# M1 - M1 Carbine/WWII Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 25, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018 "2011-03-25T23:04:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/21 "2011-03-26T17:44:20Z")
I held Plainfield Machine Co M1 carbines serial numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5. They were being turned in to be destroyed. Only rounds fired through them were the factory test fires. No idea if they were worth anything. ---
**Author:** ![paperbackwriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@paperbackwriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paperbackwriter)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/22 "2011-03-26T18:49:39Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > Here’s something that always bugged me, actually. Why the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine? Why not the M2 Carbine? Or the M-anythingotherthan-1 Carbine? The name kinda suggests that it’s a cut-down Garand, which it most certainly is not. Because (simplifying, of course) at that time the Army called the first issued type of any piece of hardware M1. It wasn’t that the Army issued gun A named M1 and gun B named M1 and troops distinguished by calling them Garand versus carbine. They issued “United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1” and “United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1”. Rifles and carbines each had their own series, starting with M1. The same applied to [chemical mines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_chemical_mine), [bayonets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_bayonet), [submachine guns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Thompson_submachine_gun#M1), and [a host of other equipment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1#Firearms_and_Military_Equipment). This even applied to tanks. While most of us are familiar with the M3 Grant/Lee and the M4 Sherman, they were both preceded by the [M1 “Combat car”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Combat_Car). Somewhere in the depths of the interwar Army bureaucracy, this made complete sense. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/23 "2011-03-27T00:22:47Z")
> [@paperbackwriter](#): > > Because (simplifying, of course) at that time the Army called the first issued type of any piece of hardware M1. It wasn’t that the Army issued gun A named M1 and gun B named M1 and troops distinguished by calling them Garand versus carbine. They issued “United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1” and “United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1”. Rifles and carbines each had their own series, starting with M1. The same applied to [chemical mines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_chemical_mine), [bayonets](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_bayonet), [submachine guns](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Thompson_submachine_gun#M1), and [a host of other equipment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1#Firearms_and_Military_Equipment). This even applied to tanks. While most of us are familiar with the M3 Grant/Lee and the M4 Sherman, they were both preceded by the [M1 “Combat car”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Combat_Car). > > Somewhere in the depths of the interwar Army bureaucracy, this made complete sense. Heh, and this all leads to another one of my favorite bits of confusingly similar equipment names: The M-60 Patton tank and the M-60 Machine Gun. In fact, I’m pretty sure the M-60 was commonly mounted on the M-60 (so you can fight while you fight…) But I digress. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/24 "2011-03-27T11:06:59Z")
> [@Noel\_Prosequi](#): > > Not sufficiently familiar with firearms to know the answer to this, but why is this so? What is impractical about the .30? Why is it more expensive? Because it is less common so economies of scale in manufacture don’t kick in? If it is anything like the .303 round, I could see that it is bigger overall (though not in calibre) than a 9mm, but the stopping power and muzzle velocity was presumably thought necessary in the war. The thing is, the .30 M1 Carbine round isn’t nearly as powerful as something like .303 or the _other_ .30 M1 round better known as .30-06. It was, as others have noted, designed for people who needed something more than a handgun but not quite a full-sized rifle; so transport corps people, artillery gun numbers, and so on. > [@](#): > > Why would the average shooter who went to the trouble of getting an M1 replica _not_ want the full experience with the original ammunition? Because the original ammunition is hard to get now, partly because it’s been nearly proprietary pretty much since its inception. Only a handful of guns have ever been chambered for the cartridge, and pretty much all of them appear to have been an afterthought or “why not?” affair. What surprises me is that the US army went to the trouble of designing the .30 Carbine cartridge when they could have just used the already existing .357 Magnum cartridge, which whilst not quite as powerful as .30 Carbine (at least on paper) would seem to be sufficient, especially when fired from a carbine as opposed to a handgun. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/25 "2011-03-27T12:17:33Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > 1. Because the original ammunition is hard to get now, partly because it’s been nearly proprietary pretty much since its inception. > > 2. **What surprises me is that the US army went to the trouble of designing the .30 Carbine cartridge when they could have just used the already existing .357 Magnum** cartridge, which whilst not quite as powerful as .30 Carbine (at least on paper) would seem to be sufficient, especially when fired from a carbine as opposed to a handgun. 1. I dont have any problem finding ammo for the 30 carbine. I always find lots of it available both in full metal jacket, and in hollow point. 2. …because the 30 caliber carbine ammo is rimless designed to be shot out of a semiauto. The 357 has a rim and is designed to be shot out of a revolver. The 357 cartridge would not have worked in 1940, nor would the 38 special. I doubt the dozen manufacturers of the m1 carbine could have produced it to feed and eject flawlessly with a 357 rimmed cartridge. ( Besides, there isnt really that much difference between a 30 caliber and a 357 with the same bullet weights and if the 357 is in a full metal case and is regular velocity. The killing power of both cartridges would be comparable esp if the target is hit 5 or 6 times ) 3. Actually, the 30 caliber carbine is a nice little gun, it is small, short, no recoil, dependable, cheap, easy to clean and maintain, has lots of firepower exp with 30 shot magazines, and with soft point lead cartridges it kills pretty well. The 30 caliber M1 carbine is a great self defense weapon, even if you are attacked by a dozen bad guys. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/26 "2011-03-27T12:31:01Z")
> [@Raguleader](#): > > As I recall, the M1 Carbine was designed with support troops in mind. Guys who would need to be able to defend themselves from attack, but whose primary duties would make contact with the enemy rare. They were a compromise between effectiveness and ease of carry (they may have also been cheaper than the M1911 handguns, I don’t know though). . The choice back then was to give your support troops either a **30 caliber m1 carbine** , or else give them a\*\* 45 caliber handgun\*\*. Most of the cooks, mechanics, grave personnel, and truckdrivers could not hit the side of a barn with a 45 caliber handgun. On the other hand, almost anybody can shoot very accurately with a 30 caliber m1 carbine. The 30 caliber m2 carbine also had tremendous firepower back in the 1940’s old days with 15 shot magazines. 3 or 4 guys emptying a handfull of magazines at the enemy would at least give the enemy a good scare. .(…actually, from what I have seen, very few people even today can shoot a handgun accurately) ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/27 "2011-03-27T12:31:48Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > You see a lot of M1 carbines here in Israel. The police has a big stock, and they like to issue them to people like Civil Guard volunteers and tour guides. Lots of Police Districts in Pakistan also issue them in preference to service pistols when Armed Policing is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/28 "2011-03-27T12:37:16Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > 1. I dont have any problem finding ammo for the 30 carbine. I always find lots of it available both in full metal jacket, and in hollow point. I’m not in the US, but the reports from many of my shooting friends who are seems to be that .30 Carbine is a “weird” calibre that their local gunshop probably doesn’t have “on the shelf”. Obviously the US is a big place so it’s going to be different from region to region, but I’ve heard enough shooters in the US commenting that ammo isn’t readily available (at least not the same extent as, say, 9mm Parabellum) that it’s something they have to keep in mind. > [@](#): > > 1. …because the 30 caliber carbine ammo is rimless designed to be shot out of a semiauto. The 357 has a rim and is designed to be shot out of a revolver. The 357 cartridge would not have worked in 1940, nor would the 38 special. I doubt the dozen manufacturers of the m1 carbine could have produced it to feed and eject flawlessly with a 357 rimmed cartridge. They could have done what Webley & Scott did, and develop a rimless version of the cartridge for self-loaders (There’s two different .455 Webley cartridges; the revolver one and .455 Webley Automatic, which is basically a semi-rimmed version of the cartridge designed for semi-auto handguns). > [@](#): > > ( Besides, there isnt really that much difference between a 30 caliber and a 357 with the same bullet weights and if the 357 is in a full metal case and is regular velocity. The killing power of both cartridges would be comparable esp if the target is hit 5 or 6 times ) Exactly my point. They already _had_ a more or less suitable cartridge (.357 Magnum), so designing the .30 Carbine cartridge more or less from scratch just seemed a bit… un-necessary, basically. > [@](#): > > 1. Actually, the 30 caliber carbine is a nice little gun, it is small, short, no recoil, dependable, cheap, easy to clean and maintain, has lots of firepower exp with 30 shot magazines, and with soft point lead cartridges it kills pretty well. The 30 caliber M1 carbine is a great self defense weapon, even if you are attacked by a dozen bad guys. I was under the impression the .30 M1 Carbine _wasn’t_ popular, especially in Korea, due to a lack of stopping power with service ammunition? I know they’re not bad guns by any stretch of the imagination, but personally, given the choice between an M1 Carbine and a Thompson SMG in a combat situation, I’d want the Thompson. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/29 "2011-03-27T12:45:41Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > …, but personally, given the choice between an M1 Carbine and a Thompson SMG in a combat situation, I’d want the Thompson. Obviously, you have never shot a Thompson. That darn thing is HEAVY!!! about a dozen pounds loaded. Nobody wants to go on a 20 mile march carrying a Thompson along with a few hundred rounds of ammo. Also , the Thompson is really not very accurate other than at very short range. I don’t like the Thompson at all ( except it “looks” cool) and I would NEVER!!! buy one (other than to use it as a wall hanger). ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/30 "2011-03-27T12:52:47Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > 1. …because the 30 caliber carbine ammo is rimless designed to be shot out of a semiauto. The 357 has a rim and is designed to be shot out of a revolver. The 357 cartridge would not have worked in 1940, nor would the 38 special. I doubt the dozen manufacturers of the m1 carbine could have produced it to feed and eject flawlessly with a 357 rimmed cartridge. . > [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > They could have done what Webley & Scott did, and develop a rimless version of the cartridge for self-loaders (There’s two different .455 Webley cartridges; the revolver one and .455 Webley Automatic, which is basically a semi-rimmed version of the cartridge designed for semi-auto handguns). > . No!!!..they couldnt. There is no way the USA could have a dozen manufacturers producing a 357 rimmed semiauto with interchangable parts in the volume that they did. The factories in 1940 were not that good. A 357 magnum semiauto would have had to be finely had crafted in order to get it to feed and eject flawlessly, and even today with 21st century technology and robotic manufacturing, virtually nobody uses a 357 magnum semiauto rifle. ---
**Author:** ![frawkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/cdc98d/32.png) [@frawkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frawkin)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/31 "2011-03-27T12:55:02Z")
[free radicals with green tea](http://onprostatecancer.com/blog/2011/01/12/important-benefits-of-green-tea-in-fighting-free-radicals/) coffee weight loss capsules 25907 ultra lean green tea drink lipton bottled iced white tea hoodia side effects lipton green tea with fruit caffeine ephedra benefits egcg powder calorie chart green tea green tea fat burner side effects lipton diet oolong tea nutrition facts polyphenol white tea vs green tea side effects liquid fish oil campbells bottled coffee lipton diet white tea ingredients green tea weight loss advantages green tea lose weight phentermine pills green tea metabolism boost fitness lipton green tea with citrus promotional acai burn green tea hp review wu tang clan lipton white tea health natural antioxidants foods white tea most antioxidant supplements liquid flax seed oil green tea export caffeine content bigelow green tea caffeine content [free radicals with green tea](http://www.articlekx.com/important-benefits-of-green-tea-in-fighting-free-radicals/) green tea rip diet pills liquid ephedra lipton ge green tea desert burn hoodia fish oil side effects stash green tea antioxidants selenium much does green tea boost energy protein green low carb diets weight loss bigelow white tea weight loss teavana weight loss red tea health benefits lipton green tea with fruit caffeine lose weight white tea pills iced tea beer green tea msi hoodia oprah smoking white tea fat burner 120 green tea metabolism boosters lipton green tea discounts white tea acai caffeine content lipton white tea green tea pills review drinking water diet green tea lipton caffeine white tea phytonutrients white tea metabolism virgin lipton diet coffee ingredients [free radicals with green tea](http://www.ebooksway.com/health-fitness/important-benefits-of-green-tea-in-fighting-free-radicals/) white tea green tea caffeine green tea extract dosage weight loss green tea ovulation fertility green tea menstrual cycle hoodia patch weight loss wu long tea reviews beer white tea foods lipton citrus green tea review d hoodia dangers liquid diet weight loss lipton green tea bags caffeine content green tea synthesis boost red tea caffeine green tea diet weight loss green tea export caffeine content alli benefits nestle diet green tea campbells bottled coffee lose weight with green tea matcha white tea caffeine lipton ice tea report drinking coffee weight loss review t green tea dietary supplement liptons nsi green tea extract acai berry fruits stemulite side effects black tea vs green tea benefits chromium [liquid hoodia extreme](http://www.2home.com.mx/ogame/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=664) [peppermint tea baby](http://www.10in90.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=473633#473633) [white tea phytochemicals](http://www.12d7.com/showthread.php?p=6810#post6810) [antioxidants drinks](http://www.12d7.com/showthread.php?p=6806#post6806) [free radicals lyrics](http://abbadons.ru/forum/showthread.php?15562-lipton-green-tea-health&p=70873#post70873) ---
**Author:** ![frawkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/cdc98d/32.png) [@frawkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frawkin)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/32 "2011-03-27T12:57:45Z")
[free radicals with green tea](http://www.artipot.com/articles/785294/important-facts-about-free-radicals-and-antioxidants-in-green-tea.htm) diet tea side effects bigelow coffee sugar green tea fat burner oolong tea pregnancy lemonade diet weight loss black tea pregnancy bigelow green tea caffeine content b){var a=new Image lipton black tea sweepstakes bodybuilding pills green tea metabolism boost weight loss wu yi tea recipes drinking oolong tea drinking black tea vitamin c green tea acai berry supreme peppermint tea baby oolong tea vs green tea green tea maxim polyphenols foods gnc diet pills black tea lose weight red tea vs coffee lipton diet green tea coupon organic green tea health benefits lipton green tea health mens health green tea snapple white tea commercial fish oil benefits skin lipton diet green tea discounts [free radicals with green tea](http://finalstagelungcancer.lungcancerfor.com/?p=913) green tea acai lipton white pyramid tea bags snapple green tea commercial atkins diet herbal tea fish oil capsules side effects lipton black tea sweepstakes fad diets weight loss atkins diet oolong tea lipton citrus iced tea white tea mens health white tea content brisk green tea with citrus coupons chromium picolinate diet pills hoodia gordonii oolong tea store green tea implantation chai tea benefits lipton diet green tea with citrus ingredients green tea ovulation fertility bottle green tea alli gnc lipton diet green tea insurance lipton white tea benefits red tea vs black tea lipton ice tea manual green tea choice hydroxycut benefits calories matcha green tea green tea oil caffeine content acai fruit [free radicals with green tea](http://articles.webpreneurresources.com/combating-free-radicals-with-green-tea/) sencha white tea benefits detox diets weight loss jasmine white tea caffeine content gnc weight loss calorie calculator green tea diet lipton citrus green tea guide lipton green tea drink lipton diet green tea fitness phentermine side effects liptons chicken noodle soup asian green tea caffeine content green tea fat burner good you alcohol coffee lipton diet iced green tea white tea acne gmc weight loss white tea with acai wu long tea ingredients omega 3 skin black tea caffeine drinking coffee weight loss green tea pills with hoodia resveratrol expi:25907 wu tang clan members amino acid green coffee benefits boost green tea extract bodybuilding green tea nsi green tea how to make your metabolism faster [camomile tea pregnancy](http://67.15.196.133/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35366&p=83199#p83199) [green tea extract diet pills](http://admin-vuz.ru/viewtopic.php?p=96437#96437) [alpha lipoic acid side effects](http://140.117.96.200/ma2009/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=101848&post_id=177357&order=0&viewmode=flat&pid=0&forum=5#forumpost177357) [green tea miscarriage](http://anyrisha.lescigales.org/Ipb/index.php?showtopic=449) [antioxidants supplements](http://anyrisha.lescigales.org/Ipb/index.php?showtopic=448) ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/33 "2011-03-27T13:02:59Z")
> [@Martini\_Enfield](#): > > …, so designing the .30 Carbine cartridge more or less from scratch just seemed a bit… un-necessary, basically. > . Designing a new simple cartridge, designing the 30 carbine cartridge, was not a difficult thing to do. I doubt that it took very long to develop. We already had the 32 suto. It is not a “moon shot”,. It was/is a task that Winchester developers could do a whole lot faster than it probably took the army to write down the request. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/34 "2011-03-27T13:21:18Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > Obviously, you have never shot a Thompson. That darn thing is HEAVY!!! about a dozen pounds loaded. Nobody wants to go on a 20 mile march carrying a Thompson along with a few hundred rounds of ammo. Actually, I _have_ fired a full-auto Thompson M1928A1 (overseas, since they’re illegal here), and it’s one of my favourite guns. I liked the weight (it weighs about the same as most WWII service rifles, incidentally) and found it surprisingly accurate. Sure; you won’t be winning any Olympic medals with it, but for the close-quarter work it was intended for I’d be more than happy to carry one in a combat situation. > [@Susanann](#): > > No!!!..they couldnt. > > There is no way the USA could have a dozen manufacturers producing a 357 rimmed semiauto with interchangable parts in the volume that they did. The factories in 1940 were not that good. Really? Then how come the British managed to do it in the late 1900s with the .380 and .455 Webley Automatic cartridges? We’re talking about a semi-rimmed cartridge, after all- not a full-rimmed one. > [@](#): > > A 357 magnum semiauto would have had to be finely had crafted in order to get it to feed and eject flawlessly, and even today with 21st century technology and robotic manufacturing, virtually nobody uses a 357 magnum semiauto rifle. Probably because that particular niche has been filled by other guns (like the various .223 or 7.62 Soviet self-loaders) and there are plenty of lever-action guns in .357 Magnum which are used for Cowboy Action Shooting and varmint hunting, so there’s no real _need_ for a .357 Magnum semi-auto rifle, I’d say. It’s got nothing to do with technology (The .303 rifle cartridge, for example, is fully rimmed and there are numerous automatic weapons chambered for that calibre) and everything to do with it not being economically worthwhile, IME. ---
**Author:** ![SanDiegoTim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/35 "2011-03-27T14:43:49Z")
Back to the original question, I received this from a friend… “Tim, the M1 rifle was the standard issue weapon in both theaters. The carbine was issued to those who either had a crew served weapon, like a mortar or a machine gun. Artillery, supply, transportation, and most signal units were issued the rifle. Thus is was more widely issued than the carbine.” Makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/36 "2011-03-27T16:22:30Z")
The folding stock M1 Carbines are cool. Always wanted one. [http://historydocumented.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/m1\_carbine.jpg](http://historydocumented.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/m1_carbine.jpg) I wonder how accurate they were with the pistol grip? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/37 "2011-03-27T16:27:31Z")
Whenever I think of the M1 Carbine, I think I should put one of those folding stocks on the IBM. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/38 "2011-03-27T16:36:53Z")
> [@](#): > > There are two commonly available types of rifles; the bolt action and the semi-automatic. War surplus bolt action rifles are cheap and usually pretty accurate, but have a slower rate of fire than a semi-automatic. A semi-automatic is preferable in nearly all cases. The M-1 carbine is probably the best semi-automatic for the money (about $80). It’s light, short, easy to handle and has only the drawback of a cartridge that’s a little underpowered. Among bolt actions, the Springfield, Mauser, Royal Enfield, Russian 7.62, and the Lee Harvey Oswald Special, the Mannlicher-Carcano, are all good buys for the money (about $20). -Abbie Hoffman, _Steal This Book_ ! ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/39 "2011-03-27T17:45:03Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > I’m not on board with 9mm. It just wouldn’t be the same. Besides, if you want 9mm there’s the Marlin Camp 9, which has similar ergonomics and even a vague resemblance to the M1 Carbine. Or if you want cheap, you can shoot .22LR out of a Ruger 10/22.. …instead of a 9mm, you might as well go with the Ruger 44 mag semiauto rifle ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018/40 "2011-03-27T19:19:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _They could have done what Webley & Scott did, and develop a rimless version of the cartridge for self-loaders (There’s two different .455 Webley cartridges; the revolver one and .455 Webley Automatic, which is basically a semi-rimmed version of the cartridge designed for semi-auto handguns)._ Lest anybody reading this should think that the two are interchangeable in a pinch the .455 Self-Loading is considerably more powerful and will destroy any revolver that fires it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m1-m1-carbine-wwii-question/576018.md?page=3)