Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?

Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was? Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You drive truck. Garand too big. Here smol carbine.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But why not smol Garand. Why make new gun

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >M1 Carbine chambered for .30-06
        Congrats, now you have a semi auto flashbang dispenser with shit tier muzzle velocity.
        Srsly, you're already using .30 caliber barrels for your rifles and machine guns, so there's a lot of scrap that can be used for carbines. Plus you're ammo is also a variation of a 30. cal so you don't need much retooling for manufacturing ammo. War time production is a b***h, so you need to reconfigure your production lines as little as possible to save yourself from a mighty ass logistics nightmare. The M1 Carbine did just that, so smol carbine gud carbine.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hmm valid. I like smol carbine too. Unique. Next question. Why did they mount big night vision on smol carbine

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Probably because the whole contraption was too fragile and couldn't handle the recoil of .30-06, but that's just my guess.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Light recoiling, and the tech wasn't advanced enough to have a significantly higher effective range than the .30 cal cartridge

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The scope was only effective out to 100 yards.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Say what you will about our contemporary NVG being much better, but the M3 was extraordinarily ahead of its time.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeah, it and the vampir

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            because big night vision on big gun means really fricking heavy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've read that 30% of Japanese casualties during the Okinawa campaign can be attributed to the M3 Carbine at night. That is thousands of dead Japs.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              That sounds like fricking bullshit

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In addition to what the other guy said, you only have so much production capacity in your Garand factories. If you can give some people other guns then it frees up more Garands for the guys who really need a battle rifle.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the M1 carbine is basically a small garand you noob. If you mean literally chopping the stock and barrel of a garand down and issuing it then I shouldnt have to tell you why that's moronic.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          isnt the gas system different?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, the carbine uses a tappet, the rifles are only very superficially similar, he's a fricking moron and has no idea what he's talking about.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ever fire one of those short M1As? They are awful. Stupid loud, stupid recoil, stupid flash. A shorty Garand would be the same.

        >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?
        M1 garand was too long heavy
        M1911 was too short ranged

        so the M1 carbine was the perfect middle ground for soldiers who needed something compact and wouldnt interfere with their duties but packing more punch than their pistol
        so the M1 carbine was usually issued to people who would potentially see combat but were either already encumbered or had strict weight limitations
        usually drivers or radiomen, but also platoon and company commanders

        >Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
        usually a cheap SMG
        the british used the sten gun for drivers
        the japanese never bothered and just issued handguns to rear echs and expected them to tough it

        My hot take: The Army should have issued the M2 carbine as the standard infantry arm instead of the Garand.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          .30 Carbine doesn't do what .30-06 or even 5.56 does in terms of range and ballistics, its max effective range was 300 yards. Better than getting 50 yards with a 7-shot pistol, and better than 100 yards with a .45 submachine gun, but definitely not a viable replacement for a rifle made to engage at 1000 yards if need be. For reference, combat typically occurs around 500 yards, maybe 600, which is where 5.56 excels. Yeah, .30-06 and other full-power rounds were probably overkill for that, but .30 Carbine came up just shy of that.
          It was a great replacement for submachine guns though, for urban warfare the M1 Carbine and its derivatives were king. Great up close, but still useful over some distance if need be. Not what you want in a field or something though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For reference, combat typically occurs around 500 yards, maybe 600<

            With all due respect, Herr FeldMarschal, but your head is up your ass.

            You start shooting at troops 1000 yard away, and you know what’s going to happen?
            You MAY ding two or three of them, and then they go to ground and start engaging you with their MGs and then call in mortars on you while they do bounding overwatch on your pinned down ass until they can get close enough to grenade you or shoot you.

            This lesson was learned by the Krauts and the Russkis in WW2 across Ukraine and Byelorussia, and is why they went to the mid-powered assault rifle configuration.
            About 350 meters is the “sweet spot”.

