Talk:M1 carbine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Random comment

I'd like to add that Greece also used this weapon, and she continues to use it (I'm not sure which variant exactly) to this day with the air force ground forces.

Reasons for Reversions

• Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.
• Changed stuff for grammar/capitalization/hyphenation/readability problems
• I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.
• The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.
• If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.
• If no evidence for blunt bullets being more damaging can be provided, I think that reference should be removed, as the stuff I've read on terminal ballistics indicates the opposite.
• I think the bit on whether or not the carbine is an assault rifle is a useful addition to that section.

Ergbert 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

*Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.

I can't say I agree its misleading since it was talking about the round, but I changed it.

*I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.

Muzzle energy is talked about as well. Muzzle velocity is very important however, as slower heavier bullets and faster lighter bullet of the same muzzle energy have different ballistics.

*The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.

Its pretty self explanatory- any number of post-war .30 carbine pistols, for example.

*If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.

As you acknowledge, at its maximum listed range it still has the initial power of a small pistol. Unfortunetly the site that showed some tests for this is down currently. Needless to say the effect was nil, but there is nothing I cand find in the interim. Ve3 06:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried again to make an edit that's acceptable to both of us. I think the stuff that we both think we're right about ('stopping power' & how easy the bullet is to stop) should probably just not be mentioned until we get conclusive proof. If the external link comes online again, then IMO it should probably go back into the article, but I think as we have no idea for how long it'll be down, it should be left out now.

FWIW, I also did some work on .30 Carbine. Ergbert 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Conjecture I agree we can cull out, but the numerical comparisons are objective. I would not read to much into what I think of its 'power', it was indeed a 'weak' stopper. However, its all relative, and this quality tends to become overblown;it was still nasty to get hit with. As with most rounds, shot placement is key. If you have read pointed heads increase wounding in their terminal impact, this, I would like to see. The only way I know of pointed heads being more effective, is not in terminal ballistics, but overall, because they dont loose as much energy to drag, or if they fragment.

As for the link, it should stay. Books cannot be visted from the page either, but can be mentioned in articles. If your interested I can send you the page or images from the test (which I had saved when it was up). If you have any good info, especially solid data that has had a impact on your views, I am just as interested in that. Ve3 22:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to numerical comparisons, but to inaccurate statements (such as "which is about double most sub-machine guns") and grammatical/spelling errors (which are a large part of why I'm trying to modify the text I wrote to be acceptable to you instead of modifying the text you wrote to be acceptable to me).

As for the terminal ballistics of pointed bullets, here is a quick quote from Wikipedia's bullet article (that I haven't contributed to, in case that matters): All pointed non-expanding bullets tumble after impact with flesh as their spin is unsufficient to stabilize their flight in a material denser than air, and if the jacket is relatively thin this results in G-forces sufficient to cause the bullet to break into two or more pieces and vastly increases the wounding effectiveness of the bullet's impact. The effect is very similar to that of a hollow-point bullet.

Subsonic bullets with rounded fronts often ricochet off their target if it is at an angle. To overcome this problem wadcutters or semi wadcutters were developed with flattened noses, or "hollow point", with a concave nose. As the flat nose interferes with feeding a self-loading gun, full wadcutters are usually only shot from revolvers or single-shot guns. A variation is to have a ring of small teeth, covered by a soft plastic nose so that the bullet will feed correctly in self-loading guns. The teeth engage a sloping surface.

I still think the link shouldn't be there, but I really don't want to continue ripping apart each other's edits, so for now I'll just change the text there...Ergbert 03:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks for explaining. I found 1 spelling error and I got rid of the iffy 'double' (that had been meant to reference .45 smgs). As for the w. bullet article, it has very serious issues, as do those quotes. I highly recommend [1] or even the wikipeida page on terminal ballistics over that.

Just to start: Any kind of bullet can tumble, not just pointed ones. Pointed bullets do not always tumble either. Breaking apart is mainly a function of the material, the impact velocity, and the bullet. When bullets do break apart there can be a higher effectiveness like hollow points, though whats happening is different than how hollow points work.

Pointed bullets tend to have less drag, especially at supersonic velocities, but this is a separate issue from the velocity they are fired at. At sea level the speed of sound is often around 330-350 m/s. This means most of the time everything from the higher power 9 mm SMG's, to nearly every service rifle for past century and beyond, fires its bullets at supersonic speeds.

Bullets can indeed ricochet, but this is neither unique to subsonic bullets, or rounded heads, and is rarely if ever a issue when hitting anything remotely soft. The main point of wad-cutters and flat heads is not to 'dig in', but so the bullet expands and creates a larger hole. The point of plastic beads is generally to make sure it opens up, and is not filled in with a material that does not open it (such as clothes). The point of teeth is usually to get the bullet as it expands to break into 'petals' in a uniform way, to further increase the hole size. Many special rounds can indeed have trouble feeding in auto-loaders, that is a valid point. Ve3 05:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia bullet article isn't where I first read pointed bullets tend to tumble, just a convenient source to give you. I don't know where I first read it, but two sources that I know say pointed bullets tend to tumble (tend to, not are the only ones to) are [2] and this book.

Also, this has mostly been about my objections to text in the article. What are your objections to the Design text in this version of the artcle? Ergbert 23:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between the design of specific pointed bullets that tumble, and if that feature causes it to tumble. It is very true that there many pointed bullet designs that are intended to tumble, however, many jacketed round-nose bullets also tumble. Features that impact this, such as center of mass, stability, jacket, composition, impact velocity, etc. are very important. The specific shape of the head has a impact, but it does not mean it alone causes a round to tumble. There is a big difference between the effect of changing a single feature (say, a pointed 9mm) and comparing that to actual rounds designed with this feature, because those round also have many other traits. It is just not that simple a connection, and it is different to talk about pointed rounds, versus the impact of that feature on a given round.

In anycase, I will agree that it is not good to simplify effects in general, as it is too open to interpretation;that should be taken out. As for what things you have said I disagree with, it is not much actually. Aside from the things already discussed, it is more a matter of the things you are removing and some of the wordings. I have not made straight reverts, but changed things you or I have taken issue with, the idea to eventually have a hybrid version that is acceptable. Ve3 18:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A bullet that is more round tends to improve stopping power. The energy of the round is imparted upon the target rather than allowing the bullet to carry through. When in close quarters, the force of the bullet is better used to stop an attacker rather than poke a hole in him.

M2 under variants

I believe the M2, selective-fire model had a slightly different stock; the so-called "fishbelly" stock. Perhaps it should be added. 68.116.112.125 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Potbelly and, no, the hundreds of variations in stock and part style do not need to be mentioned. It wasn't unique to the M2, either.--Asams10 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. An article I recently read referred to it as "fishbelly" (though I've found "potbelly" more commonly referenced) and indicated that it was developed for the M2 due to it's full-auto capability. I believe it was G&A's Surplus Arms magazine. If it was not unique to the M2, then indeed it shouldn't be listed. If it was originally developed for the M2, perhaps a note should be added. 68.116.112.125 19:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Bruce Canfield, the pot-belled stock was developed for the M2. However, the stock was also used when M1 were refurbished. D.E. Watters 20:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I believe it may be beneficial to add a single line reference to this development, but if the others do not agree, it's certainly not that important. Thanks again. 68.116.112.125 21:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be informative to add a single line in this regard, since it explains why the pot-bellied stock could now be encountered on M1s, as well as explaining when and why a variant in the original design came about.--Ana Nim 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I made this point well enough, but this is a collector's curiosity, not anything substantial or even really notable. There are also half a dozen variations in the M1 Garand stock that, while of interest to the collector, are relatively minor and have no bearing on anything real or imagined. If it were a change to the design of the gun or if it changed nomenclature ( as in M1903 vs. M1903A1) then it would be significant. We can list about a dozen stock but it would serve no purpose here. This is not a blog, forum, or collector's corner, it is an encyclopedia.--Asams10 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

However, if you've got any references to the contrary, I'd be interested to read through them.--Asams10 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, here is the reference to "fish-belly" stock [3]. 66.191.19.217 04:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, your reference mis-spells the manufacturer "Irwin Pedersen". You'd expect the rest of the information in there to be crap as well.--Asams10 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No one said Guns & Ammo magazine always gets it right, though funny the author didn't catch that one. BTW, you misspelled misspell, so I guess we all make typos now and again. Best wishes. 66.191.19.217 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC) :^)

