Was the m1 carbine unique?

[Husqvarna]

Was the m1 carbine unique?

in a just historical kind of thing it didn't have an equivilant in any other army?

I mean every army in ww2 had a rifle, a smg etc etc, but not a smaller rifle in a smaller calibre but still not a pistol calibre? I know it is know but not back then right?

Likewise the BAR?

 

[jimbob86]

While many armies had carbines (usually issued to Artillery and Engineers), none that I know of had magazine fed semi-autos ..... but then again, our standard issue rifle was a semi-auto, when most other countries still had bolt guns.

Likewise the BAR?

The German FG42 and the JohnsonM1941 filled similar roles ....

 

[buck460XVR]

From what my dad told me(he was a marine in WWII), the M1-Carbine was brought out to replace the 1911 sidearm for those soldiers that had something else to carry. Such as ammo carriers and (like my dad) radiomen that carried a 90# pack on their back. The M-1 Carbine was thought to be a more efficient man stopper and more accurate for the average serviceman at longer distances than the 1911. My dad was originally issued a 1911 for his first beach landing and carried it till they took it away and replaced it with the carbine. In both instances he still procured a Garand from a fallen comrade on that and subsequent landings(such as Iwo Jima) because of the lack of stopping power from both. Only difference was the carbine got thrown down when the Garand was picked up.

 

[4thPoint]

Somewhat unique maybe.

Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance received reports from various branches (infantry, armor, artillery, supply) that the full-size M1 rifle was unsuitable as issued for an increasing number of soldiers with specialized training (mortar crews, rangers, paratroopers, machine gun crews, radiomen, tankers, artillerymen, forward observers, signals troops, engineers, headquarters staff etc.) who did not use the service rifle as a primary arm.

- per Wikipedia

As the problem was noted before WWII and the M3 was not issued until '43, the only other alternative would have been the Thompson SMG which weighed roughly twice as much as the carbine. Give a REMF the choice of lugging around 10lbs of .45ACP shooter or 5lbs of .30 Carbine and see which one he chooses (considering the likelihood of him doing a frontal assault with his choice is rather low.)

As if he even had a choice, of course. I don't recall the price of a M1A1 in WWII but I think it had to be more than the $45 the M1 carbine cost. I'm sure the War Department was aware of the costs of the two and factored that into who got what.

 

[tahunua001]

well, there was the SturmGewer(or however it's spelled), the germans had the first true assault rifle, with an intermediate cartridge, I would say that qualifies as unique. the BAR was just a light machine gun which the french had in WWI but the frenchie was highly unreliable. the russians also had a light machinegun which fired their standard service cartridge and had a higher ammo capacity than the BAR.

I wouldn't call the 30 carbine a true rifle cartridge though. there have been revolvers chambered in that cartridge. at most I would call it an intermediate but even by intermediate cartridge standards it is ballistically stunted.

I do believe that the m1 carbine was unique from the standpoint that it was the only semi auto carbine for much of the war but many nations still had carbine versions of existing models like the type 38 arisaka carbines, the M1895 mannlicher carbines, the M38 mosin nagant carbines, etc etc. the russians also developed and partially fielded the SKS during the final months of WWII so by war's end there was another nation with a semi auto carbine.

 

[RickB]

The Brits used the Bren Gun in about the same way that we used the BAR, so there's an equivalent to our magazine fed, full-powered, "machine rifle".
The Carbine ticked most of the "assault rifle" boxes, but the term has generally come to mean select-fire, so not until the introduction of the M2 was the Carbine a true assault rifle.
The Carbine was never intended for the assault rifle role, when compared to guns like the AK47 or Sturmgewehr44, as those latter two were intended to replace rifle, carbine, and SMG, while the M1 Carbine, as noted, was designed to replace a pistol.
Once the Carbine was widely available, it did become much more of an assault rifle than was intended, in heavy use by front-line troops as a replacement for other long guns.

 

[Bart B.]

That rifle's most unique thing was that it's basic mechanism was designed by David M. Williams, a prisoner in North Carolina's state prison serving a 30-year term for second degree murder of a police officer issued in 1921. He was allowed by the nice warden to work in the prison's machine shop to perfect it then later relased in 1929 to work at Winchester completing its final development. Jimmy Stewart (Brigadier General, USAF Reserve and movie star) played "Marsh" Williams in the 1952 movie "Carbine Williams."

 

[James K]

The carbine was the only WWII firearm I can think of that used a short stroke piston, but that is irrelevant to its tactical role which was, as noted, to replace the pistol.

Before WWII, the Army TO&E called for a large number of troops to carry pistols. That included company commanders, platoon leaders and assistant platoon leaders, squad leaders and assistant squad leaders, machinegunners and assistant gunners, BAR men and assistants, mortar crews, photographers (not signal personnel generally), military police, etc. (In spite of the catch phrase, "cooks and bakers" usually had rifles, and so did the airborne. Tankers never had carbines, always pistols or SMG's and never "Tanker Garands" either - those were faked rifles given a fake name.)

