Military Review

Stories about weapons. Carabiner M1А1

61



History this very peculiar weapons started before World War II, in 1938. The US Army then decided to re-equip the so-called “second line” servicemen (crews of combat vehicles, guns and other soldiers who were not equipped with a full-fledged rifle) from self-loading pistols to light carbines.



It was believed that the carbine has greater efficiency and lower costs for training soldiers compared to pistols.

In 1941, Winchester developed a new .30 cartridge (7,62 × 33 mm) for the US Army. The short bullet of the new round-toed cartridge had a rather mediocre ballistics, quickly losing speed. The cartridge was difficult to compare with intermediate cartridges that are equipped with sharp-nosed bullets, designed for firing at relatively long ranges.

Until now, there have been discussions among specialists on how to properly define the class of this cartridge. Most likely, the most appropriate designation that was given to it when it was adopted was “carbine” (Carbine), despite the fact that the cartridge was used in the only (at that time) sample of the weapon for which the cartridge was designed.

Under this new cartridge firm Winchester and was developed lightweight self-loading carbine.



Light and fairly elegant weapon. Comfortable and catchy. The carabiner was short, had a mass of just kg of loaded weight in 2,8 - that is, it was significantly lighter than the machine guns of that time.

In extreme cases, it was possible to shoot from one hand, like a pistol. In fact, it was a carbine, more similar to such weapons as the Mauser C96 or the artillery Luger.



The carbine took part in the Second World War and enjoyed success with the infantry, thanks to its outstanding qualities, which, however, did not include a good sighting range.



М1 was successfully used in melee, surpassing any gun submachine guns of the time in accuracy and accuracy of a single fire. Quite mild compared to rifles recoil made it possible to conduct frequent fire. The target firing range did not exceed 275 m, which was associated with the shape of the bullet.

Stories about weapons. Carabiner M1А1


However, it was a great melee weapon. In total, more than 6 million M1A1 carbines were released.

Andrei Bondar from the Infantria historical reconstruction club will tell about the carbine device, as always.

Author:
61 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Portos
    Portos 31 January 2018 07: 10 New
    +7
    If I am not mistaken, then the article still deals with the Karabine Winchester M1, and the M1A1 is its modification with a folding butt for the Airborne Forces and its own photo is not even here.
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 31 January 2018 07: 23 New
      +8
      Quote: Portos
      If I am not mistaken, then the article still deals with the Karabine Winchester M1, and the M1A1 is its modification with a folding butt for the Airborne Forces and its own photo is not even here.

      Yes, about the modifications, including those capable of firing automatic fire, nothing is said. As with most features. request
  2. hohol95
    hohol95 31 January 2018 08: 50 New
    +1
    Descendant of Winchester Model 1910
  3. Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 31 January 2018 10: 55 New
    +2
    Good carabiner. The cartridge is more powerful and allows you to shoot further than the PPSh, the returns are for children, and the carbine weighs just nothing. If there is an automatic version of M2 with stores for 30 rounds, then PP is not needed.
    1. prodi
      prodi 31 January 2018 13: 09 New
      +3
      why with PPSh? Then with a storm trooper or SCS
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 31 January 2018 20: 29 New
        0
        Sturmgever is already a weapon of a different class - higher. Carbine has a pistol cartridge, so it must be compared with PP.
        1. prodi
          prodi 31 January 2018 21: 49 New
          +2
          Yes, somehow 7.92x33 is more similar to 7.62x33 than 7.62x25
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 22: 25 New
            +2
            Quote: prodi
            Yes, somehow 7.92x33 is more similar to 7.62x33 than 7.62x25

            The carbine has a direct (not bottle) sleeve and a blunt bullet. No, it doesn’t look like an intermediate cartridge, the energy is close to the “reinforced” PP cartridge.
          2. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 31 January 2018 22: 35 New
            0
            7.62x33 is a typical pistol cartridge with increased power: it has a straight cartridge case and a blunt-pointed bullet, and ballistics is therefore similar to pistol ballistics.
        2. gross kaput
          gross kaput 31 January 2018 22: 29 New
          +3
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Carbine has a pistol cartridge

