British Army adopts M1 Carbine as primary rifle for Normandy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Heavy 30 carbine found on net, for Ruger Blackhawk 150 grain
First load,
Remington cases
Fed #200 small magnum pistol primers
13.2 grains of H110
RCBS 30-150-cm
OAL 1.715
Average velocity 1223 fps
Standard deviation 15 fps
accuracy seems good but I have not bench tested.
Cases nearly fell from the chambers.
Any info about the ballistics? 1223fps seems very low, like edge of subsonic low.
 
Any info about the ballistics? 1223fps seems very low, like edge of subsonic low.
It's a flattip design, trying to better the old 32-20 performance. , from a 6" barrel. With a new designer cartridge, going for a longer OAL 30 carbine allows enough powder, while having a spitzer profile.
 
If you really wanted to go that deep you could pull a CETME and fill half the M1 Ball bullet with plastic and the back half with lead, but that complicates manufacturing and eliminates the scales of economy you get from having one bullet shape/type.

I suppose you could make a composite rigid bullet. Save some lead. Still need to gild that lily.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
A .30/7.62 caliber bullet in a .351 WSL case is an 8 mm x 35 Ribeyrolles, and modernized with higher pressure is a .300 Blackout.

If Winchester had pushed the envelope a bit, they could have used the .35 WSL case, which is 29 mm long like a .38 Special. It has more room in the case. Add extra pressure as with the .32 WSL to .30 Carbine conversion, and you have a more useful cartridge.

Either way, the British Army will not change its entire inventory and doctrine for the invasion in 1942.

The French Balle D used a solid steel bullet, yet weighed 198 grains.
 
I want a Spitzer
why?

Small problem there with the small size of the carbine case and the long boat tail of the heavy M1 projectile. In fact the Garand couldn't even use it without breaking.
do you have a source for your claim that the change over to m2 ball had anything to do with the garand,
everything i've read says that is was the fact that m2 couldn't be safely fired at their ranges
and here's ian and karl shooting heavy ammo through an m1, and how they did it
i'm sure that if they decided to go with m1 ball they would have adjusted the gas system to work with the load
 

Deleted member 1487

why?


do you have a source for your claim that the change over to m2 ball had anything to do with the garand,
everything i've read says that is was the fact that m2 couldn't be safely fired at their ranges
and here's ian and karl shooting heavy ammo through an m1, and how they did it
i'm sure that if they decided to go with m1 ball they would have adjusted the gas system to work with the load
Not that they couldn't fire the M1, but that it broke the rifle due to the excessive recoil after significant use. The G43 had the same problem, the Germans just didn't care because they manufactured them so cheaply and wanted a reliable rifle so were fine with the overgased system and heavy recoil. They'd just replace the rifle when it inevitably broke, but more likely it would be lost in combat before then.

And yes the M1 Ball was restricted in use due to the range issue primarily, though the issue with the heavy bullet must have played a role. Your video even talks about the issue of the heavy bullet in the rifle. It wasn't an insurmountable problem of course, but the US army didn't opt to look for that.
https://www.carolinafirearmsforum.c...s-designed-around-m2-ball-myth-exposed.35052/
Garand only developed such a fix in 1945:
http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition
 

Deleted member 1487

A .30/7.62 caliber bullet in a .351 WSL case is an 8 mm x 35 Ribeyrolles, and modernized with higher pressure is a .300 Blackout.

If Winchester had pushed the envelope a bit, they could have used the .35 WSL case, which is 29 mm long like a .38 Special. It has more room in the case. Add extra pressure as with the .32 WSL to .30 Carbine conversion, and you have a more useful cartridge.
Depends, if they steel core the bullet or even go the British route and use wood or aluminum to fill the tip or front half of the bullet to cut weight and promote tumbling, then it could be significantly lighter and faster than the Ribeyrolles.

Either way, the British Army will not change its entire inventory and doctrine for the invasion in 1942.
The entire point of this thread is what if they did.

The French Balle D used a solid steel bullet, yet weighed 198 grains.
Bronze actually, which is heavier than steel and used in modern lead free bullets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Better aerodynamics at flyout at longer ranges.
2. Ramp feed.
3. Means a.s.s.a.u.l.t. rifle masquerading as a carbine. The M1 carbine is a personal defense rifle, not a weapon with enough reach.

A good quality PDW beats a shoddy SMG

Going with Carbine with accuracy out to 200m, to replace millions of OTL 9mm STEN that had terrible range performance past 20m

Like you point out, perfect is the enemy of 'good enough'

30 Carbine is 'Good Enough'
 
A good quality PDW b

eats a shoddy SMG

Going with Carbine with accuracy out to 200m, to replace millions of OTL 9mm STEN that had terrible range performance past 20m

Like you point out, perfect is the enemy of 'good enough'

30 Carbine is 'Good Enough'

Perhaps drawing on too much hindsight, weren't most engagements not involving sniping or machine guns well within 200m anyway, even with a lot of hidebound doctrine insisting rifle rounds needed to be able to range out to 4000m?
 

Deleted member 1487

Perhaps drawing on too much hindsight, weren't most engagements not involving sniping or machine guns well within 200m anyway, even with a lot of hidebound doctrine insisting rifle rounds needed to be able to range out to 4000m?
Yes, which is what prompted this thread. It was something the British noted even as early as 1943 from operations research.
 
30 Carbine is 'Good Enough'

Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry. Gimmicks don't win wars. The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle". That is frankly insane. Note that while Op research has the infantry brawl occur at about 200 meters, that is the outside effective range of the M1 carbine. Mister Assault Rifle is geared to about ~400 meters and that covers the gray zone in fire and maneuver tactics well enough. For that you need a Spitzer and a bullpup.

The British screwed it up.