Given the experience in WWI, the Army was concerned in two areas. One was that in a larger mobilization there would again be a shortage of pistols, as there had been in WWI. The other concern was that in that way, those issued pistols proved to be not quite the "dead eye dicks" of legend. Those hardy descendants of Old West gunfighters simply couldn't shoot a pistol!

Hence the carbine. Light enough to be less of a burden to troops whose main duty was not shooting at the enemy, yet accurate and powerful enough to be effective when needed.

Jim

 

[Art Eatman]

Good summation, James K.

I had an M2, '54/'55 in Korea, on occupation duty with the 50th AAA self-propelled outfit. Rough on seagulls, on the beach at Inchon. By then, our motor pool guys had the M3 Grease guns.

My father's bringback Carbine from the ETO is a fun shooter.

 

[SIGSHR]

I would say it's unique, despite its official designation it was not based on an existing design, was not merely a shorter version of the standard long arm, its cartridge was not merely a shortened version of an existing round-or lower powered, cf the "Guard" cartridges for the M1903 or the carbine round for the Trapdoor carbines. Also, despite its popularity it was something of a design dead end, it was phased out of the US military in the early 1960s and AFAIK was never picked up by other military except those who received our largess.

 

[Dfariswheel]

That rifle's most unique thing was that it's basic mechanism was designed by David M. Williams, a prisoner in North Carolina's state prison serving a 30-year term for second degree murder of a police officer issued in 1921. He was allowed by the nice warden to work in the prison's machine shop to perfect it then later relased in 1929 to work at Winchester completing its final development.

That's really not correct.
Williams' rifle that he worked on while in prison was not suitable for production and never went anywhere.

What Winchester used by Williams in the M1 Carbine was his ground-breaking short stroke gas piston design.
The M1 Carbine was actually designed by a group of Winchester engineers working 24 hours a day for several weeks in a crash program in order to get it in front of the Army board before the deadline.
The only input from Williams was that they used his short stroke piston design that he'd invented in the 1920's.

At the time Williams was working at Winchester, but was so problematic and irascible Winchester didn't want him delaying the project with his unreasonable demands and attitude issues.

The movie about Williams actually designing the M1 Carbine was nothing more than Hollywood story telling, which they didn't allow the truth to interfere with a good story.
Even though Williams really had nothing to do with the design or development of the Carbine, he would regularly take credit for it in later years.

 

[SHR970]

[qoute]I wouldn't call the 30 carbine a true rifle cartridge though. there have been revolvers chambered in that cartridge.[/quote]
So has 45-70 but I won't hold that against you.

The 30 carbine round was not a pistol round. It was based on the 32 Winchester Self Loading introduced in the Winchester Model 1905 semiauto rifle. It was dimensionally similar (but rimless vs. semi rimmed) and used a 110 gr. bullet @ 1970 fps. instead of a 165 gr. bullet @ 1390 fps. Is it an intermediate cartridge? By the standards of the time: yes.

 

[Bart B.]

Well then, Dfariswheel, here's proof that at least two "accurate" accounts of Carbine Williams rifle design are in print. Not all are on the internet.

Perhaps I should have used a different word than 'perfect' it but that's the word I found decades ago in a library book or something like that.

That carbine was not all that perfect anyway. Some blew on firing in the Korean conflict shoving their bolts out the back end where they finally stopped after burying themselves in the rifleman's head.

 

[wogpotter]

During WW2 it probably was unique. But several countries made reduced power small light carbines afterwards.

Probably the closest was the Dominican Republic's "Cristobal" even though it looks very different.

 

[RickB]

Also, despite its popularity it was something of a design dead end, it was phased out of the US military in the early 1960s and AFAIK was never picked up by other military except those who received our largess

The Japanese produced their own version of the M1 Carbine, and I believe it was put to military use, as well as sold in small numbers on the commercial market. So, there was one country that produced the Carbine for their own use, though you're right that nobody built any, who hadn't already received them from the U.S. via MAP and other programs.

 

[tahunua001]

it does bear mentioning that it inspired modifying the M1 into a mag fed design instead of enblocs(and after rechambering became the M14) as well as the mini 14 which have both seen military service as well.

 

[James K]

Hi, Bart B.

That is interesting about carbine bolts being "blown out the back". I am not sure I see how that can happen, but would very much like to see any pictures or documentation you have.

There have also been stories about M1 rifle operating rods breaking and coming back through soldiers' heads. As far as I can tell, all the stories originated with one many, who read about cracked operating rods and made up the rest of the story out of his fervid imagination.

Jim

 

[madmo44mag]

Whats unique about the M1 30 carbine outside of what’s noted above.
It’s a light, quick cycling 30 caliber carbine that’s more fun to shoot that watching monkeys fling poo at politicians on You-Tube.
Now back to the folks you are more serious about this discussion which I am enjoying.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I vote yes. Because introducing the .30 Carbine cartridge had to be such an obvious logistical nightmare with almost no real advantage. A 45 ACP carbine is so much more logical.

 

[DaleA]

A 45 ACP carbine is so much more logical.

Are you thinking along the lines of the M3 submachine gun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_submachine_gun