[TRUE GRIT]

My mother, myself, and my children all owe our existence to a M1 carbine, since one kept my Grandfather alive fighting across the pacific in WW2. For that fact alone it has a special place in my heart.

[Funnyrunner]

I am not doubting the usefulness of the M1 carbine in its day; I am sure it dropped many an enemy soldier. It is a fine piece of machinery and functions well although Williams could have designed the bolt assembly to be a bit more user friendly; combat troops don't need a weapon that requires a special tool to breakdown the bolt for cleaning. It has earned its place in history and that cannot be taken away from it. Its great to own and shoot a gun so well known in history.

I just wanted to find out why people choose it today as a defense weapon when there are many newer, more effective weapons to choose from.
Granted, it is easier to handle for some and it is cheaper to purchase and ammo for it may be cheaper than for many modern weapons. But, wouldn't the purpose be better served by a carbine in .45 or 9mm with the availability of hollow-point ammo? The M1 design in .45 caliber would be awesome.

Whatever the reason for owning/shooting one we should not forget that what counts is lead on target and you should shoot what you can hit with.

[samuel]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Funnyrunner

I am not doubting the usefulness of the M1 carbine in its day; I am sure it dropped many an enemy soldier. It is a fine piece of machinery and functions well although Williams could have designed the bolt assembly to be a bit more user friendly; combat troops don't need a weapon that requires a special tool to breakdown the bolt for cleaning. It has earned its place in history and that cannot be taken away from it. Its great to own and shoot a gun so well known in history. I just wanted to find out why people choose it today as a defense weapon when there are many newer, more effective weapons to choose from. Granted, it is easier to handle for some and it is cheaper to purchase and ammo for it may be cheaper than for many modern weapons. But, wouldn't the purpose be better served by a carbine in .45 or 9mm with the availability of hollow-point ammo? The M1 design in .45 caliber would be awesome. Whatever the reason for owning/shooting one we should not forget that what counts is lead on target and you should shoot what you can hit with.

In your first opening post you state/ask:"Not wanting to start a flame war,but why do some of you people choose the M1 carbine"? (close).And then someone posts 25 and 50yds targets showing good accuracy and firepower.In post #11 you state "Excelent shooting sir" and show those posts again. And in this post,#22,you turn right around and tell us that a .45 or 9mm sub would be more accurate and have more firepower than the M1 carbine and wonder why they weren't chosen over the M1 carbine.Do you even read and understand what you post,say nothing to the answers to your question that you posted?Or are you just trying to fill some emagined void in the forum?Or,as you denied when you started this thread,are you only trying to start a "flame war"?I believe it is the later,or you set a record for lack of consentration. ,,,sam.

[oldjarhead]

Save your breath Sam. It's pretty obvious the guy has little knowledge, not to mention use, of the carbine. He also appears to have little knowledge of ballistics since the calibers he's trying to push have a much shorter range than the carbine. Hence his statement "The M! design in .45 caliber would be awesome". It was ok in it's day but then...

To respond to his statement about Williams and the bolt design...the bolt design is a Winchester design and does NOT NEED the bolt tool to break it down...the bolt tool simply makes it easier and quicker. The carbine bolt is very similar to the M1 Garand bolt and the later M14 bolt. Also, Ruger utilized the same type of designed bolt and short stroke system in their Mini series rifles.

The M16 style bolt system is much more complicated in design and the gas system is too delicate; that's why there are piston kits available..

Williams designed the short stroke gas system, not the whole carbine.

[TheJoker]

Just an additional note. The .30 carbine cartridge was designed before the M1 Carbine.

And hollow points were not an option:

"The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body. This is often incorrectly believed to be prohibited in the Geneva Conventions, but it significantly predates those conventions, and is in fact a continuance of the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which banned exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams, as well as weapons designed to aggravate injured soldiers or make their death inevitable. NATO members do not use small arms ammunition that is prohibited by the Hague Convention."

[nathangdad]

Love you like a brother but I still stand by my post. It is a great design mated to a an unsuccessful cartridge.

If the cartridge had anything going for it I contend the cartridge would have been a success in the commercial marketplace. For me the commercial marketplace is the arbiter of success for just about all products.

So, some of us see things a bit differently than others but that is fine with me as differing views can make for a strong body politic.