I cann get aways with mizspellin stuf cuz I downt git payd four et. He also made a SERIOUS error by calling it a "Fish-Belly" stock (which is actually a term used to describe another style not related to the M1 Caribine). Bad reference whatever way you look at it. Including the Pot-Belly stock requires that you include other stock variations and that you get the reason for the change correct. The Pot-belly stock, IIRC, was introduced to reduce the time needed on the shaping machine, NOT, as you say, for reinforcement. It takes less time to shape it with the pot-belly than it does with the tapered contour. Can't provide a reference, but that's what I read somewhere and that's also more logical given the M2 parts were not located where the change in stock contour was... again IIRC. Does anybody have "War Baby" by Collector Grade Publications? Might be able to shed some light on the situation.--Asams10 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm famililar with War Baby, L Ruth (1992), but I don't have a copy handy. I'll leave that and the reference below (Riesch) to you and other contributors to research further. 66.191.19.217 13:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have found additional information. The M2 "potbelly" stock was a deliberate redesign of the stock and not a simple manufacturing variation. As it was one of the modifications that was part of the M2 development and therefore the weapons systems evolution, I believe a single sentence would be in order. I leave the information for whomever and the consensus to decide to add it or not. Goodbye & God bless.66.191.19.217 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Source:

"Type V: The Type V stock was the late production M2 Carbine stock. It was shaped so that the bottom portion between the magazine well and the barrel band swelled outward, giving the stock a "potbelly" appearance. The additional wood provided the strength lost when internal areas were milled away to accept the select fire M2 parts. The stock manufactured after World War II was standardized as the Type V and used to repair both M1 and M2 Carbines."

U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production, 5th Revised and Expanded Edition, page 104, by Craig Riesch, ISBN: 1882391438, North Cape Publications, Inc., 2007

• The terms fishbelly and potbelly are a source of confusion: fishbelly refers to a convex underbelly of the butt between the toe and wrist; potbelly refers to a convex underbelly of the forearm between the wrist and the forearm tip. The M1 and M2 stocks have a fairly straight profile from toe to the pistol grip at the wrist: they do not have a noticeable fishbelly. The M1 carbine has a straight profile from wrist to forearm tip. The M2 has a noticeable potbelly profile from wrist to forearm tip. M2 stocks also have clearance cuts for the fire selector switch on the left side of the inletting for the receiver which is lacking in the M1 and M1A1 stocks (I have seen M1 and M1A1 stocks altered to accept the M2 switch). Internal inletting for the M2 "rocker" between the disconnector and slide is less obvious. M2 parts such as the potbelly stock were later standard replacement parts for the M1, M1A1 and M2 carbines in inventory. The M2 forearm is noticeably more robust than the M1. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (My sources include (published) books by Larry Ruth and W.H.B. Smith and US Army tech manual as well as OR: owning a carbine and shooting in vintage military matches, where I have encountered several original carbines. There are three distinctive carbine stock styles: M1, M1A1 and M2 with minor differences depending on variations authorized to subcontractors.)

Hezi SM-1 Bullpup PDW

I know the Hezi SM-1 is a bullpup version of the M1 Carbine, How long has it been used in the IDF?User:EX STAB 00:29 April 1st, 2007 (UTC)

It has never been in use with the IDF. The fact that its made in Israel does not mean that it's in use with the IDF. -- Thatguy96 04:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion/Non-inclusion of various commercial makers

I submit that Universal and National Ordnance guns should be included in the list of commercial versions. While someone may be of the opinion that National Ordnance M-1 carbines are of inferior quality, that does not make them any less an M-1 carbine. The receivers for these guns were made by National Ordnance (and stamped M-1) with the remainder of the gun assembled by the company from surplus GI parts. This practice still fits within the ATF guidelines of manufacturing a firearm. The National Ordnance guns also have complete interchangeability of parts with all the other military & commercial makers except for Universal. Here on Wikipedia, a neutral bias and point of view is the goal. Stating that Natl Ord shouldn't be included on a list of makers because someone's opinion is that they don't function very well seems to demonstrate a bias and non-neutral point of view. Universal carbines are also a completely separate maker. The guns are stamped M-1 and are very close in appearance to the rest of the M-1 carbines. A few of the Universal's parts are interchangeable with the other makers. I submit that a Universal M-1 carbine is merely a modified version of the same gun and not a separate firearm. While I may agree that Universal carbines are not necessarily of the highest quality, I don't think it's a neutral stance to bar its inclusion on the list simply because of that opinion. I understand that there are some purists who do not consider ANY of the commercial versions to be true M-1 carbines. That is why they are differentiated by being listed as commercial (basically post-war) versions. Sf46 (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally attacking me by using the term "Someone" does not make your argument right. Further, your arguments are not very strong so I'm not going to bother sparing with you... really... you make the assumption that a Universal made "carbine" is an M1 Carbine... get real. --Asams10 (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I use the term "someone" because I'm not trying to call anyone out or make any personal attacks. I still assert that instead of continually reverting the article, that the issued should have been discussed here. Now it's a matter for the admins to decide.Sf46 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, it's not a matter of revert and throwing a tantrum to get your way. You have to back up your position. You edited the article on the 21st of December to add Commercial manufacturers, however inverstment casting a receiver and stamping a serial number on a pile of metal is not encyclopedic. You must defend your position HERE on the talk page, not by ramrodding your edits through. --Asams10 (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I asked you several times (unsucessfully) to bring this disagreement to discussion (as evidenced in the edit comment logs)[4] [5] [6]. I also think I stated my case about the article needing to be non-biased per Wikipedia policy. Simply deleting information about a maker because one doesn't like the quality of that maker's product doesn't seem non-biased to me. Sf46 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have now protected it in whatever form I found it. Please discuss the problems here and come up with a consensus. I suggest dropping a note at WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST for input. Woody (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments and observations

I was asked to comment on this by Sf46. I am not familiar enough with the M-1 Carbine and its history to be comfortable giving an opinion below. I will, however, make some observations:

1. Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but as far as I understand them, BATFE rules would classify both Universal and National as manufacturers
2. Contrary to his claim, Asams10’s edit summaries ([7] and [8]) do appear to be opinions
3. Sources need to be supplied to justify either editor’s position

Both editors need to step away and read WP:3RR, as they have both violated it during this disagreement. I hope to see this resolved in a calm manner after the page protection is lifted. —Travis^talk 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Travis. I'm going to unprotect on the Universal/national included version, and if the edit war continues I'm going to start blocking. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Done

Unprotected on the included version. Asams10, you have a bad history of edit warring your own opinion in when you're the only one or the extreme minority who hold it, as you did on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles back post-virginia tech shooting. You've been warned before, and it's pretty clear that the consensus is well against you here. Further edit warring will result in a block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. My bad. You're also quite biased as you have a history with me. --Asams10 (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. Not sure which section to post this in now, but I don't think all the voters in the poll understood what they were voting for. I would also have voted for inclusion in the article, but I thought the fight was over the infobox??? Let me tweak it a little and see what we can come up with while it's still a fresh issue. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I created a new section and just linked to it from the infobox. This also leaves more room for additional information (and references) while at the same time not given undue weight to the commercial copies in the infobox. — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and seems to fit the consensus. --John (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deon Steyn's edit looks good to me as well. Sf46 (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the "Commercial" section, but the "Hunting and civilian use" and "Current production" sections need to be cleaned up to move the references to the copies in those sections to "Commercial." GMan552 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus Vote

Here's the vote so far on whether National Ordnance and Universal M-1 Carbines should stay included in the article under commercial versions:

For Including:

