M1 Carbine -- the American MP44?

[Andrew H.]

Although the M1 carbine was pretty popular among certain front line troops, esp. in the Pacific, whenever I read about it, there is always the same (contemporary) report about the weapons "failings." Specifically, the complaint is that the carbine used an underpowered round and was not as accurate as the Garand.

Both of these complaint might be true, but it seems that they are the same factors that made the MP44 (and the assault rifle today) the dominant weapon on the battlefield. Like the MP44, the carbine uses an intermediate round between a pistol and a rifle round. Like the MP44, the carbine is effective out to about 300 meters. Both weapons had a 30 round clip, and both were capable of auto or semi-auto fire (although earlier versions of the carbine were not).

So I guess my question is: were the complaints about the M1 really valid complaints, or were they simply complaint by people who believed that the measure of a rifle was the full-sized Garand/K98/Enfield style rifle, and any other weapon is inferior to the extent it does not match these weapons? Or was there some actual inferiority to the carbine that would have prevented it from being used as an assault rifle even if the US had that doctrine.

[BloodyBucket]

Having been hammered for admiring the Carbine before, I might as well get hammered again.

The Carbine was designed to more or less replace a pistol. It is very much superior to a pistol. The .30 Carbine round is sort of like a .357 magnum on the power scale, and not in the same class as the Soviet 7.62x39 or the German 7.92 Kurz. The blunt .30 Carbine bullet sheds velocity like a stripper sheds a G-string, and M-2 Carbines fired full auto are very hard to control.

The Carbines I have fired tend to be less reliable than Garands. Extreme cold weather makes the firing pin on the Carbine break. Most Carbines I have fired give coffee can sized qroups at 100 yards.

All that said, for the intended role as a personal defense weapon for drivers, weapon crews, etc., the Carbine is a good gun. If it was as useless as some now claim, the GI of WWII would have not used it as widely as they did.

As an assault rifle, that is, a weapon that replaces the submachinegun and the rifle, the carbine would be a bust. Too much muzzle blast and recoil for a SMG, too little power and accuracy at range for a rifle. As a replacement for a pistol, it is as good as ever. My better half has one that has been worked over to feed soft nosed ammo and checked for reliability, and it would be a much better defensive weapon than a handgun.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The .30 Carbine round is sort of like a .357 magnum on the power scale, and not in the same class as the Soviet 7.62x39 or the German 7.92 Kurz. The blunt .30 Carbine bullet sheds velocity like a stripper sheds a G-string, and M-2 Carbines fired full auto are very hard to control.

[lcm1947]

Are you trying to start a fight? No really, this should be interesting. There will be plenty to argue for both sides so let me begin with my 2 cents. First I have shot rifles and pistols all my life and actually studied the various American cartridges in great detail and at one time could just about tell you off the top of my head how each performed, but alas it's been many moons ago but I still remember some so based on that here's my opinion. First, the M2 carbine is the last shoulder weapon I would pick if I was going to go into battle. Now the reason is that it wasn't that accurate, nor powerful and it sure wasn't that flat of a shooting bullet. In my opinion it just wasn't that good of a rifle/carbine and the cartridge it shot sucked. Now there was a place for it however and that was to replace the pistol. Most GI's couldn't and still can't shoot the Colt 45 Goverment model pistol worth a darn and the M2 was actually developed to replace it or at least get something in the GI's hands that they could use more effectively. It did do that but to say that it was a good gun/cartridge combination isn't correct. As far as range I personally don't think 300 yards is un- realistic. I would say more like 100 yards but I'm talking about accurate and to me accurate means being able to shoot a group of 3 or 4 bullet in a plate size pattern. I'm sure some will disagree but I have shot the carbine and like I said studied the rounds and it would be one of the last rifles I'd ever use. Course I think the 30/30 Winchester sucks too. Anyway, that's my small opinion. So let the fight begin.

[BloodyBucket]

The tough sergeant is supposed to be leading, not shooting. That, at least, is the theory. At close range, the Carbine is no popgun, but the MP44 has more oomph.

[Berlichtingen]

The Carbine was not popular with Marines in thePacific. They considered it a pistol and not worth much for accurate fire. Its ammo was pistol ammo basically, so compares with an MP40 for than a MP44

[OGSF]

The M1 Carbine was a good replacement for the 1911 Colt pistol, issued to rear era troops, drivers, tankers etc. And I agree with ICM1947 that it would be the last weapon I would choose as an assault weapon.

The M1 Garand is semi-auto and feels like a cannon after shooting the carbine. The same can be said for the K98k Mauser and Lee Enfield 303, except for the semi-auto part. If you get hit with one of those three weapons, I would think you go down and stay down. On the other hand, the carbine could conceivably take several hits to stop a strong man.