          Wikipedia read again? If tomorrow some “rationalizer” makes a revolver under .50 BMG, will it become your pistol? laughing
          .30 carbine, like its progenitor .32 WSL cartridge specially designed for long-barreled weapons, the differences between short-barreled and long-barreled cartridges are somewhat larger than just the shape of a bullet laughing First of all, the powder charge is optimized - gunpowder with certain pressure characteristics is selected - fill the sleeve .1 with fast-burning gun powder and get a barrel rupture due to double pressure build-up in the chamber area, shove the standard M1 cartridge with slow-burning rifle powder into the gun and get a pretty penny speed and energy with a spectacular torch at the end of the barrel.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 31 January 2018 22: 38 New
            +2
            7.62x33 is a typical pistol cartridge with increased power: it has a straight cartridge case and a blunt-pointed bullet, and ballistics is therefore similar to pistol ballistics.

            Judging by your logic, now the Nagan cartridge 7,62 * 38 is an intermediate cartridge only because it was used in carbines? wassat
            1. gross kaput
              gross kaput 14 February 2018 19: 56 New
              -1
              Do you read the cat diagonally? Once again, for those who are in the tank, the main characteristic of a cartridge is what type of weapon it was created for - long-barreled or short-barreled, the rest of the division is already under classes, therefore, by definition, a cartridge created for a long-barreled weapon cannot be classified as a pistol.
              When calculating the cartridge, according to the characteristics of internal ballistics laid down at the design stage - speaking simply, the length of the barrel, and using the requirements of external ballistics - i.e. initial velocity and energy, the powder charge most suitable for the burning rate, the power of the capsule and the geometry of the sleeve are calculated. The brand of gunpowder is selected from the calculation of the most smooth and even increase in pressure in the barrel and the complete combustion of gunpowder at a given length, speaking simply for short-barreled cartridges, quick-burning gunpowder is selected that manages to burn completely in a short section, and on this basis the shape of the sleeve is selected - mainly cylindrical or small bottles with a small coefficient of the ratio of length to diameter of the loading volume and low-power capsules that do not allow over-pressure of boosting. For long-barreled cartridges, on the contrary, slow-burning progressive gunpowders are chosen that provide a more even increase in pressure and maintain it during the bullet’s movement along the long barrel, the shape of the sleeve is also selected based on these requirements - either a bottle or a cylinder with a large ratio of length to diameter. The capsule is much more powerful than pistol because of the need to ensure normal boost pressure on slow powder.
              Based on this, cartridges are divided into classes, it is possible to use cartridges on the contrary, but it is absolutely ineffective - for example, with the same gun, the powder burns completely in its cartridge by 150 mm under ANY external temperature and pressure conditions, after about 250 mm even a slight increase speed ends and begins to decrease. As for the M-1 cartridge, only 18% of the charge will burn out, optimized for an 100-inch barrel at a pistol length of 30 mm, only the rest will turn into a muzzle torch, the speed at the core will be 340 m / s and the energy will be at the level of 9 mm steam.
              In general, before shining with comments on the forums, you need to read at least a little bit, and not just look at the pictures, because this question is the very basics.
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 15 February 2018 00: 53 New
                0
                Is it really so hard to change gunpowder and capsule? You can pour rifle powder and insert a rifle capsule into the same sleeve from the Nagan cartridge for the Nagan carbine. And voila - we get a cartridge for long-barreled weapons with slowly burning gunpowder and a powerful capsule.
                1. gross kaput
                  gross kaput April 7 2018 09: 46 New
                  -1
                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  And voila - we get a cartridge for long-barreled weapons with slowly burning gunpowder and a powerful capsule.

