Why did the US get it so wrong? - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2020, 10:11 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Why did the US get it so wrong?

So at the insistence of US Ordnance, the western world went to 7.62 NATO while the east built assault rifles. I see the M14, FAL, and G3 as perfect rifles for the last war...Completely wrong for the post WWII era.

I'm not saying the 7.62 NATO rifles are useless, nothing could be further from the truth. But EVERY last nation who faced off against real assault rifles in a real shooting war, dumped their 7.62 NATO's as fast as they could.


The Brits and Spanish took the right lessons from the MP44. We COMPLETELY missed the mark. What's more, we doubled down on the M1 which was a really bad call.

How did we get it to tragically wrong? Ignorance and arrogance.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-05-2020, 02:48 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
CaptainGyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,711
The experience trying to penetrate Chinese quilted winter coats in Korea might have had something to do with it.
CaptainGyro is offline  
Old 01-05-2020, 03:29 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainGyro View Post
The experience trying to penetrate Chinese quilted winter coats in Korea might have had something to do with it.
I said that was BS when I read it at the age of 16. To this day, I have NEVER seen any credible test that could actually duplicate that claim.

It's true M1 Carbine ammunition is temperature sensative, much more so than any other US military small arms cartridge. It's true that ranges were extended beyond the Carbine's intended use. But even if a 100gr FMJ is only traveling at 400fps, it will penetrate every last quilted coat the Chinese ever made.
GunGeek is offline  
 
Old 01-06-2020, 03:21 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
GunGeek,

While what you say is fact, I have talked to numerous Korean War GIs who hit enemy soldiers in the torso within 50M & did NOT stop their charge at our positions with the .30 carbine, using ball ammo.

Had the government been wise enough to chamber the carbine in .351 WSL or .401 WSL (Winchester offered the rights to the calibers/cartridges to the government for FREE.), we would have had a carbine that was an adequate STOPPER out to at least 200M.

just my OPINION, sw

Last edited by Doughboy; 01-06-2020 at 03:33 AM.
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-06-2020, 03:32 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
GunGeek,

Just one example of how poor of a STOPPER that the US .30 carbine is: My dear friend NAATEH, who is the Principle Chief of the White Mountain Apaches (& even at over 80YO is still a crack shot with a rifle), told me that he engaged a North Korean officer at over 100M with the carbine & hit him at least 5X but that the Korean continued to advance & fire his rifle.
The enemy soldier died of his wounds in a US medical facility the next afternoon.
(The Chief holds EVERY US decoration for valor, except the MoH.)

Naateh's comment was, "I got me a Garand at the end of that fight."

NOTE: These days, Naateh uses a SCOPED Model 760min .308, as (LIKE ME, too) he doesn't have 20YO eyes anymore.

yours, sw

Last edited by Doughboy; 01-06-2020 at 04:10 PM. Reason: add
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-06-2020, 06:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeek View Post
I said that was BS when I read it at the age of 16. To this day, I have NEVER seen any credible test that could actually duplicate that claim.

It's true M1 Carbine ammunition is temperature sensative, much more so than any other US military small arms cartridge. It's true that ranges were extended beyond the Carbine's intended use. But even if a 100gr FMJ is only traveling at 400fps, it will penetrate every last quilted coat the Chinese ever made.
The myth started during the Korean War. A marine commander got sick of hearing it, took his men out to the battlefield where carbines had been used. The dead, wearing those multilayered quilted coats (which worked great against cold) and the .30 carbine bullets had penetrate going into and also upon exiting the bodies. Great cold protection =/= great bullet protection.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 08:04 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,963
Here's a test, you have to scroll down some to get to the carbine.
https://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box...-rags-o-truth/
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 12:44 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,410
Back in the 50's the M1 Carbine was a favorite of law enforcement.
It was noted for being able to penetrate the bullet proof vests of the day.

The Carbine had an excellent reputation as a combat rifle in WWII in both the European and Pacific theaters. It excelled again in Vietnam.
It was Audi Murphy's favorite weapon which says something.

It was in Korea that it was miss-used at longer ranges and led to complaints that it failed to stop Chinese troops.
One theory other then ranges being too far for the Carbine was that the Chinese padded suits were water soaked with snow and the water froze, increasing the resistance to penetration of the Carbine bullet.

I once read an interesting theory that some Chinese officers were wearing padded suits made of silk instead of the common cotton.
Silk is remarkably resistant to penetration and was used in ancient times as body armor to stop arrows and crossbow bolts.
Today there's experiments ongoing using silk as a component for composite body armor.

One very major reason the US adopted the Carbine round in .30 caliber was because the bullets could be made on machinery already used for the .30-06 bullet and many tools and some cleaning gear made for the .30-06 could also be used for the .30 Carbine.
dfariswheel is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 12:56 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughboy View Post
GunGeek,

While what you say is fact, I have talked to numerous Korean War GIs who hit enemy soldiers in the torso within 50M & did NOT stop their charge at our positions with the .30 carbine, using ball ammo.

Had the government been wise enough to chamber the carbine in .351 WSL or .401 WSL (Winchester offered the rights to the calibers/cartridges to the government for FREE.), we would have had a carbine that was an adequate STOPPER out to at least 200M.

just my OPINION, sw
Now THAT I can accept, because it doesn't defy logic.

The US Military did consider the .351 but went with the .30 Carbine because the larger bullets didn't meet their barrier penetration requirements.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 01:04 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Back to the original subject.

Now I LOVE my FAL; it is just SO cool (and I just got some walnut for it). But as a general issue infantry rifle (which means, one size fits all), it just comes in a VERY distant second to actual assault rifles' even the AK. Same for the M14 and G3.

