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

[stanc]

Stan,

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

Joe,

You're the only one headed in that direction with your "self aggrandizement" remark.

Being amused by what someone has posted is not an attack, personal or otherwise.

[montana]

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/

True, but kind of explains the concept of drilling the barrel as being some what of an un-proven concept for the time.

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.

True, but the US and other nations have had a bad habit of manufacturing poorly constructed magazines for firearms, degrading the reliability of an otherwise reliable weapon system. In a time before nations could just print money for weapon systems, economics played a bigger role in firearm development. Conservative economic thinking ruled most nations during that time period. The German tank warfare idea concept was actually a British officer's idea idea https://www.counter-currents.com/2015/08...1878-1966/ ignored by his own nation and borrowed by the Germans. The French idea of static warfare during WW2 was another blunder of old ideas ending in disaster. The en block was probably considered the best alternative, considering the problem Winchester had using a modified BAR magazine for their experimental mag fed Garand. The M-14 was very expensive and took way too long developing a mag fed Garand.

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

Federov Avtomat - 1916





Ribeyrolles - 1918





Tipo Terni MAF - 1921





Czech ZH29 - 1929

Other than the Czech ZH29 - 1929, these firearms were not known for reliability or dependability compared to the tried and true clips and en block charged firearms. Like the The French RSC 1917 rifle, it was innovative, but not yet perfected or proven until the M-1 Garand.

[stanc]

True, but kind of explains the concept of drilling the barrel as being some what of an un-proven concept for the time.

Uh, the drilled gas port, gas-operation concept had been proven more than a decade before development of the M1 rifle began. Here are a few examples:

RSC 1918 https://youtu.be/sExBiD7sBw0?t=12
Farquhar-Hill https://youtu.be/oXpgJ4JydN4?t=11
Lewis Gun https://youtu.be/l73mR4D9pYw?t=11

True, but the US and other nations have had a bad habit of manufacturing poorly constructed magazines for firearms, degrading the reliability of an otherwise reliable weapon system.

Did not the Browning automatic rifle and the Thompson submachine gun have reputations for reliable operation?

The en block was probably considered the best alternative, considering the problem Winchester had using a modified BAR magazine for their experimental mag fed Garand.

There's just one problem with that reasoning: Springfield Armory and Remington were able to develop magazine-fed versions of the M1 rifle that worked. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015...rock-roll/

[montana]

Uh, the drilled gas port, gas-operation concept had been proven more than a decade before development of the M1 rifle began. Here are a few examples:

RSC 1918 https://youtu.be/sExBiD7sBw0?t=12
Farquhar-Hill https://youtu.be/oXpgJ4JydN4?t=11
Lewis Gun https://youtu.be/l73mR4D9pYw?t=11

Apparently not since both the Americans and Germans put priority into the gas trap system.

Did not the Browning automatic rifle and the Thompson submachine gun have reputations for reliable operation?

Yes, but the Model 50 Reising, single feed M3 Grease gun, M-1 carbine and original M-16 mags were dismal at best.

There's just one problem with that reasoning: Springfield Armory and Remington were able to develop magazine-fed versions of the M1 rifle that worked. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015...rock-roll/

Yup, and the article verified my opinion on the US priority on magazine development.

On May 4th, 1945, Remington was represented by Lowe, Loomis, and G. O. Clifford at a meeting in Washington with representatives from Ordnance (including Col. Studler), Springfield Armory, and Aberdeen Proving Ground to discuss the T20E1, T22E1, and the findings thus far as to the proper configuration of the new rifle, whichever was chosen. *****( It appears that at some point in these proceedings, it was decided to dispose of the superior Remington magazine, and revert to the existing M1918 BAR magazine.)*****

Development continued at Remington from this point until after the end of the war. The improved T22E2 prototype was completed by late October, 1945, and submitted for testing before the end of that month.****( Unsurprisingly the test results showed that the rifle’s cyclic rate was outpacing the BAR magazine’s ability to feed rounds into the action, and this resulted in an inordinate number of closures of the bolt on an empty chamber; interestingly, though, this was the only type of malfunction reported!)******

[stanc]

Apparently not since both the Americans and Germans put pryority into the gas trap system.

1. Placing priority on one concept only means that particular concept is preferred. It does not mean that another concept is unproven.

2. If the gas port concept had been unproven, the Lewis Gun would not have seen such widespread use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun#Users

Yes, but the Model 50 Reising, single feed M3 Grease gun, M-1 carbine and original M-16 mags were dismal at best.

If that were true, US soldiers would've been slaughtered en masse as they attempted to clear the massive numbers of magazine-caused stoppages.

That never happened, because most of those supposedly "dismal at best" magazines actually worked quite well.

[montana]

1. Placing priority on one concept only means that particular concept is preferred. It does not mean that another concept is unproven.

We can agree to disagree. Today the gas port is proven and the gas trap would not even be considered. Back in the 30's, the gas port was not proven or the gas trap wouldn't have even been considered.