• sf46 Sf46 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I believe that they should be included in the article as they pertain to it. Perhaps under a sub heading like : "Commercial Versions" , maybe? Dreamafter ^⇔ 19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• If under a commerical heading If put into a section in article called comerical heading, not infoboxBonesBrigade 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• They are manufacturers of modern Carbines and I believe they should have a role in the article. There are only so many WWII M1 Carbines available. Just because they are not the best doesn't mean they don't deserve the mention. If that's the case, let's get rid of Hi-Point firearms or any less than reliable gun that have not been adopted by Military or LE. --Chinese3126 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I would like to add that many gun users use Wikipedia for information. If they would like to purchase an M1 Carbine, which is pretty popular, they know they can find commercial versions in addition to military versions. This article should include everything possible. --Chinese3126 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm for including this information in the article, under a heading like "modern commercial manufacture" or some such thing. I'm not in favor of the placement in the infobox, because even with only the undisputed items, that field is already too long. A better idea is to limit the length of that item (with more information in an obvious place in the article) than to stuff everything into one infobox field. Further, placement in the article would make this information more amenable to discussion of the quality issue. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I agree - all the commercial variations should be included in a subsection. Certainly several of these variations were of questionable quality (double-spring Universals, anyone?) and the fact that these were of post-World War 2 production and *not* made for U.S. military contracts should be made clear. Alternatively, a separate article could be the answer, similar to the M16 rifle and AR-15, with links in each article referring to the other. GMan552 (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I would be okay with the inclusion, provided it was stated that they are by rights, not true M1 carbines, but commercial look-a-likes and copies, and that they are not included in the infobox.--LWF (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly agree with Gavia's statement. They do, in my mind, have a place in the article, but only under the appropriate heading. They also should be kept out of the infobox, as it is not in any way necessary and would add to an already lengthy display. PeteShanosky 21:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think they should be included but listed as commerical copies per LWF. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to leave them out, but if they need to be included it needs to happen under a "commercial" or "clone" section. FWIW the Universal Enforcer was a dogturd with a pistolgrip.--Mike Searson (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Include. Other articles concerning military firearms (such as Jungle Carbine and M1911 pistol make mention of non-military use versions of a particular military design. I see nothing wrong with continuing that standard. Besides, owners or researchers looking for general info on the M1 carbine may assume that any M1 automatically was military-issue, and including information on other production would help others avoid mistaking non-military weapons for military ones. TeamZissou (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'd have to be for it too. Their mention should stay in the civilian section. Goldfishsoldier (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I'm for including the Universal and National Ordinance versions as commercial versions, but I don't think they should be in the info box. I'm with sf46 arguments above. Nburden ^(T) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I see no problem with mentioing the Universal/NA models as Commercial Variants, provided it's stressed that these are basically modern-day copies and were never Military issue. As has been pointed out, this works very well in other articles, and there's no reason not to apply it here. --Commander Zulu (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Of course. Otherwise the AR-15 series is going to be a mess, among other things. Does it match the design? It's a M-1 Carbine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Against Including:

• Asams10
• Article yes, infobox no, because these were not made for or used by the U.S. military. Any standards could have been followed. I can cook something up in my garage and call it an M1, but it wouldn't be. A copy is not the same as the official version. These listings already clash with the year of manufacture. Perhaps a small note called copies can be added and wikilinked to an article section. — Deon Steyn (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No opinion:

• User:John, but it's worth remembering that edit-warring over stuff like this is liable to get you blocked without further warning per WP:3RR. Using a misleading edit summary like "rvv" while edit-warring over a minor point of style is unsupportable. Don't do it. Instead continue to elicit wider opinion towards a consensus. If necessary consider using WP:DR if there is a clash of personalities which is holding up progress on the article. --John (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just can't let it go, can you? --Asams10 (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look. Don't misuse edit summaries, don't revert war. Seriously. --John (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Asams10, John is only repeating policy, and in a completely neutral manner I might add. I will echo those sentiments, I protected the page instead of blocking you both for 3RR. Edit summaries should be indicative of the changes to the page. That being said, I think you have been admonished enough for that, and it should be forgiven. Remember that discussion and cooperation is what Wikipedia is built on. Woody (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also no opinion vis-à-vis inclusion, but please see my comments above. —Travis^talk 20:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Other calibers?

If the Spitfire cartridge commercial variant is mentioned, shouldn't the article also include the .256 Win. Magnum, as in the Universal "Ferret"?--Ana Nim (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. It should mention the spitfire, but only as a footnote in the text. Just because some gunsmith chambered the gun in a caliber, that doesn't make it an offered caliber. I can chamber the rifle in anything I want, that does not make it encyclopedic. And, as has been stated before, the Universals weren't real carbines by the time they made them in .256. --Asams10 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a production caliber, IIRC, not a "gunsmith" chambering, so your comment is off base. And you've already been soundly voted down on your opinion that Universals were not M1 Carbines. They may have been poor quality, but they were still carbines, and they were factory chambered in .256. Does anybody else have any useful input into this issue?--Ana Nim (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Voted down on what opinion? Follow the edit summaries and look at who put my name in the 'against' column... I was and always have been against includsion of Universal as a major producer of M1 Carbines. They were far down the list of 45-odd makers that slapped parts onto rewelded or cast receivers. In fact, they were so unsuccessfull in obtaining parts, they quickly moved to redesigning the gun to use more cheap, shoddy cast parts with little to no testing involved... anything it took to make the guns cheaper. Were you there? I was. The M1 Carbine was converted to 9mm Federal Magnum, 9mm Luger, 9x21, 22 magnum, and numerous other calibers by gunsmiths over the years. In fact, to varrying degrees of success and greater numbers than the .256. IIRC, less than 100 guns were produced of any variant. Other than the Spitfire, none was successful including the .256. Of course, this is all original research... I was there. Were you? Prove that any of these were encyclopedic. Please, provide references and numbers. My memory isn't perfect... I could be off by a few percentage points. I say it all the time, just because I'm abrasive doesn't mean I'm not right. Please separate your feelings and emotions from the reality. --Asams10 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who needs to separate feelings from reality. You cannot seem to grasp that we are not talking about gunsmith conversions. We're not talking about gunsmith conversions. Got that now? Can it be any more plain? And it seems that despite all your self-described "abrasive" bluster, you cannot dispute that Universal produced a factory variant of the M1 Carbine in .256. Since you can't, concede the point and just get over it.--Ana Nim (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I do know of and have a few printed sources about a gunsmith who converted several hundred milsurp m1 carbines to 45 WinMag. He built a real slick looking stock to mount them in and did demos at the SHOT Show and SOF conventions before he passed away. 45 WinMag uses the same rim diameter and was how AMT was able to offer the Automag 3 (in 30 carbine) and Automag 4 in 45 WinMag by utilizing the same extractors, etc. The question is, how do we define "production" vs wildcat..several hundred units or several thousand? FFL manufacturer vs hobbyist tinkering in his garage?--Mike Searson (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair question. I am not talking about an aftermarket conversion, like the LeMag. I am talking about a factory variant. As best I can recall, Universal itself manufactured the .256 version, marketed as the Ferret. This would distinguish it clearly from aftermarket conversions.--Ana Nim (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main thrust of this article appears to be the military version. If the Ferret does not merit its own article, I would suggest a mention underneath commercial manufacturers. e.g: "In addition, Universal manufactured a variant chambered in .256 and sold as 'the Ferret'". etc if number of units made can be mentioned, years produced, etc...incorporate that with appropriate sources. I'm only vaguely familiar with this model...M1's don't do it for me.--Mike Searson (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Universal notes

Asams, instead of putting the information you want about Universal in a reference statement that drops down to a note, why not put the info in the article next to the Universal listing and then reference that info to whatever website you found it on? Sf46 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

1) It breaks up the continuity of the article. 2) It's important, but not enough to interrupt people's enjoyment of the article. If they want to know, the info is there. 3) I don't think it should be left out for fear that somebody will buy a Universal New Carbine thinking it's genuine. --Asams10 (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Compare to Garand?

What is this weapon's weight and size (its reputed advantage) compared to the M1 Garand? --Blainster 20:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

comparing the two is silly; there is very little common to both rifles except a similar appearance. two entirely different purposes, calibers, audiences, etc. Avriette 16:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• This is a legitimate question.

