M1 Garand Or M1 Carbine?

It's just semantics. I agree that the AK or STG rounds are better, in fact good enough to revolutionize military rifles and military tactical concepts in general. However, considering the time frame (1938) the carbine and its cartridge were a damned fine choice as "intermediate" between rifle and pistol cartridges within their tactical niche.

The "intermediate" in the assault rifle concept is intermediate in RANGE. They were not envisioned as a compromise (intermediate) between pistol and rifle, as the M1 Carbine was. The STG44 was 10 pounds in weight, and the AK just shy of 8 pounds (both rifles empty). They are battle rifles of a new generation, not a backup substitute pistol for support troops.

Again, maybe that's just semantics, but it's important to remember that carbine was a substitute for a sidearm rather than a substitute front line battle rifle.

I've owned and shot tens of thousands of rounds through the AK, AR, SKS, Carbines and Garands (mostly passed down to my son now), so I think I have a pretty good grip on their various abilities.
Of all those (and several later designs like the FAL and the M1A) I'd chose the AK last in a zombie apocalypse. That isn't because of the cartridge or theoretical ability, it's because you can't really put all that together standing on your hind legs and engaging a steel plate at 200 yards (or whatever). The trigger is awful, the general ergonomics barely adequate and the sights crude. I'd rather wound a guy at 200 yards with a carbine than miss him with an AK.
If I had to choose between all of those WWII and immediate post war rifles, I'd chose the M1A (civilian version of the M14) or the M14 itself I i had the disposable for a class 3 rifle first,or perhaps give it a tie with the FAL - L1A1. I'd stick with semi-auto fire with both weapons unless I was prone.
The Garand would come in second or third. the only failing with the Garand is that front sight. It's difficult to get long range hits when your front post is 3 or 4 MOA in width - it was designed blunt for easy access in low light, but that hurts you at long range. The M1A and the L1A1 had a better, slimmer front post.
Next I'd choose the AR, but only with a upgraded piston system rather than the direct impingement of the standard milspec AR. All the special forces units use piston ARs to solve the reliability issue, and I upgraded mine to match that.
Next I'd chose the carbine, but it's close to the AR because with that piston system (that the standard AR lacks) its far more reliable.
Lastly, I'd choose the AK. It's adequate in all areas, but excels at none of them.
I'm not sure where I'd put the SKS. I was lucky (or prescient) to get a good early Russian with a milled receiver. It had better sights than the AK, and a much better trigger. It was easy to get hits at ranges out to 300 yards. The only drawback is the slow reload from the top with stripper clips. On mine (now my sons) I installed an after market 30 round box magazine. I (we) kept the original parts so it can be restored to original condition, since those early Russian imports are now in the collectible sphere.
With all of those rifles, I'm measuring ability from standing or kneeling position where the trigger. sights, general balance and ergonomics count - combat ability. None of those issues are very apparent when shot from a bench rest.
When I moved from Alaska, I gave most of those rifles to my son. I kept the FAL and the AR and some era bolt actions. The only one I truly regret is the Carbine. I suspect I'll get another before long, perhaps one these new manufacture clones so I can shoot the crap out of it without worries about collector value.

 

Voted. Everyone should vote, as long as it is not for hillary.
Interesting thread...Was the M1 carbine the first to blend short/long range into a medium?
Where is its' heritage mostly -
There were cowboy revolvers with long barrels that had an attachable stock to enable more accurate longer range firing.
The Mauser C96 with stock maybe ...
Were the parents of the carbine from the 1800's?

 

Kind of difficult to compare, like comparing a sports car to a pick up truck, both are fun to drive or shoot. The M1's 30.06 ballistics are very similar to a 7 mm mag. and this caliber will easily take down a moose. It is also a lot of fun to fire off a clip of tracers as fast as you can around dark.

These are a Win 13 and Breda still in cosmoline.



The carbine is a light zippy little number, I think the thought with the lighter load is to wound a man rather than kill him as that takes 3 men out of the fight. I don't have any tracers for the carbine, can you get them?

Below is a Barvarian

 

Not related to the .30 carbine, just soooooooooooooooooo nice:

http://www.phoenixinvestmentarms.com/1475Carbine02C.htm

 

You never know KB, if the company producing those repros goes belly up after just a short run of production, your carbine will become a collectors item in its own right.

I hear you re. it being a replacement for the 45 pistol. If it had been my choice then I would have chambered it in something along the lines of the .401 self-loading. Better for close range (<100 yds).