[FS00008]

Guys guys guys guys. I have an M1 Carbine, shoot it a lot, love it. The scattergun is number 1 for HD, the Carbine number 2. I keep it loaded with Cor-Bon 110GR JHP ammo. It's also quite easy to upload it with a 100gr to 2100FPS. Just have the weapon inspected by a gunsmith and you've got yourself a potent little carbine there. I suggest those of you pushing other weapons systems to look at the damage that a .30 Carbine JHP will do to a coyote versus a .45 or 9MM or even .223... It's quite impressive. If it'll do that to a coyote, I feel more than comfortable using it against two legged vermin. I also suggest those of you who push ARs or the like above an M1 Carbine to try to handle an example of each back to back, with a 30 round magazine in each. You're going to find the M1 is easier to handle, lighter, and has better sight acquisition in all conditions (unless you're rocking a red-dot or the like on your AR). Made even better with an ultimak rail and a RedDot... I'm a huge proponent of the M1 Carbine and the .30 Carbine.

[samuel]

Quote:       Originally Posted by nathangdad

Love you like a brother but I still stand by my post. It is a great design mated to a an unsuccessful cartridge. If the cartridge had anything going for it I contend the cartridge would have been a success in the commercial marketplace. For me the commercial marketplace is the arbiter of success for just about all products. So, some of us see things a bit differently than others but that is fine with me as differing views can make for a strong body politic.

Sorry to tell you this Nat,but the .30 carbine was and still is a sucess in the commercial world. ,,,http://www.reloadbench.com/cartridges/30m1.html ,,,sam.

[nathangdad]

I read the link you had and it seems to support my contention.
Anyway, if we all saw things the same it would indeed be a boring shooting world.

Have a great day.

I am going back to bed.

[oldjarhead]

I read the article also...I think maybe new glasses are in your future.
People are always comparing the .30 Carbine (apples) with other cartridges (oranges) that are way out of the .30 Carbine's league. If one looks at the performance within the realm for which it was designed; the little guy performs very well. The article doesn't really support anything except the .30 Carb is a winner among firearms consumers.
I have no clue to what the author considers large game but the deer we have around here don't fit my interpretation...Elk, Moose, Bear, etc...that's what I consider large game.
As for the .30 Carbine...load her up with 110 SP and she'll be a contender in the hunt for medium game. Too bad Speer 110 gr HP's are so difficult to find.

I'll stick with the M1.

Nighty night...don't let the bed-bugs bite.

[texnmidwest]

I don't know whether the 30 carbine is successful or not but I just loaded up 300 rounds and have rollin's for at least 1000 more. Not to mention the 350 loaded shells I have in my safe.

It's not a very successful cartridge around here I guess. At close range on deer sized game I would not feel undergunned. JMHO

[samuel]

^ Get off it Nat,even in West Texas they know how to read and interperate the English language.You must have had someone interperate it in border language.I will change it back to English for you. "The thousands of M1 carbines sold to civilian shooters through the NRA assured this cartridge lasting popularity." I will do it slower and louder: "T-H-E T-H-O-U-S-A-N-D-S O-F M-1 C-A-R-B-I-N-E-S S-O-L-D T-O C-I-V-I L-I-A-N S-H-O-O-T-E-R-S T-H-R-O-U-G-H T-H-E N-R-A A-S-S-U-R-E-D T-h-I-S C-A-R-T-R-I-D-G-E L-A-S-T-I-N-G P-O-P-U-L-A-R-I-T-Y.Do you know what "popularity"stands for?To inform you even more,while working out of the oil patch (Midland/Odessa) and other (mostly roadwork) jobs in West Texas (off and on,75-83) I did a lot of varmint hunting,mostly rabbits,rats,and havilenas.I often ran into shooters carrying M1 carbines or Ruger Blackhawks,and a few Contenders.I,myself carried and still carry a Blackhawk.I consider it big enough for deer size game but most states don't, including Mich..(must be .357 or larger) I also own a carbine which I target/varmint shoot sometimes.(not real often)A factory load from a 7.5"barrel is rough on the audio part of me so I load the cartridge down for the revolver and still have plenty of power.This is fact.I can shoot 1ft groups at 150yds with ease.I knew a man in Mich who got two deer every year with an M1 carbine mostly 1shot kills using a (I believe) 115gr HP.He was old then and has since passed away.If you should have any trouble translating this please get someone that can read english to help.Wetback translators can be confusing.Tell your wife I said "HI".I don't know her,just simpathise with what she goes through. ,,,sam.

