M1 Carbine Intro/Demonstration

[Jet Fixer]

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

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]

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

[M1-TA]

Originally Posted by Amsdorf

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]

Originally Posted by M1-TA

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by BQ97

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]

Interesting information.

[dontknowdiddly]

Originally Posted by Firstflabn

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.