Canadian use of M1 Carbine in Korea

MapleSugar said:
It's not so much the rifle, as it is the .30 Carbine cartridge that's to blame for the M1 Carbine's reported lack of stopping power. Although, there were reports of problems with the carbines jamming in extremely cold weather (partly as a result of weak return springs and inadequate cartridge recoil impulse due to the subzero temperatures.)

I also don't put any faith in a report that blames a soldier's aim with a particular rifle for it's lack of stopping power, when I'm not aware of any similar failures with the Garand or Thompson. Especially when the soldiers reported delivering multiple torso hits with the M1 Carbine and they failed to incapacitate their enemy.

McManus, p. 52, "Richard Lovett, of the U.S. Americal Division (Pacific Theater), was one of several who did not like the carbine. "It didn't have stopping power. Enemy soldiers were shot many times but kept on coming."

There were numerous after action reports from U.S. paratroopers (dating from 1943 until the fall/winter of 1944) that stated that the .30 Carbine lacked sufficient stopping power. Those guys were highly trained and crack shots. For an army report to suggest that they experienced "marksmanship degradation under stress" is an extreme insult to them. Even if that report was commissioned during the Korean War, the observations of front-line combat soldiers from WW II were still relevant.

There used to be a video on YouTube of Don Burgett stating that anyone he hit in the torso with a .30 cal (from his M1 Garand) went down and stayed down. He didn't like the M1 Carbine's stopping power and neither did a multitude of others that actually used them in combat.

For it's intended role as a close-range support weapon, the M1 Carbine might have been adequate. Some troops loved them for clearing buildings and jungle fighting.

It was supposedly popular in Korea for night patrols (as we can see with Private Matthews of the RCR.) It would have been a lot lighter than a Thompson and a lot more maneuverable than a Garand.

I've never shot one, but I have held several and inspected them closely. I can't attest to their performance, but I certainly give precedence to the observations and experiences of soldiers that saw how they performed in actual combat over anyone else that hasn't.

For that reason, I'd pass on one if it's purpose was to defend my life and I had a better option available. I just hope that Private Matthew's M1 Carbine served him well and he made it home safe and sound.

The Korean War wasn't mentioned much when I was young and I can't recall ever meeting a veteran of it.

Those Canadian soldiers that served there deserve to be remembered and respected. Just like in every other war.

Then as now, they deserve(d) the best that we can give them to get the job done and make it home alive.
Click to expand...
You probably also believe soldiers cleared rooms by throwing a loaded sten gun through the window. Tons of first hand accounts claiming people did this, though it’s literally impossible and has been proven impossible time and again.

Or how about the one where GIs installed extra recoil spring in Thompson’s to make them run at Chosin Reservoir. Also not possible.

Eye witness accounts of anything are notoriously poor sources. Science, on the other hand, does not lie.

Suggest you read through this thread that includes lots of data. http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/bullet-penetration-myth-busted_topic2866_page2.html

Did you know you need at least level 3A body armor with ceramic or steel plate to stop an m1 carbine round at combat distances? It even defeats the best pure Kevlar armor consistently.

But sure, some quilted wool will do.

Nobody will ever see me volunteer to be down range if the 30 carbine fired in a rifle, no matter what body armor I’m offered.
 
Last edited:
MapleSugar said:
1000003177-png.972357


Geez, Private Matthews had a thousand yard stare and he probably wasn't even 20 yet.

I remember reading somewhere that the M1's .30 Carbine 110 gr. rounds didn't penetrate the quilted Chinese uniforms very well in the wintertime.

At least at longer distances that the M1 Garand easily could.

3789622723_50095cbf5a.jpg
Click to expand...
You're right. The 30 Carbine would have a difficult time puncturing those winter jackets. But only when you miss.
 
Claven2 said:
You probably also believe soldiers cleared rooms by throwing a loaded sten gun through the window. Tons of first hand accounts claiming people did this, though it’s literally impossible and has been proven impossible time and again.

Or how about the one where GIs installed extra recoil spring in Thompson’s to make them run at Chosin Reservoir. Also not possible.

Eye witness accounts of anything are notoriously poor sources. Science, on the other hand, does not lie.