There are tales from Korea of M1 Carbine rounds being absorbed by the quilted jackets of the Chinese troops, leaving the wearer not much worse for wear.

I own and have fired all of the weapons I mention in this post, and my first pick would be the M1 Garand, followed by the K98k. The M1 Carbine is simply not in the same league as a front line assault rifle, and was not intended to be. But it's a lot of fun to shoot. :^)

OGSF

[BloodyBucket]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

The Carbine was not popular with Marines in thePacific. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not what I have heard, but I suppose that it would be most accurate to say that the weapon was popular with some Marines and not others. The close range fighting of the Pacific would be where the Carbine would shine. Higher magazine capacity and very handy.

"The carbine turned out to be the ace weapon of this war, as far as I am concerned. It was light, handy and powerful, and reasonably accurate....The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helmet, and to perforate the plates of Japanese bullet proof vests, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than 200 yards....For many types of offensive fighting, such as sneak raids and infiltration tactics, it was often superior even to the M-1 [rifle] penetration being the only point of difference." George, _Shots Fired In Anger_ NRA, Washington DC (1981) at pp. 393-394.

Granted, Lt.Col. George was in the Army, but he was a gun enthusiast who started the war shooting his own match quality 1903 Springfield with a scope. That book is all about his impressions of US and Japanese guns and shooting.

As to the idea of quilted vests stopping carbine rounds, that would have to be a hell of a quilted vests or a hell of a long way off. It is quite possible that a man could be hit with a carbine and not go down, but that is possible with almost any weapon that does not knock down the shooter. Without getting into the details of hydrostatic shock and temporary crush cavities, etc., suffice it to say that a carbine bullet is not as effective a stopper as a .30-06 or .303, but it is nothing to sneer at.

The old .44-40 of Winchester and Colt fame is considered very feeble by todays standards, but it killed a lot of people very effectively in the old west. There are better cartridges than the .44-40 or .30 USC, but that does not make them worthless.

[Hanns]

My grandfather used a .30 carbine in the PTO as a Marine. He preferred it to the M1 Garand and other weapons because of it's light weight and large magazine capacity. This is a man who saw action at Iowa Jima, Guadacanal, Midway and a bunch of other hellholes. He got field promoted from Lance Cpl. to 2nd Lt. during the war due to the casualties his company suffered. Had a lot of his friends die next to him and was reported as dead twice. He also has quite a respect for the Bristish mercenary Gurkhas that were employee in the jungles. Apparently they used to sneak out at night and collect the heads of Japanese soldiers with their Kukuris. They'd cut the bootlaces of the ones they didn't kill. They'd get a reward for each head brought back. My grandfather has a picture of a 10 ft pile of Japanese skulls in varying states of decay. Doesn't like to talk about it much though. I don't wonder why. The .30 carbine had it's place in close quarters combat especially in jungle environments. US troops also used 12 gauge shotguns with bucksot and flechette rounds to clear Japanese snipers out of the trees. Is the .30 carbine round good at long ranges? No, but a larger, more powerful round is worthless if the weapon is too unwieldy to get off a quick shot in tight quarters. Granted, I wouldn't use a round that not's legal to shoot deer with to shoot at an armed aggressor but this is in a civilian context. Anything under .45 or 7.62 NATO is too small for me

[Fishu]

M1 Carbine is semi-automatic weapon, not automatic.

It has 15 round stick magazine

M2 Carbine however is automatic, but some do still doubt that it was used in WW2 and if was, it was just minor.

It has 30 round curved magazine and is possible to fire either in semiauto or automatic modes.

So M1 itself isn't comparable to MP43/MP44/StG44 series what comes to automatic mode.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu:

M1 Carbine is semi-automatic weapon, not automatic.

It has 15 round stick magazine

M2 Carbine however is automatic, but some do still doubt that it was used in WW2 and if was, it was just minor.

It has 30 round curved magazine and is possible to fire either in semiauto or automatic modes.

So M1 itself isn't comparable to MP43/MP44/StG44 series what comes to automatic mode.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More than a million M2s were used in World War Two. The 30 round magazine was rare, and the soldiers rarely loaded it with more than 25 rounds.

A survey of combat photographs That I took last year in the ETO shows that the M1/M2 increasingly became popular with GIs at the front. Textual research shows it was very very popular with combat engineers and in city fights. Still, at the front, it was always far less common than rifles, and soldiers rarely "traded" weapons except for short amounts of time.

In extreme cold, the lighter mechanism froze easier than the Garand. In wet / hot climes like jungles it was extremely reliable.

