User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:20:37 PM EDT
[#1]
Replacing the M1 Garand with M2 Carbine would have helped win the war as effectively as switching submarine construction to Styrofoam. It wouldn't get the job done right.
DXR |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:20:59 PM EDT
[#2]
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..... Yeah, Posers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:21:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If someone shot me with one of those and I ever found out about it, I'd be pissed! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:22:15 PM EDT
[#4]
The M2 Carbine even with its select fire capability was never intended to be a battle rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:23:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Grandpa loved his Carbine and killed many Japs with it. Not bad for a medical corpman.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:23:23 PM EDT
[#6]
No, and the carbine was never meant as a replacement for the Garand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:24:09 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:24:51 PM EDT
[#8]
What about when chambered in 5.7/.22 Spitfire?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:25:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Way underpowered compared to the .30-06. Way. .30-06 is way overpowered for infantry use. Remind me again why dropped the battle rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:26:08 PM EDT
[#10]
I think the bigger question is: was the M-2 a suitable replacement for the Thompson and the M-3 and was the .30 cal round better than the .45ACP round used in both those guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:26:28 PM EDT
[#11]
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:26:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If someone shot me with one of those and I ever found out about it, I'd be pissed! Pissing through a bag for the rest of your life is more like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:28:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M2 Carbine even with its select fire capability was never intended to be a battle rifle. Of course it wasn't, yet neither was the M16. There is a reason why no one uses battle rifles for main line these days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:28:34 PM EDT
[#14]
We sell the KAHR made replica, neat, very light gun. Would I go into battle w/it over a SCAR, AR, etc..nope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:29:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We sell the KAHR made replica, neat, very light gun. Would I go into battle w/it over a SCAR, AR, etc..nope They had SCARs and AR15s during WW2? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:30:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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..... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/2337381262_c6024f4b07_o.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/2cf6war.jpg I was referring to the Bling; shiny gold stuff. Not debating the carbine... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:32:24 PM EDT
[#17]
My dad carried an M1 Carbine in nam and he liked it, said it was perfect for the conditions.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:32:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Oh hell no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:32:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, Posers. <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/rock711/media/aai_zps4560e3cf.gif.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/rock711/aai_zps4560e3cf.gif</a> Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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..... Yeah, Posers. <a href="http://s127.photobucket.com/user/rock711/media/aai_zps4560e3cf.gif.html" target="_blank">http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p123/rock711/aai_zps4560e3cf.gif</a> Talkin' about the shiny bars and watch; bling, not the carbine...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:32:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm. Is +p 10mm higher powered? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:33:26 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was referring to the Bling; shiny gold stuff. Not debating the carbine... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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..... http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/2337381262_c6024f4b07_o.jpg http://i35.tinypic.com/2cf6war.jpg I was referring to the Bling; shiny gold stuff. Not debating the carbine... Just using the excuse to post more nam pics 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:34:02 PM EDT
[#22]
No, it was a good supplement to the garand, but not enough reach to replace it. However, I do think that it was retired too soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:36:07 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:36:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: neck it down to a .224 dia projo and maybe stretch the service life of the weapon system is about all.   I'm glad the military went with the Armalite pattern instead.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:38:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course it wasn't, yet neither was the M16. There is a reason why no one uses battle rifles for main line these days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The M2 Carbine even with its select fire capability was never intended to be a battle rifle. Of course it wasn't, yet neither was the M16. There is a reason why no one uses battle rifles for main line these days. The Carbine was to be a compromise between the pistol and rifle for certain troops. From what I have read, the M1 Carbine was originally called out to be select-fire. Apparently, that didn't happen until a later date. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:40:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Two different applications; two different weapon systems Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No. Two different applications; two different weapon systems |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:41:29 PM EDT
[#27]
