This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'd like to add that Greece also used this weapon, and she continues to use it (I'm not sure which variant exactly) to this day with the air force ground forces.
Ergbert 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.
*I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.
*The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.
*If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.
I tried again to make an edit that's acceptable to both of us. I think the stuff that we both think we're right about ('stopping power' & how easy the bullet is to stop) should probably just not be mentioned until we get conclusive proof. If the external link comes online again, then IMO it should probably go back into the article, but I think as we have no idea for how long it'll be down, it should be left out now.
FWIW, I also did some work on .30 Carbine. Ergbert 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to numerical comparisons, but to inaccurate statements (such as "which is about double most sub-machine guns") and grammatical/spelling errors (which are a large part of why I'm trying to modify the text I wrote to be acceptable to you instead of modifying the text you wrote to be acceptable to me).
As for the terminal ballistics of pointed bullets, here is a quick quote from Wikipedia's bullet article (that I haven't contributed to, in case that matters): All pointed non-expanding bullets tumble after impact with flesh as their spin is unsufficient to stabilize their flight in a material denser than air, and if the jacket is relatively thin this results in G-forces sufficient to cause the bullet to break into two or more pieces and vastly increases the wounding effectiveness of the bullet's impact. The effect is very similar to that of a hollow-point bullet.
Subsonic bullets with rounded fronts often ricochet off their target if it is at an angle. To overcome this problem wadcutters or semi wadcutters were developed with flattened noses, or "hollow point", with a concave nose. As the flat nose interferes with feeding a self-loading gun, full wadcutters are usually only shot from revolvers or single-shot guns. A variation is to have a ring of small teeth, covered by a soft plastic nose so that the bullet will feed correctly in self-loading guns. The teeth engage a sloping surface.
I still think the link shouldn't be there, but I really don't want to continue ripping apart each other's edits, so for now I'll just change the text there... Ergbert 03:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
A bullet that is more round tends to improve stopping power. The energy of the round is imparted upon the target rather than allowing the bullet to carry through. When in close quarters, the force of the bullet is better used to stop an attacker rather than poke a hole in him.
I believe the M2, selective-fire model had a slightly different stock; the so-called "fishbelly" stock. Perhaps it should be added. 68.116.112.125 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have found additional information. The M2 "potbelly" stock was a deliberate redesign of the stock and not a simple manufacturing variation. As it was one of the modifications that was part of the M2 development and therefore the weapons systems evolution, I believe a single sentence would be in order. I leave the information for whomever and the consensus to decide to add it or not. Goodbye & God bless. 66.191.19.217 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Source:
"Type V: The Type V stock was the late production M2 Carbine stock. It was shaped so that the bottom portion between the magazine well and the barrel band swelled outward, giving the stock a "potbelly" appearance. The additional wood provided the strength lost when internal areas were milled away to accept the select fire M2 parts. The stock manufactured after World War II was standardized as the Type V and used to repair both M1 and M2 Carbines."
U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production, 5th Revised and Expanded Edition, page 104, by Craig Riesch, ISBN: 1882391438, North Cape Publications, Inc., 2007
I know the Hezi SM-1 is a bullpup version of the M1 Carbine, How long has it been used in the IDF? User:EX STAB 00:29 April 1st, 2007 (UTC)
I submit that Universal and National Ordnance guns should be included in the list of commercial versions. While someone may be of the opinion that National Ordnance M-1 carbines are of inferior quality, that does not make them any less an M-1 carbine. The receivers for these guns were made by National Ordnance (and stamped M-1) with the remainder of the gun assembled by the company from surplus GI parts. This practice still fits within the ATF guidelines of manufacturing a firearm. The National Ordnance guns also have complete interchangeability of parts with all the other military & commercial makers except for Universal. Here on Wikipedia, a neutral bias and point of view is the goal. Stating that Natl Ord shouldn't be included on a list of makers because someone's opinion is that they don't function very well seems to demonstrate a bias and non-neutral point of view. Universal carbines are also a completely separate maker. The guns are stamped M-1 and are very close in appearance to the rest of the M-1 carbines. A few of the Universal's parts are interchangeable with the other makers. I submit that a Universal M-1 carbine is merely a modified version of the same gun and not a separate firearm. While I may agree that Universal carbines are not necessarily of the highest quality, I don't think it's a neutral stance to bar its inclusion on the list simply because of that opinion. I understand that there are some purists who do not consider ANY of the commercial versions to be true M-1 carbines. That is why they are differentiated by being listed as commercial (basically post-war) versions. Sf46 ( talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I use the term "someone" because I'm not trying to call anyone out or make any personal attacks. I still assert that instead of continually reverting the article, that the issued should have been discussed here. Now it's a matter for the admins to decide. Sf46 ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I asked you several times (unsucessfully) to bring this disagreement to discussion (as evidenced in the edit comment logs) [4] [5] [6]. I also think I stated my case about the article needing to be non-biased per Wikipedia policy. Simply deleting information about a maker because one doesn't like the quality of that maker's product doesn't seem non-biased to me. Sf46 ( talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have now protected it in whatever form I found it. Please discuss the problems here and come up with a consensus. I suggest dropping a note at WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST for input. Woody ( talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this by Sf46. I am not familiar enough with the M-1 Carbine and its history to be comfortable giving an opinion below. I will, however, make some observations:
