Canadian use of M1 Carbine in Korea
- Thread starter MiG25
- Start date
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Base defense force or gate guard probably.
Since the Russian military cartridge 7.62x54R is rimmed and the 7.62x51 NATO round is rimless I doubt the latter could be successfully fired in a firearm chambered for the former. However, I admit I've never tried it.
The RCAF did use and issue US weapons for base defense, including M1 Garands as well as carbines and BARs.
The carbine did very well for what it was intended to do.
One men won the Medal of Honor for killing nearly a hundred and fifty chinese defending a hilltop was using a carbine. Apparently it worked for him.
When you're fighting at distances between garlic breath and a hundred and fifty meters, it is plenty enough.
A padded jacket is no protection. A frozen padded jacket is a death sentence.
They'ld have died before that because their canvas shoes were wet and frozen anyway.
While it could be used at greater distances, much like the 7.62x39 round, it took training, constant practice and skill.
But for consistant distance, they used proper rifles.
In korea, the special service force was deployed with standard commonwealth kit. No4s, Stens, Brens, 3"mortars, 25lbr and even M10 Achilles with 17 pdr guns. The Americans, in their good grace, took one look at them with their open turrets and pointed to their collection points and insisted we take their M4A3 Shermans instead.
As far as use of American weapons use by the Canadians in Korea, everything was accessible, not necessarily through any channel but by direct barter for booze. I have heard, many,,, many accounts who all agreed that was the norm for any small arms. If it provided more firepower on a night patrol, everything was ok.
The were two other small arm anomalies. Given a fixed defense, they usually would wind up with two Brens per section, if they were manning fixed positions. Also given fixed positions, the BQs would trade with the US for the M1919s and tripods as well at times.
The carbine did very well for what it was intended to do.
One men won the Medal of Honor for killing nearly a hundred and fifty chinese defending a hilltop was using a carbine. Apparently it worked for him.
When you're fighting at distances between garlic breath and a hundred and fifty meters, it is plenty enough.
A padded jacket is no protection. A frozen padded jacket is a death sentence.
They'ld have died before that because their canvas shoes were wet and frozen anyway.
While it could be used at greater distances, much like the 7.62x39 round, it took training, constant practice and skill.
But for consistant distance, they used proper rifles.
In korea, the special service force was deployed with standard commonwealth kit. No4s, Stens, Brens, 3"mortars, 25lbr and even M10 Achilles with 17 pdr guns. The Americans, in their good grace, took one look at them with their open turrets and pointed to their collection points and insisted we take their M4A3 Shermans instead.
As far as use of American weapons use by the Canadians in Korea, everything was accessible, not necessarily through any channel but by direct barter for booze. I have heard, many,,, many accounts who all agreed that was the norm for any small arms. If it provided more firepower on a night patrol, everything was ok.
The were two other small arm anomalies. Given a fixed defense, they usually would wind up with two Brens per section, if they were manning fixed positions. Also given fixed positions, the BQs would trade with the US for the M1919s and tripods as well at times.
That argument simply will not hunt. The .30 carbine generates 950 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle, yet the .45 ACP only delivers 400-475 ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle from a Thompson. So the physics simply does not match what you've said regarding the two, with the M1 carbine supposedly being weak, whilst the Thompson being regarded for knockdown power. I too have the utmost respect for veterans, but battlefield testimony is not the valid source you claim it to be. Especially from the average 22 year old GI under extreme stress, with likely only a basic understanding of external/terminal ballistics. It is far more likely that the myth is caused by marksmanship errors such as incorrect holds/zero, perhaps attempting to engage targets at ranges outside the ideal envelope of the .30 carbine, and the lack of controllability of the M2 when fired on full auto. The only evidence I've seen that could somewhat corroborate such a thing is that the original .30 Carbine load was created with humidity stabilizers (for use in the Pacific) that severely degraded it's ignition performance in colder temperatures. But I believe that was remedied with an alternative loading. So to say that you "don't care about a controlled experiment" and that you'd rather believe unreliable testimony and anecdotes from a variety of first hand sources under stress, with differing use cases/environments, and differing background knowledge/experience with firearms is kinda wild. Like let's look at Thompson guy. Yeah, you're gonna praise it's stopping power when you pump a 5 round burst into an enemy combatant's guts at 10 meters. If you're the said 20yo fella who wasted a mag trying to shoot a Chicom 250m away with your M1 whilst your buddies watched because you couldn't get your holdover/kentucky windage right, you'd probably not be inclined to eat crow and blame your own shooting rather than the gun.
Last edited:
They are completely different dimensionally, so it wouldn't even chamber.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
There is a slight amount of truth to this in the 82mm Soviet mortars. They can use 81mm mortar ammo (albeit fairly ineffectively, basically better than nothing if that is the alternative) well we cannot use their 82mm ammo. Now whether it was designed to do so or was a happy accident is a whole other story.
The little .30 carbine round was not really horrible.
Keep in mind that it designed for guys who had other tasks, leading, radio, driving loading et cetera.
