M1 carbine

Is the M1 carbine an assault rifle?


  • Total voters
    1
#1
I really shouldn't let this worry me, but I'm bored and I've got little better to do.

On WW2incolor, TINWALT is still maintaining that the M1 carbine is/was an assault rifle, even though it does not have all 3 defining features of one, namely:

1. Is a rifled arm designed to be fired from the shoulder
2. Fires ammunition intermediate in power between pistol and rifle ammunition
3. Is capable of being fired in either semi- or fully-automatic modes.


He seems to be pretty much set against almost the whole world on this one, yet still maintains it's objective fact that it was an assault rifle because it was used in the assault, and that there was nothing to compare it to at the time, even though the MP43/Stg44 is as modern an assault rifle as the AK47. We've conceded that the M2 carbine (select-fire version) falls broadly in the definition, but really can't replace the rifle so isn't really an assault rifle.

The debate went into the role of the assault rifle, which is to replace the rifle and the SMG. He will not acknowledge this, he thinks that it's a rifle which is used in the assault. He's come out with some great ones about assault rifles never,ever being used at 600m (despite this being British doctrine for the SA-80), having to have the barrel raised to rediculous angles to reach the target at 600m (with 5.56mm it's 20MOA) and when the bullet gets there it's got no power left anyway (a 5.56mm has about 500ftlb left) and that its accuracy will be worse in angle than at 500m (which is of course crap). Talk about the effective range of the M1 carbine cartridge has been shrugged off.

There's also been some prize moments when he's said that the British commonwealth doesn't exist, and that no non-US citizens serve in the US forces. Also that MGs and cannon are used for section fire, not the individual weapons of the members of the section. He also thinks that he's an expert on the development of the jet engine and that it was developped independently in the UK, US and Germany, despite the fact that we bunged the US the plans, a complete engine, and Frank Whittle to get them started. He even contradicted a forum member with a degree in turbomachinery about the functioning of jet engines.

This is where it's going on at the moment, but it keeps popping up over the forum:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=4521#4521

As I say, he's just screaming it blue in our faces as if it's objective fact whilst claiming that we're all walts.

There are an awful lot of militaria buffs on here - so what's your opinion?

I know this is semantics and boring, but when you've got an eejit who is wrong but won't admit it it's a challenge.

(edited for clarity - a cut-and-paste was used with a slightly different lead-in)
 
#2
I know this wasn't the question but I couldn't give a toss about what kind of shooty stick they give me. I've read through TINWALTS posts and he seems to be the kind of chap you just don't argue with - purely because he'll never admit he is wrong about aything and you'll only end up boring yourself senseless. I suggest ignoring him.
 
#4
Lairdx said:
I know this wasn't the question but I couldn't give a toss about what kind of shooty stick they give me. I've read through TINWALTS posts and he seems to be the kind of chap you just don't argue with - purely because he'll never admit he is wrong about aything and you'll only end up boring yourself senseless. I suggest ignoring him.
Might be an idea. The current one he can't get his head around is that nickel alloy and air don't have the same density. My statement that they don't has got him claiming I am:
TinWalt said:
No. You are in the Nevernever Land of physics. You are so far off that it is diffifult to conceive such a horrendous error of logical thinking. I have not seen such an illogical, completely out-of-touch statement in my life (I don't think).
I know I should leave well alone, but baiting the terminally dumb into saying things like that is just far too much fun :twisted:
 
#6
Carbine; noun : Light Automatic Rifle

My 2 pence worth: A Carbine was designed to replace the Pistol and SMG, an Assault Rifle was designed to replace the SMG and Rifle.
 
#7
I fired an RUC M1 crapbine many years ago, tbh I would had rather have shot my gentalmans glue at the target than that bag-o-sh1te. Its a crappy Rifle, Not fit for the Infantry.
 
#8
Isn't it called the M1 carbine?

The dictionaries define "carbine" as "light automatic rifle" or "shortened rifle".

According to Modern Firearms website the specification was for a lightweight shoulder arm to replace service handguns for second-line (non-fighting) troops. I have read this definition elsewhere (geek), and Modern Firearms use the term "personal defence weapon".

As second-line and non-fighting troops are not involved in an assault (infantry squads were equipped at the time with the M1 Garand, BAR and Thompson with the M1 carbine replacing the pistol) then this is not an assault rifle. If someone was so bored as to try and work out the percentage of troops carrying the thing based on their role then this would further rebut the "assault rifle" claim.

I must be bored, but pedantry is such a temptation....
 
#9
I've seen some dogs that were terrible & could be described as a crapbine - but when cared for they work fine. There's one at my club that's ex-police and is diabolical. Thank god we don't shout "STOPPAGE!" all the time as civvies! :lol:
 
#10
I'm going over to the wwII in colour site now because i think he might be a walt and am going to expose him. (In a very subtle and cunning way.)
 
#11
I must be bored.

Where does the term "assault rifle" originate? Isn't it a manufacturer's term that has been adopted by cheap thriller-writers? The US have a legal definition used for sales restrictions, since lifted by Dubya, quoted from www.guncite.com:

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states. (See machine guns.)

However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
So the M1A1 "paratrooper" version with pistol grip and folding stock would be categorised as an "assault weapon" but its older sister - the humble M1 carbine would not be an "assault weapon" as it has a solid wood stock and no pistol grip. If Dubya hadn't scrapped the 1994 bill, it would be possible to have one's cake and eat it - the M1 Carbine would have existed in a Schrodinger's Cat-like state of being an assault weapon and not being an assault weapon.

Indeed, isn't the foremost weapon in the world that might be referred to in such hagiographic terms - the beloved L85A1/A2 - merely described by Her Majesty's Armed Forces as the "Rifle" or "Individual Weapon"?

A highly impressive list of "L" number designations is at the following website for the terminally bored:

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66175
 
#14
Don't confuse the term "assault weapon" which deals with cosmetic features of rifles in the 1994 US ban and was so-called to make people who knew no better think about full-auto wpns, with a true assault rifle.

Yes, the Germans coined the term (lit. "storm rifle"), and it became the accepted description of a category of select-fire rifles firing intermediate categories. There's also "battle rifles" (Garand, SLR, M14 etc), just to confuse things :D There's thus another debate as to whether a select-fire FAL or M14 is a battle rifle or an assault rifle :roll:
 
#15
Didnt they use the term because adolf only wanted rifles made .The cat came out of the bag supposedly when adolf met some eastern front vets and asked what they needed and they said more stg s .Bet that took some explaining :lol:
 
#16
woody said:
Didnt they use the term because adolf only wanted rifles made .The cat came out of the bag supposedly when adolf met some eastern front vets and asked what they needed and they said more stg s .Bet that took some explaining :lol:
The first rifle in the development was called the MKb.42 (incidentally we initially called the STEN a "machine carbine" as well). The austrian corporal decreed that no new types of wpn would be developped, so the next stage in the development was called the MP43, so that the bureaucracy would think that it was an SMG. A slight update was then called the MP44. Only when it had been in combat for some time so that it was too late to be cancelled and had proved extremely popular with the troops was the name changed to Stg.44. There was also a Stg.45 which was the first use of roller-delayed blowback and fired the same cartridge as the stg. 44.
 
#17
Actually the thing was that corporal Schicklgruber "knew" from his WW1 experience exactly what an infantryman needs: A heavy powered, long barreled bolt action rifle, because this was good enough for him in the Kaiser´s Army. This is what he insisted on.
He didn´t see that the combat conditions in WW2 were much different from WW1, no long range sniping at some fool who sticks his head out of the trench, but combat at shorter ranges (see Stalingrad). This is why the weapons developers and the German army staff had to deceive him. Interestingly the Russians caught on the idea of the intermediate cartridge right away and started developing the 7,62 x 39 mm cartridge, 7,62, so that they could use a lot of their existing machinery from the 7,62 x 54 R production. If the war would have taken a few months longer, the SKS would have taken part in it. It was already being developed during the war, but didn´t make it to service before VE day.

BTW, where does this guy sprout foolish things about jet engines? I´d like to read it. :D

Jan
 
#19
pdf27,

Thanks!

This guy is full of sh*te. Diesel fuel burns too hot for a gas turbine engine? He has obviously never heard anything about combustor design. He is mixing up terminology and forget any knowledge about aerodynamcs and thermodynamics.
Sorry, I´m not a design engineer, but I only did maintenance (including boroscope inspections) on commercial jet engines for the last ten years and am certified on the PW2040, PW4080 and the CF-6-80. I also have experience on the RR Tay, CFM56 and the PW JT8D and JT9D-7Q, plus various APUs.

Jan
 
#20
good luck if you engage him Walter.

Hes not clever but he will contradict and deny everything you say.
and he will use the most fearsome word in the English Language

"kiddo"