Both editors need to step away and read WP:3RR, as they have both violated it during this disagreement. I hope to see this resolved in a calm manner after the page protection is lifted. — Travis talk 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected on the included version. Asams10, you have a bad history of edit warring your own opinion in when you're the only one or the extreme minority who hold it, as you did on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles back post-virginia tech shooting. You've been warned before, and it's pretty clear that the consensus is well against you here. Further edit warring will result in a block. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the "Commercial" section, but the "Hunting and civilian use" and "Current production" sections need to be cleaned up to move the references to the copies in those sections to "Commercial." GMan552 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the vote so far on whether National Ordnance and Universal M-1 Carbines should stay included in the article under commercial versions:
For Including:
Against Including:
No opinion:
If the Spitfire cartridge commercial variant is mentioned, shouldn't the article also include the .256 Win. Magnum, as in the Universal "Ferret"?-- Ana Nim ( talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Asams, instead of putting the information you want about Universal in a reference statement that drops down to a note, why not put the info in the article next to the Universal listing and then reference that info to whatever website you found it on? Sf46 ( talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is this weapon's weight and size (its reputed advantage) compared to the M1 Garand? -- Blainster 20:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason for the development of the "light rifle" was to provide a weapon superior to the handgun for troops whose mission would not allow them to carry a full size rifle. So a comparison is valid. Garand 43.6 inches, 24 inch barrel, weight 9.5 to 10 pounds, 8 round en-bloc clip; Carbine 35.5 inches overall, 18 inch barrel, weight 5.2 to 6 pounds, 15 shot detachable box magazine; The variance in weight is due to the difference in the density of wood. The .30-06 round of the Garand has nearly three times the energy of the .30 carbine. The only other short shoulder arm in general issue at the time was the Thompson Submachinegun which weighed 12 pounds, heavier than the Garand. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ergbert 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This article is currently protected due to edit warring over the inclusion of a Non free image. As a disclaimer, I'll state that I am for removing the image. Anyhow, inclusion of the image in this article seems to violate
WP:NFCC. That is disputed. However, since we're talking about non-free content, I believe that the image should be removed until a final decision is made, as leaving it in the article could potentially be breaching policies on Non free content. The image adds no significant value to the article, and I do not believe it will be a problem to remove it for now, as I said, until a final decision is made. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article says it was used extensively on Okinawa, but also states it was made for use with an early infrared device. 1945 sounds a bit early for infrared to me; anybody know more on the subject?
Infrared scopes were also used by nazi Germany, during World War II.The level of infrared tecnology was the same as in the United States. Agre22 ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to the prior version this addition: "The Carbine fits all the requirments [sic] of an Assault Rifle, except being fully automatic. It also has an effective range similiar [sic] to other early weapons of that type, at 300m. Despite German Assualt [sic] rifles being fully automatic from the beginning, and having a more powerful round, the carbine was easily supplied to the troops. Stg-44's were extremely rare, usually only issued to specialst [sic] units(Panzer Grenadiers), and at the most two per squad. Conversly [sic], the Carbine was extremely common for all types of American troops, and could easily be obtained by the average soldier."
As discussed within the article, the .30 Carbine cartridge is more akin to a pistol cartridge in performance than to an intermediate rifle cartridge characteristic of assault rifle cartridges. The claimed 300m effective range seems overstated. The comparison on commonality of issue does not seem to fit in a section on performance.-- Ana Nim 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's stick with the dictionary definition of "compare". (It does not mean "equate".) It is natural to wonder how the performance of the M1/M2 carbines compare with that of modern assault rifles (or the M1 Garand), and there is nothing wrong with providing the relevant quantitative information. Compared with the current Russian assault rifle family, the M1/M2 carbines have a bigger bullet diameter (7.62mm vs. 5.45mm), greater muzzle momentum (217 to 159), lower muzzle velocity (1975 vs. 2950 fps), and approximately equal muzzle energy (955 vs. 1045 foot-pounds). Compare the latter figure to the 465 foot-pounds which is a very generous figure for the NATO standard pistol round (9mm Parabellum). In light of these numbers, it is logical for readers to wonder why the carbines don't count as assault rifles, and the reasons for excluding them needn't be left to the imagination or buried under flat assertions. Does the M2 not count as an assault rifle (a) because it wasn't called one (which would also exclude the MP 43), (b) because it is derived from a semi-automatic (the M1), (c) because there is an arbitrary minimum ME of 1000 foot-pounds (which no one has stated outright), or (d) because MV is more important than all other ballistic numbers? There may be other reasons I haven't thought of, but of the above only (d) seems reasonable, and if that's the case, the performance gap between the carbine and any military pistol round is going to be even greater (the contemporary U.S. pistol cartridge never hit 1000 fps). Boris B ( talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: Above, I wasn't taking issue with Ana Nim's use of the word "comparison", but usages further above on the page. Boris B ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As a retired Marine and weaned by "The Greatest Generation", I have been subject to a considerable amount of anecdotal trivia, to include: "The carbine was adopted as a replacement for the .45 because damn few could hit anything with a 1911 and after eight rounds you had either hit what you were shooting at or were dead. With the carbine a man could carry a lot of ammunition and had a better chance of filling the air with lead and making noise, both of which have a profound psychological effect. Whereas it was true that getting hit with a .45 would almost always knock a man down, you still needed to hit him and do so at close quarters since outside of twenty yards or so you'd have to spend too much time aiming. One didn't have that problem with the M1 carbine, given its greater range and magazine capacity; it pretty much did what it was supposed to do; damn good thing that Ralph Nader wasn't around to crucify it