The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

Cooper had this to say about the M1 Carbine in Guns&Ammo.
The Carbine Compromise - Guns and Ammo
Based on his observations during the war, he had a low opinion of the weapon. That's fine...it is his opinion.

However, it is not that hard to find other soldiers whom had a good opinion of the gun which they actually used in combat. I've heard from several at the local WW2 Weekends over the years.

Thus it all comes down to one's experience with the weapon as to how good it was.

 

This is not how this debate/discussion thing works. What is the context of Jeff Cooper's comments on the M1 Carbine? Is he arguing that it's inferior to a 30.06? Then yeah, damn right it is inferior. Or is he arguing that the Carbine is inferior to a .45 ACP. in which case he was probably drunk when he said it.

After the war when a couple million of these ended up in civilian hands there was quite a bit of back and forth about whether it should be allowed for hunting, etc, etc. It probably needed to be iterated that it was inferior to full power rifle rounds for most civilian purposes.

All of this ignores that the Carbine was in military use as a replacement for a pistol, and in that role it is far superior to any pistol then or now.

.

 

I suspect if you used one in a firefight you'd sure be sorry that you dodn't have a Garand. HOWEVER, that prejudice ignores the reality that if not the Carbine, that soldier (Radioman, mortarman, runner) would have neither, he'd have a 1911 pistol and be just as sorry that he didn't have a carbine.

.

 

Coincidentally posted by Dave, elsewhere.
Couldn't not share.

 

Wll, if I shot a Japanese soldier in the solar plexus and he did not go down, I'd be sorry that I had a M1 carbine...Even sorrier when I realized I had accidentally released the magazine.

 

Actually, you're all wrong! The power of the cartridge has nothing to do with the intended purpose of the carbine. It's intended purpose was for support troops, who inadvertently run into people with the wrong style of clothing, to make them duck and cover so the support troopies can bug out or keep the enemies' heads down until somebody rescued them.! It wasn't designed to fight the main battle. So, the cartridge really isn't all that important. As for malfunctioning, can anyone here name a semi- or full-auto firearm that hasn't malfunctioned at some time or another? Perhaps the person carrying the carbine didn't clean it properly or often enough.

 

I thought they were doing that centuries ago...

The first firearm ammunition were rocks, and the length of the sword(glorified club) increased over time.

I'll take my buck-and-a-quarterstaff over your quarterstaff any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

But, I digress.

 

I take it for granite that most of you know that in WW2 some combatants were reduced to actually throwing rocks. I schist you not!

 

Surely, you jade.

sorry, just being igneous.

 

peeps must have missed my thesis on the evolution of the bat...it was brilliant, like a freshly minted synthetic diamond.

 

I prefer night clubbing...

 

Ok, I missed it...So, which came first - flight or echolocation?

 

Some considerations re. which arm is best would be the context of the situation. If the enemy is so close that he's at spitting range (as in spitting you with his bayonet) or even grenade throwing distance, then the Colt would be better. This is because pistol is quicker to point and fire than a shoulder arm. However, if the enemy is at 75 yds. and has an MP 40, then the carbine would come into its own. If I were a support troop whose job took me just behind the front lines, or had to go where there might be bypassed enemy soldiers, then I would carry both! (Actually, if I had a jeep I'd also wangle a Browning 1919 of a flex mount.)

 

That obviously is your choice some here will not be sorry if you do so.

I see a personal attack when you can't create a convincing argument based on fact and logic. The fact is there are sources that think the M1 carbine was very useful and others that don't and some in between. Presenting a couple on one side is hardly convincing sepsecially when the weight of facts doesn't support the opinions listed.

Excuse me but I believe you were the one that started the "acrimony" and have indeed posted more insults than the rest of us combined. Your pretentions of superiority are even more "dreary" to the rest of us by the way.

??? They are so close as to be identical. Indeed I can't see how any logical person couldn't come to that conclusion.

 

I'd suggest that it requires a bit more detail than that. Once both hands are on the carbine I would think it could point and shoot as fast as a pistol especially if you are taking snap shots from the hip to keep peoples heads down. For more deliberate fire even at 20 or 30 yards the carbine has a decent chance of delivering the first effective hit and in a lot of situations like this the larger magazine is of some benefit as well. Finally if in melee range the carbine is a significantly better club.