What kills me is Springfield Armory's insistence on sticking with the Garand system even after the Tokarev gas system. The bent op-rod of the Garand system is a nightmare, and was a contributing factor to the failure of the M14. The Tokarev gas system (copied by the Germans and Stoner...and a lot of others) is stronger, more accurate, and cheaper to manufacture. So even in the face of an obviously superior system, Springfield decided their system was better. That was a really bad call.

But the cartridge was the big oops.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-06-2020, 04:06 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
GunGeek,

The military did NOT test the .351 or the .401 with BALL ammo. = The Army tested the .351 with the circa 1920s SPORTING loads of that era, which were NOT much if any better than the BALL ammo for the .30 carbine.

The .401 is MUCH SUPERIOR in every loading to the .30 carbine & out to 150M is superior to the .30-40 Krag load, too.

EITHER WSL chambering would have been SUPERIOR to the .30 Carbine loading given modern BALL ammo.

The last paragraph in your post # 8 is the REAL answer. = The military WANTED a .30 caliber, even though it was DEFINITELY INFERIOR to a BALL load in either/both WSL calibers.

Btw, I once had a late 1930s .351 WSL carbine with a GEORGE F CAKE & CO 26 round magazine, out of a MS prison camp. = It would "shoot rings around" a .30 carbine in ANY circumstance out to 150+M, using the circa 1950 ammo.
(Wishing that I had been smart enough to NOT sell it.)
Frankly, had the Army given a serious/unbiased/sober look at the WSL carbine, there would have been NO .30 US carbine to sometimes FAIL in combat.
(180 grains of projectile at just over 1800FPS is NO slouch when it comes to STOPPING an enemy soldier.)

yours, sw

Last edited by Doughboy; 01-07-2020 at 02:38 AM. Reason: addenda
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-06-2020, 10:33 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeek View Post
What kills me is Springfield Armory's insistence on sticking with the Garand system even after the Tokarev gas system. The bent op-rod of the Garand system is a nightmare, and was a contributing factor to the failure of the M14. The Tokarev gas system (copied by the Germans and Stoner...and a lot of others) is stronger, more accurate, and cheaper to manufacture. So even in the face of an obviously superior system, Springfield decided their system was better. That was a really bad call.
Three simple letters: "NIH."

Just like how the Navy BuOrd pukes negligently killed so many submarine crews by pushing clearly defective torpedoes out to the Fleet and refusing to fix the problems...
Diamondback is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 02:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
Diamondback,

YEP. = A mistake just as KEEPING the 1903 Springfield & dumping the SUPERIOR Model of 1917 "American Enfield"/P-17 was.

yours, sw

Last edited by Doughboy; 01-07-2020 at 02:56 AM.
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-07-2020, 12:19 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 13,098
At some point, years ago, I read something from Jim Cirillo saying that NOTHING stopped better at close range than the .30 USC loaded with SPs or HPs (I don't remember which).

I can't find that particular quote again, and he doesn't say it in his book, although he does have high praise for the Carbine there.
Snake45 is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 02:28 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughboy View Post
Diamondback,

YEP. = A mistake just as KEEPING the 1903 Springfield & dumping the SUPERIOR Model of 1917 "American Enfield"/P-17 was.

yours, sw
While the Enfield was the better rifle, it wasn't hugely better. And the majority of US soldiers preferred the Springfield, mostly because of its more compact size. So while it was probably a mistake to take the Springfield over the Enfield, it wasn't a "big" mistake...and it never "hurt" us.

But yeah, I like the US Enfield much better than the Springfield. The changes they made to the Mauser action in the Springfield were to the detriment of the design, not the benefit. The Enfield action was much better.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 02:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake45 View Post
At some point, years ago, I read something from Jim Cirillo saying that NOTHING stopped better at close range than the .30 USC loaded with SPs or HPs (I don't remember which).

I can't find that particular quote again, and he doesn't say it in his book, although he does have high praise for the Carbine there.
That was from both Cirillo and William Fairbairn. Fairbairn liked the SP load, and Cirillo liked the old Winchester JHP load.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-07-2020, 04:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
GunGeek,

The SP & HP loads are unlawful for use against people in wartime, so it's a moot point for the military services.

yours, sw
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-08-2020, 08:37 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Northern NV
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughboy View Post
GunGeek,

The SP & HP loads are unlawful for use against people in wartime, so it's a moot point for the military services.

yours, sw
Well of course...I don't think anyone was talking about the realm of military service in regards to the HP's and SP's.
GunGeek is offline  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:46 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 452
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunGeek View Post
Well of course...I don't think anyone was talking about the realm of military service in regards to the HP's and SP's.
GunGeek,

TRUTH IS that the ball ammo for the .30 Carbine is INADEQUATE to stop a determined charging enemy soldier, absent a shot directly to the brain, spine or heart.
(Good wounding carbine but a REALLY POOR stopper.)

You may want to re-read my post about NATEEH's experience with trying to STOP a Korean officer with the M1 carbine (despite repeated solid hits to his torso) & that my dear friend afterwards got a GARAND, so that he had a STOPPING rifle for close combat.

yours, sw
Doughboy is online now  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:58 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 10,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doughboy View Post

TRUTH IS that the ball ammo for the .30 Carbine is INADEQUATE to stop a determined charging enemy soldier, absent a shot directly to the brain, spine or heart.
Had a Marine buddy griping about hopped up Chi Coms charging. He was the gunner on a .30 cal. He said they fired on a charge running through several belts and dropped the tripod when they moved forward and used the bodies of the dead for a gun mount. Seems even .30-06 is poor when shooting through winter jackets at hopped up idiots.

Maybe I was being BSed, maybe not, but that's the tail Tony told me.
csmkersh is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Hub Forum > Gun Talk


Search tags for this page

did m1 carbine fail agaisnst n korean winter clothes

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2020 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.