User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:49:34 PM EDT
[#1]
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. I agree. And no, neither the M1 or M2 carbine would have been a viable replacement for the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:49:35 PM EDT
[#2]
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:
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. Early on the Marines used the 03. I don't think they had 03-A3s. IIRC, they received the Garand while they were on Guadacanal. Eventually they mostly switched to the carbine. The US military wasted all kinds of working hardware. I believe Bud said they buried the rifles in a secret place, so no one would be able to retrieve them. But he told me this cerca 1980, and he had been dead for a decade now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:53:40 PM EDT
[#3]
The carbine fit in and out of vehicles better and would have allowed troops to carry much more ammo or other things.
Logistically it would have been better than the garand for everything from using less metals to being able to ship/airlift greater numbers due to the much lighter weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:55:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Army should have never replaced the 155mm CQB gun from ww2. Made going room to room much easier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:55:56 PM EDT
[#5]
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. True there is allot of suppression and fire in general direction of a non-specific enemy. But not much really changes when it comes to engagement ranges because most long range small arms fires are done with machine guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:56:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. The carbine produces wounds similar to the 7.62x39 using M43 ammo. That's inferior to .30 M2 ball, but probably sufficient most of the time, and you have the advantage of more ammo and firepower. I'd prefer the carbine in most combat situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 4:58:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Didn't Audie Murphy do most of his killing with a carbine?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:04:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True there is allot of suppression and fire in general direction of a non-specific enemy. But not much really changes when it comes to engagement ranges because most long range small arms fires are done with machine guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. True there is allot of suppression and fire in general direction of a non-specific enemy. But not much really changes when it comes to engagement ranges because most long range small arms fires are done with machine guns. The accuracy requirement for the Garand was 10 shot groups averaging 5.2" @ 100 yards. Your typical Garand was perhaps a 3 moa weapon, but it could be as bad as 5 moa. Throw in the users shooting ability and range estimation skills and the effective range was likely no more then 300 yards typically. That said in "With the Old Breed" it was mentioned that the Marines with Garands would engage at longer distances then those with carbines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:05:36 PM EDT
[#9]
I see that some of the above posters have '' never had a M1 carbine that was reliable''---- my experience is just opposite. In proper condition, a M1 carbine is every bit as reliable as an AR. And, up to 150 yards is just as powerful [ has as much ''stopping power'' as the .223 ],, which is very easy to verify if someone is so inclined. With that said--- I own a LEGAL M2, and have sold my M-16,, keeping the M2. I have been shooting them for over 40 years---do not remember [ or even know ] of a FTF,, or stoppage. I also have an M1 from ''Fulton Armory'' and another worked over by ''Dean's Gun Restoration'' with the Criterion [ read Kreiger ] barrels and they will both shoot all day with my 6920 and LMT ARs. Any body selling the M1--M2 short,, has spent too much time gleaning ''facts'' from the internet. No,, it is not a 500 yard rifle---- I live in the woods of Ms,,, lucky to have a 75 yard shot,,, my M2 will get me by quite nicely,,,, and I have every reason to have every confidence in it. YMMV. [ am I a fan??? Hell yeah ]---tell me where I am going wrong here, I promise I will listen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:07:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't Audie Murphy do most of his killing with a carbine? Probably did a bit with a .50 M2, IIRC, but the carbine was a favorit of his. I've read of some other infantry "aces" who loved the carbine. The Germans sure loved it as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:07:51 PM EDT
[#11]
Never.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:09:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see that some of the above posters have '' never had a M1 carbine that was reliable''---- my experience is just opposite. In proper condition, a M1 carbine is every bit as reliable as an AR. And, up to 150 yards is just as powerful [ has as much ''stopping power'' as the .223 ],, which is very easy to verify if someone is so inclined. With that said--- I own a LEGAL M2, and have sold my M-16,, keeping the M2. I have been shooting them for over 40 years---do not remember [ or even know ] of a FTF,, or stoppage. I also have an M1 from ''Fulton Armory'' and another worked over by ''Dean's Gun Restoration'' with the Criterion [ read Kreiger ] barrels and they will both shoot all day with my 6920 and LMT ARs. Any body selling the M1--M2 short,, has spent too much time gleaning ''facts'' from the internet. No,, it is not a 500 yard rifle---- I live in the woods of Ms,,, lucky to have a 75 yard shot,,, my M2 will get me by quite nicely,,,, and I have every reason to have every confidence in it. YMMV. [ am I a fan??? Hell yeah ]---tell me where I am going wrong here, I promise I will listen. Terminal performance is very much effected by the specific bullet used, but fragmenting 5.56 has much more wounding potential then any carbine round. That said non-fragmenting 5.56 likely is less effective then the .30. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:16:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't Audie Murphy do most of his killing with a carbine? yup, and al pacino used it in HEAT 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:24:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is +p 10mm higher powered? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm. Is +p 10mm higher powered? No the 30 carbine has more energy than a 44 magnum out of a M1 or M2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:29:41 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Grandpa loved his Carbine and killed many Japs with it. Not bad for a medical corpman. sadly Sugar Loaf Hill is all but gone now. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:32:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I bet I can hit/do anything I can do with an M4 with that M1 carbine, fixed stock. Unless you cant hit a target past 150M with your M4 this is just false. I monthly shoot targets at 600Y with my AR. If I hit you at 600Y with one of my many carbines it would be because it was your day to die,not because of the weapon. I own a bunch,I love them. But they are not a replacement for a rifle, M1 or M4. Some carbine Pron...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 5:34:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Terminal performance is very much effected by the specific bullet used, but fragmenting 5.56 has much more wounding potential then any carbine round. That said non-fragmenting 5.56 likely is less effective then the .30. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see that some of the above posters have '' never had a M1 carbine that was reliable''---- my experience is just opposite. In proper condition, a M1 carbine is every bit as reliable as an AR. And, up to 150 yards is just as powerful [ has as much ''stopping power'' as the .223 ],, which is very easy to verify if someone is so inclined. With that said--- I own a LEGAL M2, and have sold my M-16,, keeping the M2. I have been shooting them for over 40 years---do not remember [ or even know ] of a FTF,, or stoppage. I also have an M1 from ''Fulton Armory'' and another worked over by ''Dean's Gun Restoration'' with the Criterion [ read Kreiger ] barrels and they will both shoot all day with my 6920 and LMT ARs. Any body selling the M1--M2 short,, has spent too much time gleaning ''facts'' from the internet. No,, it is not a 500 yard rifle---- I live in the woods of Ms,,, lucky to have a 75 yard shot,,, my M2 will get me by quite nicely,,,, and I have every reason to have every confidence in it. YMMV. [ am I a fan??? Hell yeah ]---tell me where I am going wrong here, I promise I will listen. Terminal performance is very much effected by the specific bullet used, but fragmenting 5.56 has much more wounding potential then any carbine round. That said non-fragmenting 5.56 likely is less effective then the .30. No shit, carbine muzzle energy is a joke, Not to mention it has the trajectory of a thrown possum. And yes I have shot and owned several, I would take the Garand any day. .30 carbine is not even legal to hunt whitetails with in most states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 6:59:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No the 30 carbine has more energy than a 44 magnum out of a M1 or M2 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm. Is +p 10mm higher powered? No the 30 carbine has more energy than a 44 magnum out of a M1 or M2 It's actually more like a .357mag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:13:51 PM EDT
[#19]
friend of my father's was a young PL in vietnam. issued an early M-16, which he hated. reverted to the M-14, which he also disliked. finally scrounged a m1 carbine, which loved and carried for the rest of his tour.
amusingly, much as he hated the M-16 he was issued, he's a big fan of the AR platform now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:20:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's actually more like a .357mag. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm. Is +p 10mm higher powered? No the 30 carbine has more energy than a 44 magnum out of a M1 or M2 It's actually more like a .357mag. Virtually identical to .357 out of a same length barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:20:32 PM EDT
[#21]
did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle?
    |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:26:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle?
What pistol was .30 carbine designed for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:33:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Virtually identical to .357 out of a same length barrel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Only with a higher-powered cartridge, maybe something like a +P 10mm. Is +p 10mm higher powered? No the 30 carbine has more energy than a 44 magnum out of a M1 or M2 It's actually more like a .357mag. Virtually identical to .357 out of a same length barrel. A 357 only gets near the 30 carbine out of a rifle.. The key to the statement I made which is not inaccurate is that out of the carbine the M1 DOES have more energy than a 44. The 10mm would not out perform it and I own both. I know . So unless you are toting your 357 lever gun into combat the 357 magnum will not be an equal. M1 has plenty of hitting power within the ranges it is supposed to be used, its the shitty bullets that are the problem. I have killed several Coyotes off of a tractor with my hand loads using half jackets and its not an issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:33:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://lzbetty.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rf003.jpg.jpg 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? 
