The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured.

[stanc]

The world may not have been looking to fast-paced, mechanized combat, but Germany certainly was. In the mid-1930s, Germany introduced the general purpose machine gun, and they were working on intermediate-power rifle ammo that led to the development and fielding of an assault rifle.

Meanwhile, the US was still using heavy, watercooled machine guns employed for trench warfare, and developing what was essentially an improved M1903 Springfield rifle. But then, as George Chinn said, Germany always sought to create tomorrow's weapons today, while we sought to develop yesterday's weapons soon.

The power of the 30-06 is a two edge sword but the common use of black tip amour piercing ammo tends to suggest a desire to breach barriers.

Concur. The extensive use of light armored vehicles by German forces would seem to have made it prudent to use AP ammo, instead of lead-core Ball.

Significant, yes. Great, no. It was just more of the same, a better battle rifle. It wasn't the "game changer" that the German Sturmgewehr was.

The US could have fielded an assault rifle in the 1930s, were it not for a lack of vision. All of the pieces were there. They just needed to be put together.

Intermediate-Power Cartridge (.30 Remington)





Straight-Line Stock (M1917 Winchester Machine Rifle)




30-Round Magazine (M1920 Garand Rifle)

[Fess]

The wisdom of adopting the .276 Pedersen is another topic and was discussed in a previous thread, http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...nking-the-Myth. The "existing inventory" issue, as it turned out in hindsight, was incorrect. According to Hatcher, the US had used up all of its WWI 30-06 inventory by 1936, about the time the M1 Garand was entering service. It would have been easy to predict this at the time.

The tooling issue in not as big a deal as many believe. I am familiar with that type of equipment, having worked at a plant that did deep-drawing, machining and assembly of brass and steel components. The most important thing was that the .276 Pederson was similar in length and diameter than the 30-06. Deep-drawing and assembly equipment are largely designed around the product length, so a longer cartridge might have been a problem. As it was, the existing equipment could have been easily adapted to the new cartridge. The actual punches and dies were non-durable tooling. In other words, even though they are working with brass, they are replaced fairly often. The cost savings in raw materials, brass and lead, would have quickly paid for the modifications. While writing this, it just occurred to me that it is possible that the Pedersen cartridge was designed around the existing tooling.

There also been some discussion about what the final version of the .276 Pedersen would have been. A 2016 article on TFB stated that the army actually intended to adopt a larger .276 cartridge that had the same size base as the 30-06. That article claimed that the change would have been made to allow the use of more varieties of (less dense) propellants and longer bullets. On the other hand, others state that the larger-based round was just a semi-rimmed version of the original, designed for experiments in existing machineguns designed around a 0.471" base. Somewhere on the interwebs is a site that has photographs of several of the .276 Pederson variants, including the semi-rimmed version, but I can't seem to find it now.

The US military argued that the .276 Pedersen would add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. Nevertheless, by mid-war, they ended up needing to supply 30-06 (loose, in belts, stripper clips, and enbloc clips), .30 carbine and .45 acp at the front line.

[Gusmeister]

Rather than the fantasy of what any of us think should have been done (because we are smarter than everybody else), the US Govt pulled 2 aces out of the deck when they came up with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine. They and their ammo served us well (IMO brilliantly). There is a giant gap in what is said and in what was actually accomplished. Yes, they could have been better. Yes, they should have been better. Of course the challenge is to get 2 people to agree on what "better" is. But they served our country in times of great need and they served brilliantly. Just my opinion.

[stanc]

The tooling issue in not as big a deal as many believe. I am familiar with that type of equipment, having worked at a plant that did deep-drawing, machining and assembly of brass and steel components. The most important thing was that the .276 Pederson was similar in length and diameter than the 30-06. Deep-drawing and assembly equipment are largely designed around the product length, so a longer cartridge might have been a problem. As it was, the existing equipment could have been easily adapted to the new cartridge. The actual punches and dies were non-durable tooling. In other words, even though they are working with brass, they are replaced fairly often. The cost savings in raw materials, brass and lead, would have quickly paid for the modifications. While writing this, it just occurred to me that it is possible that the Pedersen cartridge was designed around the existing tooling.

That seems unlikely to me. I would think that if Pedersen wanted to use as much of the existing tooling as possible, the cartridge would've had the same rim/base diameter as for .30-06, and a .30-caliber projectile. Instead, all of the case and bullet dimensions are different.

The US military argued that the .276 Pedersen would add unnecessary complexity to the supply chain. Nevertheless, by mid-war, they ended up needing to supply 30-06 (loose, in belts, stripper clips, and enbloc clips), .30 carbine and .45 acp at the front line.