The reason for the development of the "light rifle" was to provide a weapon superior to the handgun for troops whose mission would not allow them to carry a full size rifle. So a comparison is valid. Garand 43.6 inches, 24 inch barrel, weight 9.5 to 10 pounds, 8 round en-bloc clip; Carbine 35.5 inches overall, 18 inch barrel, weight 5.2 to 6 pounds, 15 shot detachable box magazine; The variance in weight is due to the difference in the density of wood. The .30-06 round of the Garand has nearly three times the energy of the .30 carbine. The only other short shoulder arm in general issue at the time was the Thompson Submachinegun which weighed 12 pounds, heavier than the Garand.Naaman Brown (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cartridge

• The M3 and M1 Thompson fired bullets at a significantly lower speed than most other SMGs; the Sten and MP40 had muzzle velocities of around 365m/s, the Owen and Beretta M1938A had MVs of around 420m/s, and at the high end of the scale the PPSh-41 had an MV of about 490m/s.
• I don't know of any assault rifles that used slower ammunition than the M1. 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 5.8x42, 6x60, 6.5x50SR, 6.5x52, 6.5x55, 7x49, 7.62x39, 7.62x45, 7.92x33 (cartridges that saw service), 4.32x46, 4.6x36, 4.7x21, 4.85x49, 5.56x33, 5.56x52, 5.56x63, 5.6x44, 5.6x48, 6x45, 6.25x43, 6.35x48, 6.35x52, 6.45x48, 6.8x43, 6.8x46, 6.8x52, 7x43, 7x51, and 7.92x40 (cartridges that didn't) ammunition all have greater muzzle velocities than the M1's 7.62x33 ammunition, with advantages of 110m/s at the slowest (7.92x33 Kurz) to 2,460m/s at the fastest (6.8x52 Homologous).
• I'm fairly certain blunt noses don't increase "hitting power"; a pointed bullet will create a larger permanent cavity.
• A longer barrel only increases range up to a certain point.
• Specific info on the ballistic tests mentioned would be appreciated, as everything I've read on the subject supports the idea of heavy winter clothing, at least under certain conditions, functioning as body armor against the M1.

Ergbert 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find more info on blunt vs pointed bullets, and it seems a blunt bullet may produce more damage at the surface but less after penetration. I've found almost nothing on the subject, though. Ergbert 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't know the ballistic coefficient for the carbine's ammo, but running the ammo through a few ballistic calculators with an estimate, it looks like at 300 yards it has about as much energy as a Nambu pistol does at the muzzle...Less than most pistols, AFAIK. Ergbert 19:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Just an aside from an amateur ballistician with access to military hardware -- The .45 ACP would collapse a US WW2 military steel helmet, but not puncture it. The .30 carbine would puncture the helmet both entering and exiting. Thewellman (talk) 05:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} This article is currently protected due to edit warring over the inclusion of a Non free image. As a disclaimer, I'll state that I am for removing the image. Anyhow, inclusion of the image in this article seems to violate WP:NFCC. That is disputed. However, since we're talking about non-free content, I believe that the image should be removed until a final decision is made, as leaving it in the article could potentially be breaching policies on Non free content. The image adds no significant value to the article, and I do not believe it will be a problem to remove it for now, as I said, until a final decision is made. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the image in question is Image:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif, which is, again, non-free. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done pending discussion. PeterSymonds (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The M3

The article says it was used extensively on Okinawa, but also states it was made for use with an early infrared device. 1945 sounds a bit early for infrared to me; anybody know more on the subject?

Doesn't look like Wikipedia has a separate article about the first US military IR devices - the Sniperscope and Snooperscope. Here is an external article on them: "These infrared weapons were developed in 1943 by the Army, precisely to defeat the infiltration tactics of the Japanese." Great technology for the time; IIRC they were considered too heavy to mount on a full-size rifle. Boris B 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The M3 is essentially an M2 adapted to take an infrared sighting system. Since the M3 was never fully standardized, there are several variations in how the sights were adapted to the guns. Larry Ruth is a good source on Carbine trivia. The Snooperscope is essentially a hand-held version of the Sniperscope. The system required an infrared projector and a scope to detect and amplify the infrared image reflected back. Edmund Scientific Co, Barrington NJ, had a few surplus sniperscope systems for sale in the 1960s (one use was night time observation of wildlife). Once one's military opposition has an infrared detector scope, the projectors become a liability and the "active" infrared scopes are now obsolete for military use. Naaman Brown (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Infrared scopes were also used by nazi Germany, during World War II.The level of infrared tecnology was the same as in the United States.Agre22 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Performance

I reverted to the prior version this addition: "The Carbine fits all the requirments [sic] of an Assault Rifle, except being fully automatic. It also has an effective range similiar [sic] to other early weapons of that type, at 300m. Despite German Assualt [sic] rifles being fully automatic from the beginning, and having a more powerful round, the carbine was easily supplied to the troops. Stg-44's were extremely rare, usually only issued to specialst [sic] units(Panzer Grenadiers), and at the most two per squad. Conversly [sic], the Carbine was extremely common for all types of American troops, and could easily be obtained by the average soldier."

As discussed within the article, the .30 Carbine cartridge is more akin to a pistol cartridge in performance than to an intermediate rifle cartridge characteristic of assault rifle cartridges. The claimed 300m effective range seems overstated. The comparison on commonality of issue does not seem to fit in a section on performance.--Ana Nim 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's stick with the dictionary definition of "compare". (It does not mean "equate".) It is natural to wonder how the performance of the M1/M2 carbines compare with that of modern assault rifles (or the M1 Garand), and there is nothing wrong with providing the relevant quantitative information. Compared with the current Russian assault rifle family, the M1/M2 carbines have a bigger bullet diameter (7.62mm vs. 5.45mm), greater muzzle momentum (217 to 159), lower muzzle velocity (1975 vs. 2950 fps), and approximately equal muzzle energy (955 vs. 1045 foot-pounds). Compare the latter figure to the 465 foot-pounds which is a very generous figure for the NATO standard pistol round (9mm Parabellum). In light of these numbers, it is logical for readers to wonder why the carbines don't count as assault rifles, and the reasons for excluding them needn't be left to the imagination or buried under flat assertions. Does the M2 not count as an assault rifle (a) because it wasn't called one (which would also exclude the MP 43), (b) because it is derived from a semi-automatic (the M1), (c) because there is an arbitrary minimum ME of 1000 foot-pounds (which no one has stated outright), or (d) because MV is more important than all other ballistic numbers? There may be other reasons I haven't thought of, but of the above only (d) seems reasonable, and if that's the case, the performance gap between the carbine and any military pistol round is going to be even greater (the contemporary U.S. pistol cartridge never hit 1000 fps). Boris B (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Above, I wasn't taking issue with Ana Nim's use of the word "comparison", but usages further above on the page. Boris B (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• The M1 carbine was originally developed to replace the pistol; the StG44 and AK47 were developed to replace the rifle. By that standard, the M1 Carbine is not an assault rifle. In actual war zones, the M1 carbine was used as a substitute for the rifle and the submachinegun, making it a de facto assault rifle.Naaman Brown (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As a retired Marine and weaned by "The Greatest Generation", I have been subject to a considerable amount of anecdotal trivia, to include: "The carbine was adopted as a replacement for the .45 because damn few could hit anything with a 1911 and after eight rounds you had either hit what you were shooting at or were dead. With the carbine a man could carry a lot of ammunition and had a better chance of filling the air with lead and making noise, both of which have a profound psychological effect. Whereas it was true that getting hit with a .45 would almost always knock a man down, you still needed to hit him and do so at close quarters since outside of twenty yards or so you'd have to spend too much time aiming. One didn't have that problem with the M1 carbine, given its greater range and magazine capacity; it pretty much did what it was supposed to do; damn good thing that Ralph Nader wasn't around to crucify it the way he did the (Chevrolet) Corvair." Such stuff was a topic I heard as a youngster, usually in sight of houses that continued to keep gold stars in their front windows despite the war having been over for ten or fifteen years. A couple of decades later I explored the capabilities of the carbine myself and, like the Corvair, if I weren't trying to figuratively break a land speed record, the carbine performed as advertised. As for personal preferrence, I'm inclined toward a heavier firearm and feel more at home with any number of WWII service weapons (Mosin-Nagants, Enfields, Mausers, M1 Garands, et al). I have even found satisfaction of Cowboy Aspiration (Some may scoff, but this was important to those of us who listened to The Lone Ranger before watching him) in a Winchester 94 chambered for the .44 magnum, partner to my Colt Anaconda. My experience with firearms precedes my delving into statistical data and, I must logically admit, takes precedence as far as what I would carry and where I might carry it. I'd probably carry the carbine just about anywhere a Corvair could take me.[[User:Jonathan Marchant] 05:30, 09August2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.238.142 (talk) Well, I knew a veteran of World War II.He died last week and I went today to his seventh day catholic mass.About this amazing weapon, he saw it being used in combat with total sucess.Why more than 6,000,000 of thjis weapon were produced during just four years(1941-1945)?Well, this weapon was precise, was easily produced, had light weight and its potency was enough.Such as all experts, that veteran told me that almost never, he saw a combat in war, having more distance than 300 meters between the soldiers.This weapon wasn't projected to be a sniper rifle.This is carbine and it was the best carbine of World War IIAgre22 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

effective combat range

At 100 yards (91 m), it can deliver groups of between 3 and 5 minutes of angle, sufficient for its intended purpose as a close-range defensive weapon -> effective range < 100 yards (91 m).