Suggest you read through this thread that includes lots of data. http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/bullet-penetration-myth-busted_topic2866_page2.html

Did you know you need at least level 3A body armor with ceramic or steel plate to stop an m1 carbine round at combat distances? It even defeats the best pure Kevlar armor consistently.

But sure, some quilted wool will do.

Nobody will ever see me volunteer to be down range if the 30 carbine fired in a rifle, no matter what body armor I’m offered.
Click to expand...
You assume a lot without any knowledge of what you speak of. Why do you even make such comparisons?

I don't care about a controlled experiment that doesn't even come close to replicating a battlefield situation and the effects of the .30 Carbine round on an actual human.

From your own link we get conflicting testimony:

I went looking for more information about penetration of the .30 Carbine cartridge against North Korean forces during the Korean War, and found information to support both sides of the debate. I think members here may find the reports interesting.

In "U.S. Infantry Weapons in Combat - Personal Experiences From World War II and Korea," by Mark G. Goodwin, published by Scott A. Duff Publications in 2005, I found the following...

An account by Jack Walentine, who served in the 25th Infantry Division in Korea, indicates penetration was not an issue. Here is a quote from page 90. "You hear stories about the Chinese being shot with carbines in their winter clothing and they just brushed it off. I have shot Chinese in all their winter gear with an M2 carbine, and those rounds had gone completely through them, in the front, and out the back. I know because I had to search them for maps and documentation after I shot them. At 100 to 150 yards that sucker was bad news."

On page 153, Win Scott, who served in the 1st Marine Division in Korea voiced his disdain for the carbine. He said, "The carbine wasn't good in cold weather; we didn't like it, I wouldn't give you 10 cents for the carbine. I did not have any confidence in that weapon. First of all, if you could get it to fire you couldn't stop anybody with it. We had a lot of close combat and a carbine hit didn't seem to faze them much unless you hit them in a vital spot. The M1 (Garand) would knock them flat."

I also consulted "Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons (Korean War)," by S.L.A. Marshall, published by Desert Publications in 1984. The book, which is a compilation of many after incident battlefield accounts of various weapons, was extremely critical of the carbine. On page 51, it relates an account by 1st Lt. Joseph R. Fisher of the 1st Marine Regiment, during a defensive action at Hagaru-Ri. He stated "But the main reason my men lost confidence in the carbine was because they would put a bullet right into a (Chinese racial slur removed) chest at 25 yards range, and he wouldn't stop. This happened to me. The bullet struck home; the man simply winced and kept on coming. There were about a half dozen of my men who made this same complaint; some of them swore they had fired 3 or 4 times, hit the man each time, and still not stopped him."

I read all the Korean War accounts in the Goodwin book, and most of the encounters related occurred at short ranges, under 50 yards. Most engagements were at night, and defensive in nature, firing against many charging enemy at close range. It seems unlikely that carbine bullets would not penetrate.

So, I'm somewhat conflicted on the subject of whether thick layers of clothing might have stopped carbine bullets. I still think it's plausible, particularly at longer ranges, but it seems most engagements were close in. Perhaps adrenaline and opium had something to do with the perception. If an enemy soldier charges you, and you fire repeatedly and accurately at him with a carbine, but they still keep coming, I imagine one would speculate that clothing layers stopped the bullets, even if they didn't. But maybe they did...I think there's more to this story...

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
Click to expand...

If you think that that's a definitive test that's going to put all the reports of the .30 Carbine's lack of stopping power to rest, then I've lost all respect for you.

Again, I'll heed the warnings of multiple combat veterans that claimed it failed to stop their enemies.

Some soldiers may have incapacitated hostiles with their M1 Carbines, but I've heard of too many that couldn't. From Sicily, to Europe, to the Pacific, to Korea, and to Vietnam.

I've never heard that said of the M1 Garand or Thompson.

I remember reading a SEAL's account of carrying a Thompson in Vietnam. He highly regarded it for it's knockdown power.........even if it weighed a ton to lug around.
 
Last edited:
MapleSugar said:
You assume a lot without any knowledge of what you speak of. Why do you even make such comparisons?

I don't care about a controlled experiment that doesn't even come close to replicating a battlefield situation and the effect on an actual human.