the way he did the (Chevrolet) Corvair." Such stuff was a topic I heard as a youngster, usually in sight of houses that continued to keep gold stars in their front windows despite the war having been over for ten or fifteen years. A couple of decades later I explored the capabilities of the carbine myself and, like the Corvair, if I weren't trying to figuratively break a land speed record, the carbine performed as advertised. As for personal preferrence, I'm inclined toward a heavier firearm and feel more at home with any number of WWII service weapons (Mosin-Nagants, Enfields, Mausers, M1 Garands, et al). I have even found satisfaction of Cowboy Aspiration (Some may scoff, but this was important to those of us who listened to The Lone Ranger before watching him) in a Winchester 94 chambered for the .44 magnum, partner to my Colt Anaconda. My experience with firearms precedes my delving into statistical data and, I must logically admit, takes precedence as far as what I would carry and where I might carry it. I'd probably carry the carbine just about anywhere a Corvair could take me.[[User:Jonathan Marchant] 05:30, 09August2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.238.142 ( talk) Well, I knew a veteran of World War II.He died last week and I went today to his seventh day catholic mass.About this amazing weapon, he saw it being used in combat with total sucess.Why more than 6,000,000 of thjis weapon were produced during just four years(1941-1945)?Well, this weapon was precise, was easily produced, had light weight and its potency was enough.Such as all experts, that veteran told me that almost never, he saw a combat in war, having more distance than 300 meters between the soldiers.This weapon wasn't projected to be a sniper rifle.This is carbine and it was the best carbine of World War II Agre22 ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
At 100 yards (91 m), it can deliver groups of between 3 and 5 minutes of angle, sufficient for its intended purpose as a close-range defensive weapon -> effective range < 100 yards (91 m).
I'm taking issue with the phrase, "but true" in terms of whether we need it within a parenthetical statement in the article. Though David Marshall Williams patented a system vaguely resembling that on the M1 Carbine, he had little else to do with the development of the M1 Carbine. In fact, he went out of his way to disavow himself from that project while at Winchester. Further, the "story" that Williams tells is his and only his. Though history remembers him for this based on the Stewart movie, Williams was the primary contributor to that story. Williams, a convicted murderer, gets little support for his side of the story or most stories he tells, throughout his life. You don't take the word of a convicted felon in his 'retelling' of events over that of common sense... particulary for a parenthetical statemtn like this. To say that it is true, one must accept that the entire statement that precedes it comes from a reliable source. To quote, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That is clearly not the case here. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The passage to which I added the but true comment was this:
That preceding statement is about the most uncontroversial statement one can make about "Marsh" Williams. These are bare facts that have been verified by multiple sources without relying on Williams himself:
This is an unlikely but true story. It was the loose basis of the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots actually offers no WP:RS to dispute the truth of that preceding statement but changes the subject to the later development of the M1 Carbine and the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots claims that the story of Williams' involvement in development of the M1 carbine is "his and only his" and since he was a "convicted felon" and "convicted murderer" he is "clearly" not a reliable source.
How much of the movie "Carbine Williams" is history and how much is Hollywood would make a nice History Channel project, but there are sources other than "Marsh" Williams for stories of his involvement in the .30 Carbine development.
Julian S. Hatcher, Major General US Army, Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Co., 1947). Hatcher was the general in charge of the Ordnance training center in 1941 and claims he knew David M. Williams. Hatcher's Notebook pages 66-69 describe some of Williams' inventions for Ordnance: the Williams Floating Chamber used to operate the .22 training versions of the Browning machinegun and Colt 1911A1 pistol and the short stroke gas piston used in the Winchester rifle of 1940 and the Winchester carbine of 1941. On page 385 Hatcher lists as one of the men he had associated with in his years in Army Ordnance: Mr. David M. Williams, of Godwin, North Carolina, inventor of many important firearms designs and mechanisms, including the short-stroke piston principle as used in the U. S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M 1, and the floating chamber used in the U. S. .22 Caliber Machine Gun, the Colt Service Ace Pistol, and some Remington Rifles.
Ed Pugsley worked at Winchester with Williams in 1941. Edwin Pugsley Development of the .30 M1 Carbine (Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 1944). Pugsley wrote that in July 1941, Army Ordnance looked at the Winchester rifle with the Williams gas system and suggested it could be the basis of a carbine. A team of Winchester engineers worked feverishly on scaling down the rifle and gas system to produce their first carbine prototype. 9 Aug 1941 Edwin Pugsley took the first Winchester prototype carbine to Aberdeen Proving Ground for tests. A second test was scheduled 15 Sep 1941; Pugsley wrote: "It is doubtful that any single group of men became so enthusiastic in so short a period and you can bet your boots Williams was in there pitching: the gas piston was his idea--and it worked."
Larry Ruth, M1 Carbine: Design, Development & Production," (The Gun Room Press, 1979, ISBN 088227-020-6) to be the best source I have found so far on the development of the Carbine. Ruth has collected documents from US Ordnance and Winchester on the development of the M1 Carbine. U.S. Patent 2,090,656 was issued to David Marshall Williams and the US Government paid Williams a large lump sum payment for the tappet system used in the M1 carbine. The resemblance of the Williams gas system to that of the M1 carbine was not vague to Gen. Hatcher of Army Ordnance, Pugsley of Winchester or carbine historian Ruth, and Williams is identified by contemporaneous sources as not only inventing the short stroke gas system that made a 5 pound semi-auto carbine possible, but was hands-on in helping build the prototype. Naaman Brown ( talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who originally listed Johnson as "Melvin M. Johnson" but Johnson signed his name "Melvin M. Johnson, Jr." and I have seen his name listed that way or as "Melvin M. Johnson" in most standard firearms reference works for the half-century I have been involved with firearms. The edit to "Melvin Johnson" is trivial. The cartridge conversion MMJ is named by his initials and removing his middle initial from his name is pointless.