Categorizing the M1 carbine series has been the subject of much debate. The M1 is sufficiently accurate at short ranges. At 100 yards (91 m), it can deliver groups of between 3 and 5 minutes of angle, sufficient for its intended purpose as a close-range defensive weapon. Its muzzle energy and range are beyond those of any submachine gun of the period, though its bullet is much lighter in weight and smaller in diameter than .45 caliber weapons, and much less powerful than those of other service rifles of the period. The M1 and later M2 carbine was never designed to be an assault rifle, in league with the later German StG44 and Russian AK-47, and the .30 Carbine gives up significant muzzle velocity (roughly 350 ft/s (110 m/s)) to both. Additionally, the bullets used in the cartridges of the AK-47 and StG44 are spitzer designs, and suffer less energy loss and trajectory drop at distances beyond 100 yards. Most authorities list the effective combat range of the M1 Carbine at around 200 yards, compared to 250-300 yards (230–270 m) for the AK-47 and StG44. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.210.199.125 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"...but true" and WP:RS

I'm taking issue with the phrase, "but true" in terms of whether we need it within a parenthetical statement in the article. Though David Marshall Williams patented a system vaguely resembling that on the M1 Carbine, he had little else to do with the development of the M1 Carbine. In fact, he went out of his way to disavow himself from that project while at Winchester. Further, the "story" that Williams tells is his and only his. Though history remembers him for this based on the Stewart movie, Williams was the primary contributor to that story. Williams, a convicted murderer, gets little support for his side of the story or most stories he tells, throughout his life. You don't take the word of a convicted felon in his 'retelling' of events over that of common sense... particulary for a parenthetical statemtn like this. To say that it is true, one must accept that the entire statement that precedes it comes from a reliable source. To quote, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That is clearly not the case here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The passage to which I added the but true comment was this:

A couple of months after Ed Browning's death in May 1939, Winchester hired ex-convict David M. "Carbine" Williams, a some-time bootlegger who had devised a short-stroke gas piston design while serving a prison sentence for murder. (This unlikely but true story was the loose basis of the 1952 movie Carbine Williams....

That preceding statement is about the most uncontroversial statement one can make about "Marsh" Williams. These are bare facts that have been verified by multiple sources without relying on Williams himself:

• Williams had served prison time for killing a law enforcement officer raiding his bootlegging operation in North Carolina.
• In prison, Williams had worked in the prison armory maintaining the guards' guns and working on his own design projects including developing a short stroke piston tappet gas system.
• Ed Browning died in May 1939 leaving a Winchester rifle project unfinished.
• Two months later Winchester hired David Marshal Williams to finish it.

This is an unlikely but true story. It was the loose basis of the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots actually offers no WP:RS to dispute the truth of that preceding statement but changes the subject to the later development of the M1 Carbine and the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots claims that the story of Williams' involvement in development of the M1 carbine is "his and only his" and since he was a "convicted felon" and "convicted murderer" he is "clearly" not a reliable source.

How much of the movie "Carbine Williams" is history and how much is Hollywood would make a nice History Channel project, but there are sources other than "Marsh" Williams for stories of his involvement in the .30 Carbine development.

Julian S. Hatcher, Major General US Army, Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Co., 1947). Hatcher was the general in charge of the Ordnance training center in 1941 and claims he knew David M. Williams. Hatcher's Notebook pages 66-69 describe some of Williams' inventions for Ordnance: the Williams Floating Chamber used to operate the .22 training versions of the Browning machinegun and Colt 1911A1 pistol and the short stroke gas piston used in the Winchester rifle of 1940 and the Winchester carbine of 1941. On page 385 Hatcher lists as one of the men he had associated with in his years in Army Ordnance: Mr. David M. Williams, of Godwin, North Carolina, inventor of many important firearms designs and mechanisms, including the short-stroke piston principle as used in the U. S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M 1, and the floating chamber used in the U. S. .22 Caliber Machine Gun, the Colt Service Ace Pistol, and some Remington Rifles.

Ed Pugsley worked at Winchester with Williams in 1941. Edwin Pugsley Development of the .30 M1 Carbine (Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 1944). Pugsley wrote that in July 1941, Army Ordnance looked at the Winchester rifle with the Williams gas system and suggested it could be the basis of a carbine. A team of Winchester engineers worked feverishly on scaling down the rifle and gas system to produce their first carbine prototype. 9 Aug 1941 Edwin Pugsley took the first Winchester prototype carbine to Aberdeen Proving Ground for tests. A second test was scheduled 15 Sep 1941; Pugsley wrote: "It is doubtful that any single group of men became so enthusiastic in so short a period and you can bet your boots Williams was in there pitching: the gas piston was his idea--and it worked."

Larry Ruth, M1 Carbine: Design, Development & Production," (The Gun Room Press, 1979, ISBN 088227-020-6) to be the best source I have found so far on the development of the Carbine. Ruth has collected documents from US Ordnance and Winchester on the development of the M1 Carbine. U.S. Patent 2,090,656 was issued to David Marshall Williams and the US Government paid Williams a large lump sum payment for the tappet system used in the M1 carbine. The resemblance of the Williams gas system to that of the M1 carbine was not vague to Gen. Hatcher of Army Ordnance, Pugsley of Winchester or carbine historian Ruth, and Williams is identified by contemporaneous sources as not only inventing the short stroke gas system that made a 5 pound semi-auto carbine possible, but was hands-on in helping build the prototype. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to discount your sources nor am I going to argue that your points are invalid. However, given the weight of the following facts, wording that supports Williams' legend laid down in the Jimmy Stewart movie is highly suspect:

1. Williams did not invent the short stroke piston. He did, however, develop the version that was used on Ed Browning's gun.
2. The short stroke piston had already been patented, but the Patent office overlooked it and Winchester hid this fact due to their investment in the Williams patent and Williams himself.
3. There is no evidence one way or another that the piston was designed "While Williams was in prison". In fact, the first time it is demonstrated on a firearm is over 8 years after his release from prision.
4. The Williams patent shows nothing near the eventual incarnation that went into the modified Browning firearm.
5. Williams himself went out of his way to distance himself from the project that led to the M1 Carbine following his work on the "M2" rifle.
6. Lary Ruth is contradicted by Bruce Canfield, arguably THE expert on the subject. See referenced article in American Rifleman.
7. Pugsley skirts the issue, but seems to solidly confirm the one thing all agree on, the Piston was Williams DEVELOPMENT if not his original idea. Basically, he developed and engineered it whether or not he knew of the prior patent.
8. Hatcher, like Puglsey, seems to solidly confirm the same facts. Both seem to go out of their way NOT to say that Williams invented, designed, or developed the M1 Carbine specifically. Heck, John Garand and Ed Browning owe more to the design than Williams.

