This is my rifle

From a letter in the link above:

"In Korea, troops found that carbine bullets often failed to penetrate heavy winter clothing worn by Chinese soldiers."

Not a bullet from a Garand, but from am M1 carbine. Many rear echelon troops armed with carbines ended up in combat in Korea.

David

Not a surprise. The .30 carbine round is half as powerful as a 30-30 round and is just a bit better than a .357 magnum pistol round.

The M1 Garand on the other hand uses a 30-06 round. 3+ times as powerful and far more accurate.

I did read that letter later. I didn't realize that there is that much difference between M1 carbine and M1 garand. But it's still a firearm, and I have to think that range matters.

I did some research. Apparently the limitations of the M1 carbine are well known: .

Joe Gwinn

The difference in power is huge. When I was a kid in PA, the .30 cal. M1 carbine was not legal for deer hunting, because it was underpowered. No .22 centerfires were allowed, either.

Here's an interesting anecdote, which I didn't see in the HBO series "The Pacific," which otherwise was almost the exact story my dad told me about WWII in the South Pacific. My dad was a sergeant in the First Marine Division, first landing at Guadalcanal, and all that.

They were issued '03 Springfields, not M1 Garands (my dad had a Thompson after the first day -- there were plenty of them lying in the hands of dead Marines). Anyway, after they'd been there a few weeks, they got a shipment of M1 carbines. The Marines in his unit -- I don't know if this was at the platoon level or above -- tried them out for three days. Then they walked down to the beach and threw them in the ocean.

In "The Pacific," there were plenty of M1 Garands at Guadalcanal, as well as some carbines. But my dad told me they never got Garands until they shipped out of Guadalcanal. They were using '03s and Thompsons until they left.

AFAIK the Army arrived with Garands in October 1942, and used them in the assault on Mt Wilson, but the fierce early fighting was Springfield vs Arisaka.

jsw

Yeah, my dad said that it was the army that had the Garands, until after the Marines left Guadalcanal. But some Marine units there may well have had them. He was talking about his unit, without specifying what he meant by that.

BTW, I shot M1 carbines in an organized competition that was co-sponsored by the NRA and the Police Athletic League. I was 13 at the time, and it was called the "Junior DCM." I don't know what involvement the DCM had, except to supply us with beat-up carbines and free ammo.

I recall the first time we shot them outdoors, at 50 yards. I had three or four Sharpshooter bars by that time with small bore rifles, but I shot one of the carbines prone at 50 yd. and shots were scattered all over the paper. I never grew to like that gun at all.

I was under the impression that the M1 was intended as a replacement for a pistol - not for long range shooting.

Mt Austen, not Wilson. I shouldn't post from memory, but Google isn't very much help.

jsw

The garand and the carbine were both known as M1 but very different in capability. Your impression of the M1 carbine is correct -- a bit better than a pistol but it was no rifle.

That's what I thought, Don. It was intended to be a high power accurate PISTOL (replacement). It was never intended to compete with the Garand as a real rifle.

It apparently evolved from this, a marginally effective deer cartridge (as is the current .223):

OTOH, I recall reading that it was Audie Murphy's preferred weapon.

"Man finds a lot of virtues in a weapon does that." Said by a soon to be minted 2LT, on hearing that a weapon he had disparaged had save the life of the Vet he was talking with.

tschus pyotr

Might have been, on the other hand his Medal of Honor citation says that he used a .50 caliber and a telephone with an artillery battery on the other end of it.

Most of the actions he described here were close-range infantry gun battles:

As I remember it, the originally stated reason was that the carbine was a replacement for rear echelon troops who had previously been issued the Colt 1911 as it was proving difficult, or impossible, to train troops to be even marginally effective with the 1911 in a reasonable length of time.

-- John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

I remember it as a replacement for the pistol for officers in fighting units.

Dan

could have been. I was quoting from something I read when they first issued the things. Stated to be a substitute for the 1911. Subsequently it was the official personal weapon issued to Air Force troops so the A.F. guys in Korea had carbines and the rest of the troops had grown-up guns :-)

-- John B. Slocomb (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

"J. Clarke" on Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:39:28 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Well, those work,too. And I did say "preferred" weapon. I mean it wasn't like he insisted that there was only one true firearm for shooting the enemy. Just that Ma-deuce and arty are not too handy for use as a personal weapon, but "what ever works."