M1 carbine how effective was it

[Georgie]

I have read a lot of cons about the M1 carbine but not any pros. Too light a bullet, not enough velocity. Seems like it , in a lot of cases, would have been more effective than the pistol cartridge sub machine guns of the day.

[nik mond]

Well the German's seemed to have liked it enough to incorporate captured stock into their system.

[Dowly]

Completely irrelevant, but when I used to play Day of Defeat (the HL1 version, not the POS source crap),

I always tapped 2-3 in the chest with the M1 Carbine. Seemed to work.

Carry on.

[Andrew H.]

The carbine was more effective than the .45 or Thompson it replaced; I would call it successful when used as originally conceived.

I think most of the WWII complaints about the carbine come from it being used as a Garand replacement by paratroopers. It's clearly not a Garand. (Although whether paratroopers would have been better off with Garands is not easy to answer; certainly some paratroopers took Garands anyway.)

[Buzz]

I own an M1 carbine. It is light, easy to maneuver, low recoil and a good defensive weapon 100 yards or less. I would want several magazines at the ready to fight back to my Garand. I would not want to be the aggressor with an M1.

I would pick an M1 Carbines over a .45 pistol for my safety. I would pick .45 pistol for more fun to plink with over M1 carbine.

Compare my M1 to my AR-15s and it night and day. ARs are smaller, even w/o going the SBR format, reach much further with great lethality. Optics and endless options can make the AR the tool for most occasions yet the KISS format is probably my favorite.

[slysniper]

Having shot the weapon a few times, there is advantages and disadvantages. like any weapon. Most of the time it comes down to what you are wanting to use it for.

It strengths, compared to the options at the time. Light weight and very short barrel. makes for a gun that is quick to come to aim and able to put rounds on target. It is confortable to shoot. easy to load. Lighter ammo, makes you able to carry more or keep your pack weight down. Its reliable.

Weaknesses, not good for long range shots, lacks knock down power or penetration. Does not have the firepower of the Thompsom for up close fights.

It is what it is.

But many Gi's loved the weapon, so not sure where you get your opinion.

Back to mentioning that I have shot it. From all the weapons i have shot from that era. It was the most confortable and easy weapon to shoot. If I had to pack a weapon on foot for months on end in the situation they had there. It might have been the best choice for many situations if you could only choose one weapon. it might be the best choice. Things are different now. generally in a US Army, you have multible weapons to choose from. It comes down to the mission and the Terrain, back then, it was your rank and your unit that placed the weapon in your hand. Times have changed some.

[LongLeftFlank]

SLA Marshall definitely had it in for the carbine, especially in his Korea work, although he was doubtless echoing sincere criticism from frontline grunts. Part of his agenda though, was his general philosophy articulated in "A Soldiers Load" that for frontline forces, fewer weapons (and ammo loads) were better. The advantages of the carbine (light weight) did not, in his opinion, outweigh the added logistical burden, and he did have a point.

The M1 and the fully automatic M2 carbine were fairly widely issued to US client armies and militias in Southeast Asia; its light weight made it a decent choice for small-statured local levies (padi farmers and hill tribesmen with protein-poor diets). In my long ago travels in Southeast Asia, I ran across these weapons repeatedly in use with the patchwork of "opium armies" and paramilitaries I encountered. I also got a chance to fire one; it was very easy to handle, not fatiguing to shoot and pretty accurate at what I'd consider a normal tactical range. I think if a round hit you, you'd know it.

And while temperamental compared to the Garand and Tommy gun, it was worlds more reliable than the early M16s; however, by that point the AK47 had made the carbine totally obsolete.

[Buzz]

"Mission drives the gear." The tool of choice depends on supplies, tactics and environment. WWII my father was issued am M1 Carbine and Dad loved it. Most of my VN era buddies had issues with reliability in the jungle environment. I would grab an AK47 over an early M16 for sure.

