M1 Garand Or M1 Carbine?

I just want to know which rifle you would prefer if you were fighting for the U.S. during the second world war. For Europe I would prefer a M1 Garand rifle. I would prefer a M1 carbine if I was fighting Japan. Although I know that soldiers (or at least most) didn't know if they were going to be sent to the European or Pacific theater. Please tell me which you would prefer. (Also, please don't tell me "I would want a M1A1 Thompson", that is not what I'm asking).

 

Audie Murphy preferred the M1 carbine in Europe and so did my dad.

 

There is some question as to the stopping power of the carbine but then again the rifle had two drawbacks in its stripper clip, the distinctive sound it made when ejected and its reputation as a 'thumb buster' when loading.

I think I would prefer the carbine as its lighter, easier to bring to bear, larger magazine and the ability to carry more ammunition.

 

It depends. If I'm humping me and my gear on a hot summer day, I'd want the carbine. If I needed to shoot Axis soldiers then I'd definitely want the M-1. When it's a kill or be killed situation you want the enemy to fall down when you hit them, not say, "I'll think about it." Most people like the carbine because of its weight and light recoil. Thus, if one is prone to flinch and jerk the trigger when firing the Garand then it would be better to have the carbine. A hit with the 30 carbine round is better than a miss with a 30/06. Audie Murphy was a little guy and so I suspect that the carbine fitted him better. I have an M-1 and it is a hulking brute that's awkward and somewhat hard to handle in close quarters. Having said that, it is/was dependable, accurate as any regular issue bolt action of the period, and had the best sights of any combat rifle of its day. In balance, I'd have to say that I'd probably put up with the weight and recoil and take the M-1.

 

By the time I was draft age WW2 had been over 13 years but by then I had an M1 Carbine an uncle brought back along with a ton of ammunition for it. I was 5-6 and weighed a tad over 120 pounds. I loved shooting it, light, low recoil, fit my small frame so it would be a natural selection. I have shot a few Garands back then , well you can imagine how that came out. Still I see pictures of smaller framed GI's carrying them. It was clearly a battle rifle and far more capable weapon of war but your question was which one would I use. I am not sure I could have lugged a Garand and it's bandoleers o0f 30-06 very far.

I cannot imagine one got to choose,. My uncle was an artillery officer so it made sense. I cannot imagine any combat infantryman would be issued a carbine unless he had another primary duty like a radioman or on a squad machine gun. Would like to know the disbursement procedures of carbines during the war.

Gaines

Oh, welcome to the forum. You might try search, I believe this and the what weapon was best in Allied or Axis groups has been discussed but perhaps not. Never trust my memory.

 

soldiers in the pacific didn't always fight close. distance between them on the beach and the entrenched japanese could go past 500 yards. the garand's semi-auto fire made it a better weapon for short-range firefights than that of the enemy's (bolt actions.)

 

My thoughts exactly!

 

Well, their haven't been any recorded record of any axis member hearing the ping noise. The battlefield is a very noisy place, most GI's say many of them didn't hear the ping of their own rifle when it when off in the middle of a gun fight. Even when you were unloaded, your partners next to you would be covering you with B.A.R's, Thompson's and other M1 Garnads. I personally prefer the M1 Garnad in most cases because I'm a pretty tall person with long arms, so I can understand why most people won't want the long rifle. And the Garnad thumb everyone talks about rarely happens to soldiers (in most cases) because all you have to do was hold the bolt back. So I guess it really depends what your occupation in a squad would determine what rifle you would want. Like if you were a medic you would want a carbine, if you were a rifleman you would want a Garand.

 

Actually, you avoid 'Garand thumb' by shoving the C Clip in with your thumb aligned along the long axis, from the rear. That way if the bolt slips forward it just slides under your thumb. It can only catch your thumb if you try and shove the clip in with your thumb horizontal to the bore, and you were taught not to do that in boot camp. Garand Thumb is a first day on the shooting range phenomenon, or a military surplus buyer phenomenon for people who hadn't been taught how to insert the clip properly.

 

To be honest I am not a gun guy, but I have held and fired a few weapons during my life though (Shotguns, hunting rifles and handguns).

