Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1 Carbine
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 03-29-2020, 05:38 PM
condor condor is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 363
Default

Hi Sir, do you know if there was any distinction between who was issued an M1 over an M2, in the context of the Marine Corps?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-29-2020, 08:11 PM
USMCSUV USMCSUV is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 8
Default

This would be applicable to Korean war era. The tables of organization did not specify M1 or M2 as to who carries what but normally Platoon Leaders and Platoon Sgts. would have had M2 and the regular riflemen M1.
After WW2 almost all weapons were repaired and stored in sealed cans. Most of the carbines were M1 as very few M2 ever appeared in WW2 Most of these cans were opened and issued when Korea happened and thus were M1. As you know only Winchester and Inland produced M2 carbines and were so stamped as such. They were the last 2 producers at the end of WW2.
There were many 30 round magazines produced for Korea for the M2 but the M1 could also use the same magazine so no problem there.
A point of historical importance and not well known is that during the battle for Iwo Jima there were no M2 and no carbines with the type 3 bayonet lug. There are photos of Okinawa where type 3 bands and M2 carbines are Identified.
When the sculptor of the Iwo flag raising requested a carbine for reference purposes he was given a new one and thus it had the type 3 band which he used but which is historically incorrect. A piece of trivia.
Similarly the M14 had a selector switch for semi or full auto but they could and were swapped out so the average rifleman could only fire on Semi auto and this was done in the Army and Marine Corps. This was done to save ammo.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-29-2020, 09:14 PM
Firstflabn Firstflabn is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: FL
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCSUV View Post
After WW2 almost all weapons were repaired and stored in sealed cans. Most of the carbines were M1 as very few M2 ever appeared in WW2 Most of these cans were opened and issued when Korea happened and thus were M1.
Such sweeping claims need to be supported by sources. General terms like 'almost all', 'very few' and 'most' are characterizations. How many is 'many'?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-29-2020, 10:14 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
Plus the Marines LOVED the M1 Garand. Everyone thinks the Marines loved the M14 rifle. This wasn't the case. The Marines only switched to the M14 because they were FORCED to. The Marines had to switch to a 7.62 CAL rifle by a certain date, so they had no choice to get rid of the Garand. They tried to switch the Garand to the .308 but they could never get it to function right. If it wasn't for the fact they had to align with the new caliber ammo, you would have never seen the M14 in the Marines.

Quite frankly the Marines just loved the M1 rifle.
I would like to know more about that. There must be a ton of archives that would change U.S. military history. So much of what we know to be true just isn't so.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-30-2020, 06:20 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock View Post
I would like to know more about that. There must be a ton of archives that would change U.S. military history. So much of what we know to be true just isn't so.
This is 100% the truth. I started in the Archives about 2013. Well I realized very quickly that a substantial amount of the info that is known in books and online is not correct. Then it almost became addictive. I enjoy searching for the documentation now more than I do finding the actual rifles.

The only thing that stinks is, I debate everytime I post stuff as some cannot handle change. Last summer I posted warnings about the M1917 as they had a substantial amount of problems with them and a tens of thousands were released to the public that weren't safe to shoot. You would have thought I insulted guys moms, or kicked their dogs. Some guys flipped out. Even though I wasn't the one saying it, it was Army Ordnance. People took it personal and attacked me over it.

There are some docs that I could drop right now on a forum that would cause some to have a stroke. lol I don't know, I've always been one that I have kept an open mind and believe that the real study on a lot of this is just beginning. But some people have believed what they believe for 50 years and preached it like a gospel, they can't handle the change.

Then you get into the authors of books and some experts online, which many I have no clue what actual research they have ever done.

I will say this, the majority of books that I had prior to 2013, if they had any value I resold them. The rest I threw in the trash. No joke. I lost a lot of respect for some people that I had a lot of respect for.

On the Marines and the Garand. They were ordered to find a 7.62 Cal rifle to align with the Nato cartridge. They were given so many years to find one. I can't remember when the due date was, maybe 1963 or 1965. I think they started about 1958 if I remember right. I didn't go back and read the orders again to make sure. But they were not happy about the change, but they had to do it. So they went about trying to find a rifle. They ended up choosing the M14 mostly because there wasn't much else to choose from. They tried to switch the M1, 1919, and BAR to 7.62, but none were really reliable.

The Marines really didn't test the M14 in depth like they had every other weapon platform they chose, they relied a lot on the testing by the Army. The Marines were not found of the M14. They describe them as not as accurate, and not as reliable as the M1. They were heavy, uncontrollable in full auto, and there were a lot of safety issues with them. I see a lot of mentions of M14 rifles failing.

The funny thing is, I see Headquarters excited about switching the M14 to M16. You know how you see so many comment that the M16 wasn't safe and they jammed all the time in NAM. Well I didn't see that in the docs. Everything I saw on the early field reports and such was positive. Headquarters Marines loved the switch over to the M16. The only thing I see them complain about was the Marines were switching them to full auto and burning up their supply of ammo. But it seems from the document standpoint the rifles we think the Marines were happy with, they weren't. The ones we thought they hated, they loved.

There is very little I see stated that is really backed up by any real evidence. It's just like I said, I debate on everything I drop. Just because it gets old on how people react to change.

But for instance on the M14. You see a lot of back and forth with Springfield on the Marines sending back M14's that failed so SA could study them.

How everyone preaches about the low number M1903's. The low numbers M1903s' were probably the safest service rifle I see in the docs. People would have heart attacks if they knew what happened with the other service rifles.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-30-2020, 10:20 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,084
Default

I believe that I'm in good health so feel free to try to kill me.