Today, in tight quarters, or heavy vegetation a <6 pound KISS AR has many advantages. Switch to open terrain at night change the optics, lights weapons system features. This luxury is not something WWII soldiers had so an M1 Carbine was probably an effective defensive weapon as issued.

"I think if a round hit you, you'd know it." Agreed.

[Boche]

Completely irrelevant, but when I used to play Day of Defeat (the HL1 version, not the POS source crap),

Hey, dont say that about one of my favourite games ever! it was fantastic!

[LukeFF]

This is a good article which helps to put the M1 Carbine into the proper historical perspective: http://shootersjournal.net/putting-the-m1-carbine-in-the-right-context/

The true case study for the M1 Carbine’s bad rap was Korea. This is where the Carbine was told to do something it was never designed to do. In Korea ranges were much longer and the clothing was very heavy because of the bitter cold. Because the carbine was a whole lot more fun to tote than a Garand, an inordinate number of them found their way into front line service in a conflict that easily exceeded the design parameters.

The little 110gr bullet just didn’t have enough punch to close the deal under these conditions; clearly this was a job for a Garand and it’s superb .30-06 cartridge.

So the bad reputation came from pressing a tool to do something it was never intended to do. I don’t see how we can pan the M1 Carbine as worthless just because it didn’t do what it was never intended to do.

[Georgie]

This is a good article which helps to put the M1 Carbine into the proper historical perspective: http://shootersjournal.net/putting-the-m1-carbine-in-the-right-context/

Good article and it clears up some of the conceptions or misconceptions that I had about the Carbine. I've seen pictures of German troops carrying M1 carbines. I wonder if they had occasion to use them very much and what the results were?

[MikeyD]

In CMFI you can feel the difference between Garand and carbine at extended ranges, less so with CMBN where the enemy's only the next hedgerow away. Also when your men are bouncing rounds off building facades trying to kill the occupants. I recall playing a game in CM:Afghanistan where Russian Speznatz were facing Mujahideen in opposing buildings. On paper the Russians had greater firepower but old the muji Enfield could pierce walls while the AKs couldn't. The Russians lost that fight.

[Georgie]

In CMFI you can feel the difference between Garand and carbine at extended ranges, less so with CMBN where the enemy's only the next hedgerow away. Also when your men are bouncing rounds off building facades trying to kill the occupants. I recall playing a game in CM:Afghanistan where Russian Speznatz were facing Mujahideen in opposing buildings. On paper the Russians had greater firepower but old the muji Enfield could pierce walls while the AKs couldn't. The Russians lost that fight.

Seems like I have read accounts of this actually playing out IRL. What a come down it must have been for the Speznatz if it actually happed IRL. I wonder if our military took notice and if it did just discounted it as a fluke.

[MikeyD]

I read a recent article where the Army is now issuing two old big-bullet M14 rifles (spruced up of course) per platoon in Afghanistan. Because combat ranges in that conflict tend to be just about at the M4 carbine's limit. Plus the buildings ain't exactly clapboard siding and wallboard interiors.

[Georgie]

Good to hear that, its a good start but how do they get the M14 where its needed if its only 2 per platoon. It would be "hey Mac get with platoon and bring up the M14s. There is a house up here that we are getting fire from, ops too late were falling back, cant pierce the damn walls" Seems like 2per squad would make a differance.

[Buzz]

M1 Carbine

Thanks for the M1 Carbine shooters journal link. As Kevin Gibson noted in his article, " technological breakthrough for its day, and was that close to being the first assault rifle.* Weighing only 5.5 lbs, nearly half the weight as the M1 Garand … 15-round detachable box magazine …a feather soft recoiling little .30 cal cartridge that has more energy at 100 yards than the .45ACP… M1 Carbine was created as a better option than a handgun."

Sums it up pretty well. I remember my father's fondness for his WWII M1. His M1 never jammed or broke on him. Dad was in France & Germany but not in the front lines. Dad did use his M1 Carbine in a defensive role on several occasions but he was with several other guys shooting M1s and the M1 Garands were not far away in each of these situations. All his guys were happy to hear the big guns arrive.