                  Answering a long and tedious laziness - open any textbook on the design of ammunition and read the section on choosing the form of the sleeve (loading conditions) then many children's questions will disappear by themselves.
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 23: 18 New
            +2
            Quote: gross kaput
            If tomorrow some “rationalizer” makes a revolver under .50 BMG

            There is no such revolver, but the gun did some kind of crazie.

            What is the argument about? That the cartridge is not pistol, but was made specifically for the long barrel? That is yes. What can be considered intermediate from this in the modern sense? This is not.
    2. aws4
      aws4 31 January 2018 22: 22 New
      +3
      here you are mistaken ... the automatic version did not justify itself and showed ugly indicators when shooting in bursts .. the design itself also could not withstand prolonged automatic fire ... in terms of shooting bursts of PPSh and PPS exceeded this carbine, but when shooting with single ballistics and the impact of the bullet on the target yielded ...
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 23: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: aws4
        the automatic version did not pay off and showed ugly indicators when shooting in bursts ..

        The automatic version did not pay off when the army dunce decided to use it in Korea in the infantry department as support for a machine gun on a rifle cartridge (BAR).
        When it was used as expected - at pistol ranges - everything went as it should.
        1. aws4
          aws4 1 February 2018 03: 13 New
          +2
          yes no, not everything went as it should, dear .. since the Caribin couldn’t replace the PP due to its unsuitability, it could not compete with more than one WWII RP in fire density with bursts, chewiness, and the automatic version was working .. this fact also confirms this that surpassing not only Thomson but all the other countries' PPs in exactly single fire and ballistics, he couldn’t drive Thomson out of the army, moreover, after the Americans adopted the M3 and M50 machine guns ... they are, among other things, excellent weapons .. easy and accurate !!!
    3. aws4
      aws4 31 January 2018 22: 24 New
      +3
      in fact, this carbine was so light as it was not originally designed for automatic shooting, and when the automatic version was made, it merged and could not compete even with the most seedy PP of those times ...
      1. gross kaput
        gross kaput 1 February 2018 20: 35 New
        0
        Horses mixed up in a bunch of horses ...
        Quote: aws4
        Due to its unsuitability, this Caribbean did not manage to compete with more than one WWII-era AP in burst density

        Come on!? and what was it expressed in?
        Quote: aws4
        . this is also confirmed by the fact that surpassing not only Thomson but all the PPs of other countries in exactly single fire and ballistics, he was not able to oust Thomson from the army, in addition, after the Americans adopted the M3 and M50 machine guns ... in other weapons is excellent .. light and accurate !!!

        That’s how the M-3 was used during the desert storm, however, as a weapon of tank ecimages - in each abrams two pieces skated - and what does this mean? but only that tankers need small-sized weapons and more preferably a pistol.
        All experts recommend that you familiarize yourself with the terms of the SCHV contest (small-caliber weapons with high speed) formulated at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in 1956. The main requirements were formed precisely following the results of the Korean War - effective range of 500 yards, .22 caliber, magazine capacity of 20 rounds, breaking through a steel helmet on maximum range, TRAJECTORY similar to the trajectory of the cartridge 30-06 of the M1 rifle, the energy of a bullet at 500 yards is not less than the energy of a bullet .30 a carbine at the same range, the mass of the weapon is not more than the mass of a carbine m1.
        In 1957, Winchester introduced the M2 carbine adapted to the new .224 win cartridge - a re-squeezed sleeve .30 carbine for the .224 caliber bullet - in general, the AR-15 won under .222 rem in that competition, but the guys from Winchester were to blame - at first they presented their alteration 3 months later than Stoner, and then, when it became clear that the over-squeezed cartridge does not reach .222 / 223 rem continued to cling to the geometry of the ass .30 carbine producing cartridges - monsters 224E2, 224E3, 224E4 in order to unify the shutter, box and store a new carbine with M2, As a result, when they all woke up and decided to make a carbine under .223, the train had already left and Stoner was the driver on it.
        Well, yes, with regards to the nonsense about the terrible auto-fire from M2 - well, what a thing - not a single word was said about the accuracy of the auto-fire and other things - the only thing that did not suit the military in the M2 was a small effective range.
        1. aws4
          aws4 3 February 2018 01: 02 New
          0
          you didn’t answer the question .. apparently it’s uncomfortable for you .. but about everything that you wrote above I can say one thing, even if they woke up late and the train left Stoner, why later not one other country took this carbine under cartridge 223? ?? .. something did not take this carabiner place on the market)))))))))))) it is not necessary to wishful thinking .. I am also very attractive m1a1 but at the same time there is a reality in which he could not find a place as the main weapon in one army of the world !!!!! or essentially or better finally don’t respond to my com
          1. gross kaput
            gross kaput 9 February 2018 22: 29 New
            -1
            What kind of creature do you want? to begin with, you yourself answer the question WHAT DO YOU TAKE THAT THE M-2 CANNOT COMPETE ANY ONE PROPERTY IN FIRE IN THE LINE?
            Quote: aws4
            I also like M1a1 very much, but at the same time there is a reality in which he could not find a place as the main weapon in more than one army in the world

