Jump to content

Talk:M1 carbine/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Malcolm's weapon

It looks to me more like an M2 with the longer magazine(s). Comments? Rumiton (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The longer magazine introduced with the M2 will fit all carbines with the standard M1 magazine catch or the modified M2 magazine catch, and thus the longer magazine is not an identifing feature of an M2. M2 externally differs from the M1 only in having a selector switch (semi or full auto) visible on the left side of the receiver opposite the charging handle (not visible in the photograph of Malcolm X taking a defensive stance with a carbine). The real difference between M1 and M2 is the internal fire control group. Except for the external switch, so-called M2 external features--the 30 shot magazine, the magazine catch with a third nib, the round bolt, the pot-belly stock with clearance for the selector switch--were standard replacement, repair and upgrade parts for M1 carbines. All parts are interchangeable and M2 carbines will be found with M1, M1A1 and M2 stocks, and 15 and 30 shot magazines (the M2 was actually introduced in WWII combat before the 30 shot magazine was available). During the Korean and VietNam wars, the 30 shot magazine was commonly used with M1 and M2 carbines. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Minima© (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Image Comparison

The image comparing the M1 Carbine to the M1 Garand shows both weapons as being of a similar size, whereas most M1 Garands produced and issued were approximately 10 inches longer than contemporary M1 Carbines. The most commonly produced model of the M1 Garand had a barrel approximately 6 inches longer than the U.S. issued version of the M1 Carbine, the length of the firearm's respective actions- the M1 Garand fired a cartridge approximately twice the length of the M1 carbine, 3.34 inches and 1.65 inches respectively- meant that M1 Garand would have an action at least twice the length of the M1 Carbine. Taking into account that the M1 Garand has a longer barrel, a longer action, but a the length of the stock from shoulder to grip/trigger is approximately equal- the general issue M1 Garand should not be anywhere near equal in length to the M1 Carbine. The M1 Garand was approximately 43.5 inches in length, compared to the M1 Carbine's overall length of 35.6 inches; that is almost a 19% difference in size. [This is a more accurate comparison of the weapons relative size difference. My issue is that the image shown is clearly not demonstrative of the size differences present in the vast majority of M1 Garand and M1 Carbine weapons. I am aware the M1 Carbine is of post WW2 manufacture, but a 35.6 inch weapon and a 43.5 inch weapon are nowhere near equally sized. The image shown is highly unrepresentative of the general pool of these weapons in existence. I'd like to suggest that the image shown be replaced with a image that does not conflict with the reality of the vast majority of M1 Carbine and M1 Garands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.205.79 (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

.30 Carbine is not a pistol caliber

This is a pistol cartridge despite it being used primarily in carbines does not change anything. In reference to .357 mag "It has also become popular as a "dual-use" cartridge in short, light rifles like the American Old West lever-actions. In a rifle, the bullet will exit the barrel at about 1,800 feet per second (550 m/s),[15] making it far more versatile than the .30 Carbine or the .32-20 Winchester."

.30 carbine is not a intermediate round as it is not necked nor does it use a spitzer bullet. It has worse performance than a fairly common pistol round out of the same length barrel. It is also used in pistols and all the carbines it is used in are similar if not identical in usage to pistol caliber carbines. Light rifle round was made up to make soldiers more confident in the power of the weapon. --Youngdrake (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The .30 Carbine is not a pistol caliber...In 1940, when the M1 carbine was developed it was considered a "light rifle caliber" based on the .32 Winchester Self-Loading rifle cartridge...reference...M1 Carbine: Design Development and Production, Larry Ruth, The Gun Room Press, 1979. Your opinions, point of view, or personal research is irrelevant, you have provided no reference to support your claims.--RAF910 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It being a "light rifle" round does not make it a rifle round. Smith & Wesson Model 1940 Light Rifle Light rifle from the same time period in 9mm luger. Light rifle just means carbine and carbines can and are in pistol calibers quite frequently. --Youngdrake (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

While I currently cannot access the refrences I need (censored internet at work) I will link you to some things in the wiki that show what I am talking about.


