Posted on 12/21/2020 9:55:23 AM PST by PROCON
Image: Wikimedia Commons
The “M1 Carbine” was instead the first carbine to be developed and thus while it does have similarities, these are in fact different weapons.
Here's What You Need to Remember: The confusion between the two weapons isn’t helped by the fact that both are designated as firing “.30 caliber.”
Despite its name and the fact that its basic appearance is similar to the M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine—officially the United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1—wasn’t really a carbine version of the main battle rifle. The confusion lies in the fact that both were designated “M1” but that simply dates back to the U.S. Army naming system, which began on July 1, 1925. From that point, the "M" was simply the designation for “Model” while the number represented the sequential development of the equipment and weapons.
The “M1 Carbine” was instead the first carbine to be developed and thus while it does have similarities, these are in fact different weapons.
The M1 Garand—designed by Canadian-American John Garand at the Springfield Armory—features a gas-operated, rotating bolt system, a concept that has been commonly used with firearms chambered for high powered cartridges. The M1 Carbine also features a rotating bolt but it utilizes a short-stroke piston, which enables better control of the weapon due to the fact that less mass is needed to be stopped at either end of the bolt carrier travel.
The confusion between the two weapons isn’t helped by the fact that both are designated as firing “.30 caliber” but the distinction is that the M1 Carbine fires the .30 carbine (7.62x33mm) whereas the M1 Garand fires the .30-06 Springfield (7.62x63mm) round. In this regard the .30 caliber is similar to how the Soviets utilized various 7.62mm rounds—including the full-size 7.62x54mmR rifle round, 7.62x39mm intermediate cartridge (which was used in the SKS and AK-47) and the 7.62x25mm pistol/submachine gun round.
More importantly, the American .30 carbine cartridge, which was designed specifically for the M1 Carbine, is a light rifle round and shouldn't be seen as an intermediate round—notably those used with modern assault rifles. In fact, the rimless .30 Carbine was basically an improved design based on the much older .32 Winchester Self-Loading cartridge or 1906, which was introduced for the Winchester Model rifle. The .30 Carbine fired a lighter bullet but utilized modern power, so it was six hundred feet per second faster and 27 percent more powerful than its parent cartridge.
The straight case and rounded nose have also convinced some to believe it was designed for use in pistols, but this wasn’t actually the case. In fact, the M1 Carbine was developed as a weapon that offered greater firepower than the military pistols of the era but weigh lighter—and thus easier to carry—than the full-sized M1 Garand. It was clear to military planners that support troops including staff, mortarmen and radiomen; as well as officers and even some NCOs needed a more compact weapon.
The M1 Carbine also addressed the calls for a compact, lightweight defense weapon with a greater range, accuracy and firepower than a sidearm. The fact that the carbine weighed about half that of the Thompson submachine gun or M1 Garand, helped convince the military planners that this was the right weapon for the job.
Krag perhaps?
I agree. Yet I always wondered why they never developed a bottle shaped round similar to the 7.62x39 for the Carbine in 7.62x33.
__________________________________________________________
Funny you should mention that- The PRC’s Norinco makes an M14 clone configured for the 7.62x39 and even can use the AK banana clips. Of course they are illegal here in the US but can be had for a very reasonable price in the People’s Republic of Canada.
The Garand is a marvelous rifle, powerful, well made, and hard hitting. GI’s in WW2 had the advantage way over any bolt action rifle the Axis used.
The Mauser was a good rifle but again, working that bolt in
a fire fight could be a serious liability. And the Japanese Arisaka. Good Lord you couldn’t have design a worse battle rifle if you tried.
Now the MG 42. There was a weapon. Man, that thing was fearsome. Still in use today. Incredible rate of fire.
The Germans mounted the firing pin for the MG 42 on a small tray type assembly, about 2x4 inches and in each of the four corners of this ‘’tray’’ they put roller bearings so the whole firing pin/tray assembly moves back and forth very rapidly.
it looked an awful lot like that- but it was so long ago now- it coudl be-
If you’ve ever seen both rifles, or better yet, fired them there’d be no confusion. I trained in basic with the .30 Cal carbine, its woefully underpowered compared to the M1 Garand. Guys in Korea armed with the carbine would shoot an advancing enemy soldier only to see him get up after a few minutes, brush off his quilted and multilayered cloth jacket, and continue his advance. “The little yellow devils just wouldn’t stay shot.” But that didn’t happen with the M1 rifle, they got hit and they stayed right there where they dropped.
Years later I bought a .30 Cal carbine, it had belonged to a decorated Marine officer who fought on Iwo Jima. He’d taken on a Japanese officer, mano a mano, killed him and took his rifle, pistol, and combat gear home when he returned. He was one of the best men I was privileged to know. Over time I came to like the carbine more and more, it was fun to shoot at the gun range, but it just didn’t have the horsepower for medium size wild game.
OTOH the 30-06 M1 Garand had plenty of power, enough for any animal in North America. Many experienced hunters think it’s too powerful, they usually opt for .243s or .308s.