So, much like modern PCCs, better than a psiton but nit quite a rifle.
However, if they needed a weapon for medium to further range, the rifle would have predominated.
Don't forget the massive US small arms study conducted by SLA Marshall during the korean war, where he interviewed guys just back from patrolling. He concluded a couple of key points.
Ranges for actual shooting were far closer and shorter than the old rifle rounds were intended for.
(including the unnecessary recoil and training they bruise you with)
Guys with automatic weapons were far more likely to fire than those without.
And, the few guys who actually fired was staggering.
These all summed up the same points that lead the Germans to introduce the 8mm kurz and STGW44.
Did they design a specific propellant for a theatre, temperature and humidity?
While they could easily have done so, it would have totally messed up the logistics to the point of insanity, so a generic load was the go-to.
Now post war, the carbines were given and loaned en masse to everyone and their brother.
The French, British and most euro countries wound up with at least a quarter million each.
The ROK, south koreans easily a half million.
Each of these countries would have set up their own ammo production too.
Even US production was continuous.
I don't expect that a lot of carbine ammo sat around in warehouses to collect dust for too long.
Come the US in Vietnam, the options were an eleven pound Garand that was as tall the 105lb person dragging it around. So it was easy to see why the carbine was so incredibly popular with everyone in SE Asia, including, Mayalsia, Indonesia and the Philipines too.
Like the joke about the 5.56 round, it goes jjust as well for the carbine too.
What is the difference between a vietnamese and a deer?
,,,most people don't eat the vietnamese,,,.
Keep in mind that it designed for guys who had other tasks, leading, radio, driving loading et cetera.
So, much like modern PCCs, better than a psiton but nit quite a rifle.
However, if they needed a weapon for medium to further range, the rifle would have predominated.
Don't forget the massive US small arms study conducted by SLA Marshall during the korean war, where he interviewed guys just back from patrolling. He concluded a couple of key points.
Ranges for actual shooting were far closer and shorter than the old rifle rounds were intended for.
(including the unnecessary recoil and training they bruise you with)
Guys with automatic weapons were far more likely to fire than those without.
And, the few guys who actually fired was staggering.
These all summed up the same points that lead the Germans to introduce the 8mm kurz and STGW44.
Did they design a specific propellant for a theatre, temperature and humidity?
While they could easily have done so, it would have totally messed up the logistics to the point of insanity, so a generic load was the go-to.
Now post war, the carbines were given and loaned en masse to everyone and their brother.
The French, British and most euro countries wound up with at least a quarter million each.
The ROK, south koreans easily a half million.
Each of these countries would have set up their own ammo production too.
Even US production was continuous.
I don't expect that a lot of carbine ammo sat around in warehouses to collect dust for too long.
Come the US in Vietnam, the options were an eleven pound Garand that was as tall the 105lb person dragging it around. So it was easy to see why the carbine was so incredibly popular with everyone in SE Asia, including, Mayalsia, Indonesia and the Philipines too.
Like the joke about the 5.56 round, it goes jjust as well for the carbine too.
What is the difference between a vietnamese and a deer?
,,,most people don't eat the vietnamese,,,.
I was just thinking about this one. Coincidence was at play here.
One of my favourites well. Carried it for pest control at the farm (an NR one I used to own).Until it was banned, the M1 carbine was my favourite shooter at the range
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
Had a R M1 Carbine that needed a rebarrel, it became a NR M1 and I used it a fair bit, I think I still have some 30 Carbine ammo for it.
I remember trying to work up a load for it and it didn't like hollow points, that was really too bad.
I wonder where it is now, it was one of the rifles I am certain that I lost money on.
I remember trying to work up a load for it and it didn't like hollow points, that was really too bad.
I wonder where it is now, it was one of the rifles I am certain that I lost money on.
Quite true.
Also accepted the German 80mm mortar rounds as well. Mind if it wasn't Soviet 82mm, then accuracy was bad.
Also very similar thing to the recoilless guns like the 57mm, the 75mm. The chinese copied the ones they captured in Korea and put them into production. they were designed so that US ammo would fit but that the Chicomm ammo would just ever so slightly be oversized for the US weapons to take.
This thread is so funny because I remember hearing some of my MCpls and SGTs repeat the same BS about 7.62 ruski fitting NATO weapons and that is when I realized that these were not the people I needed to learn from as a 17 year old recruit. Ignore those fools and just shut up and play closer attention to the leaders that had technical knowledge and skills.
- Location
- WMU247 near Edmonton
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
100%
I can also see how it evolved especially in the word of mouth era before the internet. Someone with actual knowledge mentions how the Soviet 82mm mortars can accept nato 81mm. You then have someone not paying attention or fully understanding get Soviet weapons can accept NATO ammo but our weapons can’t use theirs out of the conversation. They then proceed to spread that to everyone they meet and so on.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I had ammo I'm pretty sure meant for the Ruger Blackhawk. Some half lead, half jacketed bullet. Min of barn, never cycled well. I always just stuck with 14.5grn H110 with pulled 110grn FMJs. 2.5 ish groups.