A close friend of his, Julian S. Hatcher referred to him both as "Mel" Johnson and as Captain Melvin M. Johnson in Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Comapnay, 1947). A business partner George R. Numrich (of Numrich Arms and Gun Parts Corp. fame) was involved in the 5.7 MMJ / .22 Spitfire project and referred to him as Mel Johnson. Outside Johnson's circle of friends, there are other notable people known as Mel Johnson or Melvin Johnson.
I believe it is just common sense to refer to Melvin M. Johnson, firearms inventor, by the name by which he is most commonly known, simply for disambigulation purposes. A quick check shows a Melvin Johnson (American football), a Mel Johnson (Australian cricket umpire), and a Mel Johnson, Jr. (American actor and film producer). Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How often do you see "John M. Browning"....You generally don't. It's "John Browning"...."
OK, I pulled several common firearms reference works out of my bookshelf. Mr. Browning was cited as "John M. Browning" in:
Of these sources only Julian S. Hatcher referred to "John Browning" and then only after introducing him as "John M. Browning" and listing him as "John Moses Browning" in the index. The general use is "John M. Browning" just as "Melvin M. Johnson" is the name used in most gun references I have seen for decades. Let me be clear: editing out the middle initial is the trivial and pointless edit, and I think you're the one disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and the "John M. Browning/John Browning" meme is an example of "justifying after the fact". Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Malcolm X photo used in this article seems to be a continued target by one or more users who keep deleting its fair use rationale and then putting up deletion tags. As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Asams on this issue. Those editors need to leave the rationales alone and submit the issue for deletion review if they think the rationals are BS. Sf46 ( talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I agree with Sf46 and Ana Nim, the picture is of historic importance and great to ilustrate the article. Vicius ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, but there's no way to justify the use of the Malcolm X photo in this article; it doesn't meet WP:NFCC #8 here. It's perfectly fine for use in Malcolm X; note the inclusion of commentary specifically about the photo within the article text. As it stands right now, a mere mention of Malcolm X's usage doesn't need to be illustrated by the photo. The Patty Hearst mention can be illustrated because the Hearst photo is public domain. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion from Wikipedia; just to have it removed from this article. howcheng { chat} 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#8 says “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” The text of the article says, “The ease of use and great adaptability of the weapon led to it being used by Malcolm X (as a self-defense tool).” It seems to me that this is perfectly clear without the photo. What would be misunderstood without the photo? — teb728 t c 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely clear cut case of a non-free image being used improperly. The article doesn't assert that Malcolm X is in any way associated with the M1 other than he used it and was photographed with it. There has to be more commentary than "he used it" to use a non-free image in an article that could be illustrated by an infinite number of free images. Those of you saying removing a non-free image of a black person is racist need to go read WP:AGF a few times, this isn't the place for that nonsense. BJ Talk 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus, even on this talk page, to include the image. There are a couple of people who think the image is acceptable on this article, and several others who do not. Basically, you cannot overrule the WP guidelines/policies that are in place. Continuing to blatantly disregard policies will result in further blocks and / or protection of the article. I'd strongly advise the people to stop edit warring over it. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove this image, take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, a backwater to be sure but all there currently is for this kind of dispute. RMHED ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming here from WP:NFR. Using the image here clearly doesn't meet the NFCC requirements. Any interest in the image is because it's Malcolm X, not because it's this particular firearm versus any other particular firearm. It may be reasonable to use the image on the article about Malcolm X - but this article can simply link to that article, so there is no need to repeat the image here. We are obliged to use nonfree images minimally, which means not repeating them on every article to which they are tangentially related. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The rationale used for the inclusion of this image is almost there, but ultimately it cannot justify the inclusion of the image within this article - now this is not the fault of anybody, it's just that the image and the subject matter of the article aren't wholly compatible, now, as I understand it, one of the most sensible rationales given for the inclusion of this image relates to how suitable the M1 carbine is for use by persons with small frames, such as Malcolm X (I'm quoting Mike above). That's something that could be replaced with a free image or video of someone with a similar frame and build to Malcolm X demonstrating a M1 carbine alongside a weapon designed for a higher powered cartridge with a higher recoil. Other rationales, relating to the image being iconic hold considerably less sway here, there are hundreds of thousands of iconic images which are as inappropriate as this one in this set of circumstances, just thinking this image wouldn't be permitted within any Rolls Royce articles, or this which we wouldn't permit to illustrate our article on something like the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. Nick ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'd like to add that Greece also used this weapon, and she continues to use it (I'm not sure which variant exactly) to this day with the air force ground forces.
Ergbert 03:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*Making a link that says ".30 caliber" but goes to ".30 Carbine" is misleading; .30 Carbine is a .30 caliber cartridge. I put the link to .30 Carbine farther down where there won't be confusion.
*I think it would be more proper to compare the carbine to other firearms using muzzle energy than velocity.
*The "later, shorter barreled firearms" bit feels out of place. If it's going to be put back, I think it should be expanded so we know what it's referring to.
