British Commonwealth troops envious of U.S. M1 rifle
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
It seems that in Korea the M1 carbine was the "shiney" that commonwealth troops wanted most. M1 rifles were pretty much next.
The troops (by Korea anyway) realized very early that volume of fire was more important than accurate at 600m.
40 rnds a minute was exceptional (not the rate of fire from a normal troopie) from a LE, and would not be near as a accurate as 40 rnds a minute from a good semi (Garand).
The troops (by Korea anyway) realized very early that volume of fire was more important than accurate at 600m.
40 rnds a minute was exceptional (not the rate of fire from a normal troopie) from a LE, and would not be near as a accurate as 40 rnds a minute from a good semi (Garand).
RobertMcC said:
10 round initial magazine, then they were charged with 5 round charger clips. I would think that most squaddies did not charge two clips at a time.
The M1 Garand was 8 round enbloc clip, and semi automatic. The Garand had a higher rate of fire over a minute than an Enfield. I don't think anyone was using a mauser rifle in Korea. The North Koreans and Chinese were using 5 round Mosin Nagants and 10 round SKS rifles with the odd SVT 40 thrown in for good measure.
This gets me wondering, there were something like 17 countries in the UN force, what were the countries and what were their troops armed with? I can only guess at a few
Canada Lee Enfield Number 4 mark 1* or 2
Great Britain Same
Australia Same
New Zealand Same
Belgium SAFN 49
Was France involved?
Luxembourg ? SAFN 49 as well I think
Greece? Maybe a mauser, but I would guess M1 Garand
Turkey? Maybe a mauser as well, so I could be wrong on my guess about mausers, but I will also guess on the M1 Garand.
I am guessing here, because I don't know which countries were involved. C'mon, someone out there knows this one.
For close range combat?
Probably not if Stens, Greaseguns or Thompsons were available
Don't forget that the M1C was considered to be a mid-range weapon capable of still wounding targets out to 100 yards away Where-as SMG's are not.
If the bad guys are out to 100 yards I would prefer my lee enfield
If closer ie: 50 yards and less sure I'd like to have the M1C
I've shot a few M1 Carbines and I'm not convinced in that calibres capacity to put anything down permanently inside of 50 metres. Howebver I have hag great accuracy out to 100 yards with my M1C Winchester (recently sold).
I would rather have a combat shotgun that a M1 Carbine for close quarter combat which I recently bought with the funds from my M1C sale (Mossberg 590SP).
Probably not if Stens, Greaseguns or Thompsons were available
Don't forget that the M1C was considered to be a mid-range weapon capable of still wounding targets out to 100 yards away Where-as SMG's are not.
If the bad guys are out to 100 yards I would prefer my lee enfield
If closer ie: 50 yards and less sure I'd like to have the M1C
I've shot a few M1 Carbines and I'm not convinced in that calibres capacity to put anything down permanently inside of 50 metres. Howebver I have hag great accuracy out to 100 yards with my M1C Winchester (recently sold).
I would rather have a combat shotgun that a M1 Carbine for close quarter combat which I recently bought with the funds from my M1C sale (Mossberg 590SP).
Last edited:
Oh one last thing
Once the soldier operating the M1C had expended his magazines was probably looking for another rifle. The M1 Carbine does not have a stripper clip guide.
And For Your Interest
Here is a relatively good review of the combat capacity of the M1C
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/m1_carbine/
Once the soldier operating the M1C had expended his magazines was probably looking for another rifle. The M1 Carbine does not have a stripper clip guide.
And For Your Interest
Here is a relatively good review of the combat capacity of the M1C
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/long_guns/m1_carbine/
Last edited:
Any Garand that wasn't bolted down was snapped up pronto by our guys in Korea. The Yanks were also quite spooked that Canadians strung wire behind their positions rather than in front like they did. Ain't nobody sneakin' up behind us at night!
I worked with a PPCLI korean war vet who said one nice thing about the Enfield was that it was less likely to freeze closed. In the event that they did, a swift boot would free them up. He had heard stories of the G.I.s pissing on their actions to open them. One for "Mythbusters"?
If I recall the record for aimed hits in a minute with a Lee-Enfield was 43 rounds, by an instructor at the British Army Small Arms School.