            And why would he find? by that time p .223 only Americans were driven in, they shaved their brains with .280 in the 51st, a year later they made the Spaniards with their national intermediate cartridge 7.92x40 forcing both of them to switch to the NATO standardized cartridge T65 (7,62X51) as a result, when the rest of the countries choked with low-impulses - and this is already the 70s, there was no sense in stuttering about the M1 project under .223, someone clung to 90 for 7,62X51 someone started to construct own weapons and someone to buy the M-16, which in production was cheaper and more modern. In general, learn history.
            1. aws4
              aws4 11 February 2018 20: 15 New
              0
              No, no, you are the first answer .. that we will play and throw arrows ???? there are facts !!!! The 1 fact is that he was unable to oust the same Thomson and other infantry units from infantry units, although it was much cheaper than the same volume 2 fact was originally created for a single self-loading firing, and this made the carbine look so light and elegant! !! Subsequently, it was this design that did not make it possible to provide the same accuracy of firing with bursts at the same distances at the same points ... by the way, they write about it and look not only at Wikipedia, but even better look at the video of shooting from m1a2 in long bursts, you can clearly see everything. .. I won’t lie, I never shot from this miracle but I had such an experience we got Makarov who shot two rounds with enviable regularity and with such a rate of fire that initially it wasn’t even clear there was one but double clap .. when they decided to check where the second one was flying the bullet realized that it was very far from the aiming line .. while firing from the aps under the same cartridge and originally made for the second gun, the bullet flew much better than from pm .. here's an example of pm and aps one cartridge of different weight and originally laid types of fire in the design .. and again I repeat ... put yourself in the place of the military leadership of the United States Army at that time .. there is a war you have a carbine which arrows it is better and farther than any item and at the same time it is not inferior to it in controllability and accuracy in automatic mode at the same distances and lo and behold it is cheaper and easier .. well, why not completely abandon the numerous items in the path and landing ???? besides, it’s taken in m 50 that is almost twice as heavy and of the same size ... it turns out that the generals were enemies of the people and specially kept in service armaments that were inferior in combat characteristics and continued to supply them with the army until the end of the war ??? ??????? there is no fact respected to you here and fact number 3 - m1a2 could not replace the infantry and not only the rear units and the crews of military vehicles but even in the marine corps ...
            2. aws4
              aws4 11 February 2018 20: 23 New
              0
              in the second part of your letter in the one in which you scribbled what I have known for at least 20 years and advised me to learn history, I just laughed .. in general, I’ll thank you for your advice, I will also give you advice and don’t take it for rudeness - turn on the brain))))))))))
              1. gross kaput
                gross kaput 28 February 2018 14: 04 New
                -1
                Quote: aws4
                the fact that he was never able to supplant the same Thomson and other infantry units from infantry units, although at the same time it was much cheaper than the same volume 2, the fact that it was originally created for single-shot self-loading was what made the carbine look so light and elegant!

