I’ve always struggled with the M1 Carbine’s reputation in the Korean war. It’s because it’s at odds with its performance in every other war in which it was used. All theatres of WWII, use by ARVN and US troops in Vietnam, Israeli use in their assorted wars (and they still use it to some degree); everywhere it was used, it was reliable, and sufficiently put enemies down…except Korea, and most specifically the battle of Chosin Reservoir. Here we find mechanical failure as high as 30% and a vast amount of soldiers talking about short range hits on the enemy with little to no effect. In no other conflict has this ever been reported with the M1 carbine…makes you wonder why?
Well I have a hypothesis.
Now we all know that most of the Carbines used in Korea were converted to M2 configuration. Both the full auto conversion and especially the 30 round magazine were to the degradation of the weapon. Most will tell you, even Korean War veterans, that if you use 15 round magazines in semi-auto, it was completely reliable. And this, again gets things more consistent with typical M1 Carbine performance.
Hypothesis: Bad Ammunition
The military has a pretty well established history of mucking with ammunition and not mentioning it to the people who should be told. Happened with the .30-06 a bunch of times during the life spans of the Springfield and Garand. Early on during M1 Carbine production velocity and pressure were increased arbitrarily from 1,600fps to the current 1,970fps. The manufacturers of the Carbines found out when suddenly bolts were lasting 1/3 as long; no one ever bothered to mention to the manufacturers that there was a 40% increase in chamber pressure. And we all know about the M16 ammunition debacle.
Some powders can be very temperature sensitive, and some are much less temperature sensitive. What if there was a sudden change in propellant for .30 Carbine ammunition to a powder that was more temperature sensitive. Then you transport that ammunition to the battle of Chosin Reservior where temperatures were as low as -35?
Well, I can tell you what it would do to an M1 Carbine’s function…
One of the most reliable weapons the US has ever made, suddenly has a 30% failure rate in one single battle alone? The M1 Carbine's gas piston is a short throw piston, it needs a solid boot to work correctly; the M14 is the same way. If there was a significant change to pressures or pressure curves, that solid boot needed could easily be turned to a soft push; a push insufficient to cycle the action.
And you wanna know the reason the US Ordanance Dept made that change to the .30 Carbine ammo early on? You guessed it, to improve reliability in the field by giving a harder strike to the gas piston. So take that information and think a little; it explains everything.
1 – 30% mechanical failure? Insufficient gas piston power to operate the weapon. Compound that with those garbage 30 round magazines and I could EASILY see a 30% failure rate. 2 – Insufficient killing power? If there suddenly were a significant decrease in projectile velocity, then the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine would go way down as well. The .30 Carbine has very good penetration, but that’s because of projectile velocity. Take away the velocity and penetration would suffer exponentially.
How plausible is this?
Based on US Ordnance history, I’d say it’s not only plausible; it’s likely. I could totally see someone in Ordnance giving off the cuff approval for a manufacturer to use a substitute powder, and never mention it to ANYONE. Why? Well because they've done it before God knows how many times.
Now if only we could get several lots of ammunition that was known to be at Chosin, then take that to Antarctica and…wait, you lost me at Antarctica…
Talking to many Korean vets, Especially the Chinese, they were hopped up with drugs. One friend of mine said he had to shoot a big Mongolian type 6 times to drop him and this was with a Garand. They were dead and didn't know it.
A friend of mine that was part of the D-Day push across Europe told me a story about the M1. He and several other men were supposed to hold a small bridge across a Belgian river. He said just at first light one morning they caught three Germans crossing in a raft. He said he shot 2 of them with his M1 but nothing happened. In fact one of the Germans flipped him off with a flick of his finger to his chin. He said he yelled for a buddy to use his garand before they got to the brush. Three shots from the Garand resulted in three dead Germans. Several of the carbine rounds struck them through the light backpack the Germans were wearing and failed to penetrate but the old Garand didn't have that trouble. I don't think comparing the little carbines performance against a winter soldier versus it's performance against a loin cloth wearing jap is a fair comparison. I've owned almost if not every make of military M1 carbines and while fun to shoot, would not be in my top 5 or even 10 weapons I'd choose for battle.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
weather and conditions had something to do with it too. we were logistically unprepared for that war as well. by the time they hit chosin, it was 20 below. gelled grease, lots of mud, all recipes for disaster.
I’ve always struggled with the M1 Carbine’s reputation in the Korean war. It’s because it’s at odds with its performance in every other war in which it was used. All theatres of WWII, use by ARVN and US troops in Vietnam, Israeli use in their assorted wars (and they still use it to some degree); everywhere it was used, it was reliable, and sufficiently put enemies down…except Korea, and most specifically the battle of Chosin Reservoir. Here we find mechanical failure as high as 30% and a vast amount of soldiers talking about short range hits on the enemy with little to no effect. In no other conflict has this ever been reported with the M1 carbine…makes you wonder why?
Well I have a hypothesis.
Now we all know that most of the Carbines used in Korea were converted to M2 configuration. Both the full auto conversion and especially the 30 round magazine were to the degradation of the weapon. Most will tell you, even Korean War veterans, that if you use 15 round magazines in semi-auto, it was completely reliable. And this, again gets things more consistent with typical M1 Carbine performance.
Hypothesis: Bad Ammunition
The military has a pretty well established history of mucking with ammunition and not mentioning it to the people who should be told. Happened with the .30-06 a bunch of times during the life spans of the Springfield and Garand. Early on during M1 Carbine production velocity and pressure were increased arbitrarily from 1,600fps to the current 1,970fps. The manufacturers of the Carbines found out when suddenly bolts were lasting 1/3 as long; no one ever bothered to mention to the manufacturers that there was a 40% increase in chamber pressure. And we all know about the M16 ammunition debacle.
Some powders can be very temperature sensitive, and some are much less temperature sensitive. What if there was a sudden change in propellant for .30 Carbine ammunition to a powder that was more temperature sensitive. Then you transport that ammunition to the battle of Chosin Reservior where temperatures were as low as -35?
Well, I can tell you what it would do to an M1 Carbine’s function…
One of the most reliable weapons the US has ever made, suddenly has a 30% failure rate in one single battle alone? The M1 Carbine's gas piston is a short throw piston, it needs a solid boot to work correctly; the M14 is the same way. If there was a significant change to pressures or pressure curves, that solid boot needed could easily be turned to a soft push; a push insufficient to cycle the action.
And you wanna know the reason the US Ordanance Dept made that change to the .30 Carbine ammo early on? You guessed it, to improve reliability in the field by giving a harder strike to the gas piston. So take that information and think a little; it explains everything.
1 – 30% mechanical failure? Insufficient gas piston power to operate the weapon. Compound that with those garbage 30 round magazines and I could EASILY see a 30% failure rate. 2 – Insufficient killing power? If there suddenly were a significant decrease in projectile velocity, then the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine would go way down as well. The .30 Carbine has very good penetration, but that’s because of projectile velocity. Take away the velocity and penetration would suffer exponentially.
How plausible is this?
Based on US Ordnance history, I’d say it’s not only plausible; it’s likely. I could totally see someone in Ordnance giving off the cuff approval for a manufacturer to use a substitute powder, and never mention it to ANYONE. Why? Well because they've done it before God knows how many times.
Now if only we could get several lots of ammunition that was known to be at Chosin, then take that to Antarctica and…wait, you lost me at Antarctica…
I'd agree, and it would explain why so many folks tell those of us that have talked to folks that hate the M1 carbine for issues in Korea, well it would explain it enough that you can quit telling us we are nuts or the guys behind the gun couldn't shoot....
Like I've said if htey could kill em with Garands, they could shoot as well if not better wiht the carbine... it was not the troops,
It may not have been the gun, but the ammo now, but it damn sure wasn't a troop fault.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
short supplies to start, everyone knew the war was just about over. A fighting retreat with no time to service weapons, the Chinese right on top of you all the time, lubrication probably the consistency of karo syrup, if you had any, and cold, cold, cold.
The defeat at Chosin Reservoir wasn't due to faulty ammo...it was a combination of many factors.
If the Carbine ammo was as ideal as it could be, and the Carbines were properly prepared for winter conditions and had functioned perfectly, the outcome of the battle would have been exactly the same.
The Carbine likely performed as well as troops armed with any pistol round should have reasonably expected under those circumstances.
There were just more Commie Red Chinese than there were bullets.
The Marines were lucky to escape and the successful retreat was due to competent execution of battlefield tactics.
But it could have been a lot worse.
They could have had M-16s!
"Supernatural divinities are the primitive's answer to why the sun goes down at night..."
short supplies to start, everyone knew the war was just about over. A fighting retreat with no time to service weapons, the Chinese right on top of you all the time, lubrication probably the consistency of karo syrup, if you had any, and cold, cold, cold.
All of my reliability issues in the .30 carbine have been due to cold. Or at least they occurred in cold weather.
I wished I had spoke with some of the older NCO's in our unit about Korea. Our co 1st Sgt was at Chosin. But in all honesty, as a newbie PFC, I was scared of them bastids.
Founder Ancient Order of the 1895 Winchester
"Come, shall we go and kill us venison? And yet it irks me the poor dappled fools, Being native burghers of this desert city, Should in their own confines with forked heads Have their round haunches gored."
He spoke highly of Chesty Puller (who assured him personally that he would get out of there) and if the M1 Garrand.
He loved the Garrand.
BMT
"The Church can and should help modern society by tirelessly insisting that the work of women in the home be recognized and respected by all in its irreplaceable value." Apostolic Exhortation On The Family, Pope John Paul II
you know, reading about the Russo Finnish War of 39 & 40..
one of the things I remember is that in the cold weather, the Russians had weapons that would jam up with their lubrication being frozen solid in the cold way below zero weather.. you'd think they'd know better...
on the other hand, the Finns, had their gun lube cut with 75% gasoline....and if the bolt starting getting stiff they were trained to urinate on them to heat them up enough to function, wipe the urine off and start firing...
whenever first possible to relube them with the 75% gas and 25% gun oil...
the Finns didn't have the problems the Russians experienced... but when they were fighting the Germans in 41, the Russians had adopted a lot of what they had learned from the Finns... another thing they learned from the Finns was to put gasoline in their aircraft engines oil pan... lower the viscosity to allow quick starts but then as the engine got up to operating temp, the fuel in the oil would evaporate off....
on the other end, the Germans in the winter of 41 would try to build fires under their aircraft engines to keep the oil to be able to flow to start up... of course with disasterous results when some avaiation fuel dripped down onto the fire burning below their engines..... they learned the fuel in the oil pan trick from captured Russians....
short supplies to start, everyone knew the war was just about over. A fighting retreat with no time to service weapons, the Chinese right on top of you all the time, lubrication probably the consistency of karo syrup, if you had any, and cold, cold, cold.
Does anyone know how the M1 Carbine faired in the Battle of the Bulge in the Winter of 1944-45? Were there similar malfunctions?
If there weren't similar failures in the Ardennes I suspect an ammo problem
The military has a pretty well established history of mucking with ammunition and not mentioning it to the people who should be told. Happened with the .30-06 a bunch of times during the life spans of the Springfield and Garand. Early on during M1 Carbine production velocity and pressure were increased arbitrarily from 1,600fps to the current 1,970fps. The manufacturers of the Carbines found out when suddenly bolts were lasting 1/3 as long; no one ever bothered to mention to the manufacturers that there was a 40% increase in chamber pressure. And we all know about the M16 ammunition debacle.
Some powders can be very temperature sensitive, and some are much less temperature sensitive. What if there was a sudden change in propellant for .30 Carbine ammunition to a powder that was more temperature sensitive. Then you transport that ammunition to the battle of Chosin Reservior where temperatures were as low as -35?
I’ve always struggled with the M1 Carbine’s reputation in the Korean war. It’s because it’s at odds with its performance in every other war in which it was used. All theatres of WWII, use by ARVN and US troops in Vietnam, Israeli use in their assorted wars (and they still use it to some degree); everywhere it was used, it was reliable, and sufficiently put enemies down…except Korea, and most specifically the battle of Chosin Reservoir. Here we find mechanical failure as high as 30% and a vast amount of soldiers talking about short range hits on the enemy with little to no effect. In no other conflict has this ever been reported with the M1 carbine…makes you wonder why?
Well I have a hypothesis.
Now we all know that most of the Carbines used in Korea were converted to M2 configuration. Both the full auto conversion and especially the 30 round magazine were to the degradation of the weapon. Most will tell you, even Korean War veterans, that if you use 15 round magazines in semi-auto, it was completely reliable. And this, again gets things more consistent with typical M1 Carbine performance.
Hypothesis: Bad Ammunition
The military has a pretty well established history of mucking with ammunition and not mentioning it to the people who should be told. Happened with the .30-06 a bunch of times during the life spans of the Springfield and Garand. Early on during M1 Carbine production velocity and pressure were increased arbitrarily from 1,600fps to the current 1,970fps. The manufacturers of the Carbines found out when suddenly bolts were lasting 1/3 as long; no one ever bothered to mention to the manufacturers that there was a 40% increase in chamber pressure. And we all know about the M16 ammunition debacle.
Some powders can be very temperature sensitive, and some are much less temperature sensitive. What if there was a sudden change in propellant for .30 Carbine ammunition to a powder that was more temperature sensitive. Then you transport that ammunition to the battle of Chosin Reservior where temperatures were as low as -35?
Well, I can tell you what it would do to an M1 Carbine’s function…
One of the most reliable weapons the US has ever made, suddenly has a 30% failure rate in one single battle alone? The M1 Carbine's gas piston is a short throw piston, it needs a solid boot to work correctly; the M14 is the same way. If there was a significant change to pressures or pressure curves, that solid boot needed could easily be turned to a soft push; a push insufficient to cycle the action.
And you wanna know the reason the US Ordanance Dept made that change to the .30 Carbine ammo early on? You guessed it, to improve reliability in the field by giving a harder strike to the gas piston. So take that information and think a little; it explains everything.
1 – 30% mechanical failure? Insufficient gas piston power to operate the weapon. Compound that with those garbage 30 round magazines and I could EASILY see a 30% failure rate. 2 – Insufficient killing power? If there suddenly were a significant decrease in projectile velocity, then the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine would go way down as well. The .30 Carbine has very good penetration, but that’s because of projectile velocity. Take away the velocity and penetration would suffer exponentially.
How plausible is this?
Based on US Ordnance history, I’d say it’s not only plausible; it’s likely. I could totally see someone in Ordnance giving off the cuff approval for a manufacturer to use a substitute powder, and never mention it to ANYONE. Why? Well because they've done it before God knows how many times.
Now if only we could get several lots of ammunition that was known to be at Chosin, then take that to Antarctica and…wait, you lost me at Antarctica…
They, like the Nam Vets and their M-16's,,,,they obviously "didn't know how to 'run them right'" (your words).
Ya think?
The degree of my privacy is no business of yours.
What we've learned from history is that we haven't learned from it.
short supplies to start, everyone knew the war was just about over. A fighting retreat with no time to service weapons, the Chinese right on top of you all the time, lubrication probably the consistency of karo syrup, if you had any, and cold, cold, cold.
Does anyone know how the M1 Carbine faired in the Battle of the Bulge in the Winter of 1944-45? Were there similar malfunctions?
If there weren't similar failures in the Ardennes I suspect an ammo problem
No there weren't, but the battle of the bulge wasn't anywhere near as cold. Temps were about 14F, vs. Chosin at -35F.
But in extensive arctic testing, the issues with the M1 Carbine that they had at Chosin didn't happen; Chosin is a bit of an anomaly. There is ZERO reason the M1 Carbine wouldn't work, and the Garand would. The Carbine has always been more reliable than the Garand in every test I've ever seen. That's why the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.
Only a bad lot or two of ammo really explains ALL of the problems they had.
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/98/b6/d8/98b6d863a5f722b551cd8e1440bd2bd4.jpg)