From your own link we get conflicting testimony:



If you think that that's a definitive test that's going to put all the reports of the .30 Carbine's lack of stopping power to rest, then I've lost all respect for you.

Again, I'll heed the warnings of multiple combat veterans that claimed it failed to stop their enemies.

Some soldiers may have incapacitated enemy soldiers with their M1 Carbines, but I've heard of too many that couldn't.

From Sicily, to Europe, to the Pacific, to Korea, and to Vietnam.

I've never heard that said of the M1 Garand or Thompson.
Click to expand...
“Plausible at longer ranges”. Uh-huh. Depending on those ranges, that’s true of any caliber.

But consider this, the US was unprepared for the Korean War. When war broke out, they had scrapped or given away so many tanks, they recovered abandoned battle damaged Sherman’s from pacific islands and hurriedly repaired them for use on the peninsula.

Almost all their ww2 era m1 carbines were in deep storage and needed overhaul. They embarked on a massive refurb program, replacing stocks (mostly with new potbelly stocks) and changing rear sights. From personal experience, I can say many of these refurbs shoot at least a foot high on the lowest 100m setting because they did not change and re-zero front sights that had been filed down to zero with the old flip sight.

The m1 carbine was not intended for front line use in either ww2 or Korea, ordnance intended it to be a centre of mass personal defence weapon for officers and truck drivers. Minute or torso at 50 meters is what they expected it to be used for.

The Garand, on the other hand, had precision sights and was thought of as the primary infantry tool. They were meticulously zeroed.

On the ground, troops started encountering the m44 and SKS in large numbers. These guns were handier, lighter, and well suited to engagements in the 100-200 meters range. Regular GIs started self-issuing the carbine as they looked for a fast pointing and light rifle similar to the SKS.

These true story is many of those carbines did not shoot to point of aim unless you used an extreme 6 o’clock hold and anyone who has degreased and fired a Korea-era m1 carbine refurb will tell you, often you need to go find an unissued replacement front sight, which is usually taller than the fitted ww2 era sight, and swap it out to make the gun shoot.

We can no longer legally shoot our carbines, so you may not be able to replicate this in Canada for the time being, but I’ve personally shot my m1 carbine through 8” of heavy wool army blankets stacked together. The fmj bullet went through that, and a 2” spruce backing and kept going.

The Chinese quilted wool tunic was about 1/2” thick, made of carded and loosely packed wool fiber sandwiched between 2 thin layers of tent canvas. It was meant to insulate and had a fair degree of air void in the packed wool.

I would not trust it to stop a sub-sonic 22 short, regardless of the outdoor temperature.
 
Claven2 said:
“Plausible at longer ranges”. Uh-huh. Depending on those ranges, that’s true of any caliber.

But consider this, the US was unprepared for the Korean War. When war broke out, they had scrapped or given away so many tanks, they recovered abandoned battle damaged Sherman’s from pacific islands and hurriedly repaired them for use on the peninsula.

Almost all their ww2 era m1 carbines were in deep storage and needed overhaul. They embarked on a massive refurb program, replacing stocks (mostly with new potbelly stocks) and changing rear sights. From personal experience, I can say many of these refurbs shoot at least a foot high in lowest setting because they did not change and re-zero front sights that had been filed down to zero with the old flip sight.

The m1 carbine was not intended for fro t line use in either ww2 or Korea, ordnance in tended it to be a centre of mass personal defence weapon for officers and truck drivers. Minute or torso at 50 meters high a what they expected it to be used for.

The1 Garand, on the other hand, had precision sights and was thought of as the primary infantry tool. They were meticulously zeroed.

On the ground, troops started encountering the m44 and SKS in large numbers. These guns were handier, lighter, and well suited to engagements in the 100-200 meters range. Regular GIs started self-issuing the carbine as they looked for a fast pointing and light rifle similar to the SKS.

These true story is many of those carbines did not shoot to point if aim unless you used and extreme 6 o’clock hold anyone who has degreased and fired a Korea-era m1 carbine refurb will tell you, often you need to go find an unissued replacement front sight, which is usually taller than the fitted ww2 era sight, and swap it out to make the gun shoot.

