The M1 Carbine

[Terry A]

I've mentioned several times here that the M1 carbine is my 1st choice for all-time prettiest carbine. As a kid, I was "infatuated" with them. But when I shot them, there were feeding problems. I never owned any because I felt that they were less than reliable.

Here's my questions.....

1. Why are the post WW2 models so unreliable? Why can't these replicas of the WW2 models function better?

2. Has any one ever considered chambering a M1 for another caliber other than the .30? I'm not a gunsmith, but for any of you who are, could one be built to chamber a .223? Or even a .44mag? Ruger's .44 was a fine weapon but it had a very low magazine capacity. With the M1 design, a box magazine offers a better option IF it functioned more reliably.

I realize that some may be lucky enough to have a M1 that does function flawlessly. If you own one, can you elaborate on what you have and if you've done anything to enhance it's reliability?

Thanks!

 

[Dfariswheel]

First, the caliber.
The Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.
There was a .44 Magnum carbine, but it was a special built pump-action version with a larger receiver made by Universal called the Vulcan.
One of the more popular "other" caliber Carbines was the 5.7 Johnson, basically a necked-down .30 Carbine case.
Due to the size and strength of the action and magazine, there's only so many calibers the Carbine can handle, few of them better then the .30 Carbine, at least back in the Carbine's prime time of popularity.

As to the reliability issue:
The post-war commercial carbines were made from cast steel receivers. This was strictly a cost saving decision and much of the reliability was related to the quality of the receiver.
Then too, even though the earlier commercial Carbines used mostly military surplus parts, many of these were well-used or even rather worn parts that were refinished to look new.
As the supply of surplus parts dried up, the commercial companies began to make more and more of their own parts, invariably from lower quality castings.

Combine the cast steel receivers, used parts, low quality cast parts, and simply bad workmanship and the commercial Carbine just wasn't as consistently reliable as the forged steel USGI Carbine.
The US Government contractors insisted on turning out the best quality Carbines they could, and the government demanded they do just that. Makers who failed to meet minimum standards were rejected as Carbine makers.
The commercial makers were attempting to make a Carbine for as low a price as they could, and didn't have to meet any standards.

 

[Red_Eagle]

Don't quote me

Don't quote me on this... but, at one time I think Universal or Iver Johnson was making one in 9mm Luger.

 

[amd6547]

Of the post war carbines, I consider the Plainfield to be the best. I owned one and it was always a reliable accurate version of the classic M1. That Plainfield got sold when I just had to have a Mini 14...a move I regretted as soon as I shot the Mini...it las less accurate at 50yds than the Plainfield was at 100yds, and the Mini had the occaisional jam.
My current M1 carbine is an Inland which I bought at the CMP North store (45min from my house). The only issues it has had were with MagTech ammo, which left spent primers in the action and caused a jam. It has been 100% reliable with every other brand of ammo and very accurate...it is easy to shoot softball sized groups at 100yds.
I really dont care about any other round in the M1 carbine...the weapon and round are so perfectly matched, and the the 30 carbine round does everything I want of it. My Inland is my goto HD longarm.

 

[Terry A]

First, the caliber.
The Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.
There was a .44 Magnum carbine, but it was a special built pump-action version with a larger receiver made by Universal called the Vulcan.
One of the more popular "other" caliber Carbines was the 5.7 Johnson, basically a necked-down .30 Carbine case.
Due to the size and strength of the action and magazine, there's only so many calibers the Carbine can handle, few of them better then the .30 Carbine, at least back in the Carbine's prime time of popularity.

As to the reliability issue:
The post-war commercial carbines were made from cast steel receivers. This was strictly a cost saving decision and much of the reliability was related to the quality of the receiver.
Then too, even though the earlier commercial Carbines used mostly military surplus parts, many of these were well-used or even rather worn parts that were refinished to look new.
As the supply of surplus parts dried up, the commercial companies began to make more and more of their own parts, invariably from lower quality castings.

Combine the cast steel receivers, used parts, low quality cast parts, and simply bad workmanship and the commercial Carbine just wasn't as consistently reliable as the forged steel USGI Carbine.
The US Government contractors insisted on turning out the best quality Carbines they could, and the government demanded they do just that. Makers who failed to meet minimum standards were rejected as Carbine makers.
The commercial makers were attempting to make a Carbine for as low a price as they could, and didn't have to meet any standards.

That's one of the best & most informative answers I've ever had the pleasure of reading here! Thank you so much!

 

[Loader9]

T

he Carbine action is in no way strong enough or long enough to handle something like the .223.

Since you did such a good job with the rest of yer post I almost hesitate to post this. After WWII there was considerable talk about creating a smaller caliber rifle on the carbine action. The military ordered, received, and tested carbines chambered in the 22 Gustafson (sp?). That is the fore runner of the 223 when it first came out. Then there was also the M2 variant that shot the 45ACP in the modified carbine. It had far too many reliability issues with feeding and it was dropped.