Unfortunately the highly trained peacetime British Army marksmen who were capable of that sort of performance were pretty much decimated in the early actions of both WW1 and WW2
Unfortunately the highly trained peacetime British Army marksmen who were capable of that sort of performance were pretty much decimated in the early actions of both WW1 and WW2
"...Australia Same..." Nope. They didn't use the No. 4 at all. They used their Lithgow SMLE's until they switched to the FAL.
"...not convinced in that calibres capacity..." I knew a guy who was with 2PPCLI at Kap Y'ong. He said he didn't care if it took two or three rounds, he loved the Carbine. Only military ball .30 carbine is poor.
Using a shotgun in combat would get you in front of a war crimes trial. A rifle is far more useful than any shotgun for anything but house clearing.
Twenty-two countries supplied troops for Korea. The Turks were supplied with M-1 rifles. The French were as well. India supplied a Field Hospital. A MASH unit. The Belgians were attached to a U.S. Inf. Div. and would likely have used M-1's too. Logistics would preclude the FN-49.
"...not convinced in that calibres capacity..." I knew a guy who was with 2PPCLI at Kap Y'ong. He said he didn't care if it took two or three rounds, he loved the Carbine. Only military ball .30 carbine is poor.
Using a shotgun in combat would get you in front of a war crimes trial. A rifle is far more useful than any shotgun for anything but house clearing.
Twenty-two countries supplied troops for Korea. The Turks were supplied with M-1 rifles. The French were as well. India supplied a Field Hospital. A MASH unit. The Belgians were attached to a U.S. Inf. Div. and would likely have used M-1's too. Logistics would preclude the FN-49.
Shotties were used in Viet Nam by regular infantry, and I have seen REALLY short ones being used in Iraq primarily as door breeching "tools".
The fact that they aren't used much has nothing to do with war crimes, its the very limited range and slow reloads.
Remember the Atchison (I think thats the name). Looked roughly like an AR and had a 20 round drum. It was made for the military market.
The fact that they aren't used much has nothing to do with war crimes, its the very limited range and slow reloads.
Remember the Atchison (I think thats the name). Looked roughly like an AR and had a 20 round drum. It was made for the military market.
I think Police forces are exempt from a lot of the "wounding rules" set out for the militarty by the Genova (sp?) convention. That's why they're allowed to use hollow points and shotties (I am suprised to hear that shot guns are a no-no).
There's a bunch of arguments like bullet penetration i.e. bullets passing through the target and hitting innocent bystanders, police protecting civilians by having to put down a criminal "right now" before they have a chance to hurt an innocent etc. etc.
I'm not sure how this applies to one group vs. another, it's something I don't understand and haven't reasearched fully, but I'm sure polititians of the past and present have thought this out for us without bias or political pressure.
There's a bunch of arguments like bullet penetration i.e. bullets passing through the target and hitting innocent bystanders, police protecting civilians by having to put down a criminal "right now" before they have a chance to hurt an innocent etc. etc.
I'm not sure how this applies to one group vs. another, it's something I don't understand and haven't reasearched fully, but I'm sure polititians of the past and present have thought this out for us without bias or political pressure.
Riflechair said:For close range combat?
Probably not if Stens, Greaseguns or Thompsons were available
Don't forget that the M1C was considered to be a mid-range weapon capable of still wounding targets out to 100 yards away Where-as SMG's are not.
If the bad guys are out to 100 yards I would prefer my lee enfield
If closer ie: 50 yards and less sure I'd like to have the M1C
I've shot a few M1 Carbines and I'm not convinced in that calibres capacity to put anything down permanently inside of 50 metres. Howebver I have hag great accuracy out to 100 yards with my M1C Winchester (recently sold).
I would rather have a combat shotgun that a M1 Carbine for close quarter combat which I recently bought with the funds from my M1C sale (Mossberg 590SP).
I can't comment on how common it was, but I know of one vet who traded his sten for an M2 carbine. He swore by it, and I am pretty sure he still has it too
I spent some time in Korea in 51 & 52 till I got wounded. All Brit Commonwealth troops used Lee Enfield variations. As for the Greeks and Turks , Etheoipeans used the Garand .The French had WW2 leftovers. The main reason we wanted the yanks M1 carbine was ,you had to have a working weapon at all times out of camp or tent lines. If your service rifle was not CLEAN and RUST free at all times,HOLY S_IT!!. If the M1 worked OK. Same for the 1911 45 .cal My isuue #4 never was out of the grease except for inspection.As far as a Canuck or a Brit up against a Garand , no Yank could be as good at effective fire . Duker