Yes, they were able to handle three different calibers, but they clearly did not like it. As soon as they could after WWII, they set about replacing .30-06, .30 Carbine, and .45 ACP (for shoulder weapons) with a single caliber: 7.62 NATO.

[1Shot]

Stories of the M1 carbine that have been told to me by the men that used them in battle.
One a WWII Marine. He was issued the M1 carbine being a 60mm mortar man. His first action that he saw was in an assault on a small part of an island that had a look out and communications post on it as a warning station for one of the larger island chains that invasion was planed for. He said they hit the beach in rubber boats trying to sneak up on the japs. When he got out of the boat he looked up and all he saw was green teeth and a bayonet that looked 3 feet long. He said that the japs came running out of the jungle toward them and the one that he fixated on had his bayoneted rifle held high screaming something as he ran. He dropped to one knee and started firing his carbine. He said that he knew that he was hitting him in the torso because he could see dust coming off his uniform but the jap kept coming. He then dropped his aim and shot him in the legs and he went down. This Jap as well as about 30 others were taken care of in just a short time and they accomplished their objective. He said that he went back to the jap that he knew he had killed and he counted 5 hits in his torso two in one leg and one in the other. He then said the he went over to where another marine had been killed and picked up his Thompson sub machine gun and ammo with support gear. He then went up to the nearest palm tree and while holding the barrel of that M1 carbine he swung it against the tree and beat it into pieces and then threw it in the ocean. He said that the Thompson was heaver but he never had to worry about a jap not going down when he turned it loose on him.

Another WWII Army veteran told this to me. He was in Hawaii when the japs attacked Peral Harbor and said he wanted to go kill japs but in the wisdom of the Army they sent him to kill Germans. After D day of which he went ashore on D+2 as a squad leader sometime after the break out of the hedgerow country his platoon assaulted a two story house that the Germans were using as a artillery observation post. After taking the house that they wanted to use for the same purpose. It was getting late in the evening and would be dark in about an hour he decided to post his squad in the down stairs part of the house for the night. Everyone took off their equipment and most leaned their rifles against the wall near them and all of a sudden there was a shot fired outside and one of his squad members that just happened to walk past where one of the windows had been fell dead from a shot the head. As he ran over to the man he then looked out the window and saw a German jump up from behind some big rocks about 100 yards away and start running away. He said that he just reached down and picked up the closest weapon and it was a M1 carbine. He said that he fired the whole magazine at the German and never touched him but he said that he bet that the fellow was still running. He did not like the M1 carbine, he LOVED the M1 Garand and he somehow brought his home with him after the war and it was a WINCHESTER of which I got to handle after he told me this story while in his home.


My hunting buddy was a Marine that did three tours in Vietnam. He was in a helicopter outfit. His first tour was the first Marine helicopters that went to Vietnam. They had not been in country but a few days and went out to take some grunts out someplace and on the way back they had engine trouble and had to put down. Since anyplace you were in Vietnam was hostile country especially at night which Charlie owned it was not a pleasant thought of being without a weapon that could put out some heavy firepower volume if you got shot down or had be only with just your small crew like that night if Charles decided to visit and you had to leave the chopper. They did not have any trouble that night and another chopper came out the next morning with what was needed to repair theirs. Within just a couple days my buddy said he had scrounged up what we wanted as a personal defense weapon. It was a M2 carbine, the ARVN had lots of them, that he sawed the barrel off where the bayonet stud handguard clamp ended and sawed off the stock and fashioned a pistol grip. He filled his M14 ammo pouches with 30 round magazines and also filled a tool bag full and placed them under his seat on the chopper so he could grab them in a hurry if needed. He made a sling that he could strap the "pistol" across his chest. He never had to use this against hostiles but he said that it was a pretty good security blanket. He said on a chopper an M14 was hard to handle and you never had it at hand when it was really needed. He mostly used the machine guns mounted on the choppers. By his second tour he had an M16 and was then a crew chief. He liked the M16 for the type of close range fighting they usually faced in Vietnam once they got the bugs worked out of it and issued cleaning equipment because like any weapon you need to keep it clean for it to function.

My dad was issued an M1 carbine during WWII but he was in the Army Air Corps, 15th Airforce with B24s. Only thing living he ever shot with it was an alligator while in Trinidad after the war in Europe was over and they were getting ready to head toward Japan.

[Gusmeister]

Great stories 1Shot. Thank you for sharing.

[stanc]

Rather than the fantasy of what any of us think should have been done (because we are smarter than everybody else)...

LOL.

...the US Govt pulled 2 aces out of the deck when they came up with the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine.

More like a jack and a queen. Germany drew aces, with the MG42 and StG44.