Over the years I've probably shot a truckload of military 30 carbines. I've never had a failure of any kind from the rifle. Now something like a Universal carbine which is the after market carbine like Dfariswheel mentions, they're a reliability issue waiting to happen.

 

[jrothWA]

My Inland is flawless in funtioning..

only thing I did was to detail the the entire action and lightly polished the feed ramp to minimize "stuttering" of soft-nose ammo.

 

[JWT]

I found amd6547s post very interesting when he mentioned how the MagTech ammo left spent primers in the action of his M1 carbine.

I have an Auto-ordnance carbine (I know it's not like owning a 'real' carbine) that has performed flawlessly except with MagTech ammo. The spent primers frequently come out of the casings and jam the action. Works fine with any other ammo I've put through it.

 

[bamaranger]

M1 carbine

I've shot, or been on firing lines when a good bit of GI .30 carbine was being fired, in GI guns and they were all pretty reliable. The .30 carbine was a std tower rifle for the Fed Bureau of Prisons up into the late 1980's.

Kahr Arms (?) is making a carbine repro these days and I bet they are a cut above the Plainfield and IJ.

In the 1980's there was an outfit modifying the carbine to take the .45 Win Mag ctg and calling it the Mag1. I don't think the carbines held up and have not heard anything on the company in a long time.

The .30 carbine ctg is a mystery as far as how and why it was selected as near as I can tell from my limited reading. Cartridges w/ more punch and similar range (.351 Win SLR) were existent, yet not selected. Even a .40 Carbine would have made a better fighting ctg.

It is what it is though, and I too have always been fascinated w/ the little rifles, but never owned one!

 

[pythagorean]

I got a perfectly functional M1 Carbine from Kahr.
It is shown next to my SOCOM 16:

I think it was near $800 or $750 or something a few years back. No, it's not the original "historic" used M1 Carbine, but I wanted one brand new and I wanted nice wood too.

At the range I found it to be more than I expected.

 

[gak]

In over 40 years of shooting, I've never once had a problem with my two (original/unmolested) Inlands that wasn't related to an occasional FTF or FTE with cra* ammo, or the use once of an aftermarket 30 rd mag. One of these looks to have gone through the typical post war (WWII) refit stage (bayo lug and safety switch on a '43), but the other is a completely original '44 (with rare war-issue bayo lug with bayo) my father--a B-29 pilot--found NIB in the junkyard (!) on Guam in '45 looking for engine parts and getting pot-shot at by remnant Japanese!

Fabulous guns. Especially with current SPs, one of best HD weapons I can think of. To the OP, quit chintzing on yourself and get an original GI! They're out there. I've even found a few "imports" (re-imported GIs) that were pretty decent. Also, in terms of new, while not cheap, the likes of Fulton Armory probably is still the best and closest thing to a "real" new GI, being (mostly) sourced from original new parts IIRC.

 

[Dfariswheel]

Strangely, many generals in WWII despised the Carbine.
General Gavin of the 82nd Airborne hatred the Carbine and thought it was too unreliable for combat use.
He always jumped with an M1 Rifle.

It was the European paratrooper generals who were the people who actually requested a carbine version of the M1 Garand, commonly called the "Tanker Garand" today. They though a shorter M1 Rifle would be more reliable and could still be jumped assembled easier.

I will say, that I never saw an unreliable USGI Carbine that was in good condition and was maintained properly.
I saw a lot of commercial Carbines that were trouble.

 

[grumpa72]

Ref. the "tanker Garands", I thought I read over at the CMP forums, that there weren't any actual tanker models made and that this was an idea that was never put into production. Can you verify that these "tankers" were actually made in WW II? I have seen modern versions of these, being made from surplus M1s but never an actual one from WW II.

 

[Loader9]

In regards to the Tankers model or T-28 as some like to call it. I met a gentleman from Kerrville, Texas who was packing a set of Gov't Cartouche tools. He was an inspector during WWII for the Gov't and he said that there never was a Tankers model Garand. He claimed that the after market folks came up with the designation. But as far as the old gent goes, I did get several 03A3's from him, an 03A4 still in the green wrapper, and a National Match Model NB still in the green made in 1925. There were only 19 Model NBs ever made. All of the 03A3's have something rare on them like a Marlin 5 groove barrel, etc. And I also got an 03A3 carbine as issued for the Philippine Campaign from him that was used but in probably 95% condition. This particular rifle was also used in the article in the American Rifleman back in the 70's. So I think the ol' man had a clue what he was talking about. I, however, don't know that much about the Garand but I read about them everyday.