                For the gifted, I repeat once again - go study history - the last order for the Thompsons issued in 1943 was completed in 1944, the first serial order for the M-2 1944 was completed by the end of WWII 1945. all these carbines left for the Pacific Ocean, while in Europe in the American parts they artificially remade the M-1 into the M-2 - probably because it was inferior to Thompson? We’re looking for Roy E. Rayle’s book, "Random shots. Episodes in life of a weapon developer", Merriam press, USA, 2006, and we’re enjoying the story of remaking the self-loading M1 carbines in Aut. M-2, as well as a little more history study and find out that since 1945 the troops began to regularly receive sets of USM parts for remaking M1 in M2 in the conditions of regimental workshops.
                Quote: aws4
                Well, why not completely abandon the numerous pp in the passage and the landing ????

                Here, after all, what a thing - for example, in the USSR they simultaneously adopted the SKS and AK - why not just accept AK right away?
                The answer is simple, but as long as you skip to the tops and pictures in the books you will not find it.
                1. aws4
                  aws4 1 March 2018 01: 59 New
                  0
                  Yes, you’re not my native expert on the tops, you download and it’s not at all in history but in the design of the weapon and its suitability and in accordance with the requirements that are presented to it ... and if you consider history as the event of the conversion of m1 to m2 in army units with regimental workshops then you need to study history, including magazines Murzilka. I remind you of the great historian the fact that this carbine was produced already from the age of 41 and horror stopped its release already at 45 ... hence the question why the army continued to purchase the much more expensive Tommy until the age of 44 ???? and by the way, it was Tomi’s price that played a cruel joke with him and that’s why the last order was in 44)) but the Americans frantically searched for a cheaper submachine gun and tried both the M50 and the m3 since the carbine couldn’t completely replace the PP, he and remained a kind of transitional weapon, light, very cheap, and alas, with its shortcomings that did not allow it not only to become the main one, but even to force out the older and more expensive PPs from the army ... there are bare facts and there are your Wishlist and please do not change them in places laughing and again, I repeat to you if you think that I am biased against this carbine - I really like it, light cheap for infantry, accurate enough in a single fire ... and oh yes I understand that you are a very busy person, but still you are the next races showed that they were very poorly prepared, although you had more than two weeks, they probably shoveled the sea of ​​literature wink right, this is ridiculous since they gave out minuscule and their speculations laughing you made fun of me at the expense of AK and SCS too, this question can be addressed to schoolchildren and not to your opponent, and if you ask me a similar question then why can you dispute with me, I get oak by your way))))))))
                  1. gross kaput
                    gross kaput April 7 2018 10: 06 New
                    -1
                    This is a scribe - do you seem to have arrived from a parallel universe to us? M2 have you been producing there since 1941?
                    Quote: aws4
                    with their shortcomings that did not allow him not only to become the main one, but even to displace the more ancient and expensive from the army

                    Is knowledge of the basics really bad? Yes? In total, 6 million M1-M2 carbines, M1 rifles - 4 million PP M1928 / M1 / ​​M1A1 -1,75 million, PP M3 0,6 million were produced
                    Now to the question of the main thing - carbines were produced almost as many as the rifles and PP of all the models combined - so which sample was "not the main"?
                2. The comment was deleted.
  4. igordok
    igordok 31 January 2018 11: 09 New
    +9
    The American designation of military equipment sometimes gets it.
    M1A1 is a carbine, and a tank, and a submachine gun, and much more.
    1. CTABEP
      CTABEP 31 January 2018 11: 38 New
      +2
      Yes, if the designation is taken out of context - you’ll understand the hell.
    2. Terrible GMO
      Terrible GMO 4 February 2018 15: 48 New
      0
      Asians, too, are solid Type, Type, Type - tanks, rifles and all that the soul asks for.
  5. Curious
    Curious 31 January 2018 12: 03 New
    +3

    Modification of the carbine M1 - М1А1 - carbine for parachute assault units, with a folding metal butt. 150 units issued.
    1. Curious
      Curious 31 January 2018 12: 08 New
      +2
      As for the cartridge, it is a modification of the 32 Winchester .1906SL cartridge.