*If no one can provide proof that the heavy clothing thing is wrong, I can't find a first-hand account that it's correct (I can find references to it in reliable sources, but not first-hand information.), and we'll all be unhappy leaving in stuff we think is wrong, then I think that bit should just be removed.
I tried again to make an edit that's acceptable to both of us. I think the stuff that we both think we're right about ('stopping power' & how easy the bullet is to stop) should probably just not be mentioned until we get conclusive proof. If the external link comes online again, then IMO it should probably go back into the article, but I think as we have no idea for how long it'll be down, it should be left out now.
FWIW, I also did some work on .30 Carbine. Ergbert 20:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to numerical comparisons, but to inaccurate statements (such as "which is about double most sub-machine guns") and grammatical/spelling errors (which are a large part of why I'm trying to modify the text I wrote to be acceptable to you instead of modifying the text you wrote to be acceptable to me).
As for the terminal ballistics of pointed bullets, here is a quick quote from Wikipedia's bullet article (that I haven't contributed to, in case that matters): All pointed non-expanding bullets tumble after impact with flesh as their spin is unsufficient to stabilize their flight in a material denser than air, and if the jacket is relatively thin this results in G-forces sufficient to cause the bullet to break into two or more pieces and vastly increases the wounding effectiveness of the bullet's impact. The effect is very similar to that of a hollow-point bullet.
Subsonic bullets with rounded fronts often ricochet off their target if it is at an angle. To overcome this problem wadcutters or semi wadcutters were developed with flattened noses, or "hollow point", with a concave nose. As the flat nose interferes with feeding a self-loading gun, full wadcutters are usually only shot from revolvers or single-shot guns. A variation is to have a ring of small teeth, covered by a soft plastic nose so that the bullet will feed correctly in self-loading guns. The teeth engage a sloping surface.
I still think the link shouldn't be there, but I really don't want to continue ripping apart each other's edits, so for now I'll just change the text there... Ergbert 03:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
A bullet that is more round tends to improve stopping power. The energy of the round is imparted upon the target rather than allowing the bullet to carry through. When in close quarters, the force of the bullet is better used to stop an attacker rather than poke a hole in him.
I believe the M2, selective-fire model had a slightly different stock; the so-called "fishbelly" stock. Perhaps it should be added. 68.116.112.125 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have found additional information. The M2 "potbelly" stock was a deliberate redesign of the stock and not a simple manufacturing variation. As it was one of the modifications that was part of the M2 development and therefore the weapons systems evolution, I believe a single sentence would be in order. I leave the information for whomever and the consensus to decide to add it or not. Goodbye & God bless. 66.191.19.217 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Source:
"Type V: The Type V stock was the late production M2 Carbine stock. It was shaped so that the bottom portion between the magazine well and the barrel band swelled outward, giving the stock a "potbelly" appearance. The additional wood provided the strength lost when internal areas were milled away to accept the select fire M2 parts. The stock manufactured after World War II was standardized as the Type V and used to repair both M1 and M2 Carbines."
U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production, 5th Revised and Expanded Edition, page 104, by Craig Riesch, ISBN: 1882391438, North Cape Publications, Inc., 2007
I know the Hezi SM-1 is a bullpup version of the M1 Carbine, How long has it been used in the IDF? User:EX STAB 00:29 April 1st, 2007 (UTC)
I submit that Universal and National Ordnance guns should be included in the list of commercial versions. While someone may be of the opinion that National Ordnance M-1 carbines are of inferior quality, that does not make them any less an M-1 carbine. The receivers for these guns were made by National Ordnance (and stamped M-1) with the remainder of the gun assembled by the company from surplus GI parts. This practice still fits within the ATF guidelines of manufacturing a firearm. The National Ordnance guns also have complete interchangeability of parts with all the other military & commercial makers except for Universal. Here on Wikipedia, a neutral bias and point of view is the goal. Stating that Natl Ord shouldn't be included on a list of makers because someone's opinion is that they don't function very well seems to demonstrate a bias and non-neutral point of view. Universal carbines are also a completely separate maker. The guns are stamped M-1 and are very close in appearance to the rest of the M-1 carbines. A few of the Universal's parts are interchangeable with the other makers. I submit that a Universal M-1 carbine is merely a modified version of the same gun and not a separate firearm. While I may agree that Universal carbines are not necessarily of the highest quality, I don't think it's a neutral stance to bar its inclusion on the list simply because of that opinion. I understand that there are some purists who do not consider ANY of the commercial versions to be true M-1 carbines. That is why they are differentiated by being listed as commercial (basically post-war) versions. Sf46 ( talk) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I use the term "someone" because I'm not trying to call anyone out or make any personal attacks. I still assert that instead of continually reverting the article, that the issued should have been discussed here. Now it's a matter for the admins to decide. Sf46 ( talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I asked you several times (unsucessfully) to bring this disagreement to discussion (as evidenced in the edit comment logs) [4] [5] [6]. I also think I stated my case about the article needing to be non-biased per Wikipedia policy. Simply deleting information about a maker because one doesn't like the quality of that maker's product doesn't seem non-biased to me. Sf46 ( talk) 18:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have now protected it in whatever form I found it. Please discuss the problems here and come up with a consensus. I suggest dropping a note at WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST for input. Woody ( talk) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on this by Sf46. I am not familiar enough with the M-1 Carbine and its history to be comfortable giving an opinion below. I will, however, make some observations:
Both editors need to step away and read WP:3RR, as they have both violated it during this disagreement. I hope to see this resolved in a calm manner after the page protection is lifted. — Travis talk 20:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected on the included version. Asams10, you have a bad history of edit warring your own opinion in when you're the only one or the extreme minority who hold it, as you did on the Walther P22 and Glock 19 articles back post-virginia tech shooting. You've been warned before, and it's pretty clear that the consensus is well against you here. Further edit warring will result in a block. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've updated the "Commercial" section, but the "Hunting and civilian use" and "Current production" sections need to be cleaned up to move the references to the copies in those sections to "Commercial." GMan552 ( talk) 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's the vote so far on whether National Ordnance and Universal M-1 Carbines should stay included in the article under commercial versions:
For Including:
Against Including:
No opinion:
If the Spitfire cartridge commercial variant is mentioned, shouldn't the article also include the .256 Win. Magnum, as in the Universal "Ferret"?-- Ana Nim ( talk) 22:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Asams, instead of putting the information you want about Universal in a reference statement that drops down to a note, why not put the info in the article next to the Universal listing and then reference that info to whatever website you found it on? Sf46 ( talk) 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What is this weapon's weight and size (its reputed advantage) compared to the M1 Garand? -- Blainster 20:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The reason for the development of the "light rifle" was to provide a weapon superior to the handgun for troops whose mission would not allow them to carry a full size rifle. So a comparison is valid. Garand 43.6 inches, 24 inch barrel, weight 9.5 to 10 pounds, 8 round en-bloc clip; Carbine 35.5 inches overall, 18 inch barrel, weight 5.2 to 6 pounds, 15 shot detachable box magazine; The variance in weight is due to the difference in the density of wood. The .30-06 round of the Garand has nearly three times the energy of the .30 carbine. The only other short shoulder arm in general issue at the time was the Thompson Submachinegun which weighed 12 pounds, heavier than the Garand. Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ergbert 01:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
This article is currently protected due to edit warring over the inclusion of a Non free image. As a disclaimer, I'll state that I am for removing the image. Anyhow, inclusion of the image in this article seems to violate
WP:NFCC. That is disputed. However, since we're talking about non-free content, I believe that the image should be removed until a final decision is made, as leaving it in the article could potentially be breaching policies on Non free content. The image adds no significant value to the article, and I do not believe it will be a problem to remove it for now, as I said, until a final decision is made. -
Rjd0060 (
talk)
03:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article says it was used extensively on Okinawa, but also states it was made for use with an early infrared device. 1945 sounds a bit early for infrared to me; anybody know more on the subject?
Infrared scopes were also used by nazi Germany, during World War II.The level of infrared tecnology was the same as in the United States. Agre22 ( talk) 01:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I reverted to the prior version this addition: "The Carbine fits all the requirments [sic] of an Assault Rifle, except being fully automatic. It also has an effective range similiar [sic] to other early weapons of that type, at 300m. Despite German Assualt [sic] rifles being fully automatic from the beginning, and having a more powerful round, the carbine was easily supplied to the troops. Stg-44's were extremely rare, usually only issued to specialst [sic] units(Panzer Grenadiers), and at the most two per squad. Conversly [sic], the Carbine was extremely common for all types of American troops, and could easily be obtained by the average soldier."
As discussed within the article, the .30 Carbine cartridge is more akin to a pistol cartridge in performance than to an intermediate rifle cartridge characteristic of assault rifle cartridges. The claimed 300m effective range seems overstated. The comparison on commonality of issue does not seem to fit in a section on performance.-- Ana Nim 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's stick with the dictionary definition of "compare". (It does not mean "equate".) It is natural to wonder how the performance of the M1/M2 carbines compare with that of modern assault rifles (or the M1 Garand), and there is nothing wrong with providing the relevant quantitative information. Compared with the current Russian assault rifle family, the M1/M2 carbines have a bigger bullet diameter (7.62mm vs. 5.45mm), greater muzzle momentum (217 to 159), lower muzzle velocity (1975 vs. 2950 fps), and approximately equal muzzle energy (955 vs. 1045 foot-pounds). Compare the latter figure to the 465 foot-pounds which is a very generous figure for the NATO standard pistol round (9mm Parabellum). In light of these numbers, it is logical for readers to wonder why the carbines don't count as assault rifles, and the reasons for excluding them needn't be left to the imagination or buried under flat assertions. Does the M2 not count as an assault rifle (a) because it wasn't called one (which would also exclude the MP 43), (b) because it is derived from a semi-automatic (the M1), (c) because there is an arbitrary minimum ME of 1000 foot-pounds (which no one has stated outright), or (d) because MV is more important than all other ballistic numbers? There may be other reasons I haven't thought of, but of the above only (d) seems reasonable, and if that's the case, the performance gap between the carbine and any military pistol round is going to be even greater (the contemporary U.S. pistol cartridge never hit 1000 fps). Boris B ( talk) 03:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify: Above, I wasn't taking issue with Ana Nim's use of the word "comparison", but usages further above on the page. Boris B ( talk) 03:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