1.2. If the gas port concept had been unproven, the Lewis Gun would not have seen such widespread use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_gun#Users

The Lewis gun was rejected by the US military and was not universally excepted in the US. New ideas and concepts we take for granted today were not so easily excepted by bureaucracies of their time. The Maxim, M-16, STG44 were all originally rejected by their parent nation.

1.If that were true, US soldiers would've been slaughtered en masse as they attempted to clear the massive numbers of magazine-caused stoppages.

The Reising was detested by every one, the M-3 Grease gun used the single feed magazine when double feed magazines had been available for years. The Germans, English and Russians also used the less desirable single feed magazine. Single feed mags were hard to load and were prone to malfunction compared to double feed magazines. Today we never see single feed magazines for SMG's, just like gas trap systems for small arms. The M-1 carbines magazine was not exactly bullet proof like modern rifle mags used in the AK or M-4. The throw away M-16 magazine was another failed idea which cost lives. Proven concepts we all understand and except today were not so understood or excepted back in the 30's,40's 50's and even 60's.

That never happened, because most of those supposedly "dismal at best" magazines actually worked quite well.

This is the exact same argument the supporters of the M-14 used to stifle the M-16.

[VASCAR2]

I question whether logistics came into play with the decision to use the eight round end block clip. There had been a concern about repeating rifles back to the civil war in regards to ammunition consumption. Many times decisions are made by committee which results in compromises.

The M-16/M-4 hasn’t been replaced because it has been considered good enough. There may have been some people advocating for a detachable box magazine and intermediate caliber prior to adoption of the M-1 Garand but obviously their argument wasn’t persuasive.

Army ordinance made the decision to adopt the 30-40 caliber Krag-Jorgensen because they liked the side loading gate. In the Spanish American War the 30-40 Krag was completely out classed by the Mauser. The 30-40 Krag was adopted in the 1890’s a mere 45 years prior to the M-1 Garand. The 30-40 Krag replaced the 45-70 Trap Door Springfield so comparing the M-1 Garand to a 45-70 Trap Door, 30-40 Krag or 1903 Springfield the M-1 Garand looks pretty revolutionary to me.

Considering preceding small arms decisions by the US Army I’m not surprised by the adoption of the M-1 Garand. The main emphasis for adopting a semi auto pistol was for Calvary troops where it was difficult to reload a revolver on horse back. Standardization is prioritized and the reason the use of the top break S&W Schofield revolver was discontinued by the US Army was because it used a different 45 caliber pistol cartridge than the more plentiful Colt Single Action Army .

Hind sight indicates an intermediate cartridge in a detachable box magazine would have probably been a reasonable decision. I’m curious if a hundred years from now will firearms enthusiasts question why the US adopted and retained the M-16 pattern SCHV box fed rifle as long as they did. Much easier to question the past and a lot harder to predict the future.

[Fess]

It is interesting how far some early designs go to avoid removable box magazines. Look at the reloading process of the Italian Breda Modello 30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFJI04ifSoM&t=83s

[Klem]

...and the ubiquitous Lee Enfield .303 used by Commonwealth forces in both world wars has a 10rd detachable mag. But no soldiers were issued with spare mags and loading was/is done by 5rd stripper clips pushed down from the top.

Technology preceded the attitude.

[stanc]

Hind sight indicates an intermediate cartridge in a detachable box magazine would have probably been a reasonable decision.

Hindsight makes it more clear, but even back then a number of folks -- who had been paying attention to the lessons of WWI -- recognized that intermediate-power cartridges and detachable magazines was the best way to go. (See post #59 for examples.)

I think what kept the assault rifle concept from being pursued in this country is that, until the 1960s, the US Army had been very conservative, and change was done only in incremental steps.

Ammunition evolved incrementally:
- paper cartridge with .69 caliber lead round ball
- paper cartridge with .58 caliber lead Minié ball
- rimfire metallic cartridge with .58 caliber lead bullet
- centerfire metallic cartridge with .50 caliber lead bullet
- centerfire metallic cartridge with .45 caliber lead bullet
- centerfire metallic cartridge with .30 caliber FMJ bullet.

The infantry rifle evolved similarly:
- single-shot, flintlock muzzleloader
- single-shot, caplock muzzleloader
- single-shot breechloader
- 5-shot, bolt-action loaded with loose rounds
- 5-shot, bolt-action loaded with stripper clip
- 8-shot, semi-auto loaded with en bloc clip
- 20-shot, semi-auto loaded with box magazine

...comparing the M-1 Garand to a...1903 Springfield the M-1 Garand looks pretty revolutionary to me.

The M1 Garand only looks evolutionary to me. It's essentially just a gas-operated M1903 Springfield, with three more shots.

[stanc]

Today the gas port is proven and the gas trap would not even be considered. Back in the 30's, the gas port was not proven or the gas trap wouldn't have even been considered.

Rubbish. In 1940, spitzer bullets had long been proven superior to round-nose bullets for rifle use, yet spitzers were apparently never considered for .30 Carbine ammo.