At 6'2" and on the hefty side the weight is not a great problem, but I haven't had the training KB speaks of, so if they came knocking on my door and said pick your weapon because the truck is leaving 15 minutes from now for the front I would still choose the carbine.
That does invalidate the worth of the Garand.

 

I have both the M1 and the M1 Garand. My ex-father-in-law was a SeaBee in WWII and when he got discharged after the war, they were throwing the cases overboard. He asked if he could have a case, so he got one of each. The ones he gave me were still wrapped in the guasiline (spelling) for protecting it in the case.

Anyway, the M1 is lighter and easier to use. The Garand is heavier and bulkier. Not as sleek as the M1. So I suppose the answer you are looking for would be what are you going to do with it?

 

You are wise beyond your years, grasshopper. I've been preaching exactly that for years. Even a single round from a 30:06 is extremely loud. And GIs could reload extremely quickly too. And the rest of the squad was there as well.

The clip made a pinging noise when empty but nobody is going to be able to do anything about it, even if they could hear it. The old myth won't die though.

 

I've preached against this myth as well. Must have been started by a re-enactor because anyone that's ever been in a firefight knows how ludicrous it is.

 

Sea Bees and others were very busy at 'Million Dollar Point' at the end of the war

http://www.farflungplaces.net/2013/11/wwii-madness-million-dollar-point-santo.html

And the word you are looking for (I think ) is 'Cosmoline'. Great stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline

 

I am not sure, but I think the myth may have started on this t.v show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWp5VyYzfTU

 

William Atwater is a USMC combat vet and a PhD in history but he's uttered some duzeys over the years.
The one in the clip above about throwing an empty clip on the ground so that a German would stick his head up so you could shoot him tops them all.

 

Yes that is the word. I knew what I wanted but could not think how to spell it. And since I was not close, spellcheck was no help. Thanks

 

Absolute correct Keith. This is yet another myth about the Garand (as prevalent or more more so than the "ping" as the clip ejects). If you load the Garand the proper way (which was taught in boot camp) there is nothing to worry about.That being said, there's no trick to it. Even should you choose to not load it the "military way", basic common sense would prevent "Garand Thumb" regardless of how you push the clip in. You just need to be conscious of how the action works and where your hand is. There's not much to it and I'd expect just about anyone to get the hang of it after 3 or 4 clips. Indeed, the Garand is even overrated as a "thumb crusher". If you want to see something much more painful and requires more "delicate" care look up the AG42 Ljungman and its descendants the Hakim and Rasheed. To summarize: the action snaps like a rat trap and you had better keep your hands completely clear! I watched as a fellow encountered "Ljungman thumb" on the range one day. It was NOT pretty and puts "Garand Thumb" to shame!

 

As a military surplus weapons collector there is no greater smell than "cosmo", and no better experience than stripping cosmo off a mint rifle that has been in storage for decades. To paraphrase Robert Duvall, "I love the smell of cosmoline in the morning".

I respect Atwater but yes he has unfortunetly helped bring credence to some of these myths. In terms of firearms documentaries, you just can't beat "Tales of the Gun". These were absolutely superb shows are still the "gold standard" for historical firearms documentaries which most of these new shows from the 15 years since can't come close to matching. In many ways it is a shame about the lack of quality resources available to serious military surplus collectors; both in terms of television and literature. Although US arms, German arms and British arms have been written about in great detail a collector will immediate run into issues outside of these fields. Japanese collectors for instance are limited to 2 excellent self-published in-depth books on Type 38 and 99 Arisakas (sadly incredibly hard to get), an excellent but expensive book on handguns and a few more general (yet still valuable) high-level, broad overview books. Finnish collectors are worse off -- with essentially only 1 good yet brief self-published book available. Likewise for Soviet collectors -- 1 decent survey-level Mosin book, and a recently self-published (yet very good and insightful) in-depth work on Mosin m91/30s and M38/M44 carbines. There still has not been a substantive in-depth treatise written in English on the AVS/SVT38/SVT40 family of rifles.

That being said, the many holes in military surplus collect make collecting the more obscure things all the more fun!