CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   M1 Carbine (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   M1 Carbine Intro/Demonstration (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=53703)

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 03:28 PM

M1 Carbine Intro/Demonstration
 
I took my "new" M1 Carbine out to the range today for the first time and put about 200 rounds through it, without incident, other than a really fun time with it. This thing has become my favorite rifle to shoot!

Here are a couple videos I shot.

The first was shot at home, just taking a look at it more closely. It's an Inland Division, with all correct parts, with all the correct Inland codes on it. The barrel is stamped July 1944. There are no arsenal rebuilt parts on it and no import marks.

The second video I clipped from a longer video out at the range, just putting some rounds down range with it.

Thanks for watching.

Video One.


Video Two.

BQ97 09-03-2011 03:35 PM

Your comment about the M1 Carbine being developed for non-frontline troops is incorrect.

You might want to take out the rapid fire segment before soneone, i.e. BATF, thinks your M1 fires more than one round with each trigger pull.

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 03:41 PM

I welcome your correction, and thanks for watching. I am always looking to learn more.

The reason I said what I did is based on the research I've done using any number of excellent sources, for example.

Here is what Craig Riesch writes in his book U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production:

"The U.S. Army wanted to develop a semiautomatic light rifle with a larger-capacity magazine than the pistol to supplement or replace the issue of the Model 1911A1 pistol. The Army felt that a light rifle would prove easier for troops to shoot more accurately at distance than a pistol. As it turned out, the soldiers to whom .45 pistols were issued were reluctant to give them up and requested they also be issued the new M1 Carbine. . . . In the late 1930s, the U.S. Army Ordinance Department began the search for a light carbine-type long arm for combat support troops and officers as a substitute for the Model 1911A1 pistol. . . . " (p. 1)

The "front line" enlisted me were issued the M1 Garands, support troops including: mortar, machine gun, communications, command, and even their officers, were issues the Carbine and generally also carried the 1911A1 sidearm.

If however your correction is intended to indicate that paratroopers carried it, yes, that would be an appropriate notation.

I'm flattered that you think my rapid firing would be mistaken for full auto, but....highly doubtful.

Here is what the Carbine does when it is on full auto, in its M2 configuration.

BQ97 09-03-2011 04:21 PM

What became the M1 Carbine was born out of a requirement set forth by the Infantry Board to develop a weapon that was easier to use and provided more firepower than the current issue sidearm. It also needed to be smaller and lighter than the current issue main battle rifle. The intended recipients of the new "light rifle" were the combat soldiers whose primary role on the battle field was not as a rifleman. That would include mortar, machine gun, bazooka crews, etc. I wouldn't classify any of those as support troops. BTW I know what an M2 Carbine does on full auto as I have a couple.

22mike 09-03-2011 04:59 PM

The M2 looks like a ton of fun............:D:D:D

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 05:17 PM

BQ...a fair point, perhaps Craig Riesch needs to correct his book for the 7th edition.

:)

However, technically, those troops you mentioned are "support" troops for the riflemen.

But I won't belabor the point, I know some people love to engage in arguments here, and I ain't one of them.

22, thank, yes, I had it on full auto today.

;)

BQ97 09-03-2011 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 415837)
BQ...a fair point, perhaps Craig Riesch needs to correct his book for the 7th edition.

That's not the only thing needing correction either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 415837)
However, technically, those troops you mentioned are "support" troops for the riflemen.

Tell that to an infantryman manning a machinegun and see what kind of response you get. :rolleyes:

22mike 09-03-2011 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 415837)
BQ...a fair point, perhaps Craig Riesch needs to correct his book for the 7th edition.

:)

However, technically, those troops you mentioned are "support" troops for the riflemen.

But I won't belabor the point, I know some people love to engage in arguments here, and I ain't one of them.

22, thank, yes, I had it on full auto today.

;)

Where did you get your M2 ???

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BQ97 (Post 415856)
That's not the only thing needing correction either.



Tell that to an infantryman manning a machinegun and see what kind of response you get. :rolleyes:

I am sure Craig would welcome your "expert" suggestions.

Perhaps you should write your own book and help us all achieve your level of superior knowledge.

[eye roll]

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 22mike (Post 415866)
Where did you get your M2 ???

I could tell you, but then...I'd have to...well, you know.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.