User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:42:22 PM EDT
Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:43:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Uh, no?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:43:19 PM EDT
[#2]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:43:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:44:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Nope Don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:44:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Two different applications; two different weapon systems |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:44:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Nope. Not enough power in that cartridge for what was needed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:44:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Would have replaced all SMGs, handguns and such. Awesome gun with lots of firepower.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:45:32 PM EDT
[#8]
nope.
still a sub gun. not a battle rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:46:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Seems like they were still good enough for nam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:46:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two different applications; two different weapon systems Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. Two different applications; two different weapon systems |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:47:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Didn't stop the Norks and the Chinese, did it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:47:23 PM EDT
[#12]
No. It's better than a rock or sharp stick, but one must be as good as John George and get head shots in to put the enemy down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:47:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
nope. still a sub gun. not a battle rifle. AR15 is not a battle rifle  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:47:45 PM EDT
[#14]
In urban warfare, hell yes.
In open fields, desert and mountains, hell no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:48:38 PM EDT
[#15]
If someone shot me with one of those and I ever found out about it, I'd be pissed!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:48:51 PM EDT
[#16]
No. Because some of us shoot further than 100 yards.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:49:18 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't stop the Norks and the Chinese, did it? That would be because it is a myth. Lots of bad guys get shot with 5.56 and keep on fighting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:49:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AR15 is not a battle rifle Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
nope. still a sub gun. not a battle rifle. AR15 is not a battle rifle not a fuckin subgun either, hero......... get a clue. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:50:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't stop the Norks and the Chinese, did it? How many norks and chicoms died in that one again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:51:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw neither of those are M2 Carbines 
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:51:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Because some of us shoot further than 100 yards. DMR Garand/1903 at the squad level. Long range engagements are for Machine guns, mortars and arty. "During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers. Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only. " http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:52:51 PM EDT
[#22]
chuckle...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:52:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many norks and chicoms died in that one again? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn't stop the Norks and the Chinese, did it? How many norks and chicoms died in that one again? I think I forgot to press the sarcastic smiley button.
Relevant Link -- Thanks O_P |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:53:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
neither of those are M2 Carbines
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 I know, couldnt find any decent pics of a M2.
and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously I know what the mindset was, but that was not the question Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw neither of those are M2 Carbines
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 I know, couldnt find any decent pics of a M2.
and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously I know what the mindset was, but that was not the question |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:53:56 PM EDT
[#25]
As much as I love the M1 Carbine... no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:56:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DMR Garand/1903 at the squad level. Long range engagements are for Machine guns, mortars and arty. "During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers. Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only. " http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. Because some of us shoot further than 100 yards. DMR Garand/1903 at the squad level. Long range engagements are for Machine guns, mortars and arty. "During the recent Iraq campaign, US Marine riflemen were interviewed about their experiences by after-action interviewers. Almost all interviewed stated all firefight engagements conducted with small arms (5.56mm guns) occurred in the twenty to thirty (20-30) meter range. Shots over 100m were rare. The maximum range was less than 300m. Of those interviewed, most sniper shots were taken at distances well under 300m, only one greater than 300m (608m during the day). After talking to the leadership from various sniper platoons and individuals, there was not enough confidence in the optical gear (Simrad or AN/PVS-10) to take a night shot under the given conditions at ranges over 300m. Most Marines agreed they would “push” a max range of 200m only. " http://donaldmsensing.blogspot.com/2003/06/infantry-rifle-combat-distances.html then it changed in afghanistan? and it will change again in the next conflict? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:56:25 PM EDT
[#27]
I think so. I know which one I would rather have carried.
My grandfather had the choice and carried the carbine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:57:03 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lzbetty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf002.jpg.jpg http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/31509c48289d750e_large Seems like they were still good enough for nam. On my father's first tour, he carried one. He hated it, said it was the jammingest piece of shit he ever had to use. Went to carrying a M-14 from the arms room when he did go on patrols (Radio Operator). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:57:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw neither of those are M2 Carbines
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 I know, couldnt find any decent pics of a M2.
and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously I know what the mindset was, but that was not the question then no due to insufficient power and range |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:59:24 PM EDT
[#30]
An M2 carbine would of been an awesome main battle rifle for me. Cause as an ET in the Navy working on land based radio transmitters. I would not really need anything else to shoot the rats over by the dumpsters
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 2:59:50 PM EDT
[#31]
neck it down to a .224 dia projo and maybe stretch the service life of the weapon system is about all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:00:25 PM EDT
[#32]
It's interesting that SF used the M1Carbine extensively as a primary shoulder-fire weapon before the AR15 came along in the early 1960's.