"Another close comparison is the .30 Carbine, which has been offered in Ruger's single action Blackhawk revolver line since 1968.[14] The .30 Carbine was essentially the same ballistically as the .32 Winchester Self Loading, which was itself basically a rimless .32-20. The .327 Federal works at even higher pressure than the .30 Carbine (45,000 vs. 40,000 psi).[11][13] The long, 7½ inch (19 cm) barrel of the .30 Carbine Blackhawk, with suitable loads for a handgun, offers performance levels with similar bullet weights in excess of the factory loaded .327 Federal, along with excellent accuracy. Those who favor the .30 Carbine in a revolver do so due to the excellent accuracy, flat trajectory, and low recoil, all of which the .327 Federal also provides. Revolvers chambered for the .327 Federal can also safely fire .32S&W, .32S&W Long, .32H&R Magnum and the semi-rimmed .32ACP.[15] Both custom gunsmiths working with Ruger small frame single action Single Six and commercial maker Freedom Arms began offering conversions to convert .32 H&R revolvers to .327 Federal by early 2008. Test results from the long barreled guns showed even higher velocities than the .30 Carbine, along with excellent accuracy." 327_Federal_Magnum

It has also become popular as a "dual-use" cartridge in short, light rifles like the American Old West lever-actions. In a rifle, the bullet will exit the barrel at about 1,800 feet per second (550 m/s),[15] making it far more versatile than the .30 Carbine or the .32-20 Winchester..357 magnum

The Carbine and cartridge were not intended to serve as a primary infantry weapon, nor was it comparable to more powerful intermediate cartridges later developed for assault rifles..30 Carbine Case length 1.29 in (33 mm) .357 magnum Case length 32.76 mm (1.290 in) .30 Carbine

I propose it is changed to pistol/carbine in the description. As calling it a rifle round is misleading about it's capabilities. It is below the capabilities of common pistol ammunition. IT is used in the exact same role as pistol caliber ammunition. It is used in pistols and pistol caliber carbines. It's case and design are similar to pistol rounds. Nothing about this is a rifle round at best its a pistol / carbine round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 15:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, the .30 Carbine is not a pistol caliber...In 1940 when the M1 carbine was developed it was considered a light rifle caliber based on the .32 Winchester Self-Loading cartridge...reference...M1 Carbine: Design Development and Production, Larry Ruth, The Gun Room Press, 1979. Your opinions, point of view, or personal research is irrelevant, you have provided no reference to support your claims.--RAF910 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It being a "light rifle" round does not make it a rifle round. Smith & Wesson Model 1940 Light Rifle Light rifle from the same time period in 9mm luger. Do you have any sources that say that a light rifle caliber is a rifle caliber? Maybe we need to reclasify 9mm? --Youngdrake (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

So being a light rifle caliber makes it a rifle round? I think that is putting words in Mr. Ruths mouth. He says it is a "light rifle" caliber but what exactly does that mean? Are they interchangeable? --Youngdrake (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sir, Your opinions, point of view, or personal research is irrelevant...you must provide references to support your claims. Otherwise, your edits to Wiki will be reverted by other editors.--RAF910 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

How about you answer the question? Are they interchangable or not? If not than we have no source that says .30 carbine is a rifle round. If so we have to reclasify 9mm.--Youngdrake (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no access to firearms sites as they are blocked here. You have no sources that say it is a rifle round! Only that it was used in a light rifle which some of which are pistol calibers. That is in no way a clear source. Smith & Wesson Model 1940 Light Rifle Should we change this to say it fires a rifle round since it is a light rifle? Maybe we will change all the pistols that fire 9mm to say they fire rifle rounds. You have no source for what you claim I at least showed evidence of near identical balistic performance between .30 carbine and multiple pistol rounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngdrake (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Sir, As the editor who making the changes to a well referenced article it is your responsibility to refute the references with superior references. It is your responsibility to justify the changes to the satisfaction of other editors. If you fail to do so your edits will be reverted.--RAF910 (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Larry Ruth's book has an extensive account of the Light Rifle Program of the US Army Ordnance that led to the development first of the .30 Carbine cartridge for the Light Rifle competitions, then the M1 Carbine, the winning design. As part of the U.S. Army Light Rifle Program of the late 1930s, early 1940s, the .30 Carbine cartridge was developed from the .32 Winchester Self Loading Rifle cartridge aka .32SLR introduced with the Winchester Model 1905 self-loading (semiautomatic) sporting rifle at the Winchester company. Calling .30 Carbine a pistol round reflects current internet pedantic memes than it reflects historical fact. The .30 Carbine was developed for use in a carbine, a short rifle fired the shoulder. It not was not developed for use in a handgun, pistol or revolver. The parent cartridge, the .32SLR, was a rifle cartridge for the M1905 Winchester rifle and was never considred a pistol round.