 

[Airborne Falcon]

My Uncle's WWII Carbine that he brought back with him from Germany ... he was a very young light colonel by war's end, and this is the one he carried. Got the DD 214 (equivalent) of his ETS paperwork - he bought it for $9.00 and passed it down to me in his will.

It had sit in his closet for sixty years when he died ... it had some dust issues but I cleaned it up, had it tuned up by a M14 smithy friend of mine and it runs like a sewing machine now - loves the Federal soft point 110 grain factory loads - plus I roll my own for it as well.

Had to add a period correct aftermarket sling, and I found the original silver oiler complete with the leather washer still in excellent shape. Was lucky to find a shoebox full of mags, all twenty rounders, and picked up some others that work fine.

To me, the cartridge is perfect for the platform. But Art did have to tweak the bolt, also the extractor if I remember correctly, before we got it running just right.

My wife claims it as her personal defense stick in the house when I am out of town .... she shoots it very very well.

It's a 1942 Inland and it is really mint even up close. The top half of the forearm, the handguard, is some of the prettiest furniture on any of my long guns.

 

[Chris_B]

Ref. the "tanker Garands", I thought I read over at the CMP forums, that there weren't any actual tanker models made and that this was an idea that was never put into production. Can you verify that these "tankers" were actually made in WW II? I have seen modern versions of these, being made from surplus M1s but never an actual one from WW II.

The museum at the old Armory In Springfield MA has one T26. Didn't go into production though. I think three were made total


re: the M1 carbine

After shooting USGI examples and then buying one I understand the allure of this little rifle. Just plain fun to shoot

With the availability, reputation, and fairly low price of USGI models, I do wonder if there is actually a need for commercial models at all

I can understand the desire for a new gun even though it's not really my thing in most cases but the USGI M1 carbines work so well and are still going strong 65 years after production ended


edit

I realize that some may be lucky enough to have a M1 that does function flawlessly. If you own one, can you elaborate on what you have and if you've done anything to enhance it's reliability?

My own Inland from '43 runs like a clock and shoots well. It seems to me that contrary to most M1 carbines not working properly, most USGI examples actually work fine. This is in fact the first example I've read of someone asking how to get an M1 carbine to work correctly

I use USGI 15 round magazines. They cost about 15 bucks each.

I use a USGI carbine. I purchased it as an M1A1 actually but I have a full stock as well, a 'high wood' USGI stock

I have seen some reproduction 'low wood' stocks and I can easily see how the original reason for the USGI models to get 'low wood' could be a cause for concern- interference with the stock and Oprod may cause problems

 

[Dfariswheel]

The "Tanker Garand" was never a military issue rifle.

After the paratrooper generals asked for a carbine M1 Rifle, Springfield Arsenal built a couple of experimental models.
They concluded the muzzle blast and recoil was too excessive and when the war ended before they could do much more with the idea, they dropped the project.
There were only a couple of these made and only 2 or 3 survive in museums.
One is in the Springfield Armory museum in Springfield Mass.

There were apparently a small batch of carbine M1 Rifles built in the Pacific, and these were sent to Springfield for evaluation.
At some point during the war, Springfield converted all of these back to full size rifles.

Where the name "Tanker Garand" came from was from a big West Coast gun distributor who had a batch of surplus M1's that weren't selling. On a trip to Springfield, he saw the Garand carbine and had the idea to convert his rifles to up sales.
He came up with the idea of naming it the "Tanker Garand" and made up the story that General MacArthur had requested them for use by Pacific tankers.

All of the Tanker carbines that are around are commercial builds, some using receivers that were scrapped as un-serviceable. People welded these cut receivers together and built substandard rifles out of them.
To be fair, there are some around that were assembled by top gunsmiths.

The trouble is, you have no idea of knowing whether it's a good rifle or junk without shooting it.

 

[Doc TH]

M1 carbine

I will go along with amd and gak. My GI carbine - DCM in 1965 - has been flawless through the years. I do not believe the cartridge is ineffective for its intended purpose, and take general officer's opinions with a grain of salt. My wife's uncle was in a Marine parachute battalion in WWII Pacific combat and thought the carbine was excellent. So, apparently, did the SAS in Malaya.
However, if someone could produce a carbine just as reliable in 5.56mm I might be interested just because of ammo availability and cost. Of course reloading .30 M1 would likely be just as useful.

 

[Doug S]

Never tried a commercial version, but my WWII Rockola has been 100%.

 

[Brit]

If the Security Industry in Florida were ever given the ability to carry short rifles, at the moment not! The M1 Carbine would be ideal, Hollow Point or soft Point ammo. would make it ideal.

The one I own spent years in an Armory in Germany, a couple of dings in the stock, otherwise like new!

Would like to pick up mil spec 15 round Mags; Suggestions?