There's video of Larry Thorne's SF ODA in 10th SFG conducting a raid that was filmed for training purposes, and everyone was carrying a carbine from what I remember, except maybe someone with a belt-fed system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:00:55 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would be because it is a myth. Lots of bad guys get shot with 5.56 and keep on fighting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Didn't stop the Norks and the Chinese, did it? That would be because it is a myth. Lots of bad guys get shot with 5.56 and keep on fighting. The M1 Carbine with standard military ball ammo was almost, but not quite, one of the original assault rifles. The round was too pistol-like to make the grade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:01:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On my father's first tour, he carried one. He hated it, said it was the jammingest piece of shit he ever had to use. Went to carrying a M-14 from the arms room when he did go on patrols (Radio Operator). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://lzbetty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf002.jpg.jpg http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/31509c48289d750e_large Seems like they were still good enough for nam. On my father's first tour, he carried one. He hated it, said it was the jammingest piece of shit he ever had to use. Went to carrying a M-14 from the arms room when he did go on patrols (Radio Operator). probably a shot to shit gun by that point. Just like all the negative opinions of the 1911 in during nam and later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:02:39 PM EDT
[#35]
I bet I can hit/do anything I can do with an M4 with that M1 carbine, fixed stock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:03:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Not no.
But FUCK NO |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:06:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Good rifle but no way.
Different weapon for a different purpose. I have a few Garands and an M1 Carbine so I do know a bit about them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand 1911 as the main service rifle officer's sidearm during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:07:49 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like they were still good enough for nam. Okay, this one made my dick move, no homo. Where does one purchase an M1 Carbine cut down pistol? Anyone know if that is FA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:07:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
then no due to insufficient power and range Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw neither of those are M2 Carbines
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 I know, couldnt find any decent pics of a M2.
and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously I know what the mindset was, but that was not the question then no due to insufficient power and range How much range do you need? Average infantry was not killing krauts at 1000 yards. MG were used for suppression and maneuver. Outside MG range you used arty. If it was a completely inferior weapon then it would not have been the most produced weapon of the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:08:34 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw No and the full auto version was called the M2 Carbine |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:09:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://lzbetty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf002.jpg.jpg http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/31509c48289d750e_large Seems like they were still good enough for nam. I want to believe that that photo was staged for the camera, perhaps by a REMF. I served with Combat vets from that era, and I seriously doubt they would have stepped foot outside the wire with all that bling. 
They damn sure wouldn't let ME go out like that, even for training. They woulda been all up in the young privates ass..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:11:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good rifle but no way. Different weapon for a different purpose. I have a few Garands and an M1 Carbine so I do know a bit about them. I do as well. This is a thought experiment considering what we have learned since that time about smaller calibers being preferable and infantry ranges mostly being very short. Full auto .30 carbine from a .30 round mag would have been quite effective during the invasion of france. The germans were still mostly armed with K98s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:11:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Could replace another close quarter rifle like the PPS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:13:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No and the full auto version was called the M2 Carbine Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw No and the full auto version was called the M2 Carbine Yes I know the full auto was called the M2, that is why it was in the thread title.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:14:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much range do you need? Average infantry was not killing krauts at 1000 yards. MG were used for suppression and maneuver. Outside MG range you used arty. If it was a completely inferior weapon then it would not have been the most produced weapon of the war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/M1A1left.jpg Full auto .30 carbine? Good enough to replace the M1 Garand as the main service rifle during the war? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwk8HMjtjq9ezDncONj8iv52qbPJ5udwp2OO_wCPv4lATpbn1HPw neither of those are M2 Carbines
top is a M1A1 bottom is a M3 I know, couldnt find any decent pics of a M2.
and to answer your question no. The mindset up until the 1950s was that the 1000yd capable battle rifle would remain the standard service rifle. Look at how the Army Ordnance viewed the STG-44 and AK initially, to them they were essentially submachine guns and were not taken very seriously I know what the mindset was, but that was not the question then no due to insufficient power and range How much range do you need? Average infantry was not killing krauts at 1000 yards. MG were used for suppression and maneuver. Outside MG range you used arty. If it was a completely inferior weapon then it would not have been the most produced weapon of the war. I'd say out to about 300-350yds, the Carbine doesn't quite give that. It was far from being inferior, for what it was---something to arm cooks, drivers, mechanics, rear echelon, non Infantry types, it was great weapon and a testament to what American manufacturing could do |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:18:47 PM EDT
[#47]
I like my M-1 carbine for a fun range toy and as a collector piece, but I wouldn't want to trust my life to it. Mine is finicky about mags.
It doesn't compare to any newer assault rifle. I guess compared to the Garand it's a good bit lighter, and the detachable magazines are a big plus. I wouldn't want to have to carry a Garand all over Europe or the Jungle, it's one heavy sumbitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:19:33 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want to believe that that photo was staged for the camera, perhaps by a REMF. I Combat vets from that era, and I seriously doubt they would have stepped foot outside the wire with all that bling.
They damn sure wouldn't let ME go out like that, even for training. They woulda been all up in the young privates ass..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://lzbetty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf002.jpg.jpg http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/31509c48289d750e_large Seems like they were still good enough for nam. I want to believe that that photo was staged for the camera, perhaps by a REMF. I Combat vets from that era, and I seriously doubt they would have stepped foot outside the wire with all that bling.
They damn sure wouldn't let ME go out like that, even for training. They woulda been all up in the young privates ass..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:20:15 PM EDT
[#49]
I carried a captured one my buddy killed a VC to get....gave it up and went back to the M-16 due to drawing friendly fire from an M-60
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:20:35 PM EDT
[#50]
No.
Way underpowered compared to the .30-06. Way. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
