The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

If you watch any of the newer shows about spec ops, you see they do not use full auto, but a salvo of rapidly fired single shots. This is true and has been since I was in the ASA SOD at Phu Bai, RVN and all of the 20 I worked for the Govmnt.

 

I found similar attitudes when I lived out west starting in the '70s! If you were polite and did not leave a mess, you would be invited back over and over! While living in Utah in the '90s, we were invited to shoot prairie puppies in western Wyoming for weekend long parties where the 4-5 of us shot tens of thousands of rounds with a dozen to 18 guns each so than none ever got hot enough to damage the BBL1 That was the prime reason I own two or three of every gun to this day! Also if you are living and working as a civilian contractor in the sand box and it breaks, you have to own a spare, or do with out, as it takes some months to send it back to the states for repair.

 

I wish I could let that sort of thing go, but my nature compels me to continue long past when the points were made, or not.

 

I did! Personal experience for the 4 months when I was a currier. I had the opportunity, (was required) to practice every week on Wednesday and I shot every gun I had as much as I could with all that free Gvnmnt ammo!

 

I had a pick up Thompson Model 1921 in RVN and we would shoot on the beach on Wednesdays to practice. With the rear ladder sight erected and elevated to the 600 yard mark, I could hit the boxes 81 mm Mortar bombs came in more than I missed early in the morning before the wind came up. Just an off the wall tidbit about effective range. I had the idea after hearing of Elmer Keith's famous 600 yard running elk shot with a 4" .44 Magnum. I became obsessed with long range shooting of guns not typically thought of as long ranged. Just food for thought as I still regularly practice at one and two hundred yards with several of my .45s and a .22 High standard Citation.

 

Still binary I see. Please explain what is wrong with pointing out the deficiencies of the M1 carbine? Do you own stock in Inland or something?

 

Because the things you site as defects are in fact advantages!

Less power makes it easier to shoot accurately and faster both very serious advantages in combat and range is a very ephemeral thing at best. Did you know that the Garand and Carbine had very similar point blank and effective ranges? PBR as defined by the military is that range at which the trajectory does not rise over the head, or fall below the toes of a standing target when fired by a prone infantry soldier. Did you know the Mid-range trajectory of the .30 Carbine is less than 18" at 300 yards? Since the typical torso is ~26" tall... What does that say about range?
Lastly, about power; Did you know that every single major army on the planet has at one time or another determined the energy required to make a lethal and or incapacitating wound and the answers are all 60 Foot pounds or less? Or that the ordinary .22 rimfire kills more people in this country than any other caliber of round?
All of these points go to the fact that your arguments are certainly not very good and may be specious on purpose!

 

You haven't pointed out any deficiencies. When I point out little things like range and foot pounds of energy you have no response other than you don't like it. The .30 Carbine (7.62x33) comes in only 300 fps slower than the 7.62x39 which half the world adopted, and does that from a platform that is only five pounds in weight. That's hard to beat. Given a choice between a pistol and a carbine, I'd take the carbine.

.

 

Again, here is a recognized expert's opinion. Now you need to get a recognized expert who says he is wrong.
"The carbine round is neither fish nor fowl. Too heavy fro small game, too slow for varmint, and too light for light big game make for a cartridge for which there is no practical application. Originally introduced in the military carbine, it was intended to replace a handgun for antipersonnel use. Even here it was woefully lacking. It is, however, a reasonably popular cartridge for plinkers. Sportsmanship should keep it from being used on deer, etc." ( Edward Matunas, "American Ammunition and Ballistics." p.34)

If it ain't good enough to shoot a deer, I ain't good enough to shoot a man, especially if he (the man not the deer) is shooting back.

We already know the carbine did not have the range or accuracy to defend against snipers. (Neither did the .45 pistol.) Those are deficiencies in case you didn't know.

Inaccurate, under-powered, and "woefully lacking."

Since you seem married to it I hope you and your carbine are very happy together.

 

this thread has turned very entertaining.
blame terry d

 

we used to be able to rate threads on a 1-5 star rating
that was coo.

 

Sounds like a 12 ga. with slug is a better choice in your neck of the woods. I've owned at least 30 firearms and still have six or so, and it never once crossed my mind to use a puny .30 cal carbine for deer. I did use a 30-30 off and on, but the killing power is quite a bit greater than the .30 cal. (Once saw a guy who was shot in the chest with a 30-30. Sure made a mess.)

 

The carbine can very definitely can kill a man. If it couldn't, Bugsy Siegel and Che Guevara might still be cursing us with their presence.

The debate about the weapon is a perpetual one, and one can cite any number of recognized experts and experienced users on both sides. S.L.A. Marshall was very heavily con, while Jim Cirillo and Massad Ayoob both have had good words to say about the carbine.

Etc., etc., etc...

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past...

 

Coogan's Bluff (1968) - IMDb

 

In some ways that's a tautology. What soldier would not be "better served with a better weapon"? On the other hand you concept of what the "job" was it at best at odds with the rest of us and I think somewhat lacking. What weapon do you think could have done a better job than the carbine? For at least most of those who carried it I can't see anything in the US inventory that would do so and arguably noting produced before 1960 or so for the US military that would have done so.

Perhaps because the case for it being an "ineffective combat weapon" is very weak and at least to some of us the opposing case looks to be much stronger.

 

I find the controversy over the round somewhat silly. A 115 grain 9mm slug out of a Sten or MP 40 at 1200 feet per second ignites no controversy, but a 110 grain .308 (7.8MM) slug at 2000 feet per second isn't lethal enough? Velocity counts.

A while back I purchased a 9mm carbine, a Linda Carbine by Wilkinson Arms (I like carbines!). It's also a fun gun to shoot, and cheap since 9mm costs so little, but even with Black Hills +P ammo, the slug still drops off the paper at 125 yards. Velocity not only counts for lethal power, it also counts for range.

The M1 Carbine isn't astoundingly accurate, but it's accurate enough to hit a torso out to 250 yards and beyond. I doubt it is very lethal out at those longer ranges where the velocity has dropped, but a fellow with a .308 caliber hole in him is a less dangerous adversary than a fellow who doesn't have a hole in him.

.