            Agreed that that’s too far for the M1 Carbine, but right ranged for the Garand. If only we had the wisdom to kit out our troops with a mix of weapons tailored for separate tasks, or just give our Grunts weapons appropriate for the terrain they will be fighting in.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              350 seems like it's still too close. I admit that I kinda just forgot the exact numbers and went with the midway point though. I probably should have said 400 to like 500 max, assuming it's some open space and not an urban environment.
              >If only we had the wisdom to kit out our troops with a mix of weapons tailored for separate tasks, or just give our Grunts weapons appropriate for the terrain they will be fighting in.
              I dunno why you're being sarcastic with me about that, I figured my last sentence would've suggested that I know you can give a man a different gun for a different task.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For reference, combat typically occurs around 500 yards, maybe 600
            Not really, closer to 300.
            >which is where 5.56 excels.
            Its generally agreed that 5.56 is combat effective out to 600 yards max. So I wouldn't say it excels. 600 yards with an M4 and you are losing most terminal effects. This is a problem experienced in Afghanistan which did often have unusually long engagements. But most conflicts the US has been in since WW2 are well within the capable range for .30 carbine. It doesn't matter because it would have been replaced by the M16 long before anyways.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For reference
            whats the reference? ive heard much shorter

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon, have you shot offhand at 300 yards with iron sights? Any gun.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              yeah, its why you exist. tbf it wasnt a very small target

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >For reference, combat typically occurs around 500 yards
            you fricking moron lmao

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        More ammo, many Nork/PLA zombies, this

        Bullets are light and the norks/chinks/vietkong weren't known for wearing armor, so instead of lugging around a full frickoff m14 they could instead carry these with more ammo in the event they had to face a human wave attack

        >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?
        M1 garand was too long heavy
        M1911 was too short ranged

        so the M1 carbine was the perfect middle ground for soldiers who needed something compact and wouldnt interfere with their duties but packing more punch than their pistol
        so the M1 carbine was usually issued to people who would potentially see combat but were either already encumbered or had strict weight limitations
        usually drivers or radiomen, but also platoon and company commanders

        >Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
        usually a cheap SMG
        the british used the sten gun for drivers
        the japanese never bothered and just issued handguns to rear echs and expected them to tough it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      or you are an average South Vietnamese soldier; not kidding about that btw.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?
    M1 garand was too long heavy
    M1911 was too short ranged

    so the M1 carbine was the perfect middle ground for soldiers who needed something compact and wouldnt interfere with their duties but packing more punch than their pistol
    so the M1 carbine was usually issued to people who would potentially see combat but were either already encumbered or had strict weight limitations
    usually drivers or radiomen, but also platoon and company commanders

    >Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    usually a cheap SMG
    the british used the sten gun for drivers
    the japanese never bothered and just issued handguns to rear echs and expected them to tough it

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The British also used M1s in limited numbers, mainly issued to the SAS, SOE, Chindits, and Airborne divisions

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >so the M1 carbine was usually issued to people who would potentially see combat but were either already encumbered or had strict weight limitations
      >usually drivers or radiomen, but also platoon and company commanders
      didn't they also issue them to the assistant machine gunners and anyone who would be carrying anti tank weapons or mortars? I know that some soldiers anticdotally say everyone who physically could get their hands on an m1 carbine used one

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        armored infantrycompany TOE says that for every 470 rifles they got, they had an additional 350 carbines
        so they could afford to give every other man a carbine
        regular infantry only had 200 carbines to 600 rifles
        fewer, but enough for every third man
        the difference is basically down to having to fit the guns in a half-track versus carrying it
        mainly the mess and admin sections, armored infantry cooks had carbines while infantry cooks had rifles

        starting 1944, drivers actually stopped carrying carbines in favor of the even shorter, even cheaper M3 grease gun
        but in an armored infantry unit, you can expect everyone whose designation isnt rifleman and who isnt manning a special weapon to be issued a carbine

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I thought grease guns weren't widely issued until after the war was over?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            they werent widely issued, but they were issued, first ones to get them were drivers and tank crews in early 1944 though they were unreliable
            the improved M3A1 was issued a month into normandy and would have been a common sight afterwards

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Not widely issued" has a different meaning in the context of WW2

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Bullets are light and the norks/chinks/vietkong weren't known for wearing armor, so instead of lugging around a full frickoff m14 they could instead carry these with more ammo in the event they had to face a human wave attack

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You ever held one? Its very handy.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don’t know about the real historical reason, but I like mine would definitely take it into battle in WWii. Super light, can pack twice as much ammo, little recoil, bayonet lug, half the length of a garand. They’re scary accurate too. For lol’s I shot mine standing at some steels at 200 yards and hit 4/5 barely trying. Don’t really care about penetration power, nobody had armor back then and it was more important to suppress anyway.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >bayonet lug
      Important to note most WWII production carbines lacked this, not that it should change your answer though.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?