What is your source that Williams worked on "Prison Guards' Guns"? Not that I doubt it... well, yes, I do find it dubious... but what is the source? Much of what is written about "Carbine Williams" is from "Carbine Williams" himself. For sources to be verifiable, they must come from trustworthy sources. Williams was NOTORIOUSLY untrustworthy being a convicted murderer, admitted bootlegger, and being described as "difficult" to say the least. He had a monetary interest in lying and exaggerating his story at every turn due to personal edification and to back up the lies and exaggeration of his "life story" told in the movie. This discredits him as a reliable source and all secondary sources based on his word are therefore unreliable... So there! Well, maybe the "so there" was over the top, but that's my logic. I'll fight any stronger wording than what's there currently based on this logic. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ruth vs. Canfield on the M1 carbine, my nod is going to Ruth. Ruth is well established in the M1 carbine collector community, and specializes in the carbine alone while Canfield plays the field. However, I'd use Ruth's account in his later works "War Baby" and "War Baby II". In "War Baby", Ruth republishes entire sections of Pugsley's internal accounts of the carbine's development. He states that Williams was not involved in the design of the carbine, but Winchester officials gave him credit anyway to mollify him. Winchester officials figured that it would be too much trouble to terminate their licensing agreement with Williams and fight the validity of his patent in court. --D.E. Watters (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't recall reading the Pugsley work, though I'm familiar with it somewhat. It's clear that Puglsey, Hatcher and Ruth all skirted the issue that Williams only brought the short-stroke piston to the drawing board. Canfield attacks that point directly in an article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Two of the three Pugsley accounts used by Ruth in "War Baby" were for internal company use, not public distribution. The wartime account cited by the other poster was probably released for public relations, and would not have aired the company's dirty laundry. In the internal accounts, Pugsley made it absolutely clear that Williams was a mercurial, volatile, and stubborn pain in the butt who was more of an impediment than asset. Pugsley wrote "When we started on the the gun and Williams saw the speed with which we we were going to work, he realized that he would not be able to think that fast and began to sulk, with the result that it was necessary to push him to one side and develop the gun practically in spite of him. I do not remember that he contributed a single idea or suggestion in the development of the original gun, but sat in his room looking like a thundercloud for the entire time the gun was under development." "When we were developing the model to be tested, it was apparent within three or four days after the start that it would be impossible to work with Williams and that we'd never make the deadline." Pugsley also noted that Williams went to work on his own carbine design which was not finished until December 1941, months after the M1 carbine was adopted. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The story of David "Marsh" Williams and the development of the M1 carbine is paralleled by the story of Vassili Zaitsev the Russian sniper at the Siege of Stalingrad. Both stories were siezed upon in 1942 for propaganda purposes to boost civilian morale during the dark early days of WWII. After the war, the stories were further distorted by Hollyoodization (Carbine Williams (1952) and Enemy at the Gates (2001). There is still a strange but true and remarkable story behind the wartime propaganda and Hollywood hype. Debunking the Hollywood version should not be at the cost of obscuring the actual accomplishments of the person, horns and halos included. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Zaitsev was a sniper and killed lots of the enemy. Great. Williams was a tinkerer and developed two outstanding mechanisms, the floating chamber and the short-stroke piston. I'll give him 1.5 points for that because the short-stroke piston was really a side-note alternative to the floating chamber. Williams patent was for a threaded insert that contained the chamber. The "Short-stroke piston" part of it moved this threaded insert beside the chamber with a gas port. It was intended to use gas siphoned off directly in front of the cartridge just like the HK P7 does except instead of retarding blowback, it kicked the slide back much as other gas-operated guns. As designed, the cylinder was RIGHT beside the slide handle. This was 100% unworkable as it would burn the finger if you tried to manually actuate it. Luckilly, cooler heads (and combustion gasses) prevailed and the piston was moved further down and under the barrel. However, in spite of the patent, this movement coincided with "closing" the gas system. The first system was necessarilly vented (back in towards the shooter) due to the high pressure gasses forward of the chamber. It seems that even the patented and salient features of Williams design are far removed from that which ended up on the "M2" rifle and M1 carbine. Who is responsible for the "closed" gas system on the Carbine? Was it on the "M2 Rifle". What level of propoganda was involved in that part of the story?

What Hatcher praised Williams for was primarily his mechanical knowledge and abilities combined with the simplicity and innovation of the floating chamber... not the short-stroke piston. It is the floating chamber that Williams should be remembered for and that which should be the crowning achievement of Mr. Williams' life work. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hatcher recommended Williams to Winchester in 1938; after being hired by Winchester in 1939, Williams developed the gas system of the M2 prototype that was used as the model for the M1 carbine. In 1947 Hatcher credited Williams with "the short-stroke piston principle as used in the U. S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M 1" as well as the floating chamber system. The original gas system on the Winchester M2 rifle as designed by Ed Browning was a donut shaped ring surrounding the barrel. In that iteration the rifle weighed 9.5 pounds and was not reliable. Williams was brought in at Winchester after Browning's death to work on the M2 and his first change was to replace Browning's ring gas system with a short stroke gas system under the barrel based on Williams' tappet design. Along the way, the original tipping bolt was changed to a rotating bolt similar to the Garand, eventually reducing the weight of the .30-06 M2 to 7.5 pounds. It was this M2 design that Col. Rene Studler saw and recommended that Winchester scale down as a entry in the carbine competitions. The tappet system perfected by Williams shows little resemblance to any specific patent other than using the same basic operating system: short stroke piston, cylinder drawing gas near chamber. Although Pugsley was able to find a prior patent using a short stroke piston, that was in 1951 in response to a fear that Williams would sue Winchester. The M1 carbine gas system, according to the cited source Pugsley (in Bruce N. Canfield, "'Carbine' Williams: Myth & Reality", The American Rifleman, February 2009), was developed directly from Williams' final implementation on the M2 rifle prototype. The crowning achievement of Williams was turning his life around to the point that the family of his victim recommended his parole to the court. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC) signature corrected (caching had showed me logged in when not)Naaman Brown (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Melvin M. Johnson inventor of the MMJ conversion

I don't know who originally listed Johnson as "Melvin M. Johnson" but Johnson signed his name "Melvin M. Johnson, Jr." and I have seen his name listed that way or as "Melvin M. Johnson" in most standard firearms reference works for the half-century I have been involved with firearms. The edit to "Melvin Johnson" is trivial. The cartridge conversion MMJ is named by his initials and removing his middle initial from his name is pointless.

A close friend of his, Julian S. Hatcher referred to him both as "Mel" Johnson and as Captain Melvin M. Johnson in Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Comapnay, 1947). A business partner George R. Numrich (of Numrich Arms and Gun Parts Corp. fame) was involved in the 5.7 MMJ / .22 Spitfire project and referred to him as Mel Johnson. Outside Johnson's circle of friends, there are other notable people known as Mel Johnson or Melvin Johnson.

I believe it is just common sense to refer to Melvin M. Johnson, firearms inventor, by the name by which he is most commonly known, simply for disambigulation purposes. A quick check shows a Melvin Johnson (American football), a Mel Johnson (Australian cricket umpire), and a Mel Johnson, Jr. (American actor and film producer). Naaman Brown (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well if it's trivial, why are you making such a big deal out of it? In the inventor's bio article, it lists his full name. After that and for articles not directly related to him, the middle initial is not only unnecessary it's silly to argue that it is. Listen, this is not an article where we need anything more than a passing mention of the man and passing mentions don't need to be muddied up with middle initials. Again, your specious argument that it's "Trivial" seems to lack something as you spend lots of time explaining how untrivial YOU think it is. How often do you see, "John M. Browning" or "Leroy J. Sullivan". Howabout, "Eugene M. Stoner?" You generally don't. It's, "John Browning", "Jim Sullivan" and "Gene Stoner". Heck, if you were making the case for "Mel Johnson" then I'd be all for it but I think you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreemnet here and justifying after the fact. I don't care one little bit how many references you find that refer to him every which way but loose. Trivial, eh? Then why did you change it? Why did you argue about it and edit war afterwards if it was trivial? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How often do you see "John M. Browning"....You generally don't. It's "John Browning"...."

OK, I pulled several common firearms reference works out of my bookshelf. Mr. Browning was cited as "John M. Browning" in:

• The NRA Guide to Firearms Assembly (1980)
• Geoffrey Boothroyd The Handgun (1970)
• Walter H.B. Smith Rifles (1948)
• Julian S. Hatcher Hatcher's Notebook (1947)
• Philip B. Sharpe The Rifle in America (1938)
• Numrich Gun Parts Corp Firearms Parts Catalog #27
• J.B. Wood Troubleshooting Your Rifle and Shotgun 1978

Of these sources only Julian S. Hatcher referred to "John Browning" and then only after introducing him as "John M. Browning" and listing him as "John Moses Browning" in the index. The general use is "John M. Browning" just as "Melvin M. Johnson" is the name used in most gun references I have seen for decades. Let me be clear: editing out the middle initial is the trivial and pointless edit, and I think you're the one disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and the "John M. Browning/John Browning" meme is an example of "justifying after the fact". Naaman Brown (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't profess to be more well read than you, but what you are saying is that an article on the M1 Carbine should list Johnson's Middle initial and, not his middle name. Where it the standard? Why are you any better than me to say that it should be Melvin M. Johnson and not Mel Johnson, Melvin Johnson, or whatever. A Cricket umpire? Really? That's a real stretch. What does umpiring Cricket have to do with firearms. Please don't make a big deal out of this trivial matter. Just show me a standard and then do the footwork to stick by it. In the absence of a standard, the status quo should be preferred at least until a consensus is reached but you've chose to edit war instead. I don't see any reason whatsoever why somebody would be reading the M1 Carbine article and think that a Cricket umpire developed a cartridge for the M1 Carbine. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm X photo