Youngdrake engages in this sort of pedantic argument. The Ruby Ridge article cited the DOJ OPR Report quoting the US Marshals' testimony that they carried .223 caliber M16 and M16A2 rifles. To Youngdrake, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility is "ignorant" and the marshals' description of their guns as .223 caliber M16 is "false". Youngdrake argues that all military M16s are 5.56x45mmNATO and are not .223 and edit-warred over the phrase ".223 caliber M16". --Naaman Brown (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing images

Where did the pics go?

HEY! This is a direct copy from http://encyclopedia.lockergnome.com/s/b/M1_Carbine ?

Including the categories and linked articles? Nope, that's a (uncredited) copy of us. Oberiko 01:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like a credited copy to me. There's a GFDL link and a source link at the bottom, and the source links back to here. Lord Bodak 13:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Must have missed that then. Oberiko 18:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carbine Pronunciation

I removed the phrase in the intro of the article that gave the pronunciation of "carbine." The phrase had been edited several times with people having different pronunciations of the word. Yes, "carbine" is pronounced differently in American English and other forms of English, and both pronunciations are accepted. I removed the section because it was awkwardly placed and there is no point getting into disputes regarding grammar/spelling/pronunciation of different forms of English, which is prevalent in a lot of Wikipedia articles. Both pronunciations are already present on the Carbine page too.Waffle77 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on M1 carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1 carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1 carbine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2017

Korea Reserve Forces confirmed expiring to use M1 Carbine in 2014. M16 was had been substituted for use after 2014.

Please, change the "Users" information. Tjtj999 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Final use date US

The article notes that the M1 Carbine saw its final use in 1973, but how correct is this?

The following picture shows the M1 Carbine in use amongst the M16, in 1985 no less. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Army_infantrymen_unload_from_an_M113,_1985.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom430 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • There are no M1 Carbines present in this picture. Perhaps you should look again. From the left...first soldier is carrying an M16, second soldier is carrying an M16/M203, third soldier is carrying an M16, fourth soldier is carrying an M16/M203, fifth soldier is carrying an M16, sixth soldier has an M2 Carbine, and the seventh soldier is are carrying an M16. --RAF910 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Dellant (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    US Army infantrymen unload from an M113, 1985

Orphaned references in M1 carbine

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of M1 carbine's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Capie":

  • From M16 rifle: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 63–65. ISBN 978-0-86473-453-2.
  • From Daewoo Precision Industries K2: Capie, David (2004). Under the Gun: The Small Arms Challenge in the Pacific. Wellington: Victoria University Press. pp. 70–71. ISBN 978-0864734532.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Feedback

How long will it really work without having to clean the gas system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I bought a .30 Carbine in 1990 and have shot it for years in vintage military matches without cleaning the gas system. (a) All US made .30 Carbine ammo has non corrosive priming, and (b) gas is drawn from a midpoint in the barrel so the system is basically self cleaning. The inside of the operating slide does build up crud but cleaning that is just a matter of OCD. The military manual advises cleaning the barrel "upside down" to avoid introducing cleaning fuid or oil in the gas system: it runs best dry. An arsenal doing thorough repair prior to reserve storage might have cause to disassemble, inspect the piston, and clean prior to long term storage. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

M1 Carbine/Garand replacement myth, and the carbine variants.

This article should include and explain the debunked myth that "the Carbine replaced the Garand as the standard rifle." This article is a bit misleading on this. FM 23-7 which is the Carbine's field manual stated that the Carbine was intended to replace revolvers and pistols used by support troops.

This article should also be fact-checked on how it designates the Carbine variants. I thought that the M1 Carbine was the semi-automatic original, followed by the M2 full-automatic variant, and then the M1/M2 a.k.a. M3 variant that was select-fire. The M3 infrared had little relation to the carbine type because it was a conversion kit that could be used on any Carbine variant. This article says that the M2 was select fire and does not mention the terms M1/M2 or M3 as select-fire or existing at all. Does anyone have actual information on if this is wrong or not?

--Blamazon (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Won over John Garand's Short Carbine

John Garand designed his Shorter version of his M1 Garand and competed against Winchester M1 Carbine. https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/m1-variations.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4200:9FBB:3C98:E5DA:69F6:21A (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Larry Ruth and other firearms historians point out that John C. Garand's entries in the carbine competitions were completely new and different designs from his .30-06 M1 Garand rifle. The Winchester design won out over a dozen other designs. --Naaman Brown (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that makes much more sense than a short Garand. The Garand is already a very short rifle to begin with, how would you shorten it to make it more compact in a way that was effective to the goal of the competition?Blamazon (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1_carbine/Archive_2&oldid=1142339941"