    Better than a .45 cal SMG while being no heavier. It was so good that it was popular with front line troops. The M2 variant added full auto fire. A half assed american attempt to make an assault rifle, the weapon was gimped from the start due to the use of a short roundnosed lead core pistol bullet instead of a spitzer steel bullet. If it had been equipped with proper ammo, and full auto, it would have served as an assault rifle and eclipsed the M1 Garand.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Better than a .45 cal SMG while being no heavier.
      M1 carbine: 5.8lbs loaded
      M1928A1 Thompson smg: 10.8lbs empty
      M3 Grease Gun: 8.15lbs empty
      Direct blowback is a b***h.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >M1 carbine: 5.8lbs loaded
        That's based.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They absolutely handle like a toy gun, more so than an M16A1 even.
          It's hard to convey until you've held one.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I want one.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah I was amazed when I bought one how it was lighter than most SMGs I'd handled, other than a RAK or Skorpion, it's still lighter than most modern plastic furniture guns.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They absolutely handle like a toy gun, more so than an M16A1 even.
          It's hard to convey until you've held one.

          It literally feels like shooting a 10/22, in size and recoil. Wild

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So true.
            My dad had a 10/22 .22 magnum and an M1 carbine. To me growing up there was no functional difference in feel besides the sights. Hell I didn't even realize they were different rifles until I was much older.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            IIRC Ruger had the M1 Carbine in mind while designing the 10/22. There's a reason they handle so similarly. Hell, I've seen people modify M1 Carbine stocks, barely at that, to make them fit 10/22s. Inb4 no anon that's an aftermarket stock REEEEE: This is years before the M1 10/22 stock ever existed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Better than a .45 cal SMG while being no heavier.
      thompsons weighed more than garands did

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      bullet

      moron alert

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s sort of a thing. For instance, the M/41 bullet for the Swedish m/96 Mauser used a nickel coated mild steel jacket. Unitary steel bullets would suck ass and require driving bands like cannons though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That guys prolly moronic but so are you. Steel core bullets are an extremely common thing throughout the 20th century. Relevant comparison point would be various western European countries issuing steel or iron cored 9mm for handgun/SMG use, ex Germany in ww2, even the jackets were steel in some cases

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yeah bud i get that steel cores are common but no one is going around calling m855 etc a “steel bullet” without being moronic.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          also, besides armor applications, steel core almost never helps against personnel

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?

    You have a shit ton of troops that are unlikely to ever see combat.
    Giving them a full size rifle is gonna weigh them down and they're likely to just load them on vehicles and shit because they never use them, which will make them hard to get when they actually DO have to use them.
    Pistols help with this, but they're also fricking useless in combat, i.e. a unit that gets lit up by an infantry squad at 50+ yd will get slaughtered without landing as much as a single hit on the enemy.

    This is where the carbine comes in.
    Small and light enough to be an afterthought, decent enough accuracy and capacity to plausibly fight off an attack at close to medium range.
    If you ever handled one of these you'd understand why most people loved it over the thompson.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >If you ever handled one of these you'd understand why most people loved it over the thompson.
      I had the privilege of firing a full giggle .30 carb.
      It was surprisingly accurate, very easy to control and a real pleasure to shoot.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >You have a shit ton of troops that are unlikely to ever see combat.
      the M1 carbine was explicitly for people who would see combat on a regular basis
      if they were never going to see the enemy, the M1911 would have sufficed

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the M1 carbine was explicitly for people who would see combat on a regular basis

