M1 Carbine vs Garand

Which was better?
For mobility, it was the carbine.
For magazine capacity, it was the carbine.
But what was the Garand better at doing? Was it more accurate and capable of longer ranges? I've always considered the carbine as an upgrade, wasn't it really an alternative?

 

For a Paratrooper, you dont want to have bulky gear getting caught in things when it might matter most, including pulling your chute.

Also considering that paratroops are trained to roll, jump and run around more then ground-pounders. You cant do that carrying your bulky M-1, you need something that small enough to make mobility easy.

 

Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 Garand

One of the main distinctions of the Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, almost universally known as the Garand, is that it was the first self-loading rifle to be accepted for military service. that acceptance happened during 1932, but there followed a distinct gap before the rifle entered service as it took some time to tool up for the complex production process demanded by the design. The rifle was created by John C. Garand, who spent a great deal of time developing the design to the point that one in production it required very few alterations thus the last M1 looked very much like the first.

As already mentioned, the M1 was complicated and expensive weapon to manufacture, and required a large number of machining operations on many of the components. But it was a strong design and proved to be sturdy in action, although this was balanced in part by the weapon being rather heavier than comparable bolt-action designs. The M1 was a gas-operated weapon.

When the USA entered World War II at the end of 1941. most of her regular forces were equipped with the M1, but the rapid increase of numbers of men in uniform meant that the old M1902 Springfiled rifle had to be placed back into production as a quick increase in the flow of M1s from the lines were virutally impossible, as a result largely of the tooling problems already mentioned. But gradually M1 production built up, and some 5,500,000 had been churned out by the end of the war; production was resumed during the Korean War of the early 1950s.

For the American forces the M1 Garand was a war-winner, whose strong construction earned the gratitude of many. But it did have one operational fault, namely its ammunition feed. Ammunition was fed into the rifle in eight-round clips, and the loading system was so arranged that it was possible to load only the full eight rounds of nothing. There was a further operational problem encountered when the last of the eight rounds was fired, for the empty clip was ejected from the receiver with a definite and pronounced sound that advertized to any nearby enemy that the firer's rifle was empty, sometimes with unfortunate results to the M1 user. This problem was not eliminated from the M1 until 1957, when the US Army introduced the M14 rifle which was virtually a reworked M1 Garand with an increased ammunition capacity.

Many sub-variants of the M1 were produced but few actually saw service as the basic M1 proved to be more than adequate for most purposes. There were two special sniper versions, the M1C and the M1D, both produced during 1944 but never in any great numbers. Each had such extras as a muzzle flash cone and butt plates.

The M1 attracted the attention of the USA's enemies to the extent that the Germans used as many s they could capture with the designation Selbstladgewehr 251(a), and the Japanese produced their own copy, the 7.7-mm (0.303-in) Rifle Type 5, but only prototypes had been completed by the time the war ended.

Post war the M1 went on for many years as the standard US service rifle, and some are still issued to National Guard and other such units. Several nations continues to use the M1, and many designers have used the basic action as the basis for their own products: many of the modern Italian Beretta rifles use the Garand system as does the American 5.56-mm (0.22-in) Ruger Mini-14.

Carbine, Caliber .30, M1, M1A1, M2, and M3

The traditional weapon for the second-line troops and such specialists as machine-gunners has generally been the pistol, but when the Us Army considered the equipment of such soldiers during 1940 they made a request for some form of carbine that could be easily stowed and handled. The result was a competition in which several manufacturers submitted their proposals, and the winner was a Winchester design that was adopted for service as the Carbine, Caliber .30 M1. The M1 used an unusual gas-operated system and was designed for use with a special cartridge that was intermediate between a pistol cartridge and a rifle cartridge in power.

From the start the Carbine M1 was an immediate success. It was light and easy to handle , to the extent that its uses soon spread from the second-echelon troops who were supposed to be issued with the weapon to front-line troops such as officers and weapon teams. In order to speed its introduction into service the M1 as single shot weapon only, but there was a special variant with a folding stock known as the M1A1. This was produced for use by airborne units. When time allowed later during the war the automatic fire feature as added. This version was known as the M2, and had a cyclic rate of fire of about 750 to 775 rounds per minute; the weapon used a curved box magazine holding 30 rounds that could also be used on the M1. The M3 was a special night-fighting version with a large infra-red night sight, but only about 2,100 of these were made. The M3 proved to be the one version of the Carbine M1 series that was not produced in quantities, for by the time the war ended the production total had reached 6,332,000 of all versions, making the weapon the most prolific personal weapon of World War II.

For all its handiness, the Carbine M1 series had one major drawback, and that was the cartridge used. Being an intermediate-power cartridge it generally-lacked power, even at close ranges. Being a carbine the M1 also lacked range and was effective only to 100m (110 yards) or so. But these drawbacks were more than countered by the overall handiness of the weapon. It was easy to stow in vehicles or aircraft, and the M1A1 with its folding but was even smaller. It handled well in action and was deemed good enough for the German Army use as the Selbstadekarabiner 455a after enough had been captured during the latter stages of the war in Europe.

But for all its mass production and war-time success, the M1 is now little used by armed forces anywhere. Many police forces retain the type mainly because of the low-power cartridge fired which is safer in police situations than more powerful rounds. Typical of these is the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which uses the Carbine M1 as a counter to the far more powerful Armalites of the IRA. Another part of the M1 story is the current lack of adoption of the M1's intermediate power cartridge. During the war years these cartridges were churned out in millions bt now the cartridge is little used and had not been adopted by any other major weapon system.

Chris Bishop

 

The Garand was a regular rifle round, accurate and deadly well beyond 200 yards which is just about the limit of the .30 caliber Carbine round and barrel length. The Carbine is short range, quick point, low recoil, and less than a "power puncher" with its little 110 grain bullet travelling at only about 1990 feet per second.

The Garand is every thing the Carbine isn't. Long range, slower point time, higher recoil, and a real "hitter" with its 150 grain bullet travelling at nearly 2900 feet per second.

The Carbine was the "non-rifleman's" weapon, staff officers, clerk typists, cooks, truck drivers. The paratroops used them but preferred the Garand. The sweet little .30 carbine was an alternative, but to a pistol, not the Garand. If the M2 select-fire and it's 30 round banana magazine had been introduced sooner, with a slightly more powerfull round than the straight walled extended pistol round, America may well have fielded a very successful "assault rifle".

 

The Garand was a main battle rifle where the carbine was more of a stop gap protective measure, something more than a pistol yet much less than a "Rifleman's rifle".

Clint has hit the nail on the head as to the application differences. Anything that I could add would degenerate quickly.

 

I would definitely take the M1 Garand over the carbine. the Carbine was supposed to be issued to troops who would probably not see combat but needed a fairly effective weapon just in case. The garand was the cadillac of Semiautomatic firearms. Plus I just love the look of the M1 Garand...and the ping noise (although it could give away your position if the enemy was close enough).

 

Wow great answers, I'll just throw in my 2 cents.

In the book,"Beyond Glory" a veteran recounts that his experience with the carbine. He said that one time a German rushed his foxhole and he unloaded 4 rounds into him. The German kept running, showing no signs of injury. The veteran had to pull out his .45, which stopped the enemy in one shot. The clip feature probably sped up reloading, and didn't alert the enemy with a "ping", but the weapon had a shorter range and lighter caliber.

The Garand may have been heavier and bulkier, but it had extreme accuracy (e.g. Shifty Powers using it as a sniper rifle) and it delivered more of a punch.

 

That is without doubt true, the small 110 grain FMJ of the under 2000 fps carbine might have simply gone through the charging man without damage of any critical sort (if vital organs were missed), while the slower but heavier .45 would do so. The difference of being hit with a "pointed stick" and a baseball bat.

 

What if he was carrying a banana? nobody thinks of that

 

Heck ya baseball bat! I have yet to see a war movie that correctly portrays the kick if the thompson.


But we grow off topic...

 

Killing the enemy. The Garand was 30-06, a caliber that can down an elk. The carbine had a smaller round that you could fire full-auto in a shoulder weapon (but not necessarilly hit anything at any range). And everybody loved the carbine because it was light, handy, "sexy", and could carry 30 rounds.

But it had inadequate stopping power in battle, as a lot of folks here have already pointed out. Even a casual study of its use in battle reveals dozens of accounts of the underpowered round hitting the enemy who then just kept right on coming. In Korea, it was reported that even the quilted winter coats the attacking enemy Chinese wore, often were enough to deflect impacts of the little rounds.

 

Something else, the M1 Garand was the weapon of choice for distribution to American infantry, and most US riflemen. The M1 Carbine, at about half the weight and with a very much less powerful cartridge, was the weapon of choice for support troops, and others not primarily involved in infantry combat.

It (Carbine) was specifically designed to meet combat needs less demanding than the M1 Garand, but more than can be met by the M1911A1 Automatic Colt Pistol, which lent its name to the .45 ACP round even though the pistol itself was designed by John Browning. The Carbine was more convenient to use than the Garand, and less intrusive to their other duties, while still much more effective than any hand gun, automatic or revolver.

Another thing to keep in mind here, the little .30 Carbine only has a projectile of 110 grains of bullet weight, and 7.62 mm in diameter. While the .30-06 is the same diameter (7.62mm) as the Carbine, it is a heavier projectile at 150 grains, and traveling at a 1000 feet per second faster rate.

The .30 Carbine delivered a 110 grain projectile velocity of 1990 fps, and 967 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. The Garand used the standard issue 30-06 round and was a 150 grain projectile which delivered a velocity of 2,800 fps with nearly 2,650 ft-lbs of energy at muzzle. And like it or not, the little .30 Caliber carbine has a better "hitting power" and range than a .357 Magnum in standard military loads, the .357 used a 158 grain bullet, traveling at 1,290 fps, and with 525 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, as delivered in the 1940s for both military and civilian use. Patton carried one of the first models of .357 Magnum from S&W.

The standard FMJ .45 pistol round between 230/250 grains of bullet weight (11.4 mm in diameter), and in the M1911M1 it delivered 820 fps in velocity, and 329 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle.

Jim Higginbotham, a 30-year law enforcement veteran and trainer writes the following on the subject of pistol cartridges and failures to stop:

While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s, .357’s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber rounds.

It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to stop the attacker - and I have not encountered any with the .45, even with Ball.

I have encountered several with 5, 6 or even more hits to the center of the chest with .38, .357, 9mm and even .223 rifle rounds failing to stop. Almost every one could be traced to over penetration with a couple of exceptions that hit the heart but the others just did not cause enough damage to be effective quickly. Note I am not talking about "torso" hits. There is a lot of area in the torso in which a hit will seldom produce rapid incapacitation even if hit by a 12 gauge deer slug or a 30-06, we simply cannot count such data if we are going to learn anything.

See:

The Sight 1911 .45 ACP Page

The Carbine was effective at what it was designed to do, a less than frontline rifle for less than frontline soldiers.

 

How does the 30 cal. carbine bullet compare to the 9mm parabellum?

 

Hello Guys!
Carbine was used by Airborne in close &fast Combats ,while M1 Garand was used with other units on The Ground! (Carbine accurecy was no more than 100m)

 

That last statement is incorrect. I wouldn't shoot a deer with mine at any range over 100 yards, less distance preferably. However, that said I have no idea the total number of varmits (ground squirels, wood/rock chucks, coyotes, feral dogs, and badgers) which I have taken with mine over the nearly fifties years I have owned it (M1A1, folding stock). I lost it in the last round of praire fires we had here in Montana a few years ago (2005), and miss it greatly. The longest shot I ever took with it, non-scope, was about 150 yards and the coyote was DOA when I stepped off the distance.

It isn't simply bullet weight and speed, placement of the bullet has a great deal to do with range limits for the desired effect. I agree with you that the Garand is the superior of the two weapons, but for a combination of a limited range, and rapidity of target aquisition, the .30 Carbine is more than adequate.

 

The .30 Carbine delivered a 110 grain FMJ projectile velocity of 1990 fps, and 967 ft-lbs of kinetic energy at the muzzle. The only data I have seen on the 9mm out of a longer than pistol barrel was the 7 to 9 inch SMG barrel. That was using the military standard 115 grain FMJ projectile, using the military powder charge, which gave a muzzle velocity of 1250 fps, and a kinetic energy of 380 ft-lbs, at the muzzle.

Comparing that to the much longer 18" barrel of the .30 Carbine is hard to do, since that round (.30 Carbine) wasn’t designed for anything except the carbine at the time while the 9mm parabellum functioned in every length barrel from the Luger's stubby one up!

Like it or not, the little .30 Caliber carbine has a better "kinetic energy power" and range than a .357 Magnum in standard military loads out of a pistol barrel length. The .357 used a 158 grain bullet, traveling at 1,290 fps, and with 525 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, as delivered in the 1940s out of a 5.5" barrel. Patton carried a custom made S&W .357 occassionally, of course he had many pistols, but he was one of the first in the officer ranks to purchase a .357 Magnum.

That is "rounded off" data from my old copy of Speer Reloading manual Number Nine For Rifle and Pistol, fourth printing, April 1978 using its MilSpec as a baseline.

 

30 carbine is almost certainly the superior of the two. I will leave the arguments about ballistics, muzzle energy and projectile weight to someone else - but 9mm parabellum (parabellum is latin = "For war") was designed from the get-go as a medium power pistol round. Putting this round through the longer barrel of an MP-40 did little to increase its range or power. The carbine round may be underpowered but in a shoulder fired weapon, carbine wins over 9mm hands down.

 

you could fix a bayonet on the garand but not on the carbine despite what people say, my grandad has a carbine and the standard issue US ww2 bayonet designed for all US weapons that had a bayonet hold but this don't! And it wouldnt be great if the enemy was charging at you with bayonets on there gun and you didnt have one on yours!

 

Now, I wonder why we haven't heard many cases of soldiers complaining about the lack of stopping power of their machine pistols. From what I can tell, the 30 cal. is not only better than the 9mm Parabellum as contributors confirmed, but also the 7.62 Tokarev as well. Why the discrepancy? Is the issue psychological (i.e. different expectations) or is there a scientific reason for it?

I am going to guess that M1 carbine was often fired at greater ranges than machine pistols and this is more likely to expose the inadequacy of pistol cartridges in general rather than a particular fault with the carbine. Or it could be that soldiers tend to pump numerous rounds into enemies with their SMGs.

 

Unless of course you still had bullets. Later carbines did have accomodations for bayonets.

from: ( Modern Firearms - M1 Carbine )