M1 Carbine Question
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So /k/ after decades to look through historical records and with hindsight and three wars, I have a question about the usefulness of the M1 carbine. Was having a niche carbine rifle worthwhile for the US Army or would it have been been better to equip second line troops with a submachine gun? Did the argument that a carbine would allow second line troops to engage SMG armed troops from greater distance actual ever hold true?
So was the M1 Carbine a worthwhile rifle? Did it do it's job? Could an SMG have done the same job better?
>>30061142
Yes an SMG would have been better. It's why the m2 and m3 carbines are select fire.
>>30061142
The M1 carbine was the best rifle of WW2 and wasn't outclassed until the AR-15 came online. It's better than both the STG-44 and postwar guns like the AKM in every way imaginable.
>Did the argument that a carbine would allow second line troops to engage SMG armed troops from greater distance actual ever hold
true?
More about those second line troops being able to actually make hits with a light weight carbine over a pistol. If they have played with the cartridge a little more, and picked up the assault rifle idea sooner it could have been fantastic
The M1 Carbine was primarily issued to troops in a supporting position (ie Communications, Supply, Specialists)
But eventually its utility was seen and it started popping up in frontline roles and US special forces.
Its the closest we had to an "assault rifle" at the time but the round it used was too anemic to be considered one. Plus the selective fire capability was not an option till postwar (I think?).
The selective fire feature was included in the original M1 design but we did not consider it more important than speeding up production... So it was omitted from the design.
My grandfather used an M2 in Korea. He still had one until he died a few years back (albeit an semi auto) and I inherited it.
He said that it was extremely handy and all you really needed.
Its light and for its size and weight it far better than any SMG for a frontline soldier. If only the ammo wasnt so damn expensive.
>>30061142
Seems outclassed by the burp gun, in my opinion. 7.62x25 didn't get many complaints.
>>30061142
>Was having a niche carbine rifle worthwhile for the US Army or would it have been been better to equip second line troops with a submachine gun?
that is a very good question, to which several after war-reports should have an answer.
i could just imagine the US, not having been introduced to the German's AR concept, doing something kind of weird tech progress between a full-sized rifle round and a medium rifle round, and just spending 20 years trying to identify the need for an AR.
>>30061142
The most useful trait of the M1 carbine was its light weight, IIRC the carbine came out at ~6lbs while a M1A1 Thompson came out close to 11lbs, the M3 Grease Gun was between them at 8.5lbs. When you are carrying a weapon around all day for months at a time the lightweight carbine must have been a dream especially when you are used to a rifle/smg that weighted twice as much.
It also has an effective range twice that of any SMG in service at the time.
The .30 Carbine also packed more punch than .45acp while having better control over the recoil.
>>30061483
What head set is that?
>>30061483
>Seems outclassed by a gum with different usage, in my opinion. A ballistically similar cartridge didn't get many complaints.
Fascinating.only places the "burp gun" as you vaguely put it out classes the M1 carbine is in cost. With M2 version the recoil was a bit of a bitch but I'd didn't have the luxury of being a heavy ass sub gun
the french in indochina loved the M1 carabine . in b4 muh jungle penetration meme
>you will never be a colonial oppressor
The M1 carbine was one of the better infantry weapons of WWII. The only complaint that I could think of as a soldier in the field would be the stock. The walls can be fairly thin and prone to breaking if you were diving to prone or crawling through rock or dense jungle.
>>30063552
Quick question but why is he wearing a sweater under his smock in the jungle?
>>30063814
He's French.
The M1 Carb. Wasn't intended to be "better" than an SMG. It was originally intended to arm support soldiers who would otherwise carry only a 1911 pistol. For that it served it's purpose decently well from what I know. Issues started coming up when they started trying to use it for Frontline service where the round's lack of power was an issue. Would an SMG have been better, yes and no, better fire volume, but worse weight, stopping powah, and effective accuracy.
>>30061513
>i could just imagine the US, not having been introduced to the German's AR concept, doing something kind of weird tech progress between a full-sized rifle round and a medium rifle round, and just spending 20 years trying to identify the need for an AR.
You mean like what happened anyway with the M14?
This really makes me wonder how Hyde's first model carbine would've done if it was chosen.
>>30063814
it helps you acclimate faster.
same as wearing fewer layers when you first get to a colder environment.
>>30061391
He gave you an illegal machine gun then. Even if an M2 has had the select-fire parts removed ATF treats all receivers stamped as 'M2' as machine guns.
>>30061391
Be careful with that M2 man, Fudd-lore states that they still classify receivers marked with M2 to be machine guns even though they are identical to M1 receivers.
>>30061184
>online
They are great for weddings
>>30067115
>instead of throwing rice they just shoot .30 carbine ammunition at the couple
>>30067391
>fewer birds die
>>30061184
>better than AKM
name a way
>>30061513
AR = assualt rifle?
Because AR in AR-15 stands for armalite rifle
>>30061184
wew lad
>>30063814
help wick away sweat
>>30061513
>>30063976
samefag fedora tipping himself
>>30069041
>it doesn't weigh 10lbs when loaded
>the cartridge is both sufficiently powerful and is more size and weight efficient than 7,62x39mm
>since it's lighter and more size efficient, ore ammunition can be transported by strategic air lift in terms of weight and volume
>essentially nonexistent recoil in comparison to 7,62x39mm
>Soldiers can carry more ammunition for the same weight
Basically better in every way that matters if you aren't fedora or vatnik
Chamber an M2 in 5.7 Johnson and you've got an assault rifle, albeit a fairly anemic one.
>>30063877
Undertale post
>>30072808
*Underrated, dang it
>>30072755
>the cartridge is both sufficiently powerful
citation needed
I love my M1 carbine, and .30 Carbine is fun to shoot, but I'd trust 7.62x39 far more at range. Hence why I've taken it hog hunting, and not the M1.
The only people who say something in .30 Carbine fills the infantryman's weapon role better than an AKM or even an SKS are fools who own neither.
>>30072902
>Asking for lethality citations on a gun that was used in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam
Nigger smacking lips and repeating fudd stopping power memes detected.
Have you ever shot an M1? If not go shoot one and report back about how much fun they are. I cant wait to buy one of the new Inland M1s when I get my bonus from work.
>>30072924
Just buy USGI, first gen universal, or howas instead.
>>30072914
I don't need citations, I know which uses the more powerful round.
.30 Carbine will do the job, but given the choice I'd rather have the bigger bullet. The M1 Carbine was built to be light and handy, because the infantryman would have a heavier Garand for longer range engagements.
>>30072986
>Personal feelings and strawmans are legitimate arguments
]
>>30073011
Post your 7.62x39 rifle and M1 Carbine, then
>>30073017
>Muh appeal to authority
>>30072958
Im kind of partial to buying a new one. The inlands, rock-olas and fultons are basically USGI spec rifles. Im leaning toward the inland and know to steer clear of the Kahr Arms/ Auto Ordinance ones. A buddy had one and it was just sub par fit and finish wise.
>>30061184
yeeeeaaahhh....
>>30064952
Oh no! That's so bad! Better destroy a family heirloom that literally did nothing wrong just because the ATF doesn't like it!