        Uh ..no, it fricking wasnt? Truck drivers do not see combat on a regularnie basis.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Uh ..no, it fricking wasnt?
          if the people it was going to didnt expect to fight in the first place, they would have been fine with the M1911
          the M1 carbine was asked for specifically because so many people who thought they woudnt see much fighting ended up seeing a lot of fighting

          but frontlines are fluid and enemy will conduct limited infiltration attacks or attacks might get further than expected, so cooks and HQ staff will have to fight

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the M1 carbine was explicitly for people who would see combat on a regular basis
        No. It was explicitly for those in the rear echelons not expected to see battle much if at all.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It was explicitly for those in the rear echelons not expected to see battle much if at all.
          They got those guns because they were seeing a lot more battle than expected and their handguns were insufficient
          The truck drivers were getting into fights, which is why they had to be armed better

          That was literally the impetus for its design, rear echs were seeing combat

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the M1 carbine was explicitly for people who would see combat on a regular basis

      Uh ..no, it fricking wasnt? Truck drivers do not see combat on a regularnie basis.

      >the M1 carbine was explicitly for people who would see combat on a regular basis
      No. It was explicitly for those in the rear echelons not expected to see battle much if at all.

      >it was for rear echelon/non combat troops
      You stupid Black folk, it was for non riflemen. It was issued to Officers, Mortarmen, Radiomen, Assistant Gunners, Ammo Bearers, and Message Runners. Anyone who's first priority wasn't manning the line, but still needed to have more firepower than a pistol.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?
    We needed something more capable than the M1911.
    >Did other countries have equivalents?
    Yes. Russia had the SKS, Germany had the Volkssturmgewer (which was made as a cheaper late war alternative to the Sturmgewehr 44) and the Swiss had the Vetterli rifles.
    >Would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    Any officer with a semi auto patrol rifle already is using something similar.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    The concept is still around and being marketed.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Now when will someone, not chiappa, make a 300blk m1/m2 carbine

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      5.7 Johnson is a perfect fit for the M1 Carbine action; it would even be nice for smol bolt guns as a rimless 22 Hornet equivalent.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's very light and soldiers liked that.
    Initially they planned to make only 500,000 of them. By then end of the war, 6.1 million were made which is more than any other weapon we produced.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    More punch and range than an SMG and about as handy and comfortable to use as it gets.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >anon discovers PDWs for the first time

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not a lot of people mention that the M1 carbine was easier to manufacture. Companies that weren't experts in gun manufacturing could make them and every M1 carbine built for some rear echelon truck driver frees up an M1 Garand for some poor infantry bastard.
    A cheap stamped steel submachine gun could have probably accomplished the same general goal but the carbine had longer range and once they added full-auto with the M2 it was downright better than most submachine guns of the time.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >single best infantry arm of the war
    >BRO WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. It was a great rear echelon / CQC weapon, but it wasn't as reliable or accurate as the Garand, and at 200m you were already kinda pushing its envelope.
      Plus of course the terminal ballistics of .30 carbine and .30-06 aren't really comparable.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Garand excelling at certain things doesn't mean that the Carbine isn't usually a better choice. I'd have chosen it over anything else that any nation fielded. Only thing better would be the M2.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Some guys got their hands on carbines and were carrying it instead of a Garand because it was so light but in actual combat they found it lacked the power of the .30-06 so many of them picked up their Garands again. It's more than lethality and range too it's the fact that .30-06 will punch through a lot more material than the the .30 carbine will.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The 1911 is such a worthless piece of shit, they had to invent an entire new rifle to give the GI's a fighting chance

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You post this every time an M1 Carbine is mentioned. Did a 1911 frick your wife or something?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I have never posted this before. 1911s being bad is just a popular and common opinion.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          More like a wrong opinion, held by countries that lost 2 world wars

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They lost because they disrespected the 1911
            kek

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The M1 carbine was way ahead of its time and should have been the standard issue infantry weapon, replacing both the Garand and SMGs.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was?
    garand = big, heavy, expensive and really not needed for anyone who wasn't a rifleman
    M1911 = hard to shoot and ineffective
    M1 carbine = light and easy to shoot to 150 or so yards
    >Did other countries have equivalents
    kinda, some smgs like the sten were sometimes used similarly or things like the artillery luger or the spaghettis had shorter carbines.
    > and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    wiki says police used m1 carbines but doesn't elaborate