      As a result of using a lighter bullet and more powerful gunpowder, the muzzle energy of the cartridge was increased by about 30% to 1200 J. For comparison, today's 5,45x39 cartridge has a muzzle energy of about 1500 J.
      1. John22
        John22 31 January 2018 20: 18 New
        +2
        According to the directory Small arms today: cartridge .30 US Carbine 7.62 [33 - 1300 J, cartridge M74 5,45x39 - 1316 J.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 31 January 2018 22: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: John22
          According to the directory Small arms today: cartridge .30 US Carbine 7.62 [33 - 1300 J, cartridge M74 5,45x39 - 1316 J.

          It is absolutely incorrect to compare the low-pulse intermediate cartridge with PPShny (OK, carbine)
          1. Curious
            Curious 31 January 2018 23: 30 New
            +1
            And who compares them? Indication of muzzle energy is not a comparison of cartridges yet.
      2. Michael HORNET
        Michael HORNET 2 February 2018 18: 02 New
        +1
        In general, it is good that the Americans did not have the brains to immediately create a suitable prospective cartridge. If they had been made on the basis of this 6,5 × 33 cartridge case under a rifle bullet, it would have turned out to be an actual cartridge for PDV so far.
  6. ingvar1951
    ingvar1951 31 January 2018 12: 33 New
    +5
    Garanda carbine. I shot from the M-2 version that can fire automatically. By the way, El Che used the M-1 which was redone for firing in bursts. The sensations are very pleasant. The shooting is really very soft, not bad at short distances. Very unreliable. The shutter is open. dust settles on it when moving back, pulls dirt into the receiver and after a few shots the shutter remains in the back position. I happened to have three in a row and everyone had a third shot. It was in the Namib desert, all the weapons in the car were covered with dust
    1. andrewkor
      andrewkor 31 January 2018 16: 32 New
      +1
      Yes, it’s not Kalash, an American little thing!
    2. Doliva63
      Doliva63 31 January 2018 18: 13 New
      +3
      I know the Garand rifle, too, the M-1, it seems, but the Garand rifle - no. This is a Winchester carbine, however.
      1. ingvar1951
        ingvar1951 31 January 2018 20: 56 New
        0
        You don’t know, so listen to what the uncles say.
        1. IImonolitII
          IImonolitII 1 February 2018 03: 26 New
          0
          If the uncles knew that Garand had nothing to do with the m1 carbine, then they would not carry nonsense.
          1. ingvar1951
            ingvar1951 2 February 2018 00: 53 New
            0
            Interestingly. Boy, you only saw this guarantee in the pictures, and not a dozen passed this hierro through me
    3. Nekarmadlen
      Nekarmadlen 31 January 2018 23: 30 New
      0
      I remember in the movie “Saving Private Raina” the sergeant tapped his helmet several times before inserting a new store into the M1 carbine .. Is this also related to reliability))?
      1. IImonolitII
        IImonolitII 1 February 2018 03: 27 New
        +2
        To knock down sand and dirt from the first cartridges in the store - from such any automation will not be good.
  7. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 31 January 2018 17: 54 New
    +2
    I saw such things in Israel in the arsenals of villages, I thought that these were Czech rifles.
    1. Okolotochny
      Okolotochny 31 January 2018 22: 48 New
      +4
      No states. I saw this for the first time in the film “Solitary Swimming” with B. Nozhkin. There he was with an American yachtsman. By the way, he shot at my bursts.
      1. Alf
        Alf 31 January 2018 23: 02 New
        +2
        Quote: Okolotochny
        By the way, he shot at my bursts.

