The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Printable Version

+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. (/showthread.php?tid=19116)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-09-2019

n9nwo Wrote:There are those who still love the XM8

Hey, I fell in love with the M1 carbine at the age of 7, when my dad checked one out from the armory and brought it home on a Friday evening. (He had to pull guard duty that weekend, and the armory wouldn't be open on Saturday.) I thought it was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen.

Sixty-some years later, the M1 carbine is still my favorite military rifle. If I could have only one rifle for the rest of my life, it would be an M1 carbine.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-09-2019

JASmith Wrote:
stanc Wrote:They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.
Or did the technology and then-current design practice keep a better design from appearing?

The technology was not a limiting factor.

When John Garand began working on semi-auto rifles at Springfield Armory, the .30 Remington existed, as well as other cartridges which would have been suitable parent cases for an intermediate-power, assault rifle cartridge. In fact, during WWI the French created such an intermediate cartridge -- the 8mm Ribeyrolles -- for a prototype assault rifle.

[Image: 226-2261994_comparison-of-ammunition-of-...s-1918.png]

[Image: 226-2261994_comparison-of-ammunition-of-...s-1918.png]

At the time that M1 carbine development began, spitzer bullets had been standard in rifle ammo for more than three decades. It would have been a simple matter to have designed a spitzer bullet for the .30 Carbine round.

And as noted in post #31, the M1917 Winchester machine rifle had a "straight-line" stock.

So, the technology was available. But, the prevailing mindset prevented use of the technology.

Instead of developing an intermediate-power cartridge and designing a lightweight assault rifle, Garand made a heavy, battle rifle that fired a full-power round.

Instead of fitting the M1 rifle and M1 carbine with "straight-line" stocks, they were given the same old "drop-comb" type stocks that had been used for centuries.

(For any who might be interested, there's a related discussion in Tony Williams' forum: https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=7217.1)

JASmith Wrote:In other words, 'brilliance" needs to be defined by the then-current environment rather than the technology standards 90 years later.

I fully agree with that. I certainly don't fault the developers of that era for not creating things that came long after their time, like the SCHV concept, for instance.

But, to use ordinary "drop-comb" stocks? And round nose bullets in rifle ammo? I don't know how either could've been considered "brilliant" even 100 years ago.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-09-2019

While we may have difficulty in putting ourselves in the minds of the M1 carbine designers, there is some logic to assuming that a low velocity (by rifle standards) pistol substitute would have round nosed bullets like the pistols it replaced.

The assumed effective range was close enough that a spire point would not have been judged to add enough to velocity retention to be useful. The the spire point round nose would have been seen as drilling through the target so would have been viewed as equal from a wound ballistics perspective.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-09-2019

JASmith Wrote:While we may have difficulty in putting ourselves in the minds of the M1 carbine designers, there is some logic to assuming that a low velocity (by rifle standards) pistol substitute would have round nosed bullets like the pistols it replaced.

The assumed effective range was close enough that a spire point would not have been judged to add enough to velocity retention to be useful. The the spire point round nose would have been seen as drilling through the target so would have been viewed as equal from a wound ballistics perspective.

1. The M1 carbine was NOT intended to be a "pistol substitute." It is a RIFLE, and was meant to be a much more effective weapon than a pistol. I see no logic to handicapping its performance by using a round nose bullet.

2. You seem to have misread my post. I said SPITZER. Not "spire point," and definitely not "spire point round nose."

3. The assumed effective range was 300 yards. With MV of 1970 fps, I'd think that the difference in retained velocity between a bullet with ~0.16 BC and one with ~0.26 BC would be quite "useful" and very desirable.

4. A flat base spitzer bullet like that below exhibits early yaw after impact, producing superior wound ballistics compared to the round nose .30 Carbine bullet.

[Image: 153-3147B2800_5.jpg]

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-09-2019

The point is that we are criticizing decisions made nearly a century ago. The technology framework folks had to work with then is dramatically different than it is today.

As one whose profession was weapon design and assessment for things other than firearms, I have a deep appreciation for how seen, unseen but nevertheless real constraints affect a design that gets adopted.

So, yes, I think the designers did the best they could do even though I have a huge disdain for the cartridges effectiveness as a military small arms cartridge.