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >wiki says police used m1 carbines but doesn't elaborate
      Some local police departments in the US used them in the 60s and 70s.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They also saw service with some European law enforcement agencies.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Israeli police also used em

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Hey sir, it looks like almost no germans got killed by an 1911 during the entirety of WW1, isn't that an issue?
    >Don't worry son, static warfare means we can just use the new semi-auto rifle for everyone in combat
    >Holy shit WW2 is actually hardcore maneuver warfare
    >Fricking get a small semi-auto carbine for our backline, hurry
    Frontline troops:
    >I don't care about 'stopping power' you moron, I don't wanna die in hand-to-hand fighting; this thing has x3 the bullets and holds off the enemy way better, anyone gets close they die. Plus this thing is twice as light. I'm not lugging around a Thomson.
    >Holy shit our SL just held off the jap charge with his M1 carbine
    >Quarter of the american frontline manages to 'acquire' an M1 carbine
    >Huge demand, entire ridiculous stockpile created
    >M1 carbine so overproduced they sell em for $25 to civilians and everyone in the US military can use one for the next 30 years
    >Militaries across the globe finally figure out most infantry can't hit anything and all general infantry guns trend towards the 'lightweight, spammable suppressing fire, CQC: you're not taking my foxhole' model, like the M1 carbine

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Haven’t seen it mentioned, but it’s probably easier to make someone a half ok shot with an M1 than with a pistol…. Most of the people who got these weren’t exactly expected to be in a long range engagement.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    Yes, but they're called PDWs nowadays

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why isn't this M1 carbine considered an assault rifle?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If you want to be super pedantic, it's because the M1 carbine was semi-auto only. The select fire version is called the M2.
      Serious answer is that the .30 carbine round is more of a high-velocity pistol cartridge than a proper intermediate rifle cartridge.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There's no difference between an M1 and M2 receiver though, the differences are in the trigger group and a notch cut into the stock to fit the selector switch. That made the M1 carbine very popular with extremist groups, because in the 60s, 70s, and 80s you could buy surplus examples at sporting goods stores for cheap and convert them into machine guns without needing much expertise.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Before ARs became cheap and plentiful for the everyman, the m1 carbine was the AR of its day.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The cut down pistol versions were also popular with biker gangs and the like for similar reasons. Relatively concealable, easily converted to full auto, and a magazine full of .30 Carbine will absolutely ruin someone's day.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Revolvers in that caliber are fun to shoot, especially at night.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See picrel

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >sub 9mm calibre pistol build into a shape of a bolt assembly is "design purist" assault rifle
        >device made specifically to give ordinary infantryman suppressive firepower at sacrifice of range
        madness

        doctrine anarchy, design purist is magazine-fed, self-loading, intermediate (arguably so) cartridge rifle used as the main airplane armament

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >20-30 rounds apparently isn't high cap
          >Nothing in the definition about select fire

          Shit image.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no full auto. idk if I'd call .30 carbine an intermediate cartridge

      • 3 weeks ago
        Prophet Muhammad

        >Same muzzle energy as 5.45x39
        >Not an intermediate cartridge

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          By your logic .44 Magnum is an intermediate cartridge.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            no full auto. idk if I'd call .30 carbine an intermediate cartridge

            https://i.imgur.com/1hanTW6.jpg

            >Same muzzle energy as 5.45x39
            >Not an intermediate cartridge

            .30 carbine, .357 mag and .44 mag are intermediate cartridges tho

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >idk if I'd call .30 carbine an intermediate cartridge
        Its performance is similar to 7.62x39 and .300 BLK

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >100gr bullet @ 2000FPS is similar to 123gr bullet @2350 FPS
          7.62x39 has like 50% more muzzle energy than .30 carbine. They're not similar in the slightest other than being .30 rifle rounds that aren't full power rifle

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The more modern cartridge is slightly better.
            True man but what I meant is that the rounds were comparable as intermediate cartridges. They have similar recoil, are most effective at similar ranges, easier to lug around.

            I'm not telling anyone to sell their 7.62x39 to get a .30 carbine but rather driving the point that anyone who already has a .30 carbine isn't undergunned. I definitely would call a .30 carbine an intermediate cartridge.