        No, only one by one. The other day I was just watching a movie. Amer just shot faster than he thought.
        1. Okolotochny
          Okolotochny 1 February 2018 11: 54 New
          +5
          I agree. But VERY quickly shot.
    2. MOLODCHIK
      MOLODCHIK 2 February 2018 15: 22 New
      0
      Formerly used to protect groups of tourists and protect children. everywhere he was in “Mishmar Ezrahi” (national squad). Magavniks seem to be using it for urban sniping now.
  8. verner1967
    verner1967 31 January 2018 21: 30 New
    +2
    There is still debate among experts on how to correctly define the class of this cartridge. Most likely, the most appropriate designation that was given to him when adopted in service is “carbine”
    Pomnitstso, how the local "experts" screamed that there was no such patron, moreover, everyone knew that they were "experts", but there was only one true expert
    1. IImonolitII
      IImonolitII 1 February 2018 03: 33 New
      +1
      Only that connoisseur of carbine was fond of many cartridges, including .45acp and m43. The same "carbine" - in fact, a reinforced pistol / revolver, which have long been used in the USA in lewer-action carbines
      1. verner1967
        verner1967 2 February 2018 21: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: IImonolitII
        that connoisseur with carabiner loves

        but they are there, and the public shouted that no
  9. gross kaput
    gross kaput 31 January 2018 22: 30 New
    +1
    Another garbage article - it's a pity that the minus was canceled.
  10. gladcu2
    gladcu2 1 February 2018 01: 03 New
    0
    In general, the concept of a carbine is very good.

    A dull bullet with a good stopping property and an average firing range. Good ergonomics. Great army weapon.
    Only M1 in my guarantee. There is another cartridge.
    1. IImonolitII
      IImonolitII 1 February 2018 03: 38 New
      +2
      M1 at the time of ww2 is not only a garand and a carbine, but also a pp thompson, helmet, mortar, 6 guns and a tank. So designated the first adopted weapon model in its class.
    2. Michael HORNET
      Michael HORNET 2 February 2018 18: 07 New
      +1
      The concept of a carbine is not brought to mind. Although it was a step forward for its time
      Not very reliable carabiner under not optimal cartridge. Make a 6,5x33 cartridge with a rifle bullet and more reliable automation and a carbine as a PDV would still be in favor
      Now the Czechs made a cartridge of 7,5 FC Brno 7,5x27, which allows you to get ballistics, BETTER than the M1 carbine, but in a pistol) the truth is that this Lamborghini is very expensive among pistols
  11. Catfish
    Catfish 1 February 2018 14: 13 New
    +5
    We got to the M2 museum from Vietnam. Some ensign drove two copies to himself and his general. Tied right to Monino at the airport. One was transferred to our department. In very good condition and, thank God, not drilled. They shot him at the All-Russian Research Institute of Forensic Expertise, there were enough rounds for everyone. Since then, I fell in love with this machine. What single, what bursts. There was no stuttering, though they shot in a clean shooting range, so I won’t say anything over the sand in the desert, I know better than anyone who tried it there.
    By the way, in some old directories of our publication it, this carbine, was actually called the M1 Garand. Naturally, they have different authors. wink
    1. Curious
      Curious 1 February 2018 23: 37 New
      +2
      "If the uncles knew that Garand had nothing to do with the m1 carbine, then they would not carry nonsense."
      Always like aplomb of such comments.
      We take the book.
      1. Curious
        Curious 1 February 2018 23: 38 New
        +2
        We open. What do we see?
        1. Curious
          Curious 1 February 2018 23: 38 New
          +1
          Turn over a couple of pages.

          I will not insert a drawing. Everything is so clear.
  12. Catfish
    Catfish 2 February 2018 15: 55 New
    +4
    I looked through a little reference literature and found something. A.B. The beetle in its directory also names the M1 carbine "Garand". But ... the scheme of the gas engine in it is David Williams, and the locking system is John Garand. A carabiner designed by Winchester. That's what you want, so consider it. hi