that's not true he can shoot some rounds in the air and say "get em brothers! yee haw!"

Aye, i dislike when people start comparing this weapon to other ww2 weapons for the same role. Especially the STG44 and i always went "Did the STG44 replaced the P38 in service or the k98? Because as far as i remember, the M1 carbine replaced the 1911 .45 Pistol" i would then often quote the Army request "a compact, lightweight defensive weapon with greater range, accuracy and firepower than a handgun, while weighing half as much as the Thompson submachine gun or the M1 rifle." And some at the range would still try to compare it to an STG44....bloody wehraboo's. From 20 y old videogamers to 60 y old men at the gun range

I shot a never issued Remington WW2 production .45 a couple of years back, at 25m I was all over the place while solidly missing the middle. 😆

@@F4Wildcat the role it fulfilled is much more comparable to the Sten for the British and the Ppsh for the Soviets.

@@marcusott2973 I would disagree. The Sten and PPSh were frontline weapons. The M1 Carbine was designed to be issued to support personnel as a PDW

@@F4Wildcat Funny thing about US Army "replacing" weapons--most of the replacements failed. Example One--the M1 Rifle according to contemporary sources such as the 1940 Infantry ROTC manual (4 volume set) and the 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual said that the M1 Rifle (Garand) was going to replace the Browning Automatic Rifle in rifle platoons and the few submachine guns in service as well as the M1903 service rifle. The M1 Carbine was supposed to replace the submachine gun as well as the pistol, and arm second-line troops who would have otherwise been armed with the M1903 rifle instead of a pistol. Fast forward to 1957 when the M14 Rifle was developed to replace the M1 Rifle, BAR, M3 submachine gun and M2 Carbine. More pistols found their way into rifle companies because the M14 was too much for a grenadier armed with the M79 or machine gun and mortar and bazooka and recoilless rifle crews could deal with--and platoon commanders who were armed with the Carbine during WW2 reverted to the pistol. Also reverting to pistols were signalmen who had a primary job of lugging around a back-pack radio set, those laying telephone wires, and other service troops who were behind the front lines. The Carbine was adopted in part because of Fifth Columnists, paratroopers, commandoes and guerrillas. The submachine gun had a niche--which wasn't shooting enemy personnel at 300 meters--and tank crews retained the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns through the 1990's. The M2 Carbine almost replaced all submachine guns in infantry regiments but training to use the automatic feature was minimal--and that resulted in soldiers pushing that magical rock-n-roll switch when they panicked. The M2 Carbine was actually replaced by the M16A1 Rifle. The best laid plans of mice and military brass often don't work out at first contact with the enemy.

fr- versus the other rifles of the day this is amazing. Given a few good magazines and faster follow up shots from the smaller cartridge, I can see why some GIs traded their garands for these when they went to the front.

Ahh an imperwanker

Lol - "metards", fuckin metric users

Yeah, not bad for product from the colonies 😉

@@joshuagrahm3607 I could see that being the case in the Pacific, having something smaller and lighter in a close quarters jungle setting would certainly be a benefit over the Garand, mind you an M3 Greese Gun would most likely be even better. As an Aussie though I'm partial to the Owen gun if we're talking SMG's in the tropics haha

A fair number of people would be hard pressed to do that at _30_ yards with a pistol

@@PhycoKrusk I've had a soldier show up to a steel challenge match and he couldn't do that at 10 yards with a pistol most of the people I see at the range cand do it at 10 feet.

@@CenlaSelfDefenseConcepts Pistol shooting is _hard_

Which nation did he serve with?

@@tallman2210probably Britain? Apparently they used American guns too and served with Americans, or someone is having a stroke.

@@TheTimbs_ yea britain would have still had pretty good stocks of american equipment from the lend lease program in ww2

1903, 1917 and krag are much more beautiful. kar98k is a pretty one too.

It will most likely hit you.

Thanks, but there's no cameras. It's acoustic shot detection.

The recoil plate is _verry_ important for accuracy. A type three barrel band doesn't hurt either.

@@bbb462cid also adding an aluminum hand guard over the barrel will definitely increase accuracy and stability

@@burtonkephart6239 never tried that but as a practical matter my own 1943 Inland M1 carbine will ten-ring a 50 yard pistol target at 100 yards, which translates to perfectly acceptable accuracy to 200 yards. That's with an M2 stock, a nicely fit recoil plate, and an original type 3 barrel band. Original 2-rivet USGI forward guard. So chasing the last bit of accuracy out of the old girl really isn't worth it- it already does what it always was meant to do. I feel available ammo is more limiting than the hand guard, as well.

@@bbb462cid yes if you have an original USGI carbine I would leave it alone for sure. I have an USGI carbine that stays in case and an auto ordnance new production one I shoot occasionally and have all tricked out with choate folding stock and metal hand guard with rail etc etc that is my go to gun . My red dot hits spot on at 50 yards Also. I agree that quality ammo is the main issue.

@@burtonkephart6239 great little rifle though!

I'm a fan of another 30 cal PDW round: 7.62x41. in many popular loads, it's the same data as 357 mag, but gets higher pressure and a lot more energy.

@@GunFunZS Never heard of 7.62x41. Other than as a very early cartridge the Soviets used before shortening it 2mm to become 7.62x39mm. What....exactly do you mean by 7.62x41mm?

At 100 yards the M-1 Carbine bullet has the energy of a .357 Magnum at point blank range.

The Korean War story about .30 Carbine not being able to penetrate winter clothing was supposedly because of "bad" WWII surplus ammo. The powder when fired at sub-zero temps often resulted in incomplete powder burn and potential loss of around 2/3 the velocity.

@@jarink1 I think it had more to do with "It _can't_ be that I missed him, this stupid gun is just a pea-shooter"

@@ErwinPommel Were you there?

My local market wasn't flooded with it, lol. Should of be looking on line I guess

I'd settle for Stang. 5 rounds per mag keeps the cost down and won't embarrass the other weapons as much.

Maybe do 30 or even 15 seconds.

too unfair, they're not even the same caliber. You could do a ishapore vs a ar(lr308 actually)10 though and rapid fire the hell out of the two at 50 yards. the ar platform is gonna have a 25 round maximum unless you get a drum mag. Another think you could do to make it way more fair is to do a m14 vs a ishapore. Then do the m14 again but with only using stripper clips. If the recoil of the 303 and 7.62 are the same then a regular smle can be used instead.

@@jason200912 it was never meant to be fair, it's meant to show how much things have changed.

@@jameshealy4594 what's the point though we already know the modern ones is gonna perform 3-6 time better

I looked up the numbers and that is correct, for carbine barrels. When fired from a handgun the .357 is substantially less powerful but it picks up a lot of extra velocity from a longer barrel, more than most other pistol rounds do. It can actually exceed the power of the .30 Carbine by sending a 125 grain bullet at the same velocity as the 110 grain M1 ball round.

@@davidcolter This is one of the main reasons I would really like to get a .357 lever carbine someday to go with my revolvers. I like the .357 round anyway, and it seems it would be great fun out of a carbine.

I love this comment and your way of thinking. This was my thought too when watching this video. Open fields with tree lines a couple hundred yards apart , I'd much rather have the stopping power and accuracy at range of the Garand. But in short line of sight engagement within a hundred yards id much rather have the low recoil to remain on target to place a few rapid shots. Plus a wave of Tojo coming down a hill in the jungle I would rather have the extra rounds so I could be a little quicker in the trigger. I could carry almost 3 times the amount of 30 carbine compared the 30-06. I would prefer the lighter and more accurate 30carbine over the Thompson anyway walking threw the high heat and dampness of the jungle

Timothy Bagrowski This is essentially a "magnum" pistol round so it has plenty of punch and hits hard even at 300 yards but at 200 yards or less the M1 .30 Carbine has virtually the same muzzle energy as a .223/5.56 AR15M4. Not velocity but energy. Yes it shines at 200 yards and under. Effective accurate range is indeed stretching it at 300. I would not feel under gunned at all with it against an AR15M4 up to 200 yards. The AR15M4 would beat it in velocity but not energy on target nor ammo capacity.

Remember how Captain Kirk did against the Gorn in Star Trek? He used a bamboo pole, homemade gunpowder, and rocks. That's a yesteryear's firearm used in the future. If it still shoots, it's still good.

I suspect that a lot will have been inadequately zeroed too, which will compound that problem. But my view of the "frozen coats" myth is the same: there was an awful lot of missing going on.

@@BlokeontheRange When Forgotten Weapons did a Q&A with Larry Vickers on the AK, I asked why the AK has a reputation for poor accuracy. He gave a similar response, use by poorly trained marksmen and the fact that few AKs have ever been zeroed after leaving the factory

All of my AK's actually do have poor accuracy though, even after me zeroing them. They're all Chinese, to be fair, but even so.

@@BlokeontheRange How "poor" is poor accuracy? Could you keep it in the 5 ring at 300? I'm thinking of getting a Type 81, and internet lore has it that the Chinese adopted it because they wanted the "accuracy of the SKS in an AK" but reports are that it's a 3moa gun at best

The best one probably keeps it in the 5-ring at 300m. It's "wouldn't want to stand there" accuracy, not "I can guarantee a torso shot if I do my bit" accurate.

Very likely isn't going to be all that impressive. At 300m it will be doing 303m/s (994 fps), and delivering 328j (241 ft-lbs), or roughly equal to a .380 FMJ or a 9x18mm Mak at their muzzle. Smaller diameter, but more penetration. Probably penetrate an 18" block with clothing in front of it if using FMJ. Small temporary cavity, with a small hole drilled the rest of the way. HP or SP might expand a little, but likely not much. Overall, definitely still lethal, but it won't be doing anything really "impressive" at those ranges.

Last I fired a CMP Carbine match (2010) the range was 100 yards for all positions.

Not CMP match, but at 200 yes man size silhouettes are not a problem. typically chest size group for me at least.

Two local ranges here run CMP, Garand, M1 Carbine, High Power matches. One at 100y the other 200y. The War Babies do well at both ranges. Since most rifle in the matches use either the M1907 sling or the web sling and both are capable of being used as looped shooting slings, the M1 Carbines sling you have to use in the Hasty sling method. so suffers.

lookup the expected MOA grouping of a carbine at 100 yards. that's it.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d-B7hpuVuZnJYKM.html

Screwed in too far so that it was rotated past the point where the sights were vertical

I'm not clear on the size of the target either. Googling ISSF A10 target returns a result that is 17cm x 17cm total (all rings) which is quite small.

The black aiming mark is 60cm wide.

@@BlokeontheRange Ah! Much bigger than it looks.