            LOL my capcha asks "Y PSA", so true capcha why would anyone get a PSA? lol jk

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You keep it in your truck
    You use it to teach lesson to cops harassing you for no reason

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I know the daughter of that cop.
      She's ugly.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only real rifle I've held that felt like my Diana 25 Air Rifle. Ticks all the boxes for me. Maximum sentimentality

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      forgot pic

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Dunno, I like 30 carbine a lot, but unless you're gonna chamber a round of similar overall length you arent gonna get a similar rifle. Mini 14 despite the name is a scaled down M1 Garand and if you take pic related, you see that a 16" barrel with a flash suppressor is nearly as long as the real deal.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Forgot the picture

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To frick.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    big scope heavy, big rifle heavier than small rifle.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Grease Gun didn't exist yet.
    The Thompson sucked and was too expensive.
    The M2 SMG wasn't getting into production for various reasons.
    Rather than waiting for the M2/M3 SMG debacle to finish itself, the US just invested in a light carbine instead on the side.
    Eventually, people started liking the M1 Carbine more than the SMGs, so they just made a lot of them.

  28. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was? Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?<

    Issue rifle is M1 Garand with a practical accuracy in the hands of a good shooter, >500 yards, but is heavy and only has an 8 round clip.

    Send troops to tropical Guadalcanal and New Guinea, where 100 yards is going to be a “long range” shot, and Japanese troops are addicted to human wave Banzai charge.

    Send troops to forests and cities of Northern Europe. Forested areas are same as New Guinea, only colder. City warfare is house to house.

    About the only places that the M1 Garand came into its own was in North Africa and Italy and the agricultural areas of Northern Europe, where its range could be taken advantage of.

    Most of the fighting American forces did was much closer range work, and where ammo capacity was more crucial.

    M1 carbine arrived at roughly the same place that the StG44 did, but “up” from the pistol side rather than “down” from the rifle side.

  29. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Its purpose was to casually make every submachine gun of WWII obsolete, and to demonstrate the big dick of American industry as we proceeded to make over 6 million of them during the war even though it was only introduced in 1942.

  30. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >as light as a 10/22
    >shoots 30 caliber
    Niche filled, shrimple as.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Original tender for the M1 specified select fire, meaning that the US would have been the first country to mass produce an assault rifle
      >Army changed its mind

      I still consider this a grievous injury to my national pride.

      It's also a perennial favorite with poachers.
      >Reliably drops deer out to ~200yd with body shots
      >Surprisingly quiet
      >Good irons
      >Extremely easy to carry and stash, especially with a folding stock

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >twice the ammunition per magazine
    >lighter weight
    >shorter barrel length
    >fills the gap between long and short range thus saving resources
    >similar design to Model 1 Garand thus making the rifle familiar to all US soldiers
    >smells good

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >smells good
      Seriously though why do surplus guns smell so nice?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >smells good
      so true

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Oh look it's the "frozen korean winter jackets stopped .30 carbine" meme's father.
    Protip: the person taking 300m potshots at a nip just fricking missed, it's that simple.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      asiatic not nip

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are any of the new manufacture M1 carbines like Inland and Auto Ordinance (Kahr) worthwhile, or should I just get an old one?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      When NutNFancy reviewed one of the new ones it couldn't function reliably at all. Yes, I know ya'll hate him for being a tacticool larper but his desert tests are decent tests of reliability, they are a lot more reasonable than 5000 round burndowns or mud/ice torture tests.

      Other reviewers have stated similar claims.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The M1 carbine in general is just an unreliable gun, even the old ones. I have an old Saginaw SG produced one and failures to feed are a common occurrence. Just accept the unreliability.

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone own or shoot one of Fuddton Armory’s M1 Carbines?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, they suck.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I got one about 4 or 5 years ago and it works well. Jams maybe once per hundred or two hundred rounds, but I'm going to blame my reloads or the empty shells bouncing off the scope mount back into the closing action because every time it happens, there's a live round going into the chamber. Also needed to replace my first set of magazines after two years. Get the mags from KeepShooting, theyr'e the best I've seen.