My VN era buddies issues with their M1 were related to schlepping in jungle conditions. Water, vegetation & loss of lubrication can make any weapon malfunction and theirs did more than once. Could be chalked up to operator error not a bad weapons system.

I know my M1 Carbine can reliably group on a paper target at 100 yards. I would have no problem using this pistol cartridge carbine in a home defensive situation but I would not want to be the aggressor with an M1. The FBI penetration standard is 12 to 18 inches (15 inches ideal). The M1.30 cal cartridge comes in @ 13" not bad. It is not the caliber, it where you put the round on the target that matters most.

"On paper the Russians had greater firepower but old the muji Enfield could pierce walls while the AKs couldn't. The Russians lost that fight."

While many M4s can be very accurate and lethal at @ 300 yards (kind of amazing for such a compact weapons system) full battle rifle rounds blowing through your building is a tactical advantage the 5.56 can't often accomplish. I have been told from current Veterans that penetration of a larger round was very valuable in Iraq & Afghanistan. Putting a few large battle rifle rounds into the cover next to your adversaries head can make them rapidly reconsider WTF they are doing. Bad guy tries to relocate and often makes their last mistake.

Ironically I was given a Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk 1 "Jungle Carbine". The .303 round produces way too much recoil for such a cut down "battle rifle" but it will blow through all kinds of things like cinder blocks and such. I just don't want to shoot it after @ 5 rounds. Have many friends who tried it and were almost knocked off the bench! That said, I would not want to be hiding behind a wall with a .303 coming at me because it just might get me.

One last comparison comment.

I lined up my Winchester Model 94, an old lever action .30-.30, and the M1 carbine, next to my modern AR-15 builds. It is an interesting study in "assault rifle" technology. All of these weapons would work in a defensive roll but if I had to pick one weapon, it would be a modern AR-15 "KISS" variety.

Sorry for the long winded reply but this is an area of interest form me.

Buzz

BTW: "politically correct" lever action fans check out the Hornady 160 grain FTX LeverEvolution ammunition.

Velocity Muzzle 2400

Energy Muzzle 2046

Impressive from a old lever action assault rifle that does not get the "Evil Black Rifle"stigmata stare.

[JonS]

Ironically I was given a Lee-Enfield No. 5 Mk 1 "Jungle Carbine". The .303 round produces way too much recoil for such a cut down "battle rifle" but it will blow through all kinds of things like cinder blocks and such. I just don't want to shoot it after @ 5 rounds. Have many friends who tried it and were almost knocked off the bench! That said, I would not want to be hiding behind a wall with a .303 coming at me because it just might get me.

A fully wooded SMLE is a lovely rifle, but Jesus Recoiling Christ the Jungle Carbine is a brutal conversion :eek:

[Buzz]

You are correct Sir.

I won't part with my Jungle Carbine for sentimental reasons. I must admit on range days it is entertaining to hear the "What is that?" become "What the HELL was that!"

Cheers,

Buzz

[John Kettler]

Buzz,

I had a friend in California who owned a No. 5 Mark 1. He said the thing was LOUD, and if he said it was loud (he listened to serious rock) and kicked like a mule, I believe him. This was from a guy whose head was bigger than many jack o' lanterns, had very muscular arms and a barrel chest. Short, squat and powerful. Apparently, flash hider or no, it still had quite the muzzle flash.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

I read a recent article where the Army is now issuing two old big-bullet M14 rifles (spruced up of course) per platoon in Afghanistan. Because combat ranges in that conflict tend to be just about at the M4 carbine's limit. Plus the buildings ain't exactly clapboard siding and wallboard interiors.

It is two per squad.

[LukeFF]

You are correct Sir.

I won't part with my Jungle Carbine for sentimental reasons. I must admit on range days it is entertaining to hear the "What is that?" become "What the HELL was that!"

Cheers,

Buzz

Much like the Mosin-Nagant M44 and M38 carbines. Those things are LOUD.

[Michael Emrys]

I recall that back when I was in highschool some ads began appearing in some of my magazines offering Lee-Enfield jungle carbines for some incredibly low price, like $10-$15 apiece, and I was very tempted to send off for one. After all I've heard since then, I am very glad that I didn't. Oh, it would have been very cool looking to carry one around my neighborhood, but firing it...I don't think so.

Michael

[Buzz]

Georgie,

I hope the information posted helped answer your question of the M1 effectiveness?

I did a quick look on the M-1 Carbine and found some video references.

Hicok45

Shooting, showing, & discussing the history of this handy little piece of history. This is a Saginaw model that dates back to WWII.

Larry Vickers and Aaron Roberts compare the M1 Carbine (the original Personal Defense Weapon) with a more modern PDW, the HK MP5.

Notice the PDW designation for the M1. Make mine HK MP5 if I had a choice but for an old weapon the M1 is not too shabby for a defensive weapon especially in WWII.

AKD, Thank you for your numerous & authentic sound mods. I use them all. Great work. M14 rifles, "two per squad" is what I heard as well. I have seen photos of some very wicked looking M14 -Special Operations versions. Impressive!

John, Your friend in California with the No. 5 Mark 1 is correct as well. The "jungle carbine" is a gorilla to shoot. 5 rounds is all I want to do. The the cut down battle rifle & flash hider looks cool but it is not an easy weapon to use. Deadly effective if you get hit but not an efficient weapons system. Apples and oranges but …. I would pick a modern AR in almost any flavor, any day or night a it is is lighter, less recoil easier and faster on target and very deadly.

Luke FF I have never had the opportunity to handle or fire Mosin-Nagant M44 or a M38 carbine. The "jungle carbine" is LOUD. Here is a video reference for comparison.

Lee Enfield No 5 Jungle Carbine

Michael, I think my "jungle carbine" came in @ $20-$25 US way back when. It as given to me as a gift. For purely aesthetic reasons I would not want to part with it. I don't bring out #5 to the range much anymore but it always a "What the HELL was that?" when I fire it. Plenty of younger guys have never seen them.

Buzz

[transporter]

While in Nam, I had, in addition to my M-16, an M-1 Carbine (from the South Vietnamese Army) and a Thompson. (I traded a marine a reel to reel tape recorder for it.) Although the only weapon I got to use in actual combat was the M-16 I found the M-1 was great to plunk with but for real stopping power for 50 - 75 yards you could not beat the Thompson.

Having said that I'm sure in WWII the M-1 could put out reasonable fire power at the 100 yd range while the Garand would have been the weapon of choice for longer ranges. As far as stopping power, a wound from the M-1 that incapacitates can be as good as a kill.

[Buzz]

transporter,

Thank you for your service and sharing your active duty weapons experience.

I have never shot a Thompson but have handled one. Sweet! Putting a magazine of .45 caliber lead down range has got make the bad guys rethink their tactics. I would suspect practice would help keep full auto muzzle climb reasonable?

I will never relinquish my 1911s as they are as American as apple pie some of the most satisfying weapons I own for simple plinking pleasure…. .45 caliber and .357 Magnums.

"…WWII the M-1 could put out reasonable fire power at the 100 yd range…." I agree 100%. My Dad and his guys agreed in WWII. Dad was more relieved when the Garands showed up to close the deal. Something about the authority of "the greatest implement of battle ever devised" per Patton trowing lead at you! I think this is the answer Georgie was looking for regarding the the M1 effectiveness in WWII. Immediate incapacitation from any weapons system is the desired goal. "It is not the about caliber, it is about what you hit."

Today, in 2012, my old M1 Carbine is still one of my stashed home defense tools! I respect this old yet venerable weapon.

As I am now more mature (poor eyesight) AR-15s with modern red dot optics works better for me from years of practice. My M1 is a back up.

Thank you again for your service transporter.

Buzz