Regarding LE and civil use today, new bullet technologies make this an excellent self-defense, small game, and light deer harvester. Those same technologies make the needle bore .223 Rem even better on all those categories.

But wait, the .223 was designed and developed a quarter century and a World War later. That war ushered in the atomic bomb. jet engines as serious propulsion devices, radar, and so on. The ensuing cold war, space race and other superpower competition brought forth even more revolutionary changes in our understanding of how things work.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-09-2019

JASmith Wrote:The point is that we are criticizing decisions made nearly a century ago. The technology framework folks had to work with then is dramatically different than it is today.

So, yes, I think the designers did the best they could do even though I have a huge disdain for the cartridges effectiveness as a military small arms cartridge.

Even in that period they were well aware of the ballistic superiority of spitzer bullets over round nose bullets, and bullet makers were just as capable of producing spitzer FMJ as round nose FMJ.

So, the idea that the designers did "the best they could" is inconsistent with the facts. The technology framework of that time could easily have supported manufacture of a more effective bullet.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - VASCAR2 - 07-09-2019

I assumed the 30 carbine round nose bullet was used to improve feed reliability with a short cartridge case and detachable box magazine. I always thought of the 30 carbine more of pistol caliber ballistics and not rifle ballistics. The 357 Magnum, Remington 38-40 or 32-20 from lever guns class of cartridge.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-09-2019

stanc Wrote:...So, the idea that the designers did "the best they could" is inconsistent with the facts. The technology framework of that time could easily have supported manufacture of a more effective bullet.

The cartridge design and bullet selection all suggest that long range was not one of the design criteria.

Further, the often stated intent was to replace the 1911 and 38 caliber revolvers. In my view, the carbine was successful in that the hit frequency went way up, even though the probability of downing an adversary given a hit was not what any of us today like.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - 1Shot - 07-10-2019

As has been said before the M1 Carbine as well as the Garand was designed about 100 years ago in a time when most of the world powers were still using a bolt action rifle. That made them a wonder weapon for the time. I have had a few M1 Carbines and still have an Inland which has a newly produced M1A folding stock attached but I still have the original stock. I have not shot anything living with the M1 Carbine myself but if you shoot a water filled jug with the FMJ and then a soft point of HP there is a WORLD of difference. When I was first starting out deer hunting in 1970 my uncle and some other fellows went together and bought a plot of ground next to the national forest and built a hunting cabin and I got to use it with them. There was one other cabin and another one made from an old school bus down the hill about 200 yards from this cabin. There was a man and his wife that had the cabin next to ours and she used an M1 Carbine to deer hunt with and used Winchester 110 HP ammo. I saw a deer that she killed with it and the damage compared to what I years later experienced using the 357 mag with 125 HP ammo. I really got to see what kind of destruction this little carbine with the 110 HP ammo could do. These cabins were up in a pretty remote area in the Mountains of East TN. There were some pretty ruff people that lived not too far from these cabins. Over the years the cabins were all broken into and damage done and things stolen and we knew most likely who had done it but could never prove it. It was in the summer time and the man and his wife were spending some time in their cabin. The man had gone down the mountain to a store to get something. While he was gone it had gotten dark. His wife heard something outside. She knew it was not her husband because she had not heard his truck. She got her M1 carbine and loaded in the 30 round magazine and went to the back door where she had heard the noise which was a solid wooden door. As she got to the door someone started kicking the door trying to break it in. She yelled "I have a gun" and they kicked another time. She emptied all 30 rounds of 110 HPs through that door. I guess who ever was on the other side of it was one lucky fool because he was not hit, well at least he was not laying dead and they could not find any blood. I just happened to come up the next morning with my uncle to cut some wood to get ready for winter stay in the cabin and got to see the door and hear her story. Man that door looked like a buzz saw had been turned loose on it.

I had an uncle that was the Sheriff in our county in the late 1960s early 70s and he always carried a M2 Carbine with two 30 round mags taped together laying on the back seat of his car. He was a WWII Army vet that fought in the Philippines and loved the M1 Carbine.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Gusmeister - 07-10-2019

Good storied 1Shot. Thanks for sharing!

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-10-2019

VASCAR2 Wrote:I assumed the 30 carbine round nose bullet was used to improve feed reliability with a short cartridge case and detachable box magazine.

That would seem an unwarranted assumption, since there are cartridges with spitzer bullets and similar case lengths which feed reliably from box magazines.