As a retired Marine and weaned by "The Greatest Generation", I have been subject to a considerable amount of anecdotal trivia, to include: "The carbine was adopted as a replacement for the .45 because damn few could hit anything with a 1911 and after eight rounds you had either hit what you were shooting at or were dead. With the carbine a man could carry a lot of ammunition and had a better chance of filling the air with lead and making noise, both of which have a profound psychological effect. Whereas it was true that getting hit with a .45 would almost always knock a man down, you still needed to hit him and do so at close quarters since outside of twenty yards or so you'd have to spend too much time aiming. One didn't have that problem with the M1 carbine, given its greater range and magazine capacity; it pretty much did what it was supposed to do; damn good thing that Ralph Nader wasn't around to crucify it the way he did the (Chevrolet) Corvair." Such stuff was a topic I heard as a youngster, usually in sight of houses that continued to keep gold stars in their front windows despite the war having been over for ten or fifteen years. A couple of decades later I explored the capabilities of the carbine myself and, like the Corvair, if I weren't trying to figuratively break a land speed record, the carbine performed as advertised. As for personal preferrence, I'm inclined toward a heavier firearm and feel more at home with any number of WWII service weapons (Mosin-Nagants, Enfields, Mausers, M1 Garands, et al). I have even found satisfaction of Cowboy Aspiration (Some may scoff, but this was important to those of us who listened to The Lone Ranger before watching him) in a Winchester 94 chambered for the .44 magnum, partner to my Colt Anaconda. My experience with firearms precedes my delving into statistical data and, I must logically admit, takes precedence as far as what I would carry and where I might carry it. I'd probably carry the carbine just about anywhere a Corvair could take me.[[User:Jonathan Marchant] 05:30, 09August2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.238.142 ( talk) Well, I knew a veteran of World War II.He died last week and I went today to his seventh day catholic mass.About this amazing weapon, he saw it being used in combat with total sucess.Why more than 6,000,000 of thjis weapon were produced during just four years(1941-1945)?Well, this weapon was precise, was easily produced, had light weight and its potency was enough.Such as all experts, that veteran told me that almost never, he saw a combat in war, having more distance than 300 meters between the soldiers.This weapon wasn't projected to be a sniper rifle.This is carbine and it was the best carbine of World War II Agre22 ( talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
At 100 yards (91 m), it can deliver groups of between 3 and 5 minutes of angle, sufficient for its intended purpose as a close-range defensive weapon -> effective range < 100 yards (91 m).
I'm taking issue with the phrase, "but true" in terms of whether we need it within a parenthetical statement in the article. Though David Marshall Williams patented a system vaguely resembling that on the M1 Carbine, he had little else to do with the development of the M1 Carbine. In fact, he went out of his way to disavow himself from that project while at Winchester. Further, the "story" that Williams tells is his and only his. Though history remembers him for this based on the Stewart movie, Williams was the primary contributor to that story. Williams, a convicted murderer, gets little support for his side of the story or most stories he tells, throughout his life. You don't take the word of a convicted felon in his 'retelling' of events over that of common sense... particulary for a parenthetical statemtn like this. To say that it is true, one must accept that the entire statement that precedes it comes from a reliable source. To quote, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." That is clearly not the case here. -- Nukes4Tots ( talk) 22:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The passage to which I added the but true comment was this:
That preceding statement is about the most uncontroversial statement one can make about "Marsh" Williams. These are bare facts that have been verified by multiple sources without relying on Williams himself:
This is an unlikely but true story. It was the loose basis of the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots actually offers no WP:RS to dispute the truth of that preceding statement but changes the subject to the later development of the M1 Carbine and the 1952 movie. Nukes4tots claims that the story of Williams' involvement in development of the M1 carbine is "his and only his" and since he was a "convicted felon" and "convicted murderer" he is "clearly" not a reliable source.
How much of the movie "Carbine Williams" is history and how much is Hollywood would make a nice History Channel project, but there are sources other than "Marsh" Williams for stories of his involvement in the .30 Carbine development.
Julian S. Hatcher, Major General US Army, Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Co., 1947). Hatcher was the general in charge of the Ordnance training center in 1941 and claims he knew David M. Williams. Hatcher's Notebook pages 66-69 describe some of Williams' inventions for Ordnance: the Williams Floating Chamber used to operate the .22 training versions of the Browning machinegun and Colt 1911A1 pistol and the short stroke gas piston used in the Winchester rifle of 1940 and the Winchester carbine of 1941. On page 385 Hatcher lists as one of the men he had associated with in his years in Army Ordnance: Mr. David M. Williams, of Godwin, North Carolina, inventor of many important firearms designs and mechanisms, including the short-stroke piston principle as used in the U. S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M 1, and the floating chamber used in the U. S. .22 Caliber Machine Gun, the Colt Service Ace Pistol, and some Remington Rifles.
Ed Pugsley worked at Winchester with Williams in 1941. Edwin Pugsley Development of the .30 M1 Carbine (Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 1944). Pugsley wrote that in July 1941, Army Ordnance looked at the Winchester rifle with the Williams gas system and suggested it could be the basis of a carbine. A team of Winchester engineers worked feverishly on scaling down the rifle and gas system to produce their first carbine prototype. 9 Aug 1941 Edwin Pugsley took the first Winchester prototype carbine to Aberdeen Proving Ground for tests. A second test was scheduled 15 Sep 1941; Pugsley wrote: "It is doubtful that any single group of men became so enthusiastic in so short a period and you can bet your boots Williams was in there pitching: the gas piston was his idea--and it worked."
