I'm at a distinct disadvantage in evaluating the debate here, some truths evident on both sides, or all three sides, such as it is. Part of the problem is my experience disagrees with much of what's written here. Not saying your experience is a load of hooey, but then, neither is mine.

Subject being M1 carbine ammo availability: Is available if you look for it, mostly Ball production. That ain't a bad thing necessarily because it minimizes the probability or perhaps I should say possibility of F-T-Feed. To tell the truth, I've never had one, in the M1 carbine, M16, CAR15, M3 or M14. Darn ol' milspec rifles always worked for me. I don't personally know a soul that ever had a malfunction in an M16 in combat. A guess on my part, but I've probably fired more rounds from the -16 than 99.9% of the members here...if not all.

Side bar(s)

Accuracy isn't the domain of the M1 but the one I owned some years ago was good for 9 out of 10 on a 10" steel at 100 meters offhand, factory or hand loads. I never tried that with the M16 but it was good for M.O.D. a fair bit further. That particular target standard is a good bit smaller than an average Japanese BTW.

Carry: Never carried an M4, but probably don't want to. Probably would get the food processor hung up on something. Or whatever all that crap is they mount on them these days. They are heavy. Difference between the -16 and M1 is a wash to me. The carbine is lighter, but the -16 has a handle. Neither is a burden to carry, both are easy to bring to bear and ballistics are not arguably different inside 100 meters. Now I have seen each put down an NVA with a butt stroke and there is no discernible difference in result. Same result with the other end.

Other comparisons: Apples to apples, the Carbine is not a Garand, a -14, -16, or a standard issue 1911. It is what it is. I shall not exhort the merits or demerits of any. Well, maybe except the 1911. It is without fault and if you can't hit somebody at 25 yards with one, get yourself a handicapped parking decal.

Penetration: I've seen two scenarios with .22 caliber rounds that put a question to relative importance of this subject in the Man vs. Man role. One was a mature elephant that went down to a single round from a M16 (brain shot) a few miles east of the A Shau Valley. I've also noticed a failure of people to stop penetration of the round with their bodies. The other is my penchant for shooting hogs with .22 CB Shorts. The conundrum is this: If they (CBs) will reliably suffice in this application, what is the significance of the discussion on penetration, frozen clothes or drug crazed zombies? I'm not implying bigger is wrong, but how much deader are hogs or whatever after they've been so addressed? Granted I am going for CNS shots and picking my circumstances, but so far as terminal ballistics are concerned, the question stands.

Terminal Ballistics: If your litmus is FPE, stop reading here. If you give credence to more complex analysis such as wound channels and such there comes a point where one has to acknowledge FMJ and Soft Point exhibit different characteristics. Awareness of that should, by all reasonable accounts, govern how you use them. I would debate, vigorously, that M1 carbine ball is more destructive than it's counterpart in the M16. I've seen a lot of creatures and people die from the -16, none took a second shot to dispatch. Those that I've seen close after the fact had rather nasty wounds, usually on the off side. For clarification I am speaking of the ammo used in the Vietnam era, not today's long slow torpedoes from fast twist barrels. (A mistake in my opinion)

All of this is my long winded way of saying it really doesn't matter what you use so long as you use in well. Know your gun and load gents, use what you like and don't worry too much about what the Jones are up to. Shoot small.

I am..........disturbed.

Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn't any. But this wrongs the jackass. -Twain