The Malcolm X photo used in this article seems to be a continued target by one or more users who keep deleting its fair use rationale and then putting up deletion tags. As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Asams on this issue. Those editors need to leave the rationales alone and submit the issue for deletion review if they think the rationals are BS. Sf46 (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Don't know enough about Fair Use, but it's either Racist, as one editor suggested, or something we're not doing right. It seems to fall square within the bounds of fair use though, even for the Rap artist's usage. Just as long as SwatJester comes in and disagrees, I'll feel just fine. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sf46. And I'll add my opinion that the photo is certainly of historic importance and the commentary on it, in the context of this article, makes its use appropriate. --Ana Nim (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I agree with Sf46 and Ana Nim, the picture is of historic importance and great to ilustrate the article. Vicius (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but there's no way to justify the use of the Malcolm X photo in this article; it doesn't meet WP:NFCC #8 here. It's perfectly fine for use in Malcolm X; note the inclusion of commentary specifically about the photo within the article text. As it stands right now, a mere mention of Malcolm X's usage doesn't need to be illustrated by the photo. The Patty Hearst mention can be illustrated because the Hearst photo is public domain. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion from Wikipedia; just to have it removed from this article. howcheng {chat} 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another vote for inclusion. No matter how much you talk, Howcheng, you cannot just order how things are going to go. You say it doesn't meet rule 8, I say it does. We disagree, of course, but at this time you're in the minority. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the above comments were posted several months ago without reference to the actual NFCC, I'd say that was a disingenuous argument at best. howcheng {chat} 04:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 says “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” The text of the article says, “The ease of use and great adaptability of the weapon led to it being used by Malcolm X (as a self-defense tool).” It seems to me that this is perfectly clear without the photo. What would be misunderstood without the photo? —teb728 t c 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The image shows how handy the firearm is and that Malcolm X, not a firearms expert, would chose to use it so that he could carry on other activities. The human mind is highly visual. While the text can make a point in several paragraphs, we don't have that. In one picture, volumes are being spoken about the M1 Carbine. And, once again, I'll drive home the point, I KNOW that people disagree, but they are expressing an opinion. I am expressing the opposite opinion. I don't know why people think they're on a jury trying to interpret a law or something here. It's crystal clear that without the picture, the article would suffer. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does it say in the article that Malcolm X chose the M1 because of its ease of use? Even if you add it, do you have a source for that? And is there some reason that the Patty Hearst image (a free image) can't express the exactly the same point? Why would you need two photos to accomplish this? howcheng {chat} 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you do have a source that says Malcolm X chose the M1 because of its ease of use, you could say that clearly with text. The article wouldn’t need a photo for users to understand it. —teb728 t c 19:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the reason why the picture is included in the article, the picture SAYS all of those things and more. This photo is famous for a reason. It illustrates numerous things about the M1 Carbine and Malcolm X that cannot be said in the text. A clear, concise understanding of the situation and the reason for the firearm is not possible with words. This strict, legalese interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies left a huge hole of interpretation. Being a consensus inclusion in the first place, editors have already stated that it meets the guidelines by their interpretation. Removal of the photo would have a much higher "burden of proof" than inclusion of the photo because, AGAIN, this is a consensus inclusion... already discussed, already approved. And, I'll say it again. You must accept this point because you've refused to address it head on. Your interpretation of the inclusion worthiness of this picture is an OPINION! Your opinion differs from the previous consensus and your opinion is not the word of God nor does it outweigh the facts... that others DISAGRE. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

And you're missing the point of Wikipedia, which is that we are a free encyclopedia, and that we only use non-free content when we have no other choice. Yes, the photo is famous, but not because of the M1 carbine; it's famous because it shows Malcolm X as willing to defend his family against death threats -- the photo would be equally effective if he had an Uzi or a handgun or some other weapon. The Patty Hearst photo accomplishes all the same encyclopedic purposes as the Malcolm X one and it's free. It doesn't matter whether we have consensus to keep an image which is prohibited by policy, because policy trumps consensus. It is the responsibility of those who want to keep the non-free content to explain why it's necessary and how it doesn't violate policy. As such, I am now going to exercise my right as an enforcer of non-free content policy and remove the image from the article. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, who are you do decide this? You've made this unilateral decision. Do you have some decree by the Wikipedia Cabal that you can remove pictures at will? Once again, and I'm sure you've read it by now, THIS IS YOUR OPINION. YOUR OPINION IS NOT THE RULE OF LAW. THIS IS A COMMUNITY, NOT A DICTATORSHIP. You haven't even tried to build a concensus on this one, nor have you acknowledged that you're in the minority and the previous concensus was for inclusion. Your actions are disruptive and counter to the community wishes. I'm beginning to think they're racially motivated as well as you haven't presented any good reasons for exclusion, IN MY OPINION. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #1. howcheng {chat} 05:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly is paying for the image if it's not free (sorry had to say it)? Why is it ok on the New school hip hop, but not here? Politically motivated, perhaps?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gratis versus libre (free as in speech, not beer). But you're right, it's not OK in new school hip hop, so I removed it, but I added it to By All Means Necessary (album) and if you look there, I think you can see how it's a necessary part of that article -- the cover has to be compared to the photo in order to understand the context. Meanwhile, in this article, "Malcolm X used an M1 carbine" doesn't need a photo to illustrate it. It doesn't even need the (new) Patty Hearst photo, but that one is free, so we can use that wherever we damn well please. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 22:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you note in Image talk:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif, User:Bkell makes pretty much the same argument I have. If you want to keep this image in this article, then you need to have some discussion about the photo's impact on public perception of the gun, or gun sales, or whatever -- something that justifies its use, not just because he used one at one time. howcheng {chat} 22:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, that makes a bit more sense. What if a new free image was created...combined with the Hearst one for example and then uploaded? Would that suffice? --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly use the non-free Malcolm X photo to create a free image; copyright just doesn't work that way. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You've just proven why it should be in the article. I'm calling this racism. You went out of your way to justify the White girl, Patty Hearst, and her inclusion in the article but the Black guy has gotta go? At least Patty is still alive (I think). --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! Racism my ass. Patty Hearst gets the green light because the image is free, not because she's white. If anything, showing the white woman with the gun is better (meaning, less racist) than having a black man with a gun, wouldn't you think? howcheng {chat} 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Laugh all you want, but your logic is screwed up on this one. You argue that the reason the MX picture should be excluded is because it doesn't demonstrate something that cannot be demonstrated in the text. Therefore, it's decorative and should be excluded unless a non-free example exists. Well, you didn't automatically remove the image of Hearst that had no source information. Seems to me that you targeted the Black guy rather than improving the article. ROTF and L all you want, your logic betrays your true intentions... AND... in the end, my logic still remains. Your argument against inclusion is based solely on your opinion, an opinion not shared by the prior concensus and no new concensus has been reached. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, my argument is based on policy; I didn't remove the unsourced Hearst image because I knew OrphanBot would get it (BTW, I did find a source for it after all, see the history of Commons:Image:Patty Hearst.jpg). Besides the fact that policy overrides consensus, you appear to be the only person arguing for inclusion of Malcolm X in this article. howcheng {chat} 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included, and find it surprising that on all of Wikipedia, this is the only image being used improperly. Of course if you didn't need a copyright lawyer to decipher the Teutonic image upload page and assorted tags...this probably would not be a problem. Regardless, if the use of the image in the article's current form is giving this much trouble to a Start-class article, it will be more troublesome at FAR. I think it needs to stay, but policy is policy. My suspicion is no amount of rewriting will change your position on the use of the image, either. As an aside, while your reasoning may not be racist, your reply definitely comes across as such.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, of course it's not the only improper usage of non-free content; it's just the one I have my eye on now. And Mike, you're wrong in that if the article is rewritten to show why this specific image is important to the M1 carbine and cited to reliable sources, then it would be perfectly fine and I would remove all my objections to it. If the Patty Hearst image were non-free, I'd be saying the same thing about that too. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely clear cut case of a non-free image being used improperly. The article doesn't assert that Malcolm X is in any way associated with the M1 other than he used it and was photographed with it. There has to be more commentary than "he used it" to use a non-free image in an article that could be illustrated by an infinite number of free images. Those of you saying removing a non-free image of a black person is racist need to go read WP:AGF a few times, this isn't the place for that nonsense. BJ^Talk 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bjweeks, Howcheng and others. This is clearly inappropriate use of a non-free image. One little comment about Malcolm X using this gun does not justify use of this image. One does not need an illustration to understand that he used this gun. Also, Mike finding "it surprising that on all of Wikipedia, this is the only image being used improperly" is basically admitting that the image is being used improperly and is definitely not a valid argument to use the image. LaraLove|Talk 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus, even on this talk page, to include the image. There are a couple of people who think the image is acceptable on this article, and several others who do not. Basically, you cannot overrule the WP guidelines/policies that are in place. Continuing to blatantly disregard policies will result in further blocks and / or protection of the article. I'd strongly advise the people to stop edit warring over it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove this image, take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, a backwater to be sure but all there currently is for this kind of dispute. RMHED (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is *already there* pointing the discussion here... BJ^Talk 21:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