We can no longer legally shoot our carbines, so you may not be able to replicate this in Canada for the time being, but I’ve personally shot my m1 carbine through 8” of heavy wool army blankets stacked together. The bullet went through that, and a 2” spruce backing and keep going.

The Chinese quilted wool tunic was about 1/2” thick, made of carded and loosely packed wool fiber sandwiched between 2 thin layers of tent canvas. It was meant to insulate and had a fair degree of air void in the packed wool.

I would not trust it to stop a sub-sonic 22 short, regardless of the outdoor temperature.
Click to expand...
Like I already said, I've never shot an M1 Carbine, so I can't personally comment on it's effectiveness.

You have, and can attest to it's performance on static targets. Those are impressive results.

I've already stated that the M1 Carbine was probably adequate for it's intended role as a close-range support weapon. Expecting it to perform well in every combat situation seems to have been asking too much of it.

Keep in mind that it was already observed as early as 1943 that the .30 Carbine cartridge lacked stopping power at ranges that an M1 Garand could easily knock down an enemy soldier.

Again, it wasn't really the fault of the M1 Carbine, but rather the cartridge. It apparently wasn't powerful enough. In WW II, those rifles were brand new and were not worn out at all. So that can't be used as an excuse.

Yet, there are still reports of them failing to get the job done back then, when the Garand or Thompson could and did.

The M1 Thompson didn't have great sights, either. But it never seemed to fail to flatten anything it hit within reasonable ranges. It was originally designed to clear the German trenches in WW 1, and would have done a great job of that if it had arrived in France before the war ended. Despite that, it has gone on to prove itself in countless battles since. I can't recall ever hearing anything bad about it other than how much it weighs.

Personally, I don't even like getting hit with a BB gun, so I'll pass on standing in front of any of those calibers to prove a point. Even a .22 LR round is lethal within a certain range if a vital area is penetrated.

But I still won't doubt or ignore the testimonies of experienced combat veterans that had a great disdain for the M1 Carbine. They will always know that weapon better than me, or anyone that tries to prove them wrong with a test that doesn't come close to replicating what they experienced with it.

Meanwhile, even though you can't enjoy your M1 Carbine (for the time being) at least you can look forward to putting that No.4 MK2 through it's paces!

Enjoy!
 
After 1949 and Canada signing onto NATO, the army realized its stay at home regular force couldn't be deployed to Germany. That and the Korean War kicked off as they were talking. The genus of a brigade for Germany was to reactivate several reserve units into Special Force battalions. Have the guys sign for limited contracts and send them over. Replace them with regulars as their terms of service came due, and start the once-familiar rotation of regulars through Germany.

The army had demobilized and stripped down after 1945, and some very serious thought went into what small arms to issue and how the battalions would be supported. I had a blue Canadian Army pamphlet on the BAR. Clive Law (RIP) in his book on snipering in Canada, "Without Warning" describes M1C and M1D rifles acquired for the brigade going to Germany. The thought was the US supply lines were so significantly well stocked that US pattern small arms and consumables would be available and easy to integrate. The troops had these M1 rifles long enough. Within a short period the Canadian brigade was moved to British command, and British pattern equipment issued. This is I suppose why Canada had Centurion tanks and not M47 or M48s, but lots of M1919A4 and M2 Browning machine guns. The Garands were held in stores until 1961.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_Canadian_Infantry_Brigade

https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/orgformations/27thbrigade.htm
 
My grandpa was with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in Korea, and apparently used a PPSh-41 for as long as he was able to.
 
A round nose, FMJ 30 cal bullet isn't going to be stopped by a jacket, but won't impart a lot of "shock"
 
Claven2 said:
he Chinese quilted wool tunic was about 1/2” thick, made of carded and loosely packed wool fiber sandwiched between 2 thin layers of tent canvas. It was meant to insulate and had a fair degree of air void in the packed wool.
Click to expand...
This is a direct quote from a close family friend that was a Korean vet...in a conversation over the war, he offered up this statement " Those Chinese were harder to kill in the winter time, they would soak their heavy wool winter garb in water and freeze them solid then double up on their winter clothes"....making ad-hoc plate vest's.