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 And you'll read the exact opposite about Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:49:00 PM EDT
[#28]
M2 Carbine replace a Garand? No. Absolutely not. Best left as a second line or Field Officer weapon. But, BUT - I had the opportunity to shoot an M2 not too long ago and it was fun as hell, very controllable and easy to shoot. I shot about 100rds through it at a target 125yds away and all were within the 6 ring. Its a cool piece but definitely not a replacement for the M1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:49:18 PM EDT
[#29]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:52:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Carbine was to be a compromise between the pistol and rifle for certain troops. From what I have read, the M1 Carbine was originally called out to be select-fire. Apparently, that didn't happen until a later date. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The M2 Carbine even with its select fire capability was never intended to be a battle rifle. Of course it wasn't, yet neither was the M16. There is a reason why no one uses battle rifles for main line these days. The Carbine was to be a compromise between the pistol and rifle for certain troops. From what I have read, the M1 Carbine was originally called out to be select-fire. Apparently, that didn't happen until a later date. while the Carbine was originally supposed to be select fire, the selector switch and mechanism were added much later in the production run since it was deemed that it could be produced quicker as a semi-auto only |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 3:57:35 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the bigger question is: was the M-2 a suitable replacement for the Thompson and the M-3 and was the .30 cal round better than the .45ACP round used in both those guns? IMO Yes. The Thompson is nice, but they are heavy as hell and more expensive to build than the Carbine. IIRC the Thompson weighs 11-12 lbs, the Carbine is about 6lbs. The M-3 is very compact and cheap to manufacture, but the Carbine is easier to shoot accurately at longer ranges. For people like tankers where space is at a minimum the M-3 would be better, but for everyone else I would think the Carbine would be preferred. For a carbine-type weapon, the .30 is superior to .45 acp. Faster and much flatter shooting than .45, so it's easier for less skilled marksmen to make hits. For clearing rooms or very close quarters, you could get into a 9mm vs 45 type argument. Longer range, the .30 has the advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:01:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you'll read the exact opposite about Afghanistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 And you'll read the exact opposite about Afghanistan. DMRs, MGs and Mortars 
Not sure why people think you have to have a do everything rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:10:13 PM EDT
[#33]
Replaced? No. But it probably would have become even more of a favorite of troops on the line than the regular carbine given that they would now have a light, accurate, long gun, with FA capabilities. It would more likely replace the thompson or grease gun. I like .45 but its a terrible round to shoot at anything past about 150-200 meters. the .30 carbine would've given them that additional standoff to start engaging accurately while retaining a selector switch.
The m1 and m2 both had to many shortcomings due to its cartridge to replace the Garand. Im not positive of this but ive also heard the m2 carbine was pretty hard to control on FA especially compared to the tompson and grease gun, but having 30 rounds vs 15 at your disposal and additional range is a big plus. That said, ive never seen the ballistics of the 7.92 kurz compared to the .30 carbine, but i imagine at the time they were very comparable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:12:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What about when chambered in 5.7/.22 Spitfire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:15:12 PM EDT
[#35]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:22:27 PM EDT
[#36]
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:23:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Never came across a carbine that was very reliable...
ETA: I remember specifically recalling a picture of my uncle Billy from Vietnam (circa 1965-66) standing on top of a sandbag type of bunker with an M-1 Carbine in his hand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:27:13 PM EDT
[#38]
I'm going with "yes". There would be situations where the limited range would be an issue, but the other 90% of the time it would be workable. Note that the Russians did a pretty good job with PPsh-41.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:27:17 PM EDT
[#39]
I think it would have.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:30:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm going with "yes". There would be situations where the limited range would be an issue, but the other 90% of the time it would be workable. Note that the Russians did a pretty good job with PPsh-41. not saying the PPSh-41 isn't a fine submachine gun, but the Russians had FAR different tactics than we did to Uncle Joe quantity was a quality of its own, especially when it came to using infantry as "cannon fodder" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:32:22 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1. The USA never intended to field repeaters during the Civil War, either. My understanding is that the USMC essentially went to the carbine in the later stage of WW2 in PTO. My dad's friend Bud recalled when they replaced their Garands with carbines, and he said they buried the Garands on the island. I think carbine would be fine in both the PTO and most of ETO. North Africa and Italy are places where I think the Garand might be a better choice, but even so with BARs and sniper rifles in the mix, the carbine would probably do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:33:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M2 Carbine even with its select fire capability was never intended to be a battle rifle. However it was extensively used as one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:35:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