[Funnyrunner]

"To respond to his statement about Williams and the bolt design...the bolt design is a Winchester design and does NOT NEED the bolt tool to break it down...the bolt tool simply makes it easier and quicker."

I'd really like to see how one puts the firing pin, extractor, and ejector in without the tool. Anyone care to do a YouTube video of that?

[Huey Rider]

When I was in high school I had a nieghbor across the street who was a WWII/Korean Vet.Wounded in Korea. He had combat experiance with both the M1 Garand & M1 Carbine. His conclusion was that the M1 Carbine was not real effective past 100 yds. as bullet trajectory fell off rapidly after that. For ranges over 100 yds. he prefered the Garand. However inside 100 yds. the Carbine was more than effective and a good choice as a CQ battle rifle.

So that being said, it leads to the next part of my post.

I want a SHTF go-to rifle but economics being what they are right now I can't go out and get what I would really like and that is a tricked out AR 15/M4. So i need to work with what I've got. A12 ga. shorty is covered and I've a scoped Browning BAR in .30-06 for long range.That leaves CQ to be addressed. Enter my M1 Carbine. I'm in the process of doing improvements and such to it to be more tactical and improve a few of it's shortcommings (it's a Universal and has a few issues we are all aware of that I'm remedying).

Is it the SHTF gun of my dreams? No. Do I feel confident with it? You bet your sweet bippy!! I love it's balance and handleing, rapid target aquisition and overall good looks. With a SP or HP it is just as effective for it's purpose as anything out there.

When I'm done I just may enter it in the survival weapon contest this fall!!LOL!!

Viva la M1 Carbine!

e!

[cold queso]

Here's 3 points of view of the M1-Carbine.

My Marine father-in-law, who spent 2 years in Korea. He was so happy when he moved from Infantry to a crew-served mortar team, because he could discard the heavy Garand and carry the carbine.

Mall Ninja. Why is the stock wood rather than plastic? Where are the rails to mount optics, lights, lasers, toilet paper hanger, etc.? How can I get ammo when Gander Mountain doesn't even know what 30 Carbine is?

Cartoon Character. Can't we just change this "relic" into an MP5 or Marlin Camp Carbine?

[samuel]

^ Love that MP5!!! A whole new ballgame when it comes to close quarters combat. ,,,sam.

[FS00008]

Sam, I'd take an SBR'd M1 Carbine with a paratroop stock over any MP5 :-D.

Now an MP10.... that's a whole different story....

[Mooseman684]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Huey Rider

When I was in high school I had a nieghbor across the street who was a WWII/Korean Vet.Wounded in Korea. He had combat experiance with both the M1 Garand & M1 Carbine. His conclusion was that the M1 Carbine was not real effective past 100 yds. as bullet trajectory fell off rapidly after that. For ranges over 100 yds. he prefered the Garand. However inside 100 yds. the Carbine was more than effective and a good choice as a CQ battle rifle.

The same can be said for The M1 Thompson SMG , the Sten , the MP40, The Reising, etc...They were all close range weapons shooting pistol cartridges and effective within 100 yards. The .30 Carbine Cartridge was designed specifically for that gun and was not a pistol Cartridge first. The Carbine was actually good out to 250 yards in the hands of a capable rifleman , and a lot of enemy soldiers were killed with it. Lots of Deer and hogs have been taken over the years with a Carbine. Sure , we have faster bullets and newer weapons platforms , but the Carbine will always have its own niche in the shooting world...I have 4 of them.

[texnmidwest]

The Dickens you say! Why I killed a Bull Elk with a 30 carbine at 500.......OK, I'll shut up...

[rondog]

Quote:      

combat troops don't need a weapon that requires a special tool to breakdown the bolt for cleaning

Combat troops have no NEED to breakdown the bolt for cleaning, that's the unit armorer's job. Troops would FIELD STRIP weapons for cleaning and lubricating, not detail strip them to scrub every little part. If a carbine bolt needed to be disassembled, it would go to the armorer. Combat troops may have to clean their weapons with a helmet full of dirty ditch water and an old sock.

That's why the carbine was designed to be taken apart with a cartridge and no tools, and the Garand just readily comes right apart. The GI's job was to keep them clean enough to function, and then use them. They weren't supposed to dismantle them completely. What if an attack happened while their guns were all apart? Or what if they lost a small part in the grass/weeds/dirt/etc.? Of course they were required to KNOW how to take them apart, but doing so in the field just for cleaning would be stupid, unless absolutely necessary.