Yes, they could have been better. Yes, they should have been better.

Precisely.

Of course the challenge is to get 2 people to agree on what "better" is.

Even the US Army eventually (three decades later!) acknowledged that the assault rifle was a better idea than the battle rifle.

But they served our country in times of great need and they served brilliantly.

They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.

[n9nwo]

There are those who still love the XM8

[JASmith]

...They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.

Or did the technology and then-current design practice keep a better design from appearing? For example, the the first patent for a turbojet was granted in 1930. The standard designs of the 1950s were quite different due to a lot of development effort.

The centrifugal-compression jet engine was all but obsolete by 1960 even though aircraft like the USAF T37 continued to fly with them for at least another 30 years. A bunch of us have 6kHz hearing impairment from being oin or near the the "Tweet" for too long.

In other words, 'brilliance" needs to be defined by the then-current environment rather than the technology standards 90 years later.

[stanc]

There are those who still love the XM8

Hey, I fell in love with the M1 carbine at the age of 7, when my dad checked one out from the armory and brought it home on a Friday evening. (He had to pull guard duty that weekend, and the armory wouldn't be open on Saturday.) I thought it was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen.

Sixty-some years later, the M1 carbine is still my favorite military rifle. If I could have only one rifle for the rest of my life, it would be an M1 carbine.

[stanc]

They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.

Or did the technology and then-current design practice keep a better design from appearing?

The technology was not a limiting factor.

When John Garand began working on semi-auto rifles at Springfield Armory, the .30 Remington existed, as well as other cartridges which would have been suitable parent cases for an intermediate-power, assault rifle cartridge. In fact, during WWI the French created such an intermediate cartridge -- the 8mm Ribeyrolles -- for a prototype assault rifle.



At the time that M1 carbine development began, spitzer bullets had been standard in rifle ammo for more than three decades. It would have been a simple matter to have designed a spitzer bullet for the .30 Carbine round.

And as noted in post #31, the M1917 Winchester machine rifle had a "straight-line" stock.

So, the technology was available. But, the prevailing mindset prevented use of the technology.

Instead of developing an intermediate-power cartridge and designing a lightweight assault rifle, Garand made a heavy, battle rifle that fired a full-power round.

Instead of fitting the M1 rifle and M1 carbine with "straight-line" stocks, they were given the same old "drop-comb" type stocks that had been used for centuries.

(For any who might be interested, there's a related discussion in Tony Williams' forum: https://forums.delphiforums.com/auto...es/?msg=7217.1)

In other words, 'brilliance" needs to be defined by the then-current environment rather than the technology standards 90 years later.

I fully agree with that. I certainly don't fault the developers of that era for not creating things that came long after their time, like the SCHV concept, for instance.

But, to use ordinary "drop-comb" stocks? And round nose bullets in rifle ammo? I don't know how either could've been considered "brilliant" even 100 years ago.

[JASmith]

While we may have difficulty in putting ourselves in the minds of the M1 carbine designers, there is some logic to assuming that a low velocity (by rifle standards) pistol substitute would have round nosed bullets like the pistols it replaced.

The assumed effective range was close enough that a spire point would not have been judged to add enough to velocity retention to be useful. The the spire point round nose would have been seen as drilling through the target so would have been viewed as equal from a wound ballistics perspective.

[stanc]

While we may have difficulty in putting ourselves in the minds of the M1 carbine designers, there is some logic to assuming that a low velocity (by rifle standards) pistol substitute would have round nosed bullets like the pistols it replaced.

The assumed effective range was close enough that a spire point would not have been judged to add enough to velocity retention to be useful. The the spire point round nose would have been seen as drilling through the target so would have been viewed as equal from a wound ballistics perspective.

1. The M1 carbine was NOT intended to be a "pistol substitute." It is a RIFLE, and was meant to be a much more effective weapon than a pistol. I see no logic to handicapping its performance by using a round nose bullet.

2. You seem to have misread my post. I said SPITZER. Not "spire point," and definitely not "spire point round nose."

3. The assumed effective range was 300 yards. With MV of 1970 fps, I'd think that the difference in retained velocity between a bullet with ~0.16 BC and one with ~0.26 BC would be quite "useful" and very desirable.

4. A flat base spitzer bullet like that below exhibits early yaw after impact, producing superior wound ballistics compared to the round nose .30 Carbine bullet.

[JASmith]

[stanc]

Even in that period they were well aware of the ballistic superiority of spitzer bullets over round nose bullets, and bullet makers were just as capable of producing spitzer FMJ as round nose FMJ.

So, the idea that the designers did "the best they could" is inconsistent with the facts. The technology framework of that time could easily have supported manufacture of a more effective bullet.