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No he did not. I literally just read his fricking books and he does not mention this, not even in passing.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aren’t M1 Carbine mags notorious for being flimsy?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're super finicky and you gotta collect a few to find lucky ones that are reliable and can take a few bumps. But yeah it's the most common point of failure for the carbine. It would be a big dick maneuver if someone started manufacturing rugged modern ones out of polymer or something.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Mostly the modern commerical ones. I had far less problems with a blued 15rd USGI one than with the parkerized 10rd aftermarket one I got my M1 with. Apparently the aftermarket 30rders tend to be even worse.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      From what I understand, they cheaped out on the quality of the magazines in order to make way more of them for the same cost because the doctrine at the time was just to keep throwing them away in the field and replacing them frequently. There's a video with a ww2 veteran who fought in the Pacific front who says they were very reliable for a few weeks' use and then soldiers would ditch them for a fresh mag, so shooters today encountering feeding problems are using them for much longer than their actual service life. The Thompson magazines, by way of comparison, cost significantly more to manufacture and weren't significantly more reliable for the extra cost.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes similar issues that the STEN had, the gun worked well enough but the magazines were the weak point.

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can someone explain to me what this things reason for existing was? Did other countries have equivalents and would something similar be useful for military/law enforcement?
    >posts perhaps the handiest and most useful shoulder fired firearm up until like 1980 something for the US market
    >the only market that counts
    uhhhhh? its lightweight and offers a decent amount of firepower/capacity in a smallish form factor while being ubiquitous? Frankly your question kinda boggles my mind, the M1 carbine was a great and very popular service/personal defense weapon and nothing would replace it until the proliferation of modern intermediate caliber carbines like the AR and it straight up mogs the competition which is largely bolt guns, battle rifles, and SMGs for its given niche

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The caliber would be cool for a modern semi auto carabine.

    Noobs like would love something Easy to use that can shoot Better at distance than a 9mm without the fear of piercing walls

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone talks about non combatants but it's an important secondary weapon even for the infantry. It bridges the gap from pistol to rifle and is great for machine gun teams, mortarmen, bazookamen and those armed with flamethrower. The carbine gives great flexibility for those types of troops especially when they're encumbered with the machine gun, mortar, ammo, tripods and baseplate.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Everyone talks about non combatants
      thats who it was made for

      > but it's an important secondary weapon even for the infantry
      it would have been the primary for anyone issued it

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldnt think so. For a machine gun team, their primary weapon should be considered the M1919, same for mortars and everyone else, even if it's a crewserve.

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Active Defence Rifle

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For officers and rear echelon troops. The intermediate cartridge was invented as a cartridge between a handgun and a fully powered rifle. It only became standard issue during Vietnam, though the initial design of the AR was a fully powered rifle called the AR-10.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For officers and rear echelon troops
      a lot of front line troops were issued the M1 carbine
      armored infantry in particular would have the M1 carbine for everyone in the special weapons platoon, for defending themselves after disembarking but before they could unstow their special weapon
      ammo carriers were also issued M1s for defending the machine gunner, as they would have been weighted down by spare belts

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I want one

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rush, Robert S. (21 November 2003). GI: The US Infantryman in World War II. Osprey Publishing Ltd. pp. 33–35. ISBN 1-84176-739-5.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The recoil is more controllable. You can shoot faster without losing accuracy. This makes the M1 Carbine more effective at shorter ranges.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    similar reason to why the m4 carbine exists but much earlier

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Go to a gun store and hold one for two seconds and it will become obvious
    They weigh fricking nothing, which is fricking great when you're walking around a tropical island all day
    10 round mag and low recoil is great for magdumping japs
    Would you give everyone a carbine? Frick no, but it's fantastic for mortar crews and machinegunners who have to hump around a bunch of shit.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1911 sucks ass, this was a better sidearm/small rifle

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For how long did the us use m1 carabine?
    Where they used in vietnam?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For how long did the us use m1 carabine?
      it was used in WW2 and korea as a standard issue weapon to infantry, but was officially used in smaller capacity past korea
      it was used in vietnam, but in a lesser capacity like MPs or to give out to the south vietnamese
      they werent retired until the 70s

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *