http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=17346/start=0.html
Currently the poll for “Is the M1 carbine an assault rifle” stands at YES: 1, NO: 13. I’m guessing that the 1 is ironman (C_o_D)…
But we’re clearly all just thinking inside our little wooden boxes - only Ironman is the truly enlightened one, going far beyond conventional wisdom and the interpretation of conventional nomenclature to create new paradigms of weapon classification.
Man of Stoat, you forget that the proponent of the ‘M1 is an assault rifle’ theory has a lot of experience with computer games, which of course carries so much more weight than practical experience of the actual weapons and real soldering.
I think the M1 Carbine must be an assault rifle! I fired it in the computer game Call of Duty and it handled like one to me!
It is not as good as the FG42. Some idiots say that the FG42 was a flawed prototype not robust enough to fire a rifle round, but it’s never failed me on the first level of Call of Duty!
Voluntary Escaper, we are talking about real gun, not about the feeling of one kind of implementation in a PC game!!!
Dani, he was using a literary device common to Brits known as sarcasm, or taking the píss. You’re excused from not noticing this cos you’re not a native english speaker.
:oops:
Then sorry for that!
Deleted post
Posted twice by mistake.
As I have admitted elsewhere, I have no technical knowledge of the subject under discussion.
What I do consider myself to have, however, is a fair grasp of the English language.
There is a substantial linguistic difference between an object/weapon “being used during an assault and performing satisfactorily in that role” (paraphrased, NOT quoted) and said object/weapon being capable of description as a result, as an “assault weapon”.
There are cases on record of tracheotomy operations being carried out with a penknife, and in at least one instance a bowie knife being used to remove an appendix.
Neither case justifies these items being called “surgical instruments” despite being used in surgery, and performing satisfactorily.
Nicely put you silver tongued devil 
Why couldn’t I have said that days ago. :oops:
Not that it will make one blind iota of difference 
Actually I think youll find that the Bayonet sheath is primarily a bottler opener, with the facility for sheating a bayonet as a secondary purpose.
It has been used satisfactorily as a bottle opener for longer than it has been used as a bayonet sheath. “holy freaking guano batboy” what did the research designers etc open their beers with before they were issued to the troops.
I mean, Come on Kiddo, what planet are you on.
Wednesday, 1Bn RGBW Al Faw.
Fred, got out of the shower and felt a bit thirsty he was wearing a towel, though not around his head, he walked past some other people who were naked and went to his room where he did some IRONING,Man it was hot he put on some blothes but felt a bit thirsty after that so he walked to the naafi, past a pile of 31,000 carbine magazines and grenades, on his way their he realised that a beer was in order as it was a pleasant evening to get Wankered. on getting to the bar he bought himself a beer and took the lid off using a bayonet sheath.
His mates arrived and also bought beer and Fred gave them the bayonet sheath to open their stubbies as well. His friends thought that this was very kind and later when he passed out they awarded him a dirty sanchez
Its strange isnt it how useful that bayonet sheath was for opening bottles, especially when there were so many other openers he could have used. it might not have been “designed” for opening beer primarily but it is very good at it.
Ironingman pretty much everything you pick up is capable of killing someone. the fact that the M1 is a designed as a weapon means it bloody well should! it does not however qualify it as an assault weapon just because it killed someone in an assault
Actually I think youll find that the Bayonet sheath is primarily a bottler opener, with the facility for sheating a bayonet as a secondary purpose.
In days of old and I was young we used magazines to open bottles, but then we had a rifle that fired a proper mans bullet not some toy that only hits people at 250m.
Oh and it buggered the mag as well, but we must gat our priorities right. The cocking handle worked fine as well.
This was such a problem for the Israelis that they put a bottle opener on the bipod of the Galil - I have checked this personally (on a real gat, not on teh intarweb) and can confirm it to be true.
Some quotes regarding the assault rifle non-status of the M1 carbine:
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Carbine
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/right_to_keep_and_bear_arms/arifle2.html
… U.S. Carbine M1 and M2 come very close [to being assault rifles], but in fact fall into their own very special category. In every case, the “pure” assault rifles replaced or supplemented much more powerful rifles…in U.S., M16 replaced M14, in the USSR, AK an SKS replaced the Nagant and Tokarev in 7.62x54R M91, and so on.
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/MIKE223.html
An interesting piece of advice I’ve come across was that if you thought of the M1 carbine as a rifle you would always be disappointed, -better to think of it as a “two handed pistol”
Jane’s:
…totally useless at ranges over 200 yards, since it fired a pistol bullet. It was intended simply to replace the pistol … but found itself being used as a light rifle more often than not.
I can’t find a document anywhere that says that the M1 carbine in fact is an assault rifle. Sorry, ironman, but you’re on your own on this one, and you’re arguing against the whole of Internet- and Gunowner-land.
Find me some nice quotes from reputable sources (not re-enacting or gaming walt sites) to back yourself up, or admit defeat, if you’d be so frightfully kind. 8)
Stoat I think it was you talking about the transition point when the bullet returns to LV. I must admit it had never crossed my mind that they transit from HV to LV at some point. At what range would this happen for 5.56? Do you still get the crake at this range?
On another point that may interest you, I was reading an article on French tactics in the Franco Prussian war at work some years ago. The French using the Rifle Chassepot, I think, would form in Brigade block and point the rifle into the air at about 45% and engage the Prussians some distance away. I commented on this to a friend of mine. He was very interested and said that could possibly explain why when he was in Dhofar they kept coming under fire from the tribesman when they seemed out of range. It would seem a variation on spray and pray. This was with the AK.
Section fire, Perchance?
ask IRONMAN, he will explain, although of course Section is different to suppressing?
Apples / Pears - what?
I don’t know the precise distance this occurs for the SS109.
I’m assured by people in the long-rang butts that the 144gn 7.62mm used to make an almighty crack as it went back through the sound barrier, louder than its normal crack. Once it’s comfortably subsonic, it will be silent, however.
The pointing the rifles at rediculous angles thing to engage the enemy in group fire was British doctrine until the 1st world war - there were dial sights (also called volley sights) on the left of the rifle which were scaled up to about 3200 yards, iirc (i’ve posted the exact figure somewhere else - search for it)
OK, is the .30 carbine a pistol cartridge, intermediate rifle cartridge, rifle cartridge, or just in its own category?
Let’s look at its features:
Cal. 308"
Bullet weight: 110gn
Muzzle velocity: 1970ish fps
Muzzle energy: 976fps
Bullet shape: definitely pistol in form, short (i.e. low aspect ratio) & round-nose. It’s effectively a heavier .32 ACP or 7.63 Mauser. If you put it on a table without the cartridge in front of someone who knew a bit about bullets & asked “pistol or rifle bullet?”, they’d immediately say “pistol bullet”. Modern rifle ammunition is all spitzer point, and has been so since not long after 1900, except for the Italians who retained high aspect ratio round-nose 6.5mm.
Cartridge:
Straight-walled (well, slightly tapered, anyway). Modern rifle rounds, and particularly military ones, are not straight-walled, they are bottle necked.
Usage:
M1 carbine + family
Cristobal Carbine (an SMG - fired from an open bolt IIRC)
AMT Automag III (a pistol)
Ruger Blackhawk (a revolver)
Taurus Raging 30 (a revolver)
T/C Contender (a single-shot pistol)
More recently:
SGC offers little straight-pull M16 carbines in this calibre
Comparing the ballistics with cartridges generally accepted to be intermediate cartridges, it’s pants (7.62mm M1943 has 60% more ME). Comparing it with pistol cartridges, in terms of muzzle energy it’s up the top end above a standard .44 Mag load (but will be less effective at short range).
Basically it’s a pretty unique calibre, and to try & lump it in with intermediate rifle rounds like 7.92x33, 5.56x45, 7.62x39 etc. is silly.
The bullet it fires, however, is categorically a pistol bullet design, albeit a slightly heavier one than is common in a .30 cal pistol.
[/quote]
The pointing the rifles at rediculous angles thing to engage the enemy in group fire was British doctrine until the 1st world war - there were dial sights (also called volley sights) on the left of the rifle which were scaled up to about 3200 yards, iirc (i’ve posted the exact figure somewhere else - search for it)[/quote]
Hey, it had worked bloody well with the longbow during the Hundred Years War…if it ain’t broke…
Most historical authorities state that the first assualt rifle in the world was the Cei-Rigott (1890’s), while a few others state that the 1st was the Federov Avtomat (1916), because it, unlike the Cei-Rigott was actually the 1st such rifle to enter military service.
All historical sources cite one of these two as being the 1st assualt rifle in the world.
Both of these weapons had shorter barrels and large capacity magazines. In fact, the only thing which qualifies them as assault rifles are these 2 characteristics, and yet, they are considered assualt rifles by all historical authorities because of, and only because of, those 2 characteristics. There have been no requirements for any other characteristics of AR’s until modern times, and until the Vietnam War era.
If those weapons are assualt rifles, then it is clear that the M1/M2 Carbines are clearly assualt rifles. The cartidge and range of those weapons was not a consideration for thier use. In those times, the weapons were considered appropriate for use in assualting enemy positions simply because they were shorter and had large capacity magazines, only! Yet, they are cited by all authoritive references as being the 1st assualt rifles in the world!
Further evidence that the carbines are by character AR’s is the fact that because they fit the characteristics of such weapons, they were included in the assualt weapons ban laws of the US. If they did not have the characteristics of such weapons, they would not have been included in the ban. The definition of “assualt weapons” was broadened for this ban only to include certain types of military style pistols, and it was not broadened to include rifles which are not of an assault character! Thus the law pertained to “assault weapons” (pistols included) and not restricted to assault style rifles!
Clearly, the weapons ability to perform the role of providing fast fire in situations of assault with a large capacity magazine is the primary concern, and cartridge/range and auto fire are not, of the pre Vietnam War era at least, of any concern whatsoever for determining if a weapon is or is not an assault rifle. The standard that has since that era come to include a maximum effective range of at least 300m is of recent designation, and conceived by military establishments to further the advancements of such weapons and make such weapons able to perform a broader role, whereby a single weapon is effective at a greater variety of ranges. This is a logistical concern designed to reduce the complexity of the variety of rifles needed to conduct warfae. It is a simplification of military needs and costs. It has nothing to do with the characteristics of assualt rifles themselves. It has only to do with making warfare simpler and less expensive while providing greater versatility. This newer standard does not in any way disqualify any weapon prior to it’s conception from being an assult rifle. It only expands upon what exited before it. Plenty of assault rifles existed before this recent standard!
If someone’s hangup in wishing to deny that the M1/M2 Carbines were assualt rifles because of the modern definition pertaining to range (some state 300m), they should be aware that the range of 300m is farther than the typical range at which combat took place during WWII (the era of the weapon), and in most combat to this day. If you like the 300m range given by only some sources, then the 275m range of the carbines is withing the range of typical combat, then and now. Therefore, the modern definition given by some which cite a range are mute and do not apply to assualt rifles prior to that very recent and not at all uniformly accepted requirement:
“the .30 inch (7.62 mm) caliber US Carbine cartridge loses considerable lethality after about 200 m though it was effective up to about 275 m.”
If someone’s hangup is the cartridge used by the weapon, they must understand that there are no requirements mentioned in any of the sources provided by myself or anyone else on this forum, nor can any be found, which state that a bullet must be pointed or capable of “X” amount of energy to be considered an assualt rifle round. While some sources state that the round of an AR must be an intermediate round, then the ammo of the carbines qualifies, because it is not pistol ammunition, and is in fact instead a lower-intermediate rifle round. If your hangup is the range, again, see the above.
“The M1 Carbine cartridge is not a pistol round, it is matched and designed to be fired from the M1’s 18 inch (458 mm) barrel. Pistol rounds are designed to be fired from 4-8 inch barrels typically, from pistols or submachine guns. The rounded head and lack of tapering do not mean it is pistol round; rifle rounds historically had round tops, and even in WWII the Italians still used a round top bullet. For example, one of the most powerful rifle rounds ever made, the .60 Action Express designed for killing large wild animals does not have tapering and has a rounded head.”
If someone’s hangup is the physical design of the weapon, they must understand that the weapons were fitted at various times with all of the trappings of any assualt rifle prior to the Vietnam War era, and virtually all modifications since, except for the grenade launcher and aimpoint style sights, which are not fitted to all AR’s of current design. The carbines had at times M4 bayonets, folding stocks, available light and infrared light scopes, flash supressors, etc.:
M1/M2 Carbine T23 Flash Supressors:
“In early 1945 the Office, Chief of Engineers (OCE) requested the T23 be classified as limited procurement and requested one for evaluation. APG provided the Engineer Board with one of the pilot model T23’s. The OCE was immediately impressed with its flash hiding capabilities and had 1700 manufactured for use with the M2 Sniperscope (Infrared).”
http://www.billricca.com/carbfh.htm
It is appearent that there are 2 things which prevent some of you from considering the carbines to be assualt rifles: their range/cartridge, and the lack of auto fire for the M1C, both of which have been shown to play no part whatsoever in determining whether or not the carbines were assault rifles.
The M1 Carbine specifically, has been used as an assualt rifle more than any weapon in history prior to recent times. You have seen from the descriptions I have provided of some of the MOH recipients alone how it was used by American forces in WWII, Korea, and even the Vietnam War and was in fact specifically selected for the role of assaulting enemy positions countless times. These weapons were also provided to Isreali Special Forces during the Isreali War for Independance for no other reason than they performed the role of an assualt rifle and fit the need for such a weapon in the closer quarters fighting of that conflict. There were plenty of other weapons available for that role in that and other wars, yet the weapon chosen was the M1\M2 Carbines.
I have provided far more than enough information to help you understand how the carbines were in fact assault rifles, despite the fact that they were not intended for the use, simply because it was not realized that the weapon would be so effective in an aggressor role as opposed to a defensive one. In light of all of this evidence you still refuse to accept that the weapons, by their very characteristics, are qualified as assualt rifles, it can only be because you insist on applying the modern, recent definition of assualt rifles to an antique weapon, And that is indeed a mistake.
I have no further interest in discussing the M1/M2 Carbines. I have done plenty to provide the facts, and will not spend any more of my time posting or reading posts on the subject. Take that as you like, but I’ve done enough to explain what is and what is not an assault rifle. Your opinion is your own, but it does not change the characteristics of the weapons.