The New "Inland" M1 Carbine

Someone with .308 caliber rounds passing or landing close to him is usually going to be less dangerous than someone without the "distraction".

 

I think the Carbine's charm is it's light weight, handiness and light recoil. It's downside was the cartridge it was chambered for. The cartridge's round-nose bullet at moderate velocity did not create a lot of trauma. This is true of all round-nose fmj bullets, no matter what the cartridge is. They tend to push tissue out of the way instead of tearing it. Trauma is what incapacitates/kills an opponent. Spitzer type bullets tend to yaw and tumble, producing much more trauma. I remember reading about a study that included the 7.62X39. It found that its bullet tended to yaw back and forth, then turn backwards and tumbled while going off on tangents through the body. I don't know if any such study was done on the 7.92X33 round but I would expect results to be similar. Both the German and Soviet round were superior to the Carbine round due to aerodynamic properties and trauma producing effects of the bullets.

Another example of the poor wounding property of round-nose FMJ bullets was found out in the Spanish-American War. The 7X57 and 30/40 rounds produced very narrow wound channels that produced very survivable wounds providing the heart, major blood vessels, or the central nervous system weren't hit. This was because these then modern rounds were loaded with long-for-caliber round-nose fmj bullets. The old 45/70, used by some U.S. Army units, and despite being very inferior on paper to the more modern rounds, produced horrible wounds due its big soft-lead bullet. Later, the Germans, Americans, and other countries went to a lighter, spitzer bullet that went faster, had better ballistics and produced more trauma.

 

My uncle (B-24 navigator) once mentioned that he carried 2 pistols in case he had to bail out. One in an ankle holster or something similar (I think it was a small revolver). Kind of surprised fighter pilots wouldn't have pistols available for similar reasons.

 

You didn't mention what theater your uncle was in. I had an uncle who was a B-24 crewman (flight engineer/top turret gunner) in the 15th AF stationed in N. Africa and Italy. A pistol wouldn't be much use in fighting off enemy soldiers but if you landed in Germany I could be useful if local civilians wanted to string you up. You could keep them at bay until soldiers or police showed up. I know of one British pilot (Tuck)who carried a captured Mauser HsC in his boot in case he was trapped in a burning plane. carrying a pistol strapped to your waist could be problematic. It easily could snag on something when you're trying to bail out.

 

He was 8th AF. A buddy of his at one point was shot down and captured by some Volksturn (sp?). That actually ended up being a plus as they were older and he was able to run away from them and make it to Switzerland. Because he was an escaped POW rather than a flyer trying to avoid the enemy he was held under considerably looser custody by the Swiss. That incident may have been part of the influence or not.

 

But the 38 aren't listed as "on hand" and are listed as "short"

 

This may interest George Patton (or somebody else with a carbine). I now have some of those Korean mags in hand that were mentioned earlier in the thread, and these are every bit as good as GI mags, maybe better, and much less expensive. They have stronger springs and seem to be made out of slightly heavier gauge steel. They run just fine without any problem at all.
The ones I have are being sold as 'Red, White and Blue' or just 'RWB' company. Mine are from Sportsman's Guide, but a quick google check shows them out of a number of outlets. I don't know where you'd source them in Canada, but likely somebody has them.



.

 

Now I understand your motivation for so steadfastly defending the carbine. There is nothing wrong with being a fan boy of the carbine. Heck, I'm a big fan of the .45 M1911, and its variants, but would never blindly ignore published sources by experts that contradict my personal preference for the weapon. No offense intended, of course. I'm just glad I finally understand your position.

 

My position is that a pistol caliber carbine shouldn't be measured against a rifle firing a full power cartridge. You seem oblivious to the fact that the carbine is a substitute for a handgun, not a substitute for a battle rifle. It weighs five pounds and shoots a 110 grain ball at just under 2000 feet per second. That is substantially better than any handgun, and substantially less than a battle rifle of the era. The carbine was designed for handiness, not power.


.

 

And you are ignoring the published source I provided. It was written by an actual firearms expert who worked for Winchester, the company that won the contract to make the carbine, not a fan boy. Look, I get it. Owning and shooting a carbine can be fun. You get to plink without any recoil and pretend WWII soldier at the same time. I do it with my .45 ACP, and when I have the opportunity, the M1 Rifle. (Fired the DCM twice using the Garand. Passing score both times, .... How about you?)

I find it interesting that your supporter from GB has never held or fired one, but by all appearances is happy to ignore the published source mentioned above.

Myths and preconceived notions are almost impossible to correct. I'm not alone though. The experiences of the authors of "Ghosts of Iwo Jima" and "Keep From All Thoughtful Men: How US Economists Won WWII" certainly prove my point.

Even the most modest attempt at correcting myths and preconceived notions can be unrewarding.

"Remembering the past is hard, not just because memories fade but because capturing the past in a meaningful, relevant, and intellectually honest way is difficult, complex, and too often unrewarded." -- Tom Gavin and Jacqueline E. Witt, US Army War College

 

I believe you are just dodging the issue. Tell me how you came to your conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine. Was it through research, personal experience, and critical thinking or some other reason. It's OK if you are a fan boy. It is not OK if you allow your fandom to influence your historical conclusions.

Please feel free to refute the published source I provided. In other words, play the ball, and leave ill-formed opinions and preferences aside.

 

This is splendid.
I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone so needlessly excited in the course of a week or two. (About things not really requiring an ounce of aggression.)
Crashing about slagging people off, making sly comments & being 'binary', ignoring quite reasonable & calm points.
All while accusing people of assumed motivations, ignoring points, being 'binary' &, even more hilariously, accusing others of ad hominem.

The Logical Fallacies are a fascinating thing to look into before engaging on the Internet.
Well worth a Google.
Though I'm not sure I've ever seen their need during chat about a couple of WW2 weapons...


To the matter in hand.
I simply cannot see one thing in KB's last post (or posts, even) that can be deemed controversial or require the attack mode responses.
He chats about guns. Never seen him kick off when someone disagrees, as it's all just part of civilised chat. (I 'like' that sometimes.)
The Carbine was popular amongst many light Infantry & 'Guerrilla' formations, vehicle crews, etc. etc. etc., often for the very reasons he cites.
Major Lumley, in that 'Pirate' photo above was not a military amateur, and of high enough rank to choose whatever weapon was available & he considered most appropriate to his (very active) role. That doesn't negate said weapon from being non-ideal for another role. And that's fine.
Horses.
Courses.

 

I'm pretty sure your above comment is an ad hominen, as is the previous post about my being overly sensitive, and the admonition that I have only been here for two weeks with the implication my short tenure somehow disallows me from contesting points with more established posters.

Your opinion of KB's posts is not relevant to the discussion, nor are his comments about external ballistics.

If you can, please tell me something relevant, like why the expert source I provided is wrong.

 

I simply do not know if Mr. Matunas ever fired the M1 Carbine. You cannot discredit his expertise so you move the goal post by asking if he fired the M1 Carbine.

From the book's author bio, "It would be hard to find any one else with the credentials that Edward Matunas has to write this book. Author, award winning gunsmith, engineer, designer of bullets and reloading accessories, a Director of the National Reloading Manufacturers Association, and now Manager of Component Sales for Winchester Western, Mr. Matunas has access to information available to few others. Working out of Winchester Western's New Haven Headquarters,...."

How many rounds of .30 Carbine you and KB have fired is irrelevant. Nor is your attempt to give him an aura of expertise by your testimony.

All you have to do is prove that my source is wrong. That's how historical debate works, is it not?