[Warren Peace]

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the Germans thought the M1 carbine was a pretty good weapon and would use captured ones occasionally.

One important point to remember is that the M1 carbine is significantly lighter then the Gerand. This may be what accounts for its increased popularity.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the Germans thought the M1 carbine was a pretty good weapon and would use captured ones occasionally.

One important point to remember is that the M1 carbine is significantly lighter then the Gerand. This may be what accounts for its increased popularity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very possible. Soldiers do not always choose the "best" weapon from a technical viewpoint. To them, the best can mean easy to care for, light, easy to fire, etc.

One of the psych reasons why the carbine was effective in the US Army was that the brass loved the rifle so much, they just could not force themselves into adopting an SMG for front line use, especially one as ugly as the M3. The carbine was more of a rifle.

Of course, by Korea, the carbine was effective and popular, and the M2 shined. Except in the depth of winter when the weapon was not well cared for, it worked well. It was issued to front line soldiers in that conflict with the intention that it be fired automatically.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that the Germans thought the M1 carbine was a pretty good weapon and would use captured ones occasionally.

One important point to remember is that the M1 carbine is significantly lighter then the Gerand. This may be what accounts for its increased popularity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is very possible. Soldiers do not always choose the "best" weapon from a technical viewpoint. To them, the best can mean easy to care for, light, easy to fire, etc.

One of the psych reasons why the carbine was effective in the US Army was that the brass loved the rifle so much, they just could not force themselves into adopting an SMG for front line use, especially one as ugly as the M3. The carbine was more of a rifle.

Of course, by Korea, the carbine was effective and popular, and the M2 shined. Except in the depth of winter when the weapon was not well cared for, it worked well. It was issued to front line soldiers in that conflict with the intention that it be fired automatically.

[Username]

Ive fired both AK47s (very similar to MP44) and the M1 carbine. As Fishu correctly pointed out, the M1 carbine is not the same as the M2 carbine. The Topic is then wrong from the beggining. It should be M2 carbine, the American MP44.

In any case. I wouldnt compare them at all. The M1 might have been better than the Japanese rifles with their small calibers/bolt action. The M2 might have been handy against PPSh equipped North Koreans or Chinese. Its pistol bullet being better than their pistol bullet. The full auto evening things up when they got close.

But just plinking with the AK and carbine makes me feel that I have a battle rifle and a daisy rifle, respectively, in comparison. I wouldnt want to be in anything but a street battle (or perhaps dense jungle) with the carbine. It would still have limited penetration against walls, etc. I have fired at alot of different materials with the AK (bullets being cheap) and it can punch holes in alot of different materials (the AR15 drills holes).

You can damn near "full-auto" by just using semi-auto with the AK. This gets very erratic with the slight M1.

Just my impressions. Dont distill everything from books and articles. Shooting is believing.

Lewis

PS I would take the M16 over anything anyday.

[Fishu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

More than a million M2s were used in World War Two. The 30 round magazine was rare, and the soldiers rarely loaded it with more than 25 rounds.

A survey of combat photographs That I took last year in the ETO shows that the M1/M2 increasingly became popular with GIs at the front. Textual research shows it was very very popular with combat engineers and in city fights. Still, at the front, it was always far less common than rifles, and soldiers rarely "traded" weapons except for short amounts of time.

In extreme cold, the lighter mechanism froze easier than the Garand. In wet / hot climes like jungles it was extremely reliable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was talking about those some, not of my own opinion.

I've heard alot and people seems very mixed up with M2 existance in ETO. (in large amounts)

oh.. yes, M2 does accept also that 15 round magazine.

M2 became more credited in Korea and M1 in WWII.. thats what is my impression by what I've read.

but well, we're talking about M1 here and thats not automatic

[Spook]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Just my impressions. Dont distill everything from books and articles. Shooting is believing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's truth in that notion---"shooting is believing." In younger days, I once fired a rebuilt M1 Garand back-to-back with a "vanilla" bolt-action 30-06 deer rifle. The Garand had a HECK of a lot more kick & sound to me back then, giving the impression that at similar calibers, the Garand had much more "power" to it.

[Andrew H.]

This is all very interesting -- I haven't fired (or held) any of these weapons, but as I read various historical accounts, I was struck by how the reasons that some people gave for the weapon's unpopularity seemed to be the same reasons that the assault rifle was adopted.

I've done a little more research and found out some interesting details for various WWII weapons concerning their ammunition and muzzle velocity.

M1 Garand

Cal: 7.62 x 63

Vel: 2805 fps

M1 Carbine

Cal: 7.62 x 33

Vel: 1969 fps

MP 44

Cal: 7.92 x 33

Vel: 2297 fps

MP 40

Cal: 9 x 19

Vel: 1250 fps

Thompson SMG

Cal: 11.45 x 23

Vel: 925 fps

PPSh-41

Cal: 7.62 x 25

Vel: 1600 fps

I wish I could have (easily) found the weight of the bullets. WRT the MP-44 vs. the carbine, the MP-44 has only a slightly larger bullet, but has a much larger muzzle velocity (more than 300 fps faster).

The Garand, of course, has a muzzle velocity of 2805, way more than the MP44.

It's also interesting to look at the SMGs, especially with an eye on CM2. In particular, the PPSh has a higher muzzle velocity than the MP40 (1600 vs. 1250).

Anyway, it appears based on this that a squad armed with automatic carbines would be superior to a German SMG squad. Any reason why this wouldn't be true?

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

This is all very interesting -- I haven't fired (or held) any of these weapons, but as I read various historical accounts, I was struck by how the reasons that some people gave for the weapon's unpopularity seemed to be the same reasons that the assault rifle was adopted.

I've done a little more research and found out some interesting details for various WWII weapons concerning their ammunition and muzzle velocity.

M1 Garand

Cal: 7.62 x 63

Vel: 2805 fps

M1 Carbine

Cal: 7.62 x 33

Vel: 1969 fps

MP 44

Cal: 7.92 x 33

Vel: 2297 fps

MP 40

Cal: 9 x 19

Vel: 1250 fps

Thompson SMG

Cal: 11.45 x 23

Vel: 925 fps

PPSh-41

Cal: 7.62 x 25

Vel: 1600 fps

I wish I could have (easily) found the weight of the bullets. WRT the MP-44 vs. the carbine, the MP-44 has only a slightly larger bullet, but has a much larger muzzle velocity (more than 300 fps faster).

The Garand, of course, has a muzzle velocity of 2805, way more than the MP44.

It's also interesting to look at the SMGs, especially with an eye on CM2. In particular, the PPSh has a higher muzzle velocity than the MP40 (1600 vs. 1250).

Anyway, it appears based on this that a squad armed with automatic carbines would be superior to a German SMG squad. Any reason why this wouldn't be true?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MV does not equate to stopping power, but the M2 is generally superior to a 9mm SMG in fighting power.

[sturner]

Don't forget that the M1 carbine had a different magazine catch than did the M2 carbine. Use a 30-round magazine in the M1 carbine without replacing the magazine catch and it has an unfortunate tendency to fall out of line with the chamber, causing jams.

I know from experience, not combat experience with it, but experience shooting it in field conditions.

[lcm1947]

7.92X33 Kurz Bullet grain 125

MV = 2070 ME = 1192

This is a short verion of the 7.92 (8MM) Mauser cartridge. This cartridge is less powerful than the 30-30.

7.62X39 (M43) Russian Bullet Gr. 122

MV = 2329 ME = 1470

This was adopted by the Russian's in 1943 and did not come into general use until after WWII. Again not a real good performer but slightly better then the 7.92 and close to being on the same level as the 30-30 Win.

.30 M1 Carbine Bullet Gr. 110

ME = 1975 ME = 955

This is a modified verion of the .32 Winchester self-loading round of 1906. It is not an assault rifle and due to it's accuracy and ballistics is limited to 150 yards = Maximum.

As you can see the .30 M1 carbine round is the poorest of the three assault type cartridges. Just for comparison here is the M1 30-06 cartridge data.

MV = 2970 ME = 2930 Bullet Gr. 150

As you can see there is no comparison and when you take into account the trajectory, well the .30 M1 carbine just plain is lacking.

[BloodyBucket]

There is a South American submachinegun that chambers the .30 carbine round. It is supposed to be a real obnoxious thing to shoot.

I still maintain that if the carbine was as worthless as modern critics seem to think, they would have been little used. The Reising gun, an unreliable SMG foisted on the Marines, was quickly done away with. The carbine thrived, saw wide use in Korea and Vietnam, and I think this speaks well of the little rifle.

[Fishu]

Andrew Hedges,

That same thing with bullet speed between PPSh-41 and MP40 goes also with pistols.

7.65mm Luger round is faster than 9mm, but smaller round will lose its velocity sooner than 9mm though.

Stopping power will be less at a range for smaller bullet, although, still will have good potential at "close" range.

(penetration isn't that much worse at close than with 9mm)

Actually in testings it was found that 9mm and 7.65mm would been better choice for US pistol caliber rather than .45, what comes to overall killing capability.

(read lenghty article from some book long time ago..)