The Carbine Collectors Club

Click on the image above to learn more about the M1 Carbine


Forum Home Forum Home > The Club > General Discussion > Fun Stuff
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


SIGNIFICANT M1 CARBINE QUESTION
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Louis Losi View Drop Down
On Point
On Point


Joined: Jan 04 2016
Location: New York State
Status: Offline
Points: 367 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Louis Losi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: SIGNIFICANT M1 CARBINE QUESTION
    Posted: Jan 09 2023 at 4:42pm
Why was the M1 carbine adopted as a carbine, not a rifle? If you're certain the 18 inch barrel defines the weapon as a carbine, you would be wrong! What explanation is there for the 14 inch barrel bolt action U.S. "RIFLE, SURVIVAL, CAL. .22, M4" being adopted as a rifle? What explanation is there for the 14 inch barrel over/under U.S. "RIFLE-SHOTGUN, SURVIVAL, CAL. .22/.410, M6" being adopted as a rifle? The explanation for the two survival weapons is simple, a carbine is a reduction of barrel length from the longer rifle version of the M4 or M6 survival weapons. The adoption of a new weapon begins as a rifle, shortning the barrel results in a carbine. The M4 and M6 survival weapons are rifles originally adopted only having 14 inch barrels. The M1 carbine was originally adopted only having an 18 inch barrel, therefore it is a rifle not a carbine. During the trials, the weapon was defined as a "light rifle". But adopted as a carbine? The question is, why wasn't the weapon adopted as a rifle? Had it been adopted as a rifle, it would have been designated "RIFLE, CAL. .30 M2". Does this M2 rifle designation imply it is replacing the M1 rifle? Would having an M1 and M2 rifle cause confusion regarding ammunition, parts and repair? I believe the Ordnance Department solution to the problems, should they occur, was to designate a weapon that is a rifle and and incorrectly adopt it as the M1 carbine.
Louis Losi   
Back to Top
Matt_X View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Nov 10 2020
Location: Phila, Penn
Status: Offline
Points: 770 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 09 2023 at 7:04pm
I'll start.
Yes we see carbines and fusils back to the 18th century that were essentially shortened muskets.

The M1 Carbine began as purpose built project at a time when military 'rifle cartridges' were necked down to the bullet.   The objectives of the project were for an intermediate weapon that excluded using that type of rifle round.  However the existing straight cased bullets did not have the range wanted for the new shorter, lighter personal defense weapon.  Therefore the program began with developing a new cartridge (based on an existing cartidge that was close to what was desired).

Of note. Within the past few months Paul Harrel released a video comparing .30 carbine to .357 magnum when shot from a Ruger Blackhawk.  It demonstrated that .30 carbine needs more barrel length than the .357 to develop its full velocity.  Not surprising since most commerical .357 is loaded for pistol use, and .30 carbine was designed for a barrel in the 16 to 20" length.
Back to Top
thirtyround View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Nov 14 2016
Location: NE Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 191 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thirtyround Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 09 2023 at 7:44pm
A little Humor here, Captain OCD,

Warning...Non-Technical jargon used...

At the time, US Ordnance probably would have appeared quit silly to claim the M1 Carbine a "Rifle", as mentioned, it wasn't designed to be a rifle of full capabilities, as the M1 Garand. General George Patton's declaration:

   *General George S. Patton, Jr., said of the gun, “In my opinion, the M1 rifle (Garand) is the greatest battle implement ever devised.”   

The M1 Garand and Springfield 03 were the measure of a fully capable infantry rifle, one just cant stack the M1 Carbine against that as any equivalent. Besides "Carbine" designates the actual rifle more that any definitions, Army Ordnance had its methodology, back then it worked well that way.    

That said the M1 and later M2 served quit well in every theater of combat effectively, its hard to not find one or lots of them in war photos from WW2 to Vietnam.

KYPD, JB
Back to Top
David Milisock View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Aug 03 2019
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 334 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Milisock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2023 at 10:07am
Originally posted by Matt_X Matt_X wrote:

I'll start.
Yes we see carbines and fusils back to the 18th century that were essentially shortened muskets.

The M1 Carbine began as purpose built project at a time when military 'rifle cartridges' were necked down to the bullet.   The objectives of the project were for an intermediate weapon that excluded using that type of rifle round.  However the existing straight cased bullets did not have the range wanted for the new shorter, lighter personal defense weapon.  Therefore the program began with developing a new cartridge (based on an existing cartidge that was close to what was desired).

Of note. Within the past few months Paul Harrel released a video comparing .30 carbine to .357 magnum when shot from a Ruger Blackhawk.  It demonstrated that .30 carbine needs more barrel length than the .357 to develop its full velocity.  Not surprising since most commerical .357 is loaded for pistol use, and .30 carbine was designed for a barrel in the 16 to 20" length.
I would add that the larger bore diameter allows faster powders to be used per bullet weight.  In a rifle length barrel the 357 lacks case capacity. 
David Milisock
Back to Top
David Milisock View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Aug 03 2019
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 334 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Milisock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2023 at 10:27am
Originally posted by David Milisock David Milisock wrote:

Originally posted by Matt_X Matt_X wrote:

I'll start.
Yes we see carbines and fusils back to the 18th century that were essentially shortened muskets.

The M1 Carbine began as purpose built project at a time when military 'rifle cartridges' were necked down to the bullet.   The objectives of the project were for an intermediate weapon that excluded using that type of rifle round.  However the existing straight cased bullets did not have the range wanted for the new shorter, lighter personal defense weapon.  Therefore the program began with developing a new cartridge (based on an existing cartidge that was close to what was desired).

Of note. Within the past few months Paul Harrel released a video comparing .30 carbine to .357 magnum when shot from a Ruger Blackhawk.  It demonstrated that .30 carbine needs more barrel length than the .357 to develop its full velocity.  Not surprising since most commerical .357 is loaded for pistol use, and .30 carbine was designed for a barrel in the 16 to 20" length.
I would add that the larger bore diameter allows faster powders to be used per bullet weight.  In a rifle length barrel the 357 lacks case capacity. 

Not only did the 30 Carbine serve effectively yesterday I ran a 30 round course of fire from 6 positions. 15, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 300 yards with one of my 30 Carbines (a Quality Hardware) a Stag Arms S1AR15 M4 clone with a16" barrel and my new Aero Precision AR 15 M43 in 6MM ARC with a 16" barrel.  All rifles had military iron sights.

Out to and including 50 yards the fire was from standing maneuvering position, 100 to 300 shots were taken prone, no bipods, timed.  Out to 100 yards shooting like someone might want to shoot back at you the old carbine did just as well as the other two.  

At 200 yards the 30 Carbine had a slightly larger group then the Stag Arms M4 clone, the Aero Precision M4E smoked them both.

At 300 yards the 30 Carbine was out of its league, the Stag Arms would have made 100% hits inside 18" the Aero Precision kept all its hits with in 10".

That's good performance for a piddly cartridge using about 15 grains of powder, shooting a round nose projectile about 2 calibers long in a rifle designed in a few months with no CAD, no digital calibers, no computers. Manufactured by a multitude of companies 80nyears ago with criss compatibility. 

BRAVO, well done!
David Milisock
Back to Top
New2brass View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Dan Pinto, Photo Editor

Joined: Nov 29 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 4656 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New2brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 10 2023 at 3:58pm
Originally posted by David Milisock David Milisock wrote:

[QUOTE=David Milisock]

no digital calibers,



I assume you meant caliper? I have several, but for measuring anything precise I reach for my Starett or Brown and Sharp micrometer from the era long gone by. Wink
Club Survey Saginaw Receivers
Back to Top
David Milisock View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Aug 03 2019
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 334 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Milisock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 9:47am
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:

Originally posted by David Milisock David Milisock wrote:

[QUOTE=David Milisock]

no digital calibers,



I assume you meant caliper? I have several, but for measuring anything precise I reach for my Starett or Brown and Sharp micrometer from the era long gone by. Wink
You bet. I'm amazed how the old M1 Carbine stands up today.  Granted mine (not being collectable) have had lots of TLC. Damn fine work to stand up 85 years later.
David Milisock
Back to Top
floydthecat View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps


Joined: Oct 13 2016
Location: Mississippi
Status: Offline
Points: 1998 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote floydthecat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 4:45pm
Unwavering objective to turn out a quality product. Very close and unforgiving scrutinization of the manufacturing process and the product. There were craftsman then and they built a weapon that had to shoot in all environments and last. They never faltered in insuring that, even to the degree of shutting down a prime, rejecting barrels by the thousands and making contractors share. Money was no object as well.

It’s hit-or-miss as to whether-or-not one can purchase a post war carbine that actually works and will last. They are out there, but you sometimes have to look for one. Current manufactures have to base a lot of what they produce on a price point, not quality. Some are merely marketing companies. 
Back to Top
David Milisock View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Aug 03 2019
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 334 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote David Milisock Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 6:01pm
The one thing that stuck out to me the most was the change in fee I got when I first handled my rebuilt carbines. It's best to remember that both of my rifles were arsenal rebuilds, if they served and where they served is unknown, but 79 years have past since the date on the one barrel and 80 years on the other.

Now these were not collectable rifles but they had great receivers and barrels. The slides were OK and the modern version far enough along that the changes for resolving extraction issues were done. 

The rifles were pulled apart and decreased, every spring replaced, bolts replaced,  firing pin, one hammer was replaced. Head spaced and test fired.

The rifles felt like new rifles, they function like new rifles. 
David Milisock
Back to Top
Matt_X View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Nov 10 2020
Location: Phila, Penn
Status: Offline
Points: 770 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 7:28pm
You're going to confuse the opening question calling them rifles!  LOL

And speaking of those opening questions...
I know little of the naming protocols of 1940-41.
My guess is that naming was due to the cartridges.
The sub-machine guns used pistol calibers, .45 ACP for us.
The short barrelled survival rifles used .22 Long Rifle, so for clarity in the logistic loop, maybe it just made sense to go with rifle.   ???
The new short, light rifle was also ".30 caliber" but clearly not .30-06  So I agree that its reasonable guess the ammo is named differently for clarity in the logistic loop.
Unfortunately we know that at least once, such a FU occured at least once in the Korean War.
Back to Top
Louis Losi View Drop Down
On Point
On Point


Joined: Jan 04 2016
Location: New York State
Status: Offline
Points: 367 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Louis Losi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 9:49pm
Originally posted by Matt_X Matt_X wrote:

You're going to confuse the opening question calling them rifles!  LOL
and speaking of those opening questions...
The short barrelled survival rifles used .22 Long Rifle, so for clarity in the logistic loop, maybe it just made sense to go with rifle.   ???

The M4 survival rifle and M6 survival rifle/shotgun in the opening post are not .22 Long Rifle. They are the centerfire .22 Hornet cartridge.
Louis Losi
Back to Top
Matt_X View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Nov 10 2020
Location: Phila, Penn
Status: Offline
Points: 770 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 10:03pm
Thank you. By design then I would think those very much are a 'rifle cartridge' although not a high powered one in the sense the military uses.
Back to Top
thirtyround View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Nov 14 2016
Location: NE Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 191 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thirtyround Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 11 2023 at 10:07pm
The M4 and M6 were produced, from my research, from 1952 - early 1970's, for a very small application of use within DOD. Both being specifically designed for one specific purpose, as a "survival Rifle", my understanding as for aircrews. Even though short barreled, a designation as a "carbine" because of barrel length had no bearing on aspect of purpose, use or definition. It was unnecessary and of no concern, as it is not a service wide issue weapon, but one of a limited specific task and function. The "M4 & M6" designation was enough to categorize the firearm, from others weapon within DOD. Just my 2 cents worth, JB    
Back to Top
New2brass View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Dan Pinto, Photo Editor

Joined: Nov 29 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 4656 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote New2brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 11:37am
The M4 and M6 designation mean nothing without the nomenclature.
If you said "hand me an M6" you may wind up with a bayonet or maybe a Sherman tank or a dozen other things.

There is the M1, M1a1, M2, M3 carbines that we know and love. The M4 carbine is a M16 variant. So the survival M4 is not a carbine. I believe a rifle, or Rifle, Survival? I have not found a TM for this.

The M6 is neither a carbine or a rifle as per the ORD 9 SNL B-45 nomenclature:
Rifle-Shotgun, Survival, Cal. .22/410 Gage, M6

It is alleged that the M4 and M6 survival rifle/rifle-shotguns used an oiler from the M1 carbine. Has anyone seen any documentation to confirmed this?
Club Survey Saginaw Receivers
Back to Top
Matt_X View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Nov 10 2020
Location: Phila, Penn
Status: Offline
Points: 770 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 12:00pm
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:

It is alleged that the M4 and M6 survival rifle/rifle-shotguns used an oiler from the M1 carbine. Has anyone seen any documentation to confirmed this?


How about this Air Force manual cited and photographed here:
https://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/352047-carbine-oiler-question/
Back to Top
thirtyround View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Nov 14 2016
Location: NE Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 191 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thirtyround Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 12:19pm
interesting and informative article on the M4 Survival rifle

https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1296
Back to Top
thirtyround View Drop Down
On Point
On Point
Avatar

Joined: Nov 14 2016
Location: NE Arkansas
Status: Offline
Points: 191 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote thirtyround Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 12:23pm
M6 Article

https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1297
Back to Top
New2brass View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Dan Pinto, Photo Editor

Joined: Nov 29 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 4656 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New2brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 12:25pm
Matt, good stuff!
But it does not specifically tie it to the M4 or M6 survival weapons, It was included in a survival kit.
Though a survival kit may have had one of those weapons, could the kit have had alternate weapons?
Keep in mind I am looking to affirm or deny previously printed information that the oilers were supplied with those weapons.
Now knowing the survival kits contained oilers, maybe we can dig to see what oilers were included.
This may be a clue into the SW oilers. Wink
Club Survey Saginaw Receivers
Back to Top
New2brass View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Dan Pinto, Photo Editor

Joined: Nov 29 2015
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 4656 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote New2brass Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 12:31pm
@thirtyround,
Thanks for the links. There are also wiki pages and fandom pages on the weapons.
I would like to find actual USGI information as many pages may not have all the information, or correct information.
The M6 manual is out there in PDF form.
It was awhile back when I searched, but I found no mentions of the m4 in publications I searched. I am sure something is out there!
I did contact a seller of an M4 and was told there was no provision for holding an oiler.
Club Survey Saginaw Receivers
Back to Top
Matt_X View Drop Down
Hard Corps
Hard Corps
Avatar

Joined: Nov 10 2020
Location: Phila, Penn
Status: Offline
Points: 770 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Matt_X Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jan 12 2023 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:

Though a survival kit may have had one of those weapons, could the kit have had alternate weapons?
 

Going by the way RWW wrote it. "The Air Force put a carbine oiler in Survival Kits when there was a rifle packed in them." By his statement the oiler was only included when a rifle was packed in.

We don't know for sure if that information is from the Personal Equipment Officers Manual (AFM 64-6 Oct 1954) or another source.

We could ask RWW.  He seems the sort that is very much into documenting information.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.