.351 WSL
[Image: 97415_original.jpg]

7.92 Kurz

.300 BLK

VASCAR2 Wrote:I always thought of the 30 carbine more of pistol caliber ballistics and not rifle ballistics.

Regardless of what you thought, the .30 Carbine is a rifle cartridge that was derived from a rifle cartridge (.32 WSL), for use in a military rifle, not a pistol.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-10-2019

JASmith Wrote:The cartridge design and bullet selection all suggest that long range was not one of the design criteria.

:confused: No one has ever claimed that long range was a design criteria of the M1 carbine.

JASmith Wrote:Further, the often stated intent was to replace the 1911 and 38 caliber revolvers.

That is a false and misleading statement. The intent was to provide a lightweight rifle for select personnel.

The M1911 was not replaced. It remained in widespread service for four decades after M1 carbine adoption. (And about two decades after the M1/M2 carbine was replaced.)

JASmith Wrote:In my view, the carbine was successful in that the hit frequency went way up, even though the probability of downing an adversary given a hit was not what any of us today like.

There's no question that the M1 carbine was successful, by pretty much any metric. It's just a shame that it wasn't given a well-designed spitzer bullet. That probability of downing an adversary would likely have gone way up.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-10-2019

1Shot Wrote:As has been said before the M1 Carbine as well as the Garand was designed about 100 years ago in a time when most of the world powers were still using a bolt action rifle. That made them a wonder weapon for the time.

Meh. When the US Army was adopting a semi-auto battle rifle that was fed from an outmoded 8-rd clip, the Russians were adopting a select-fire battle rifle that was fed from detachable 15-rd magazines.

[Image: tapatalk_1389557681039.jpeg]

And when the US Army was fielding a semi-auto carbine that was fed from a 15-rd mag, the Germans were fielding a select-fire assault rifle that was fed from 30-rd magazines.

[Image: 02846.jpg]

"Wonder weapons." Puhleez. Rolleyes

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-10-2019

Why dont we ask ourselves what has changed as we go about condemning our grandfathers inept design practices?

To be sure, the design, fabrication, and testing has vastly changed over the past century.

Nonetheless, the criteria set for the design continue to be constrained by a number of factors that few of us agree with.

For example, we could ask Why does our military acquisition community seemingly cling to .30 caliber as the center of new thought?. Also, Why, when looking at alternatives to .30 cal., do the designs look more like a senior officials idea of what makes sense, rather than the result of an unbiased parametric assessment?

The list of damning questions can go on for a long time but the main point is that the only value in critiquing old designs is to develop insight into what advice to give the decision makers of today and the near future.

Anything less is merely an exercise in self aggrandizement.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - montana - 07-10-2019

stanc Wrote:Meh. When the US Army was adopting a semi-auto battle rifle that was fed from an outmoded 8-rd clip, the Russians were adopting a select-fire battle rifle that was fed from detachable 15-rd magazines.

And when the US Army was fielding a semi-auto carbine that was fed from a 15-rd mag, the Germans were fielding a select-fire assault rifle that was fed from 30-rd magazines.

"Wonder weapons." Puhleez.

The high command, "AKA bureaucracy", infected all nations during that time period including the communist Russians and nazi's. The Germans were directed not to drill into their barrels, opting for the failed gas trap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgF1kowRlY The German G41M is a perfect example of bad bureaucratic thinking during that time period.. The STG-44 and the FG-42 study is an interesting read on the battle of bureaucracies in war time Germany. Did German gun designer Hugo Schmeisser help develop the AK-47 rifle. Asking this question can instantly set off firearm historians into an antifa street fight even though there are excellent facts supporting both sides. The use of the 8 round clips was not such a poor choice , "since clips were much lighter" per ammo carried compared to magazines.https://www.full30.com/watch/MDA2OTg4/winchester-experimental-mag-fed-garands My late book keeper fought in many Island hoping engagements during WW2 and loved the M-1 Garand and had nothing but disdain for the M-1 carbine. A long time employee of mine carried the M-1 Garand during the early days of the Vietnam war and would carry nothing else. You know what they say about opinions! In any case, I have enjoyed this debate Wink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF0qH_zvfdU

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-10-2019

JASmith Wrote:Why don’t we ask ourselves what has changed as we go about condemning our grandfathers’ “inept design practices”?

