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.

Jet Fixer 09-03-2011 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 415875)
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]

I'd watch were you are going with this. Brian has been doing this alot longer than most of us. Just sayin...

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 08:11 PM

I'm sure he has. Hence, my suggestion. I'm serious. Not sure what else to say.

M1-TA 09-03-2011 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 415875)
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
BQ97 has more correct carbine knowledge than the books you are using, Riesch, Harrison and Larson books are full of mistakes and repo parts. Ruth's War Baby book is a good place to start or join the carbine club and get their newsletters.
You quoted a statement from Riesch's book, BQ is trying to tell you that it is wrong. Everyone who has dealt with Brian would love to se him write a carbine book.

M1-TA

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1-TA (Post 415948)
Amsdorf
BQ97 has more correct carbine knowledge than the books you are using, Riesch, Harrison and Larson books are full of mistakes and repo parts. Ruth's War Baby book is a good place to start or join the carbine club and get their newsletters.
You quoted a statement from Riesch's book, BQ is trying to tell you that it is wrong. Everyone who has dealt with Brian would love to se him write a carbine book.

M1-TA


I am sure he does, that is why I said, he should write his own book, correcting the errors of others. I'm serious. He should.

Popcop 09-03-2011 09:52 PM

Wow, if that is not a worn sear causing that rapid fire, Bruce Lee would've been impressed by the speed of that index finger.

Amsdorf 09-03-2011 11:02 PM

I've got a very itchy trigger finger. What can I say?

The M1 Carbine set me to scratching.

Nothing wrong with the sear.

Firstflabn 09-04-2011 10:38 AM

First you quote a published source as the basis for your understanding. You chose a modern secondary source instead of going to War Baby, which quotes at length from official contemporary documents (as well as the official Ordnance publication on weapons development - that appears on the very first page of War Baby). Then, when your assertion was challenged, you forget the part about having accepted that erroneous claim and try to point the finger at your source. You were not a potted plant in this process.

By repeating an erroneous secondary source, the obligation to make a correction is yours. Brian did you a favor by taking the first step. The rest is up to you.

Besides your basic error in claiming the carbine was developed for other than front line troops, the suggestion that the Garand was only issued to riflemen naturally follows. In a 1944 army rifle company only 63 of its 143 Garands were in the hands of riflemen. That's 45%. Using your misapplication of logic, the Garand was developed for non-riflemen since more non-riflemen in an infantry company carried them. Further, in the rifle company, others with the Garand included the company clerk, jeep drivers, cooks, cooks helpers, and 9 of the 19 ammo bearers.

And let's not forget those hard charging Garand shooters in the regimental service company: the Assistant Athletic Instructor, the Motor Transport Officer, the Carpenter, HQ and Mail Clerks, and the Chaplain's Assistant.

Facts first; conclusion second.

PaulS 0706 09-04-2011 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BQ97 (Post 415791)
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.

As a little support for this info...
I just finished reading "Combat Jump" by Ed Ruggero about the first U.S. paratrooper assault in W.W. II. It was on the island of Sicily. The majority of the troopers were equipped with .30 Cal. Carbines. According to the author they were prone to jamming and the troopers didn't much care for them. Any dead soldier who had an M-1 made an additional contribution beyond his life...his weapon too.
The nature of the "jamming" was never discussed in the book. But if I had to guess I'd bet it was stove pipping of the expended cases.

Amsdorf 09-04-2011 12:07 PM

Interesting information.

dontknowdiddly 09-04-2011 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firstflabn (Post 416171)
First you quote a published source as the basis for your understanding. You chose a modern secondary source instead of going to War Baby, which quotes at length from official contemporary documents (as well as the official Ordnance publication on weapons development - that appears on the very first page of War Baby). Then, when your assertion was challenged, you forget the part about having accepted that erroneous claim and try to point the finger at your source. You were not a potted plant in this process.

By repeating an erroneous secondary source, the obligation to make a correction is yours. Brian did you a favor by taking the first step. The rest is up to you.

Besides your basic error in claiming the carbine was developed for other than front line troops, the suggestion that the Garand was only issued to riflemen naturally follows. In a 1944 army rifle company only 63 of its 143 Garands were in the hands of riflemen. That's 45%. Using your misapplication of logic, the Garand was developed for non-riflemen since more non-riflemen in an infantry company carried them. Further, in the rifle company, others with the Garand included the company clerk, jeep drivers, cooks, cooks helpers, and 9 of the 19 ammo bearers.

And let's not forget those hard charging Garand shooters in the regimental service company: the Assistant Athletic Instructor, the Motor Transport Officer, the Carpenter, HQ and Mail Clerks, and the Chaplain's Assistant.

Facts first; conclusion second.

I once quoted TM-9-1276 ('47 edition) on another forum board, and someone who I think is a genuine authority on Carbine didn't like it (he said it was wrong). And as well, it MIGHT HAVE been wrong.

But unless and until the printed word is at least challenged, it has to take precedent, and someone quoting it cannot be in error...

YOUR argument style is good. Too bad there's not a little more of it on the boards, rather than 'paintbrush' error claims.

Amsdorf 09-04-2011 04:24 PM

I'm still waiting for the ATF agents to come crashing through my front door demanding to see my full-auto M1 Carbine.

:)

BQ97 09-04-2011 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amsdorf (Post 416036)
I've got a very itchy trigger finger. What can I say?

The M1 Carbine set me to scratching.

Nothing wrong with the sear.

I have a hard time believing that. Especially considering you think there would be nothing wrong with not disclosing the true contents of a package when attempting to ship a handgun via a commercial carrier.

Amsdorf 09-04-2011 05:19 PM

BQ, believe what ever you want....makes no difference to me. If you bothered to watch my video in HD, full screen you'll see my finger moving with every shot.

Let's go over this..one more time.

This is what a full auto M2 Carbine looks and sounds like.

So stow your false accusations.

BQ97 09-04-2011 05:34 PM

I do believe what I want. I also know you set a precedence of not disclosing the full truth when it suits you.

Popcop 09-04-2011 06:13 PM

Anyone seen the AGI M1 carbine gunsmith video? The instructor actually discloses how to make a carbine shot in bursts. I was shocked when I heard it and surprised that wasn't edited out.
Mr.Amsdorf, we share our range with FBI,DEA,and ATF agents. I have news for you: There is a team of agents which their sole assignment is to comb through forums like these. All we are saying is be careful what you put out on the internet.

Amsdorf 09-04-2011 06:38 PM

Mr. Popcop:

We share our range with every law enforcement agency in the greater St. Louis metro area: local, state and federal agencies and entities of every description. I will happily let any of these fine gentlemen and gentleladies inspect my M1 Carbine. And, I think any of them can fire it as quickly, or more quickly, than I am able in semi-auto mode.

J.R.2009 09-04-2011 07:45 PM

I have never seen someone bump fire off their shoulder before. Didn't know it could be done. :confused:

Amsdorf 09-04-2011 07:47 PM

J.R. 2009.... just pulling the trigger finger quickly. Apparently an amazing and astonishing skill to some folks here.

;)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.