Field stripping the EM1 (and EM2 for that matter) is not a huge task, but disassembling the bolt is an absolute nightmare in anything resembling combat. Doing it on a clean workbench is tricky enough.

Same problems encountered with the Johnson Carbine and LMG. Designers forget the enduser.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry.
Combat experience on all sides showed that SMGs instead of bolt action rifles resulted in greater firepower, not less. The Soviets never went back after adopting SMG companies, though they tweeked the weapons mix to maximize firepower.

Gimmicks don't win wars.
Hardly a gimmick if backed up by operations research.

The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle". That is frankly insane. Note that while Op research has the infantry brawl occur at about 200 meters, that is the outside effective range of the M1 carbine.
Educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine
Effective firing range 300 yd (270 m)

Mister Assault Rifle is geared to about ~400 meters and that covers the gray zone in fire and maneuver tactics well enough.
Not in WW2, that requires optics or high volumes of fire with tracers to walk fire onto the area target. The limiting factor for combat range is the human eye being able to spot anything to shoot at and that rarely exceeded 200m:
infantry+combat+ranges+graph.jpg

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/infantry-combat-ranges.html

Why do you think a bullpup is necessary?

The British screwed it up.
That's debatable. Though they shouldn't have tried for a universal cartridge for MGs as well if they were trying to optimize infantry rifles for normal combat ranges.

Same problems encountered with the Johnson Carbine and LMG. Designers forget the enduser.
Which problems were those?
 
Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry. Gimmicks don't win wars. The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle". That is frankly insane. Note that while Op research has the infantry brawl occur at about 200 meters, that is the outside effective range of the M1 carbine. Mister Assault Rifle is geared to about ~400 meters and that covers the gray zone in fire and maneuver tactics well enough. For that you need a Spitzer and a bullpup.

The British screwed it up..
The British did not screw it up. They recognised the need (see the report that began the subject) but also recognised that the latter part of the war was not the time to change everything and had the Sten in service to mix with the No4. To address the issue and rearm the infantry was something to attend to post war. They then decided on an assault rifle. To whit the No9 which was specifically to replace both the No4 and Sten in all their roles..

BTW the lack of need to use aimed individual fire at very long ranges was recognised in WW1 and prompted the removal of the volley sights. The .303" in the No4 would fire out to long distances anyway so the sights were marked according to the capability of the weapon, if not the average user. In the simplified No4 with 'flip' rear sights they sighted to 300 and 500 yards only.
 
The British did not screw it up. They recognised the need (see the report that began the subject) but also recognised that the latter part of the war was not the time to change everything and had the Sten in service to mix with the No4. To address the issue and rearm the infantry was something to attend to post war. They then decided on an assault rifle. To whit the No9 which was specifically to replace both the No4 and Sten in all their roles..

BTW the lack of need to use aimed individual fire at very long ranges was recognised in WW1 and prompted the removal of the volley sights. The .303" in the No4 would fire out to long distances anyway so the sights were marked according to the capability of the weapon, if not the average user. In the simplified No4 with 'flip' rear sights they sighted to 300 and 500 yards only.

The British screwed it up, post war with the EM2. After Private Fumbles reassembled his piece (Tests showed this.), he was armed with a club. Don't engineer it beyond the capacity of Private Fumbles to use it and maintain it. That is what I meant, too, by Johnson's rifle, but in his case he told the USMC, that he intended the cyclic to be a sealed module that would be repaired and maintained by an armorer (It was a complex barrel recoil operated self loader, so there is some merit in what he planned.). Nevertheless, Joe Private on Guadalcanal wanted to take the thing apart and clean everything like he was Marine trained to do. NTG. Anyway, the Johnson was replaced with army issue and then Joe Private has Garand Thumb and Browning Runaway and BAR stovepipes to complain about; but at least the weapons were/are chimp-proof.
 
30 Carbine is 'Good Enough'

Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry. Gimmicks don't win wars. The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle". That is insane.
 
Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry. Gimmicks don't win wars. The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle". That is insane.
.30 Carbine introduction would be no different from the introduction of the 9mm STEN in 1940.

M2 is better than anything the STEN of any Mark was or could do, excepting cost, and L-L makes the M2 even cheaper.

And M2 gives far more effective combat power than Bolt Enfield and/or 9mm subgun
 
Not with the British army and not with the circumstances of 1944. It is illogical to disrupt the training regimes, supply chains and reduce the effective combat power of the British line infantry. Gimmicks don't win wars. The OP statement is to make the premise of the .30 Carbine as the British "battle rifle".
You could make a good case for putting the M1 or M2 Carbine into British production instead of the No 5 Mk 1 Carbine.
 
US Marines T/O for 1944 Division had 10,953 M1 Carbines vs 5,436 Garands. So they did much of the work on Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Also,
M1911 399
BAR 853
Shotgun 306
SMG 49
M1917A1 162
M1919A4 302
M2HB 161
 
The British screwed it up, post war with the EM2. After Private Fumbles reassembled his piece (Tests showed this.), he was armed with a club. Don't engineer it beyond the capacity of Private Fumbles to use it and maintain it. That is what I meant, too, by Johnson's rifle, but in his case he told the USMC, that he intended the cyclic to be a sealed module that would be repaired and maintained by an armorer (It was a complex barrel recoil operated self loader, so there is some merit in what he planned.). Nevertheless, Joe Private on Guadalcanal wanted to take the thing apart and clean everything like he was Marine trained to do. NTG. Anyway, the Johnson was replaced with army issue and then Joe Private has Garand Thumb and Browning Runaway and BAR stovepipes to complain about; but at least the weapons were/are chimp-proof.

EM2 was made in what - double figures a total of 59 of them?

It was a prototype. It would have been amazing. Just not in the Elephant hunting round the USA decided everyone should use.
 
Top