Because changes in design, fabrication, and testing over the past century are not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss those topics, you should start a new thread.

And you are the only person calling our grandfathers' design practices "inept."

JASmith Wrote:Nonetheless, the criteria set for the design continue to be constrained by a number of factors that few of us agree with.

For example, we could ask “Why does our military acquisition community seemingly cling to .30 caliber as the center of new thought?”.

That would be an illogical question to ask, seeing as how 6.8mm -- not .30 caliber -- is the center of new thought. http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?18141-Tactical-Life-posts-that-the-military-is-changing-to-the-6-8-in-SAW-and-M4

JASmith Wrote:The list of damning questions can go on for a long time but the main point is that the only value in critiquing old designs is to develop insight into what advice to give the decision makers of today and the near future.

Nah. The only value in such a discussion is entertainment. I doubt that anyone here is advising the military decision makers on weapons programs.

JASmith Wrote:Anything less is merely an exercise in self aggrandizement.

"Self aggrandizement." ROFL. Thanks, Joe. You're always good for a laugh.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - JASmith - 07-10-2019

Stan,

It looks like we are headed into the world of personal attacks.

While some of the discussions are indeed entertaining, but when the tenor gets to one of complete criticism coupled with cherry-picked counterexamples with no positive suggestions on where to go, the entertainment factor becomes an annoyance factor.

Regarding the term "inept" I don't know how else one could use a single word to capture the essence of your complaints during a substantial fraction of the last 55 posts.

I am now looking for the nearest lake for my own purposes -- I will gladly provide instructions if others want to jump in with me.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - A5BLASTER - 07-10-2019

JASmith Wrote:Stan,

It looks like we are headed into the world of personal attacks.

While some of the discussions are indeed entertaining, but when the tenor gets to one of complete criticism coupled with cherry-picked counterexamples with no positive suggestions on where to go, the entertainment factor becomes an annoyance factor.

Regarding the term "inept" I don't know how else one could use a single word to capture the essence of your complaints during a substantial fraction of the last 55 posts.

I am now looking for the nearest lake for my own purposes -- I will gladly provide instructions if others want to jump in with me.

Ahhh JASmith don't quit now. I was just starting to enjoy my soda and popcorn with this thread.

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - Kswhitetails - 07-10-2019

When did the design/testing begin for the weapon that became the M1? I think I've read 1938? We went to war essentially in December of 1941, so shouldn't credit be given for the way the rifle actually not only survived but entered the service so quickly with so many minds and eyes in other places?

I'm inclined to agree on many points with Stan, but wonder about the bullet for the M1.

First thought is that the simple pressed cup round nose and straight walled case made ammunition manufacture as quick and easy as they can be made to be. Second is that I wonder if I'm confused because the term M1 seems to be used for both the Garand and the Carbine making two topics into one...

I'm dumb though. And usually in a hurry to catch up on a few threads in the too little time I have in front of the monitor here.

I'm loving the discussion, as I have always liked the Garand and the Carbine my dad will some day send my way. If I'm a good boy, and don't tell him he's wrong about anything. LOL

The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured. - stanc - 07-10-2019

montana Wrote:The high command, "AKA bureaucracy", infected all nations during that time period including the communist Russians and nazi's. The Germans were directed not to drill into their barrels, opting for the failed gas trap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwgF1kowRlY The German G41M is a perfect example of bad bureaucratic thinking during that time period.

Such "bad thinking" was not limited to the bureaucracy. John Garand also made the same error, and originally opted for the "failed" gas trap system on the M1 rifle. https://www.forgottenweapons.com/gas-trap-m1-garand/

montana Wrote:The use of the 8 round clips was not such a poor choice , "since clips were much lighter" per ammo carried compared to magazines.

The 8-rd clip was not a bad choice, but only because the vast majority of WWII opponents were still using bolt-action rifles with 5-rd and 6-rd clips.

That the en bloc clip was usable, doesn't change the fact that it was an outmoded feed device, inferior to detachable box magazines for military use.

Even before the 1930s, state-of-the-art, self-loading rifles were using detahable magazines.

Federov Avtomat - 1916

Ribeyrolles - 1918

[Image: latest?cb=20180722102228]

Tipo Terni MAF - 1921

[Image: pbwl.jpg]

Czech ZH29 - 1929