And you are just flat wrong about the gas port concept being unproven in 1930. I previously noted three gas port weapons (the RSC and Farquhar-Hill rifles, and the Lewis light machine gun) that existed before 1930. Below are four more.

M1909 Benet-Mercie





M1914 Hotchkiss





M1918 Browning





Czech vz26





By 1930, the gas port concept had been well proven. Indeed, it was the gas trap concept that was unproven.

[montana]

Rubbish. In 1940, spitzer bullets had long been proven superior to round-nose bullets for rifle use, yet spitzers were apparently never considered for .30 Carbine ammo.

And you are just flat wrong about the gas port concept being unproven in 1930. I previously noted three gas port weapons (the RSC and Farquhar-Hill rifles, and the Lewis light machine gun) that existed before 1930. Below are four more.

M1909 Benet-Mercie





M1914 Hotchkiss





M1918 Browning





Czech vz26





By 1930, the gas port concept had been well proven. Indeed, it was the gas trap concept that was unproven.

I agree and understand what you are saying, but if the universal consensus supported gas ports, why did the US and Germany insist on developing gas traps? In any case, great historical pictures and firearms.

[stanc]

I agree and understand what you are saying, but if the universal consensus supported gas ports, why did the US and Germany insist on developing gas traps?

I don't know about Germany, but here is what Ian says about the US:

[COLOR="#0000FF"]"The first successful semiauto rifle submitted to the US War Department was this design by Soren Hansen Bang of Denmark, in 1911. Two examples were sent to Springfield armory for testing, and they made a very positive impression with the staff there.

Bang presented another gun to the US military in 1927, but it was very similar to his original, and while the original gun had great promise, it was not refined enough for military service. When John Garand began working on a replacement for his early primer-actuated rifle, Ordnance officers urged him develop Bang’s basic principle. He did so, and this led to the early gas-trap Garand rifle."[/COLOR]

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1-gara...ang-rifle/



P.S. This article may also be of interest: https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016...-the-t3e2/

[stanc]

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?

Yes, absolutely credit should be given for getting the M1 carbine designed, developed, and fielded in such a very short timeframe. It was quite an achievement.

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.

That's true, although I would think that the difference in difficulty of making spitzer vs round-nose bullets is too small to be of consequence, and would've been well worth the improvement in ballistic performance and terminal effects.

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...

That was my fault, for opining that the M1 carbine would never have been required if the M1 Garand had been developed as a lightweight assault rifle.

I hope it won't add to the confusion if I note that in addition to the M1 rifle and M1 carbine, there was also an M1 submachine gun and an M1 helmet.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

After viewing the in-depth contributions to this Thread, this thought occurred to me, What would the M1 Carbine be, if designed today?

Which prompted this email-request to Kel-Tec, under the heading, The Kel-Tec RDB 6.5mm Grendel: Today's M1 Carbine, CC: The 6.5 Grendel Forum ---

[LR1955]

After viewing the in-depth contributions to this Thread, this thought occurred to me, What would the M1 Carbine be, if designed today?

Which prompted this email-request to Kel-Tec, under the heading, The Kel-Tec RDB 6.5mm Grendel: Today's M1 Carbine, CC: The 6.5 Grendel Forum ---

Would certainly like to know what Grendel bullet fired from a 16 inch Grendel barrel has better penetration than the currently issued 7.62 Ball shot from any of the issued 7.62 weapons today.

Would like to know what Grendel bullet fired from a 16 inch Grendel barrel had better penetration than the old M-80 at 1K.

I do not recall any testing at all done with the Grendel at 1K, let alone penetration testing at any distance using any type of practical Grendel bullet -- not a bullet that no one would every consider producing for their military.

LR55

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

"For example, the 123 gr (8.0 g) 6.5 Grendel has more energy and better armor penetration at 1,000 meters than the larger and heavier 147 gr (9.5 g) M80 7.62 NATO round." < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5mm_Grendel >

[NugginFutz]

Still don't see references to any bonafide testing - the wiki cited is only stating a terminal figure which, in the linked citations, was based only on tables and calculations, not testing. While I do not possess the hard copy book cited, the links I could follow never mentioned formal testing of the Grendel. The only testing I could locate was mention of SOCOM field tests, in 2012 - no results mentioned other than some of the soldiers preferring the 6.5 for its better accuracy at ranges beyond 500 yards. Unfortunately, this was an unsourced statement, with no means to validate even that reference.

As an aside, SNS, this is the reason none of my professors ever accepted Wikipedia citations.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

In retrospect, perhaps I should have referred to another link: < https://shwat.com/308-vs-6-5-grendel/ >.

In any case, I think it's fair to state that a Kel-Tec RDB in 6.5mm Grendel would be well received by our sport-shooting world.

[NugginFutz]

SNS - while a very interesting and informative article, it is still pretty much an opinion piece. The author is relating his experiences, while providing the same charts we've all been seeing over the last several years.

I believe what LR55 was referring to is a formal, published, government sponsored test of the Grendel at distance. LR - correct me if I am mistaken.