So it be, my that page could do with a profile boost. I believe a reasonable ratione could be made for its inclusion on this article, the image is certainly iconic and as such has a direct relevance to the cultural impact of the M1 upon US society. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

When somebody find sources for this they can extend the prose on Malcolm X's use of the M1 and improve the FUR rational to comply with policy, until then please stop readding it. Keeping the image in the article because a rational could be written doesn't make much sense. BJ^Talk 23:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Coming here from WP:NFR. Using the image here clearly doesn't meet the NFCC requirements. Any interest in the image is because it's Malcolm X, not because it's this particular firearm versus any other particular firearm. It may be reasonable to use the image on the article about Malcolm X - but this article can simply link to that article, so there is no need to repeat the image here. We are obliged to use nonfree images minimally, which means not repeating them on every article to which they are tangentially related. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I've already stated my view that the image should stay included in the article because it does enhance the article by illustrating use of the weapon by a famous figure in a famous historical photo. It also demonstrates the ease of use and the use of the gun by other than military or police forces which is also discussed in the article. I guess I'm just and inclusionist, not a deletionist. I believe more information is better than less, and that knowledge is indeed power. Until very recently (the past week or so), a consensus had been reached (at least in my view) as several editors (about 7 or 8?) had expressed views that supported keeping the photo, while only a single editor supported removal. Sf46 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism have nothing to do with this image (those terms are in relation to the deletion of articles); we are simply discussing whether or not the usage of this image in this specific article conforms to the non-free content criteria. Consensus by a few editors about using the image here cannot override long-standing policy. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A few? My count has 6 or 7 editors for inclusion in this discussion alone, but no 'poll' has been taken. Further, as you're falling back on wikipedia policies, could you please quote the exact policy as it reads in the policy and explain how it is not open to interpretation? That is the capstone of your argument; for your position to hold up, the policy must read as a hard and fast rule, not open to interpretation. Sir, I just read the policy myself and don't think you've got a 'legal' leg to stand on. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no use for M1 Carbines, personally. They absolutely do nothing for me and I've never understood why some gun owners get all excited over them. It's an inferior cartridge and as far as being decisive in WW2, well...I'd leave that in the realm of the M1 Garand. However, alot of these came on the surplus market after WW2 and Korea so they were available in the 60's and the low-powered cartridge is probably more suitable for women and small-framed men like Malcolm X, for example or jurisdictions like New York City or California that do not trust it's tax-paying citizenry with a more adequate means of self-defense. All that said, I'm for inclusion of the photo as it's an iconic photo displaying an historical figure using the aforementioned poodleshooter to defend his home and family. Had that occurred in the late 70's/early 80's he'd probably be shown with an AR15. In the 90's some sort of imported SKS or MAK-90 with a Planet of the Apes Stock. So maybe from that perspective it's important. Malcolm X was a convicted felon and had that event happened after passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, he would not have been allowed to purchase the carbine at all. He could have very easily picked that up at a hardware store or surplus store in New York City at the time. The usage policy is vague at best, but there must be a way to use this image if the other articles can do so. If that entails a rewrite of the section in question, so be it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't recall ever seeing a case that is more clear than this one. It's people with ILIKEIT problems that are causing the disruption. Ultimately, it is the administrators that are (or should be) more familiar with our policies such as this one, and it is our "job" to enforce them. Several administrators (at least 4) have all stated here that the image is unacceptable for use in this article, and everybody who wants to keep it in the article, is not an admin. Of course, we all make mistakes, but rather than edit warring, which most everybody in this thread was doing, there needs discussion. I'm not sure what it will take to convince you people that the image is unacceptable for use in this particular article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost without exception, those in favor of inclusion are firearms-related article editors. Also, many of those against inclusion have expressed that they are categorically against inclusion based on non-policy reasons. I'll quote: "Any interest in the image is because it's Malcolm X, not because it's this particular firearm versus any other particular firearm." This statement clearly shows a prejudice against firearms and a misunderstanding of the historic significance of the usage of this firearm in this photo. This view is clearly ignorant of the firearm. "This is clearly inappropriate use of a non-free image. One little comment about Malcolm X using this gun does not justify use of this image." Well, that's actually proving the counter. That's why the picture has to be there. "You don't need a (non free) photo of Malcolm X in an article about a gun; it just isn't necessary, as Fair use requires." Combined, these statements betray an underlying 'blame the tool' attitude that poisons the pot just as much as the racism red herring did. The concensus should be built by those editors with the greatest interest in the article and its subject matter, not by administrators. Admins should not interfere with the concensus built by those who edit the article. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, except that the editors who have the greatest interest in the article, are failing to properly comprehend policy that we are enforcing. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice you agree that it would be great. But your interpretation seems to be different than mine. And, since it's the word "significantly" that you are interpreting here, how can you make the case that it's insignificant? You haven't done that substantially to counter the arguments put forward by those who want inclusion. If I'm incorrect, you should endeavor to set me straight on the policy(ies), however I've read them and interpret them to mean that the significance of the photo should be judged and, again, it's nice that you agree that this would be great. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The policies aren't hidden - read them yourself. I'm not going to play these games with you. It isn't my problem that you fail to read and comprehend them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an awful dismissive attitude to take considering it was you who engaged on this ongoing debate. You have a strict interpretation of the word significant. I neither said nor hinted that the policies were hidden. To the contrary, they are quite clear about significance; again, I believe it's significant and have, what, half a dozen people that agree with me. This is not a game any more than you want to make it. This is a discussion and a debate. You presented your interpretation of a policy and blocked a user, then claim I don't understand the policy and I should read it. Well, I read it and I have a different view that I have fleshed out as completely as I feel obligated to. If you fail to counter it, I assume you've conceded the point and/or bowed out of the discussion? Is this the game you speak of? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The rationale used for the inclusion of this image is almost there, but ultimately it cannot justify the inclusion of the image within this article - now this is not the fault of anybody, it's just that the image and the subject matter of the article aren't wholly compatible, now, as I understand it, one of the most sensible rationales given for the inclusion of this image relates to how suitable the M1 carbine is for use by persons with small frames, such as Malcolm X (I'm quoting Mike above). That's something that could be replaced with a free image or video of someone with a similar frame and build to Malcolm X demonstrating a M1 carbine alongside a weapon designed for a higher powered cartridge with a higher recoil. Other rationales, relating to the image being iconic hold considerably less sway here, there are hundreds of thousands of iconic images which are as inappropriate as this one in this set of circumstances, just thinking this image wouldn't be permitted within any Rolls Royce articles, or this which we wouldn't permit to illustrate our article on something like the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. Nick (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• A lot of folks have used the M1 carbine defensively (Malcolm X) and criminally (Patty Hearst) which is not surprising given production at six million plus and world-wide disctribution. Should this be notable in the M1 Carbine entry or in the entries on Malcolm X or Patty Hearst? If pictures of notable defensive users (Malcolm X) or criminal users (Patty Hearst) deserve inclusion, why not a picture of a notable military user (Audie Murphy comes to mind)? If we include pictures of notable users of the US carbine caliber .30 M1, where do we start or stop? Is this issue handled in other gun entries and how? Naaman Brown (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Here is another example: featuring Che Guevara. Over six million made, in use for good and bad for over half a century, if we started including notable users Where would it end? Naaman Brown (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)