not saying the PPSh-41 isn't a fine submachine gun, but the Russians had FAR different tactics than we did to Uncle Joe quantity was a quality of its own, especially when it came to using infantry as "cannon fodder" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm going with "yes". There would be situations where the limited range would be an issue, but the other 90% of the time it would be workable. Note that the Russians did a pretty good job with PPsh-41. not saying the PPSh-41 isn't a fine submachine gun, but the Russians had FAR different tactics than we did to Uncle Joe quantity was a quality of its own, especially when it came to using infantry as "cannon fodder" True, but I think the carbine would have the range for most situations and for most users. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:36:04 PM EDT
[#44]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:39:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1. This. The M1 Carbine was for troops who, because of their job, didn't need a Garand but needed more than a pistol. It was originally intended to replace a handgun. It is ballistically similar to a .357mag. It is fairly accurate out to about 150 yards but it starts dropping fast. Some troops started carrying it since it was lighter and easier to reload, and on the islands the distances were limited enough that it's range limitations were not a problem. I do remember reading that the paratroops who jumped into Europe on D-Day were issued M1 carbines, and they swapped them out for Garands as soon as they could. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:42:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The USA never intended to field repeaters during the Civil War, either. My understanding is that the USMC essentially went to the carbine in the later stage of WW2 in PTO. My dad's friend Bud recalled when they replaced their Garands with carbines, and he said they buried the Garands on the island. I think carbine would be fine in both the PTO and most of ETO. North Africa and Italy are places where I think the Garand might be a better choice, but even so with BARs and sniper rifles in the mix, the carbine would probably do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1. The USA never intended to field repeaters during the Civil War, either. My understanding is that the USMC essentially went to the carbine in the later stage of WW2 in PTO. My dad's friend Bud recalled when they replaced their Garands with carbines, and he said they buried the Garands on the island. I think carbine would be fine in both the PTO and most of ETO. North Africa and Italy are places where I think the Garand might be a better choice, but even so with BARs and sniper rifles in the mix, the carbine would probably do. I thought the Marines were originally issued '03s and '03-A3s and got Garands later in the war. I also doubt they would bury any functioning rifle. I do remember reading that there was initially some resistance to changing from a bolt rifle to a new semi-auto, but they got over that resistance quickly when they saw what it could do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:42:54 PM EDT
[#47]
We laugh at the Russians for trying it with their burp guns, and their burp guns were better than that thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:46:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1. It was never intended to replace the garand because of doctrine and stubborn thinking, doesn't mean it could not have replace it knowing what we know now. The military still thought infantry needed to be able to take shots at 1000 meters until mid way through nam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:47:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the Marines were originally issued '03s and '03-A3s and got Garands later in the war. I also doubt they would bury any functioning rifle. I do remember reading that there was initially some resistance to changing from a bolt rifle to a new semi-auto, but they got over that resistance quickly when they saw what it could do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It was never intended to replace the Garand. It was more for the folks who would normally be armed with a M1911a1. The USA never intended to field repeaters during the Civil War, either. My understanding is that the USMC essentially went to the carbine in the later stage of WW2 in PTO. My dad's friend Bud recalled when they replaced their Garands with carbines, and he said they buried the Garands on the island. I think carbine would be fine in both the PTO and most of ETO. North Africa and Italy are places where I think the Garand might be a better choice, but even so with BARs and sniper rifles in the mix, the carbine would probably do. I thought the Marines were originally issued '03s and '03-A3s and got Garands later in the war. I also doubt they would bury any functioning rifle. I do remember reading that there was initially some resistance to changing from a bolt rifle to a new semi-auto, but they got over that resistance quickly when they saw what it could do. the USMC had M1903s u until late 1942-early 1943 when they replaced the 03 with the Garand. The 1903A3 was produced from late 42 until early 44 so the USMC wouldn't have really used it as a Standard-A rifle since by the time the A3's were becoming available so was the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:47:19 PM EDT
[#50]
I would say 'No'. I have both and they are fun to shoot, but the Carbine was never meant to be a main battle rifle. It was designed, and originally fielded, to give rear echelon troops something more than a pistol, but less than a M1 Garand. It was a compromise and well suited for its original intention to arm support personnel.
I've met a few veterans that have used the Carbine in combat and most didn't like it over other choices available to them. A friend of mine's father was a Korean War Marine and was issued the carbine when he went into combat. He despises the carbine and called it a toy - even today. He said that it wouldn't put down an enemy soldier with one shot (had to shoot them too many times). He also told me that he picked up the first available Garand off a dead Marine and chucked the carbine. He never used one again. I'm sure other vets have other experiences and opinions. |
|
|
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.