Larry Ruth, M1 Carbine: Design, Development & Production," (The Gun Room Press, 1979, ISBN 088227-020-6) to be the best source I have found so far on the development of the Carbine. Ruth has collected documents from US Ordnance and Winchester on the development of the M1 Carbine. U.S. Patent 2,090,656 was issued to David Marshall Williams and the US Government paid Williams a large lump sum payment for the tappet system used in the M1 carbine. The resemblance of the Williams gas system to that of the M1 carbine was not vague to Gen. Hatcher of Army Ordnance, Pugsley of Winchester or carbine historian Ruth, and Williams is identified by contemporaneous sources as not only inventing the short stroke gas system that made a 5 pound semi-auto carbine possible, but was hands-on in helping build the prototype. Naaman Brown ( talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know who originally listed Johnson as "Melvin M. Johnson" but Johnson signed his name "Melvin M. Johnson, Jr." and I have seen his name listed that way or as "Melvin M. Johnson" in most standard firearms reference works for the half-century I have been involved with firearms. The edit to "Melvin Johnson" is trivial. The cartridge conversion MMJ is named by his initials and removing his middle initial from his name is pointless.
A close friend of his, Julian S. Hatcher referred to him both as "Mel" Johnson and as Captain Melvin M. Johnson in Hatcher's Notebook (Military Service Publishing Comapnay, 1947). A business partner George R. Numrich (of Numrich Arms and Gun Parts Corp. fame) was involved in the 5.7 MMJ / .22 Spitfire project and referred to him as Mel Johnson. Outside Johnson's circle of friends, there are other notable people known as Mel Johnson or Melvin Johnson.
I believe it is just common sense to refer to Melvin M. Johnson, firearms inventor, by the name by which he is most commonly known, simply for disambigulation purposes. A quick check shows a Melvin Johnson (American football), a Mel Johnson (Australian cricket umpire), and a Mel Johnson, Jr. (American actor and film producer). Naaman Brown ( talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
How often do you see "John M. Browning"....You generally don't. It's "John Browning"...."
OK, I pulled several common firearms reference works out of my bookshelf. Mr. Browning was cited as "John M. Browning" in:
Of these sources only Julian S. Hatcher referred to "John Browning" and then only after introducing him as "John M. Browning" and listing him as "John Moses Browning" in the index. The general use is "John M. Browning" just as "Melvin M. Johnson" is the name used in most gun references I have seen for decades. Let me be clear: editing out the middle initial is the trivial and pointless edit, and I think you're the one disagreeing for the sake of disagreement and the "John M. Browning/John Browning" meme is an example of "justifying after the fact". Naaman Brown ( talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The Malcolm X photo used in this article seems to be a continued target by one or more users who keep deleting its fair use rationale and then putting up deletion tags. As much as I hate to do it, I have to agree with Asams on this issue. Those editors need to leave the rationales alone and submit the issue for deletion review if they think the rationals are BS. Sf46 ( talk) 02:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Likewise, I agree with Sf46 and Ana Nim, the picture is of historic importance and great to ilustrate the article. Vicius ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry, but there's no way to justify the use of the Malcolm X photo in this article; it doesn't meet WP:NFCC #8 here. It's perfectly fine for use in Malcolm X; note the inclusion of commentary specifically about the photo within the article text. As it stands right now, a mere mention of Malcolm X's usage doesn't need to be illustrated by the photo. The Patty Hearst mention can be illustrated because the Hearst photo is public domain. Note that I'm not asking for the image's deletion from Wikipedia; just to have it removed from this article. howcheng { chat} 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#8 says “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” The text of the article says, “The ease of use and great adaptability of the weapon led to it being used by Malcolm X (as a self-defense tool).” It seems to me that this is perfectly clear without the photo. What would be misunderstood without the photo? — teb728 t c 03:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This is absolutely clear cut case of a non-free image being used improperly. The article doesn't assert that Malcolm X is in any way associated with the M1 other than he used it and was photographed with it. There has to be more commentary than "he used it" to use a non-free image in an article that could be illustrated by an infinite number of free images. Those of you saying removing a non-free image of a black person is racist need to go read WP:AGF a few times, this isn't the place for that nonsense. BJ Talk 17:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus, even on this talk page, to include the image. There are a couple of people who think the image is acceptable on this article, and several others who do not. Basically, you cannot overrule the WP guidelines/policies that are in place. Continuing to blatantly disregard policies will result in further blocks and / or protection of the article. I'd strongly advise the people to stop edit warring over it. - Rjd0060 ( talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove this image, take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, a backwater to be sure but all there currently is for this kind of dispute. RMHED ( talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Coming here from WP:NFR. Using the image here clearly doesn't meet the NFCC requirements. Any interest in the image is because it's Malcolm X, not because it's this particular firearm versus any other particular firearm. It may be reasonable to use the image on the article about Malcolm X - but this article can simply link to that article, so there is no need to repeat the image here. We are obliged to use nonfree images minimally, which means not repeating them on every article to which they are tangentially related. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 00:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The rationale used for the inclusion of this image is almost there, but ultimately it cannot justify the inclusion of the image within this article - now this is not the fault of anybody, it's just that the image and the subject matter of the article aren't wholly compatible, now, as I understand it, one of the most sensible rationales given for the inclusion of this image relates to how suitable the M1 carbine is for use by persons with small frames, such as Malcolm X (I'm quoting Mike above). That's something that could be replaced with a free image or video of someone with a similar frame and build to Malcolm X demonstrating a M1 carbine alongside a weapon designed for a higher powered cartridge with a higher recoil. Other rationales, relating to the image being iconic hold considerably less sway here, there are hundreds of thousands of iconic images which are as inappropriate as this one in this set of circumstances, just thinking this image wouldn't be permitted within any Rolls Royce articles, or this which we wouldn't permit to illustrate our article on something like the Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor. Nick ( talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)