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.
Thank you for your comments. There was a lot of “spray and pray” with the M-16. I remember about two days of training on sighting the M-16, and most guys did not get it. I was a city kid, but had fired a .22 in Boy Scouts and could follow directions and I was adequate as marksman, and zeroed my sights on the first try.
There were a number of excellent marksman in the U.S. Army in Europe during World War II, but I would not be surprised to hear that the standard of marksmanship was low, or lower than it should have been.
“....that the standard of marksmanship was low, or lower than it should have been.”
That subject has been widely discussed and ground into dust with no resolution. Three of my now deceased uncles were in Europe for WW2. They were all excellent shots, raised country boys. It was their position that anyone who was a lousy shot got lots of attention until they improved. Two were buck sgt. and the third was a four striper. Not sure what the real truth is. There is even an contention that many front line troops in WW2 never fried their weapon in combat - who knows.
True story: back in the 80’s, my buddy found a gun shop in NoVA that had gotten in several crates of M-1 Garands. Not sure where they came from: South Korea, were CMP disposals, or what. Four to a crate, varying conditions, as is. Covered in cosmo and wrapped in plastic, $100. We figured that if we could build two good ones out of four beaters, we were kings. They sold out before the two of us could scrape together the C-note to buy a crate. What a missed opportunity.
Ditto.
But mine was so inaccurate (think the barrel was actually warped) it could not be sighted in. One of those Korean remanufactured barrels I’m sure.
But you know, the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini Thirty are great substitutes with modern rounds.......wish I hadn’t lost mine in that boating accident years ago.........
Those were probably South Korean, they were pretty beat up.
Springfield Sporters also purchased a quantity of Garands from Colombia around the same time...they had been bought for cash back in the 50s, so there were no Lend-Lease/MAP issues with them, unlike the South Korean ones.
Originally, a carbine was a “long” weapon ( not a pistol ) small enough and light enough to be used EFFECTIVELY from horse back.
Long messy story there. The Koreans had received them as both MAP aid and cash purchases, and kept no records of which were which. When they wanted to release a large quantity in the 1980s, they claimed that the rifles were from those purchased, and provided documentation that was subsequently exposed as faked. After that, the law was changed to forbid re-importation of American-made small arms.
Now they claim that those rifles from the 1980s were the MAP rifles, and the ones they have now were the “real” purchased rifles—for which they want cash. And the Army’s policy is that they don’t pay to take back obsolete equipment.
And on a related note, I understand that the former head of the CMP program was in South Korea on unrelated DoD business, and had a chance to examine some of the Korean rifles. Supposedly they were in such poor condition that he would have turned them down even if they were free.
That may well be. This was 35 years ago, so 90% of the details escape me now. Still, we figured if we could build a pair that wouldn’t blow up in our hands and there was decent furniture, we would come out ahead. In retrospect, I’d have settled for a wall-hanger.
They say the Grand weighs 9.7 pounds, and the decimal point disappears after a ten mile march.
I believe, that in theatre and closer to the front, a man learned to adjust the sights. It may be a matter of realizing that one must overcome the business of waiting for orders: “I’ve got to get smart, fast.” A shift to smart personal initiative. And, marksmanship improved by encountering somebody who made the effort to teach what they had learned. The standard of marksmanship was better than average, for a veteran in theatre.
Maybe because if your shot isn't a kill-location shot, say the arm, the 30-06 will knock him off his feet...
Then, later, thoroughly clean your bayonet...
Ruger manufactures the Mini-30 chanbered for the &.62x39mm,
US Paratroopers used them too. More M1 carbines were made during WW2 than Garands.
“8mm Mauser will set you on your ass.”
But 7.62x54 will steal your soul. :)
Have you ever seen an FG-42? The Allies were fortunate that the Germans didn't hit on that design in the interwar period and make it their primary battle rifle.
when I repaired off brand M1 carbines (like the Univerals) I always used Iver Johnson parts to replace broken bolts or carriers. Those parts were heat treated properly so they were superior replacements.
Load soft point ammo in a carbine and it is not a plinker, it’s a great defense weapon for the home. I have put one in the hands of women for training and so far every one of them has preferred it to the ARs. I can shoot it in my garage without ear protection, too. Never try that with an AR, even if you’re half deaf like me.
The both were designed by the same guy. Same guy, in fact, as designed the M1 tank and the M1 57mm towed anti-tank gun.
/s
I was sitting two people over from a guy who intentionally shot an AMT long slide in 30 carbine inside a building. I don’t remember actually hearing it, the muzzle flash blinded me in the eye I didn’t get quite closed in time.
Startled doesn’t accurately describe everyone who wasn’t aware of what was going on until he lit that hardballer off.
I agree with you that the Carbine is an excellent firearm for a woman as it smaller, lighter and fires a lighter load then the Garand. I recently took my recently widowed cousin to the gun store. I tried her out on a 12 gauge and I could tell she wasn’t happy. Then brilliant man that I am I asked about the 20 gauge and she was happy. As a new shooter as many women are they feel that they will loose control of a large heavy firearm. With that in mind I got her a .22 for practice and will wait until she gets bored with it and replace it with a mini-14. For now she is happy with her new firearms and that is the most important thing.
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.