Anyway, in my opinion the Military made a mistake issuing the .30 Cal carbine. It lacked the essential characteristic necessary for a combat firearm: it failed to inspire the troops it was capable of killing the enemy.
What happened to all those garlands that Korea wa to return? Lend lease.
Which pistols, besides the single action Ruger chambered the 30 carbine?
H, yess. The 30/40 Krag!
bttt
As you know the whole purpose of a carbine is that it was originally designed for use by cavalry troops in the 1700s.
The word itself I believe comes from the Italian
‘’carabinieri’’ who were a mounted police force who not only maintained order among the civilian population but were also a kind of military police.
They are still in operation in Italy today. I believe they function as a kind of national police force.
The M-16 (223) was designed and implemented to wound, (perhaps kill) the enemy. It takes more enemy troops to take care of wounded troops then to kill an enemy outright. Bottom line was thought to be dead troop is out of the attack along with five or six caretakers with a wounded soldier.
Taurus makes one. I think that is the only other in current production. But good luck finding one, even before this current gun-run.
The most treasured ones, are the old AMT semi-auto. Unfortunately, when they come up for sale on gunbroker, etc, they sell for thousands.
Every Patriot should have a M-2
Thank You
Speaking for a friend (many years ago):
M1 Garand training in the military, was poor. The weapons sighting was poor. Training for setting the sighting, was poor - if even allowed. There was no accuracy past 50 to 75 yards, depending upon the weapon’s condition.
The best shooting was performed by “the kid from Tennessee.” All the shooting by kids from big cities, was a disaster - including wild rounds that shattered the target frameworks (bootcamp).
The rear sight of the M1 Garand is firmly attached (usually), to the barrel.
The front sight of the M1 Garand is *NOT* firmly attached to the front end of the barrel.
The tolerance of the clearance between the front end assemblies, must be respected - but is not, and that accounts for some of the slop. I would use a feeler guage (thousandths of an inch) to fill the gap.
But the majority of the slop, is because the following was not permitted: the individual rifleman needs to relax and spend time learning until it is second nature, how to *tune* the sighting - at short range. Walking the bullet holes around the target, with sight adjustments.
If the front sight assembly is in order, and the sights aligned, the M1 Garand can be deadly out to 300 yards.
I much preferred the M1 Garand in that condition of marksmanship.
On the other hand, the M-16 at short range, can send rounds thru gaps of 1 inch, consistently. IMHO.
Myself: I was never anywhere near active wartime military ground combat.
My brother-in-law: Went ashore at Omaha Beach, third week of June, 1944. Soon in fighting on the Cherbourg Peninsula - the Fortress area. Thereafter, “walked across France” engaging in ground combat, up to Christmas Eve 1944, when somebody realized that he had not had any break from action -— and he was sent to Paris. Where, he arrived “right when the alert was sounded” re the German surprise attack. They sent him back toward the front, but he did not get there; instead, being sent here and there, until finally attached to a unit with which he saw the end of the war, somewhere in Austria. He told me, that the thing he remembered most, “was all the dead bodies in the ditches alongside the roads. They were everywhere, but you cannot easily see them in pictures.” He arrived back in New York City, in time for his 19th birthday.
Winchester was in the process of designing a rifle for the army that was to be an improvement on the Garand action. The Army put out a request for firms to submit prototypes for testing.
At first Winchester didn't even want to submit as they were too busy producing Garands for the war effort. Someone noted the prototype Winchester design and urged them to submit it to the Army. Carbine Williams had been a major influence on the prototype design. He told the people at Winchester that they couldn't downsize the cartridge as requested by the Army without a major redesign of the gas piston system and he wanted no part of it.
Williams was later convinced to help on the project. Winchester had only one or two prototype rifles and they sent one to the Army for testing not knowing how well it would function. After testing, the Army asked for a number of modifications, but it became the M! Carbine.
The M1 Carbine was not a little brother in the sense that so many carbines are simply shortened versions of main battle rifles. It does have a relations ship to the M1 Garand, but a distant one. The M2 Carbine which had select fire was much prized by the soldiers in WW2, at least according to my dad who was in two amphibious landings on Japanese held islands.
One last point the reason that the M1 Carbine is so far superior to a M 1911-A1 pistol in .45 ACP is mostly accuracy and that is due to the longer “sight radius” or the distance between the rear sight and the front sight. A marginally trained soldier with an M1 Carbine can shoot kill shots out at 100 to 150 yards all day long, but it takes a real expert to do that with a pistol.
In Korea my Dad, a platoon leader, traded with a tank driver his carbine for the tanker’s “grease” gun.
It sure as hell isn’t some Obama pencil neck “general”!
My dad owns an M1 carbine, love shooting it. Very accurate out to 100yds.
A former boss I had years ago had his grandfather’s M1 Garand. His grandfather was a cook, served in the Pacific, so probably the type of soldier that was meant to be issued a carbine. Maybe the carbine was popular enough among infantry troops that in practice, the went to the infantry rather than the rear-echelon troops they were originally meant for?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.