cut down M1 carbine ...Iver Johnson "Enforcer" I actually had one for a while back when I lived in a city and before the Glock came out....it was my go to gun with a bag full of 30round mags with my Colt Officers Model for a backup....that and my shotgun and AR and my Valmet M76
those pics look like fresh VC capture weapons not issue The one I carried for a while was iirc had a Winchester stamp on it....I brought it back to the base camp areas on a standown and locked it up in my locker some REMFs came along with bolt cutters and robbed us while we were out in the field and ripped off my M1 Carbine Which was no biggie especially.... After I got fired on due to my carbines signature by one of our own M60's Everybody chewed me out over that so I decided to ditch it and go back to my M16 I enjoyed the carbine probably as my dad had one in WW2 and Korea but the M16 was a much better weapon for our AO also the ARVNs carried them as well as the VC far better to not be mistaken for them by the M60 gunners as I can tell you from personal experience lol They were probably good weapons for platoon leaders,RTOs and Medics to carry for CQB if the CP got overrun but the M1 would have been a far better weapon for longer engagements of WWII especially in open country..for close in...heavy jungle....and human wave assaults anything with a high cap mag or belt fed would be probably a better idea than a bolt action Springfield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:50:33 PM EDT
[#25]
It's good enough for the kid in Falling Skies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:52:47 PM EDT
[#26]
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). Dad used one in Korea. Love it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 7:59:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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..... 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 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..... The first pic, and another later on with the M3, is of a Tunnel Rat. His carbine is chopped for use in the tunnels around Cu Chi. The second pic is of an Army advisor early in Vietnam. Subdued rank, name tape, and patches didn't come out until much later in the war. So no, no REMFs there. Badasses, yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 8:04:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Hell No! the M1 carbine is a great gun but what are you going to do if your target is over 200 yds away
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 8:08:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first pic, and another later on with the M3, is of a Tunnel Rat. His carbine is chopped for use in the tunnels around Cu Chi. The second pic is of an Army advisor early in Vietnam. Subdued rank, name tape, and patches didn't come out until much later in the war. So no, no REMFs there. Badasses, yes. Quote 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 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..... The first pic, and another later on with the M3, is of a Tunnel Rat. His carbine is chopped for use in the tunnels around Cu Chi. The second pic is of an Army advisor early in Vietnam. Subdued rank, name tape, and patches didn't come out until much later in the war. So no, no REMFs there. Badasses, yes. Given the AO and the massive and ancient tunnels around Cu Chi that would have been a good choice for a tunnel rat....the grease gun ...only handled one...one time... I may have had a bad example but did not like it too heavy and I could'nt hit shit with it.... And yep that captain looks like a MACV advisor with his ARVNs and he would carry what they carried although he was wearing jungle fatigues that were later issue not sure when the subdued rank insignia came out can't see if he had on stateside issue combat boots or Corcoran jump boots or jungle boots that were also later issue |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 8:27:40 PM EDT
[#30]
I like the carbine but even in urban combat it's not going to have the penetration through objects that the garand had.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 8:56:01 PM EDT
[#31]
I always thought that I would use an M1 Carbine for home defense if I lived in a state that didn't trust me with my AR-15s. I still want to Form 1 SBR either a Blue Skies import or AO/Kahr Arms M1A1. That's four or five projects down the list...but with some of the pics in this thread.....hmmmmmmm.....