I shot an AK once and that was enough for me. I do have one of the first Chinese SKSs (also milled receiver) to hit our shores legally. With good ammo it is surprisingly accurate. I can hit a head-size boulder at 200 yds. all day long. The trigger is the only thing that I'd replace. It has a long and creepy/gritty pull but I can work around it.

Currently I have a Garand that's got OK accuracy. With the best loads it will shoot 2.5-3 inches at 100 yds. That's after I glass bedded the receiver.

I once owned a G-43 that was almost cherry. It was one of the last ones made and was found by a former boss's father in a boxcar on a siding in Germany. Let's just say that I wasn't impressed by the accuracy and let it go. Now that's a decision a REALLY regret! Right now I'm playing with an 03 Springfield that is showing promise of good accuracy. We'll see. Those sights are getting a bit much for these old eyes.

I've also just garnered a Canadian Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk 1* that was never issued, I can't find any sign it's been fired so I'm trying to figure out if I want to shoot it.

Way back when I owned an Springfield 03/A3. With ball ammo it wouldn't shoot for beans but with AP it shot like a champ!

I was trained on both the M-14 and M-16 in the Army. The M-14, like the 03/A3 wouldn't shoot ball at all, but fortunately we got match ammo to qualify with and that saved my bacon. I've never felt the need to get either an AR or M1A. Older rifles interest me, not the "new" ones.

Lastly, I see some company is reproducing the StG 44 in 7.62X39 (sans full auto switch, of course). I may bite the bullet (did I really say that) and buy one if they come out.

 

Nice...Was the C96 at one time, the most powerful handgun in the world?
Until dirty Harry's .44, then it was the .454?
Who holds the belt now

 

The C96 shot the .30 Mauser or 9mm parabellum in its various iterations, neither of which are powerful rounds. The 7.62 Tok was basically the .30 Mauser at higher pressures, but still didn't approach the .30 Carbine out of long barrels like the PPS or PPSH.

 

Not powerful compared to rifle cartridges (like the .30 carbine) but powerful compared to contemporary pistol rounds.
To Poppy's question: I saw an article once that called the .30 Mauser, the ".357 Magnum of its day."

The .357 Mag came out in the mid 1930's and was much more potent than any other pistol round until the .44 Magnum was introduced in the fifties or sixties.

No clue what holds the title now. Guns being interesting to me stopped in the mid sixties. Nothing but ray gun looking DAO automatics now

 

I have a c96 in 30 mauser. Its sights are graduated out to 1000 meters so it's obviously better than the carbine-right? ;-)

 

That title would go to this "handgun":

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/early-automatic-pistols/gabbett-fairfax-mars/

 

Nice! Never heard of that one before.

Comic relief. No idea what chubby here is shooting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pS4l8wS2YA

 

Actually, the 30 Mauser round was the fastest pistol bullet until the 357 came along. It fired an 85-88 grain fmj bullet at about 1500fps.

 

Actually, the 7.62 Tokarev is about 300 fps faster. It's basically the .30 Mauser loaded to higher pressures.

 

If you really want to get into the details, .30 Mauser was introduced in 1896. 7.62x25 Tokarev was introduced in 1930. .357 Magnum was introduced in 1934. Ignoring the Mars monstrosity and unless I'm forgetting somethng, that means that .30 Mauser was the most powerful from 1896-1930, 7.62 Tokarev from 1930-1934, and .357 Magnum from 1934 until the postwar period.

 

How did the post go from "I want the carbine" to ".30 Mauser is better than .357"? I'm not mad, just confused.

 

Most powerful, or highest velocity? The two things may have some correlation, but given a choice between being shot by a Tok or a Howdah pistol, I'll take the Tok.

 

That's how we roll here

 

Agree. Just don't mention any of Elmer Keith's uber handloads during the thirties and forties

 

I'll clarify my above statement to be "most powerful common production centerfire cartridge fired from a multiple-shot handgun".

7.62 Tokarev is a faster round than the early production loads of 357 Mag, IIRC. I don't think it was until the 1950s and 60s that we started to see >1700fps production loads but I could be wrong as I don't have much interest in hot magnum loads and haven't read into their development much.

 

Slippery bastid... Though, we should probably narrow it further to military issue sidearms of the period. Among those, since you had only FMJ "ball" ammo, you still had the .45 acp to contend with as "powerful." Lower velocity than the Tok, but bigger hole. You can measure that in foot pounds of energy, but I doubt that really tells the whole story.