I can understand your frustration. There are some people who are just unreasonable. I gave up discussing politics with anyone who has their mind made up. They are usually very uninformed, TV educated and refuse to accept facts. Many on the various forums are the same.

It sounds like you need a website to display the information you uncover. Or, you could author some articles in the gun mags that have become exceedingly boring; at least to me. A good one would be Man At Arms magazine. Your research would be a perfect fit for that publication; GCA Journal and American Rifleman too.

In any case, your discoveries need to get out there in mediums that future historians will use as a reference. Time to set the record straight.

Oh, and thanks for the tidbits on the M14 and your perspective on the low number 03's; very interesting
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-31-2020, 06:10 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock View Post
I believe that I'm in good health so feel free to try to kill me.

I can understand your frustration. There are some people who are just unreasonable. I gave up discussing politics with anyone who has their mind made up. They are usually very uninformed, TV educated and refuse to accept facts. Many on the various forums are the same.

It sounds like you need a website to display the information you uncover. Or, you could author some articles in the gun mags that have become exceedingly boring; at least to me. A good one would be Man At Arms magazine. Your research would be a perfect fit for that publication; GCA Journal and American Rifleman too.

In any case, your discoveries need to get out there in mediums that future historians will use as a reference. Time to set the record straight.

Oh, and thanks for the tidbits on the M14 and your perspective on the low number 03's; very interesting

I've written a lot for the GCA. I've had a dozen or so published in there. Last issue I had a article on basically an "Acog" scope that the Marines wanted to put on all the M1's back in the 1950's. I'm working on a couple more articles for them right now.

I have talked to the Man at Arms Magazine. We had talked about doing a Winchester A5 sniper article, but I had some family issues pop up and it sort of took a backseat. Then I never picked it back up. Which is my fault honestly.

I should submit some to the American Rifleman. I know several guys who write for them really well. Why I haven't done is probably stupid on my part. I've supplied research to some of the articles, but I should really write my own.

Yeah on the safety on service rifles. Actually the carbine was probably the safest I've seen. I've never seen really anything negative on their part. The absolute worst was actually the M1 Garand. Army Ordnance covered up a lot of safety problems with the M1. The main engineer at SA states in letters that he was so worried about their safety that he couldn't sleep at night.

But a lot was covered up because there was a huge mess with the Johnson rifle. I can't remember if it was in the House or the Senate, but there was a huge investigation started to see if favoritism had chosen the M1 over the Johnson as the main service rifle. Basically they were investigating if on the brink of war, if America was outfitted with the safest and best rifle possible. They felt the Johnson rifle might have been the better choice and the M1 had only been chosen since it was made by SA.

There was a lot of safety issues covered up by Army Ordnance not only then to hide from the investigation, but this continued well into the 50's.

There were about 30 low number failures that happened over the course of their time in service. Well that is a drop in the bucket compared to the Garand.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-31-2020, 08:19 AM
Jakeroub Jakeroub is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Mass
Posts: 1,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post

The funny thing is, I see Headquarters excited about switching the M14 to M16. You know how you see so many comment that the M16 wasn't safe and they jammed all the time in NAM. Well I didn't see that in the docs. Everything I saw on the early field reports and such was positive. Headquarters Marines loved the switch over to the M16.
I think the answer here is in who was writing the reports. I don't research and read the docs as you do, but enjoy reading memoirs. I recently read "Things I'll Never Forget: Memories of a Marine in Vietnam" where the author talked a pretty good amount about his experience with the M16. Apparently they had lots of trouble, and often had to use their cleaning rods to punch out stuck cases. They reported their problems up their chain of command and were told by that (paraphrasing) "the rifle is fine, you are just not keeping it clean." It sounded like the upper ranks just did not want to believe that there was a problem. It was really quite interesting to read.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-31-2020, 09:57 AM
Firstflabn Firstflabn is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: FL
Posts: 788
Default

I enjoy your efforts, Steve. Keep up the good work.

I think you miss an important point, though. A combo of engineering and philosophy. In the absence of a performance standard set before production starts, there is no such thing as 'safe' or 'unsafe.' Those are merely subjective labels - and everybody gets to set their own standard.

Even with a performance standard, the lack of an organized process to randomly sample test specimens means we will never know their batting average on compliance with specs. You will not find a document from before the game starts that says, "xxx% failures is acceptable." If you never set a standard, nobody can accuse you of not meeting it. Even post-WWI, OD did very limited metallurgical testing (it was expensive and required very specialized knowledge). Instead, they strained at gnats with hardness testing and re-heat treating.

If I can get out my wet noodle to apply to your hide, it would be that you are a bit too willing to accept conclusions of those who are entirely ignorant of the basics (even in those days) of metallurgy. You can't understand an engineering problem without at least a basic understanding of the engineering principles.

With a decent foundation in the basics (through both work and school), my conclusion is they had very poor (approaching nonexistent) control of the process. They didn't want to know.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:45 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakeroub View Post
I think the answer here is in who was writing the reports. I don't research and read the docs as you do, but enjoy reading memoirs. I recently read "Things I'll Never Forget: Memories of a Marine in Vietnam" where the author talked a pretty good amount about his experience with the M16. Apparently they had lots of trouble, and often had to use their cleaning rods to punch out stuck cases. They reported their problems up their chain of command and were told by that (paraphrasing) "the rifle is fine, you are just not keeping it clean." It sounded like the upper ranks just did not want to believe that there was a problem. It was really quite interesting to read.
Oh yeah totally understand. They were reports from the Infantry regiments to the Commandant of the Marine Corps. My memory was they were written by Field Grade officers and submitted across the Commandants desk for his review.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 PM.