RC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 9:51:18 PM EDT
[#32]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 10:03:54 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A 357 only gets near the 30 carbine out of a rifle.. The key to the statement I made which is not inaccurate is that out of the carbine the M1 DOES have more energy than a 44. The 10mm would not out perform it and I own both. I know . So unless you are toting your 357 lever gun into combat the 357 magnum will not be an equal. M1 has plenty of hitting power within the ranges it is supposed to be used, its the shitty bullets that are the problem. I have killed several Coyotes off of a tractor with my hand loads using half jackets and its not an issue. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Virtually identical to .357 out of a same length barrel. A 357 only gets near the 30 carbine out of a rifle.. The key to the statement I made which is not inaccurate is that out of the carbine the M1 DOES have more energy than a 44. The 10mm would not out perform it and I own both. I know . So unless you are toting your 357 lever gun into combat the 357 magnum will not be an equal. M1 has plenty of hitting power within the ranges it is supposed to be used, its the shitty bullets that are the problem. I have killed several Coyotes off of a tractor with my hand loads using half jackets and its not an issue. That's pretty much what I just said. "Virtually identical" meaning about the same, "out of a same length barrel" meaning both out of barrels of the same lengths. I didn't expound on it because I expected people to be smart enough to understand we were talking about carbines. I didn't say shit about 10mm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 10:55:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the AO and the massive and ancient tunnels around Cu Chi that would have been a good choice for a tunnel rat....the grease gun ...only handled one...one time... I may have had a bad example but did not like it too heavy and I could'nt hit shit with it.... The Greasegun was an accurate and reliable subgun. Moreso than any Thompson. I've shot one, and enjoyed it. Its my second favorite smg of WW2. SFOD-D used greasers as their first smgs, ntil they got mp5s. And yep that captain looks like a MACV advisor with his ARVNs and he would carry what they carried although he was wearing jungle fatigues that were later issue not sure when the subdued rank insignia came out can't see if he had on stateside issue combat boots or Corcoran jump boots or jungle boots that were also later issue Article published June 1964. Those are the very early utilities that werent well received. 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 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..... The first pic, and another later on with the M3, is of a Tunnel Rat. His carbine is chopped for use in the tunnels around Cu Chi. The second pic is of an Army advisor early in Vietnam. Subdued rank, name tape, and patches didn't come out until much later in the war. So no, no REMFs there. Badasses, yes. Given the AO and the massive and ancient tunnels around Cu Chi that would have been a good choice for a tunnel rat....the grease gun ...only handled one...one time... I may have had a bad example but did not like it too heavy and I could'nt hit shit with it.... The Greasegun was an accurate and reliable subgun. Moreso than any Thompson. I've shot one, and enjoyed it. Its my second favorite smg of WW2. SFOD-D used greasers as their first smgs, ntil they got mp5s. And yep that captain looks like a MACV advisor with his ARVNs and he would carry what they carried although he was wearing jungle fatigues that were later issue not sure when the subdued rank insignia came out can't see if he had on stateside issue combat boots or Corcoran jump boots or jungle boots that were also later issue Article published June 1964. Those are the very early utilities that werent well received. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 11:03:01 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What pistol was .30 carbine designed for? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle? What pistol was .30 carbine designed for?  or this...  \or this..  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 11:12:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
pistol caliber velocities and trajectories. also, show me a practical 30-60 one of these.... http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/m1-carbine/43187d1313725906-30-cal-carbine-cartridge-%25rugerblackhawk-30.jpg or this... http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/OldGunAds/KimbalArms_ARfeb1956.JPG or this.. http://www.bigboomstick.com/guns/images/automagIII.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle?
What pistol was .30 carbine designed for? http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/m1-carbine/43187d1313725906-30-cal-carbine-cartridge-%25rugerblackhawk-30.jpg or this... http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/OldGunAds/KimbalArms_ARfeb1956.JPG or this.. http://www.bigboomstick.com/guns/images/automagIII.jpg Yeah, those are pistols designed to fire .30 carbine long after the fact. It was designed as a rifle round. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 11:21:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, those are pistols designed to fire .30 carbine long after the fact. It was designed as a rifle round. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle? What pistol was .30 carbine designed for? http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/m1-carbine/43187d1313725906-30-cal-carbine-cartridge-%25rugerblackhawk-30.jpg or this... http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/OldGunAds/KimbalArms_ARfeb1956.JPG or this.. http://www.bigboomstick.com/guns/images/automagIII.jpg Yeah, those are pistols designed to fire .30 carbine long after the fact. It was designed as a rifle round. Thanks for playing....Its still a pistol round.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2013 11:37:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
my premise still stands as it is widely accepted as a round with pistol caliber characteristics and is unsuitable for true rifle applications. in other words, designing it as a "rifle round" doesn't make it one. it has to ACT like a rifle round. it has to PERFORM like a rifle round. so let me ask you. is simply calling it a rifle round or saying it was "designed" as a rifle round enough? so i should expect this "rifle" round to be able to defeat body armor or even ww2 helmets at 600yrds because it says "rifle round" or "carbine" on the box? Thanks for playing....Its still a pistol round.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
did you really just advocate a pistol caliber carbine to replace a 30-06 battle rifle?