Im with Claven, the .30 has range limitations and shooting across those Korean valleys from one side to the other might be over-taxing but within their parameters of use I have personally quickly dispatched & killed deer with them ...complete pass-thru's at 100 yrds.
 
fingers284 said:
This is a direct quote from a close family friend that was a Korean vet...in a conversation over the war, he offered up this statement " Those Chinese were harder to kill in the winter time, they would soak their heavy wool winter garb in water and freeze them solid then double up on their winter clothes"....making ad-hoc plate vest's.

Im with Claven, the .30 has range limitations and shooting across those Korean valleys from one side to the other might be over-taxing but within their parameters of use I have personally quickly dispatched & killed deer with them ...complete pass-thru's at 100 yrds.
Click to expand...
The frozen jacket lore is not original to your family friend by any means. That nonsense has also circulated for decades. Much like the aformentioned Sten hand grenade of WW2.
 
MiG25 said:
Freeze a 500ml water bottle, then shoot it with a 22 Short and report back.
Click to expand...
So what does that prove, notice he said "harder to kill" not that they couldnt be...sure a 22 is gonna shatter a plastic bottle of ice but "how much energy" is displaced by more than a inch of woven material and ice , might be an interesting test to do sometime this year
 
In 1968 I worked with an RCMP corporal in the Yukon who was born and raised in New Brunswick. He had cousins in the state of Maine and when the Korean war started he joined the US army with those cousins and served in Korea. He told me that at least some of the Korean soldiers had body armor vests that had pockets sewn into them which held overlapping metal plates. He said that hitting a Korean wearing one of those vests with a .30 carbine round would knock them down but they'd get up and keep coming.

When the US army command learned he was Canadian and had lied about this citizenship he was given an honorable discharge and sent home, but he was awarded the Korean theater of war ribbon. Since it was issued by an allied force, when he joined the RCMP, he was permitted to wear it on his uniform. He said he took a lot of ribbing from the instructors at Depot in training about that ribbon - "Where'd you get that, constable? Out of a Cracker Jack box?"
 
I remember a vet saying that they loaded 14 rounds in their Lee Enfields. And no, this was not a reference to one of the WW1 trench magazines. Must be true, a vet said it.

With respect to insulated clothing in cold weather - from the body to the outer shell, the temperature drops from warm to sub-freezing. Somewhere between the inside and the outside the dew point is reached and there is condensation. The condensed water will freeze inside the garment's insulation. Maybe that is where the stories about stiff iced clothing originated. From personal experience I can report that ice collecting inside the wind shell layer of a parka is not pleasant. The more vigorous the activity, the more problematic the condensation becomes.

I suspect that the underperforming reports about the .30 carbine round are in the same category as the reports about the .38Colt in the Philippines during the Spanish American War. Wounds, but no knockdown. And the engagement distance was likely close, so delayed results would be unacceptable.

Anyone remember the torch cut BARs that turned up surplus decades ago? They were from RCAF stores at Downsview.
 
MapleSugar said:
You assume a lot without any knowledge of what you speak of. Why do you even make such comparisons?

I don't care about a controlled experiment that doesn't even come close to replicating a battlefield situation and the effects of the .30 Carbine round on an actual human.

From your own link we get conflicting testimony:



If you think that that's a definitive test that's going to put all the reports of the .30 Carbine's lack of stopping power to rest, then I've lost all respect for you.

Again, I'll heed the warnings of multiple combat veterans that claimed it failed to stop their enemies.

Some soldiers may have incapacitated hostiles with their M1 Carbines, but I've heard of too many that couldn't. From Sicily, to Europe, to the Pacific, to Korea, and to Vietnam.

I've never heard that said of the M1 Garand or Thompson.

I remember reading a SEAL's account of carrying a Thompson in Vietnam. He highly regarded it for it's knockdown power.........even if it weighed a ton to lug around.
Click to expand...
a lot of combat vets from vietnam say that you could fire 5.56 and .308 out of AKs and SKSs and that its a war crime to shoot someone with a .50 cal so I suppose thats all true since its impossible for a myth to be spread amongst troops and be held onto
 
I had a 20 year Veteran tell me that Soviet Weapons were designed so they could use NATO ammo but not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom