Which is the better battle rifle? M16 vs. M1 Carbine

[kraigwy]

This is not met to be a debate on the two, but since I got my CMP Underwood Carbine it’s quickly becoming my favorite rifle.

My father was a vet of both the South Pacific in WWII and Korea. He loved the Carbine, saying it was a better combat rifle then the M1. He even bragged about killing water buffalo with it.

We would always have a friendly debate over a beer as to which is the better rifle, the M1 Carbine or the M16A1 (which is what I used). Even to show him up, I killed a water buffalo with my ‘a1 in Vietnam.

I cannot play with my M1 w/out thinking of my father. I would love to have him here today so I could take him shooting with my Carbine.

Sunday there is a 2 Gun Match in Spearfish SD. In my father’s honor I’m going to shoot it with my Carbine and 1911a1 (although the M1911a1 was my pistol also when I was soldiering).

 

[Technosavant]

The M1 Carbine is a handy little thing. I doubt I'd take one over an AR platform, but there's something about it that just feels right.

Maybe one day I'll get one for myself.

 

[thesheepdog]

Both are cool, but I would still take my AR over the M1

 

[Doyle]

This is not even a contest. With the M1 carbine, you've got a notoriously inaccurate rifle shooting an equally underpowered round.

 

[p99guy]

Despite that some U.S. Special forces advisers in VN still prefered them to the M16, because they seemed to penetrate jungle folage better/wasnt deflected as much as the high velocity 55gr M193....and with the early teething problems the M16 was having, the carbine was more reliable at the time. Shooting in combat the M1 carbine was at least as accurate as the SKS and AK rifles it opposed..and with bullets whipping past your ear you are lucky to shoot minute of man lol...it isnt like at the nice calm range(2 moa!!! I'm taking this thing back to the store!!!!)

I have carried a carbine many a mile in my patrol car, and killed white tail deer in mesquite thickets with them...and in one instance fired one in anger at a person that was launching .243 winchester at me(Im still here)
As long as you use SP or HP ammo, and keep what your doing to approx 150 yards you will do just fine with one.
Had one or two LAPD had them instead of shotguns...that north Hollywood
bank shootout would have ended far sooner(.30 carbine would have punched the soft body armor with no problem)

While the M16 in its perfected form is a much better rifle(the M1 carbine isnt a rifle any more than a Ruger PC9 is) you arent exactly unarmed in most circumstances John Q. Public would find himself in, if you had a carbine.

 

[Slamfire]

I know one living WWII veteran of the Iwo and Okinawa invasion who has a very low opinion of the M1 Carbine as a combat weapon. He carried it, used it, and said you could not hit Japanese at 200 yards with the thing.

Before you call him a poor shot, he was an active shooter before and after the war, receiving lifetime Master at Camp Perry in 1964.

I know and shoot with a Vietnam Veteran and Special Forces/Ranger who told me “the carbine is a great gun to play soldier with”. He was with the 82nd and during the missile crisis prepared to jump into Cuba. It was going to be a race between him and the guy on the other side of the plane as to whom was going to touch Cuba first. As an Officer he was able to trade in his Carbine for a Garand because he did not want to be in a combat zone with the thing.

Later he found out the drop zone was a killing zone.

Before you call him a poor shot, he is a two time National Champion in F Class.

I have talked to other Vietnam combat veterans who said derogatory comments on the Carbine.

By the time you get to 69 or so, the worst bugs of the M16 were worked out, and guys from that era don’t have a major beef with them.

You talk to Iraqi war veterans and they take negative comments against M4’s as personal attacks.

 

[p99guy]

whose calling anybody a poor shot? and 1969 isnt early VN/adviser period

 

[jhenry]

There isn't even a contest here. Range, accuracy, firepower, ergonomics, ease of take down and maintenance, adaptability to a variety of situations, sights and optics, all go to which platform? Is there a single thing at all the M1 carbine does better? Fun to dink with, and capable within it's limitations, but not a contender. I don't even consider it to fire a rifle cartridge. More of a .30 caliber revolver cartridge.

 

[demigod]

This is not even a contest. With the M1 carbine, you've got a notoriously inaccurate rifle shooting an equally underpowered round.

End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all.

 

[kraigwy]

End of story! I don't know why people like the M1 at all

Like I said, because of my father, it got him through two wars, he was satisified with it.

He's long gone now, and I like mine in mormory of him.

As I said, I didnt mean to be a dispute of the two, but as a tribute to the history of the M1 and the soldiers who carried it.

The M1 Carbine was not designed to be a replacement battle rifle but a replacement for the pistol. (Although many soldier elected to replace their Garands with Carbine).

