, they were both men who could put the shot where it needed to be.

Now as for using it at distance in Korea in deep winter against heavily clothed soldiers, that was just stupid. So from my knowledge, the main problem with the M1 carbine in combat is that some folks TRIED to use it as a main battle rifle. A foolish idea from the get go.

Otherwise, it has great merit. I like it with JSP rounds for the same role that most AR-15s fill - close in "urban" combat.

 

[Dave Markowitz]

That said, folks like John George (Shots Fired In Anger) and Audie Murphy (NMNTBS) used the M1 carbine, and damned well. Read what they said about it and you may reconsider it as a weapon. Remember, they were both men who could put the shot where it needed to be.

In a similar vein, Capt. C. Shore of the British Army, author of "With British Snipers to the Reich," positively loved the Carbine he picked up in a ditch in Holland.

Now as for u[sing it at distance in Korea in deep winter against heavily clothed soldiers, that was just stupid. So from my knowledge, the main problem with the M1 carbine in combat is that some folks TRIED to use it as a main battle rifle. A foolish idea from the get go.

Agreed.

To answer the question in the first part of the post, I don't think the Carbine is beefy enough to be rechambered for a larger cartridge. I'm aware that LeMag made some converted to .45 Winchester Magnum, but these carbines have the reputation for letting go. Now, it the design was scaled up a little, say to be big enough to handle a 5.56mm or a 10mm, then you'd be onto something. (Or you could just as well get a Mini 14. )

 

[dfariswheel]

I still think that if Ruger had had the Mini-14 up and running in the early 60's, it may have been adopted.

It uses a M1/M14 type receiver, has a large magazine, and was chambered in an "assault" cartridge.

Who know, history could have been different.

 

[Keith]

The M1 Carbine is a semi-auto subgun, NOT an assault rifle! And such weapons had been around since 1917 in one form or another. The Germans used the Bergman submachine gun late in WWI, the Thompson came out in the twenties, etc.

The .30 Carbine round is a beefed up handgun round, not a scaled down rifle round as found in the Assault Rifle.

Keith

 

[keederdag]

What Keith Said.......

 

[keederdag]

Oh yea, and by the way, Moose, Bear, Elk, and people have all been killed by properly placed .22 rounds. The .30 carb is/was ment to be a defensive weapon Like a pistol. I'm sure that if Murph had a .22 he still would have used it to great effect. Besides that, he was'nt a very statuesk fellow, so I kinda bet the Garand was a bit uncomfortable for him. However he positivily prooved that dynomite comes in small packages.

 

[BigG]

.30 US Carbine

Audie Murphy

...and the average Snuffy on the front lines.

1. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Audie Murphy could kill more with a pellet gun than most of us could with an autoloading 30/06. That's why he is so well remembered; there weren't many like him

2. Audie Murphy did most of his killin with an M2 .50, IIRC. Look at his battle at Holzwihr where he stood off tank supported infantry single handed and won the CMH.

3. As a rifle the 30 US Carbine does make a pretty good pistol.

 

[444]

"The .30 Carbine round is a beefed up handgun round, not a scaled down rifle round as found in the Assault Rifle."

Beefed up from what ? It has the ballistics of a .357 handgun. With good bullets, certainlly adequate at fairly close range.

 

[keederdag]

I thought we were talking about Military rifles here? This means military ammo right? This means NO "good bullets". The cartrige only supports light weight bullets with a pretty weak sectional density. Ive hunted quite a lot actually, with the .30 carb. with hollow/soft points, it's a keeper, on light to smallish-medium game. With military ball, it just plain sucks. Cottontails are a pretty hard one shot stop with G.I. ammo.

 

[BigG]

The 30 Carbine round is based on the old 32 Winchester Self Loading, a miserably ineffective cartridge that was used in the old Win blowback autoloaders. These were designed after JMB had quit selling to Win and had sold the autoloading rifle to Remington which became the Model 8.

The 32 WS/L was replaced by the 351 and 401 Win S/L which were only a little better.

Very poorly thought of by most anyone old enough to have used one.

 

[Keith]

Beefed up from what ? It has the ballistics of a .357 handgun. With good bullets, certainlly adequate at fairly close range.

Yeah, it's just fine. I LIKE the carbine - and I own one! But, it's not a rifle, it's a shoulder-stocked pistol. It's unfair to compare the carbine to a battle rifle because it wasn't designed as an alternate to a battle rifle - it was designed as an alternate to the 1911 pistol.
In that role it's an excellent choice and has greater range, greater ammo capacity and at least equal "punch" - surely more at greater ranges.

It's just not a battle rifle.

Keith

 

[444]

Right, my point was that it is not beefed up at all. It has the ballistics of a medium sized pistol cartridge.

 

[Dr.Rob]

Still it makes a nice cqb/anti-wookie rifle.

In selectfire mode the M-2 pretty much replaced the Tommy gun didn't it?

After reading Hackworth and others the Tommygun was scare in Korea, mostly picked up from dead chinese, US troops only subgun was the M3 grease gun.

A full auto 30 shot 357 shooting ball ammo can't be all bad, right?

Just a thought.

Oh and I've seen numerous references in books to GI's filing the sear to make the m-1 carbine into a full auto rifle in ww2.. though who knows if this is true/feasable/possible?

 

[BigG]

It's not a .357 it's a 110 gr .308 non-expanding. Probably just a little better than 32 ACP in actual effectiveness.

Do not get fooled by paper ballistics. They are fine for perusing during a session on the throne, but like most all statistics they do not represent much other than a conversation starter.

 

[Keith]

It has the ballistics of a medium sized pistol cartridge.

I would argue that the .357 (which you compare the .30 Carbine to) is a "beefed up" pistol cartridge. I would describe the .38 Special or 9mm as a "medium" or standard pistol cartridge.

Keith

 

[Atlas Shrug]

Well now.

BigG wrote such things as:

------------------------------
"Do not get fooled by paper ballistics. They are fine for perusing during a session on the throne, but like most all statistics they do not represent much other than a conversation starter."

And:

1. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Audie Murphy could kill more with a pellet gun than most of us could with an autoloading 30/06. That's why he is so well remembered; there weren't many like him

2. Audie Murphy did most of his killin with an M2 .50, IIRC. Look at his battle at Holzwihr where he stood off tank supported infantry single handed and won the CMH.
-------------------------------

First, sorry for not doing the quotes correctly. I'm a relative newbie here, anyone want to point me to the directions?

Second, I don't care much for paper ballistics either. I referenced writings by folks who used the M1 _in conditions where it worked_ while acknowledging areas where it clearly didn't work.

Third, when I mentioned Audie Murphy, I posted the disclaimer that he could surely hit what he aimed at, which you infer as well makes him "different" and better than the average Joe. No doubt about that there, as I stated. I basically used that example to illustrate that it's MUCH more about how and where you hit than what you hit with.

Fourth, only in the movies did Murphy do most of his killing with the M2. Depending upon what numbers you look at and times you can reference, he used a Thompson, an M1, an M1 carbine, etc. What he trusted the most was a worn M1 carbine with a split stock wired together. HE stated so in his own writings. Check them out sometime.

Again, this is not to say that the M1 carbine is a battle rifle. It's clearly not, was never designed to be, but was sometimes mistakenly used that way. My main point is that when used where it's strengths were present, it did the job, often quite well (jungle combat, close quarters, night charges, non-winter use in European theater, etc.). When used improperly (at distance in Korean winters), it performed poorly.

It's no panacea, but it was and is not a worthless gun. It may be a darn good pistol cartridge, but if so, it's delivered by a gun that will allow you to hit accurately and effectively out to 100+ yards, under time pressure. Can you do that with ANY pistol? I can't, but I'll take my chance under such conditions with the carbine any day. For shooting out past 100 yards, though, it gets passed over for a .308 or 30-06.

 

[BigG]

Atlas Shrug: I think we pretty much agree, we are just expressing ourselves differently.

My dad has a 30 US Carbine bought thru NRA for $19 in the 60s. He served on the frontlines in ETO in WWII. He has specific opinions as to which weapons worked and which didn't from a rifleman's point of view. He claimed that nobody would keep a carbine on the front lines. Even the officers got an M1 rifle.

High marks for M1 rifle; BAR; 45 Auto; Big 50 MG, but was not an infantry weapon.

Low marks for US 30 MGs as compared to German LMGs; 30 US Carbine; Thompson, other than the original 1928 models. Most German small arms other than the LMGs.

The carbine is ok for jumping in and out of vehicles but that was not a consideration of a WWII infantryman. To clear a house, first a pineapple was thrown thru the door or window. Then, any long arm would do for clearing. The entrenching tool was the best close combat weapon other than a firearm, according to him. For today, lots of police officers like the carbine because it is light and handy. They do not usually have pineapples to throw thru doorways before they enter a room.

I have read and had people tell me carbines were good in the jungles where you were close to the enemy but could not see him.

FWIW, cheers!

 

[keederdag]

Atlas, I think everyone here has now agreed the carbine was never ment to be a front line "battle rifle" or "asault rifle" or whatever. EVERY ONE HAPPY? I AM. Anyhow, anything Ive ever read; been told; and experianced tell's me that the M-2 AKA full auto carbine was a jammer. I have fired several, and I can only think of one that ever made it through a full G.I. issue 30 round M-2 mag. They tried and tried to make it a sub-gun, by changing the bolt ect., but it never made the cut. During the Korean Conflict The "grease gun" was our standard sub-gun, not the M-2. Personally I have several M-1's in my collection, theyre slick, handy little rifles, desighned to replace a pistol for rear eschalon troops/officers. However I would'nt want to take one into combat instead of an M-1 Garand.

 

[Atlas Shrug]

Gentlemen,

Yes, it seems that we are closer to agreeing than I thought at first. Perhaps I'm a bit "quick on the trigger" when folks bash the M1 carbine, since often the bashing is for the wrong reasons.

Many times those who disparage the M1 carbine would grab an AR-15 without thinking about it. For me, I'd grad the M1 carbine over the AR-15 any day for close in fighting (house/room/street style). I'd also grab the M1/M14 over the AR-15 for going to battle as it were. Yes, I need two guns to do that, but they would each do well one of the things while the AR compromises to cover both - OK (close) and poorly (far). They would both be very, very reliable too. Unfortunately, too often the AR lacks in this last area. All IMHO, of course.

Now keederdag brings up a real good point - the M2 version. While I've not fired one, I tend to think that the M1 carbine is best utilized in M1 configuration, with 15 round magazine. The 30 rounders can be problematic, and the M1 was designed to be a semi. I've shot some full autos, but see little use for them aside from house busting (full caliber LMG and above excluded - I'm talking individuals with rifles).

The M1 carbine in semi auto with a 15 round magazine will get you out of most tight spots. Perhaps it should be viewed as "the pistol from hell" especially when wearing the M1A1 stock!

A happy camper, as I have the M1 carbine, M1 Garand, and M14 to choose from. Life is good!

 

[BigG]

...Capt. C. Shore of the British Army, author of "With British Snipers to the Reich," positively loved the Carbine he picked up in a ditch in Holland.

Ha ha Frodo. I read that too, but you have to consider the POS the British had for a weapon, that would make a handful of rocks look pretty favorable. JMHO, no offense you SMELLY fans.

Those Limeys would not be here to write books about their war experiences were it not for our fathers going forth and pulling their boiled mutton out of the fire, as it were. Many personal weapons were sent over to those ungrateful bas**** and were never returned, but destroyed by the Limeys. That is not to mention the untold millions of war materiel given to them by the US govt. I don't hate them, but I don't exactly consider them friends, either. They can stick that SMLE where the sun don't shine, along with their bayonet.

 

[Daniel Watters]

.22 Carbines

There were experiments at Aberdeen PG in the 1950's where a M-1 Carbine was converted to shoot a .22 caliber wildcat cartridge.

You are thinking of G.A. Gustafson's SCHV conversions of the M2 Carbine. This was done on a "spare-time" basis in addition to his regular duties at Aberdeen Proving Ground's Small Arms and Aircraft Weapons Section, circa 1952-53. Gustafson's cartridge was based on the .222 Remington case shortened to 1.32". The ballistics of the .22 Gustafson Carbine (.22 APG/.22 SCHV) are approximately 3,000fps with a 41 grain bullet. (This is not to be confused with the numerous .22 wildcats based upon the .30 Carbine case, such as the MMJ 5.7mm Spitfire.) Dr. Carten dropped the hammer on further development after Gustafson started making favorable comparisons between the SCHV Carbine and the M1 Rifle (not just the M1/M2 Carbine as originally planned). However, the modified Carbines managed to survive for later use in the Project SALVO trials.

Besides "The Black Rifle", there are additional details of the Gustafson Carbines in "War Baby II".