What pistol was .30 carbine designed for? http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/m1-carbine/43187d1313725906-30-cal-carbine-cartridge-%25rugerblackhawk-30.jpg or this... http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/OldGunAds/KimbalArms_ARfeb1956.JPG or this.. http://www.bigboomstick.com/guns/images/automagIII.jpg Yeah, those are pistols designed to fire .30 carbine long after the fact. It was designed as a rifle round. Thanks for playing....Its still a pistol round.... What are "true rifle round characteristics?" .30 carbine was designed for a rifle, and is a rifle round. Is 7.63 x 39 mm not a rifle round either? To be a true rifle/round it has to weigh twice as much with ammo weighing twice as much and have the capability of taking shots the average infantry soldier won't take and can't make? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 12:02:15 AM EDT
[#39]
For the record, .30Carbine can defeat Level 3A body armor with JSPs and FMJs. With a JSP, its temporary stretch cavity is the size of a .357mag's TSC, but the .30Carbine can actually take advantage of the TSC where as the .357mag cannot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 1:55:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Given the AO and the massive and ancient tunnels around Cu Chi that would have been a good choice for a tunnel rat....the grease gun ...only handled one...one time... I may have had a bad example but did not like it too heavy and I could'nt hit shit with it.... The Greasegun was an accurate and reliable subgun. Moreso than any Thompson. I've shot one, and enjoyed it. Its my second favorite smg of WW2. SFOD-D used greasers as their first smgs, ntil they got mp5s. And yep that captain looks like a MACV advisor with his ARVNs and he would carry what they carried although he was wearing jungle fatigues that were later issue not sure when the subdued rank insignia came out can't see if he had on stateside issue combat boots or Corcoran jump boots or jungle boots that were also later issue Article published June 1964. Those are the very early utilities that werent well received. I think it depends on who carried it. My Uncle was in the 1st Marine Radio Battalion in Nam with time in country from 68-70 IIRC. He used everything from his M16, a 12g shotgun, a Tommy gun and a grease gun. He said he hated the grease gun and that i"it sucked" which is funny because I never heard him talk like that before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 7:20:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it depends on who carried it. My Uncle was in the 1st Marine Radio Battalion in Nam with time in country from 68-70 IIRC. He used everything from his M16, a 12g shotgun, a Tommy gun and a grease gun. He said he hated the grease gun and that i"it sucked" which is funny because I never heard him talk like that before. The Army still issued the Grease Gun when I was in. I honestly preferred the M16 even though the grease gun is much more compact and fit inside a Sheridan nicely, Yes it is reliable and will work every time you pull the trigger and it shoot nice and slow so its controllable but its not all that accurate really. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 11:28:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell No! the M1 carbine is a great gun but what are you going to do if your target is over 200 yds away Use harsh language? 
Or possible MGs, Mortars, DMRs, Arty....you know other stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 11:29:20 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the carbine but even in urban combat it's not going to have the penetration through objects that the garand had. Neither does the AR...not sure what your point is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 11:37:53 AM EDT
[#44]
I fired an M2 once on full auto. It was very controllable.
I would have picked one over a Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 11:44:55 AM EDT
[#45]
During WW2 the military realized that you couldn't use one weapon to fill every need. Now days the military believes the M-16 can be modified to fill need, and it can't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 11:46:43 AM EDT
[#46]
My grandfather said that the M2 and the 30 round mags jammed on them a fair amount in Korea. He gave up on the M2.
He only used the M1 carbine if they were doing something that needed people to be quiet. He normally carried an M1 Garand. No complaints about reliability with those two. Said the BAR was better than everything that wasnt belt fed though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 12:10:26 PM EDT
[#47]
A good friend of mine spent 3 combat tours in VN. First one was advisor to ARVN units. He carried the M2 carbine exclusively that tour (1963-64). He says it is an excellent jungle weapon and was ideal for the much smaller ARVN soldiers. He told me it is plenty lethal inside 150 yards, but it was only reliable in FA fire when using 15 rd. magazines. He said even the best USGI 30 rd. mags were regarded with suspicion. On the other hand, he said some ARVN's were armed with M1 carbines, and as long as the 30 rd. mag was not damaged, the semi-auto M1's were OK using the 30 rounders. It is his opinion that the USGI 30 rd. mag springs were not strong enough to allow consistent feeding when fired full auto.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 12:30:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Sure you aren't thinking of an AK? It seems that a lot of ARVN troops had M1 Carbines, so why would that draw friendly fire? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 12:31:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. M2, yeah. M1, not so much as it was semi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2013 12:32:31 PM EDT
[#50]
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> Your photo is WWII. He is talking about 'nam and bling. |
|
|
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.