 

[Idahoser]

"battle rifle" is a specific set of criteria, and neither of these fits them. Of the two, the AR would come "closest" but it's not a battle rifle.

 

[Old Grump]

The M1 carbine with its reduced-power .30 cartridge was not originally intended to serve as a primary weapon for combat infantrymen, 357 mag power and a 100 yard range was its strength. Great for the jungles in the South pacific. It could have had a select fire capability but the powers that be at the time decided against it. Better springs and more time spent on cleaning and maintenance in Korea would have lessened some of the complaints but things were a bit hectic at the time and it was never designed to be a front line gun.

PERFORMANCE
AUTO-ORDNANCE M1 CARBINE .30​

3 shot groups at 100 yards

Load: Cor Bon 100 DPX, Velocity 2017 fps,Accuracy 0.69

Load: Remington 110, Velocity 1979 fps, Accuracy 0.81

Accurate enough for you?

 

[blume357]

I, like a number of folks above.. love my little M1 Carbine...

that that said... the answer in my opinion to the questions is the M-16 or I guess more to the point the current M4s... not so sure about the original M-16s.

 

[raimius]

M16 by far. Better effective range, better sights (by a little bit), bigger standard magazine capacity, etc.

The M1 Carbine is a nice carbine, but it is not designed as a primary rifle for infantry, like the M16.

 

[kraigwy]

"battle rifle" is a specific set of criteria, and neither of these fits them. Of the two, the AR would come "closest" but it's not a battle rifle.

Don't know your definition of a "Battle Rifle" but the M16 fits the bill in my book, I've fought many a battle with one, none of which I felt undergunned.

 

[Terry A]

The M1 is my all time vote getter for "prettiest" rifle (carbine) ever. It just looks and feels so good.

However, I have never known of a production version, be it Universal or Auto Ordiance, etc, that doesn not have problems with jamming. Every one I've ever fired has had trouble feeding rounds reliably.

If I had to pick either of these two weapons to go to war with, I would pick the M4 100 times out of 100.

But, the M1 wins the beauty contest!

 

[Rampant_Colt]

I've always thought the M1 Carbine would make a most excellent home defense weapon when loaded with some Federal, W-W, R-P 110gr JHP, or Corbon 100gr DPX.

In actual combat? Are we talking Hague Convention rules? AR-15 no question. If hollowpoint ammo was allowed, the terminal ballistic advantage of the 5.56x45 over the .30 Carbine at close ranges isn't that significant

 

[Kmar40]

Don't know your definition of a "Battle Rifle" but the M16 fits the bill in my book, I've fought many a battle with one, none of which I felt undergunned.

Yeah, but you're talking real world.

In the internet, an M4 can only wound people and it isn't very good at that even. And it always jams. They're the worst internet rifle EVER.

 

[gak]

This debate always amazes me. I'm a big M1 Carbine fan, but I would *hope* that the M16 variants make for a better "battle rifle,"....or it'd say something awfully miserable about not only the industry but the ordnance planners of our military - that no "natural" advancements in our fighting arms are made over time.

Do you notice the strongest detractors of the M1C at least sound like they've never owned or shot one? I'm not saying that's always the case, but there's sure a lot of "me thinks thou doth protesteth" they could be accused of in the tone! The M1 is simpler, handier and just as effective (for most intents and purposes)--as stated with modern SP ammo--for close-in personal-domestic HD/SD, at which it excels. I'd pick my Inland every day for that role. For all else: the recent-era M16/M4.

That said, for every "I know someone from Korea or the Bulge that hated the carbine," there are likely several vets who have great respect and affection for it, and more than a few who owe their or a buddy's life specifically to its characteristics. However, these days, it should be no slam on the M1 Carbine to say that, for "battle" purposes, the better choice between the two is the AR-platform. Never thought it was a real question like some--especially knee-jerk AR fanboys--approach such discussions (I'm not referring to the question as posed by the OP, given his clarification). Of course the AR platform is better for most military purposes, that should speak for itself...but still - Me thinks...

 

[Ozzieman]

The M1 Grand was the "Battle Rifle" of WW2 and the Carbine was the replacement for the 1911. It was for troops that didn’t fight with a rifle but had one when it was needed like tankers and troops that were in maintenance battalions. My father carried one throughout the war in Europe and never shot it. But there were nights he slept with it and was very glad he had it.
Some here say that the M16 is not a battle rifle,,,, I’m not too sure exactly what that term is but it is the main battle rifle for our troops today so in my book it is a battle rifle.
I feel that both guns are perfect for what they were designed to do and comparing them is like comparing a BAR and a Thompson. Useless, But still fun to do.