View Full Version : US Army without a carbine?
IditarodJoe
04-07-2010, 07:31
. . . ok, I'm well past 60 so I'm allowed to ask dumb questions. If you don't believe me, just ask my wife.:icon_scratch:
Did the U.S. military really not have a standard carbine of any sort between the early 1900s when the Krag was phased out and 1942 when the first M1 carbines were issued? I mean, we still had a "horse cavalry" during that time, didn't we . . . what did they use for a standard long gun?
The "short rifle" which was used by engineers and similar troops in some European armies was adopted by the British and the United States almost simultaneously to replace both the long (29"-30" barrel) rifles and the 18"-20" barrel carbines in their militaries. It was thought that these 24" to 25" barrel rifles were suitible for all troops and would eliminate the need for different barrel length rifles for cavalrymen, infantrymen and specialized troops like engineers. It turned out to be an excellent decision. In fact most countries followed suit by World War II.
Brophy has a whole section on cavalry accoutrements for the M1903 rifle.
The M1 Carbine, as you know, was never intended to be a cavalry weapon even though it had a cavalry sling set up. It was used, interestingly, for many of the functions of the original "short rifles" before they became general issue.
The U.S. Military didn't have a standard carbine after the Krag until WW2. The "Horse Cavalry" used the standard 1903 Springfield rifle.
The M1 Carbine as I've understood it, was originaly intended to be a replacement for the 1911 automatic. Maybe it was thought it would given the soldier increased range over the 1911.
Inceased range and did not require the skill necessary to master the pistol. Meant to be used by behind the lines troops and officers, others who nomally carried only a side arm. It just didn't work out that way! Carbines were produced in excess of such needs and pistol production was also increased!
Yeah, what Weasel said. He's so smart, I think he is my hero.:icon_salut::icon_salut::banana100:
DarylBruce
04-08-2010, 05:58
Was the WWII Carbine the only US Military carbine not the same caliber as the standard Issues Rifles?
Was the WWII Carbine the only US Military carbine not the same caliber as the standard Issues Rifles?
No, for example the Sharps Carbines used heavily by both the Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War were .54 Caliber. The standard U.S. and Confederate rifles were .58 or .577 caliber, depending on whether they were Springfield or Enfield models.
No, the 45-70 U.S. Springfield trapdoor Rifle used a 405 grain bullet and 70 grains of black powder until around 1884 when it used a 500 grain bullet and 70 grains of powder, but the U.S. Springfield trapdoor Carbine used a 405 grain bullet and 55 grains of powder throughout it's lifetime in the service. A lighter load for sure that didn't leave any unburned powder residue as well as lighter recoil.
The 1859 and the new model 1863 Sharps were .52 cal. The Reproductions for some weird reason are .54 cal. When they converted the Sharps to 50/70 after the Civil War Sharps with the bbl diameter of .515 or less were converted as is. Those with a larger diameter than .515 were reamed and sleeved.
Fred, the 45/70 rifle and carbine used the same cartridge, just different loadings. I understand the 45/70/500 could be fired in a carbine (but who would want to.)
Weasel, you are correct about the caliber of the Sharps Cavalry Carbines, I have made that mistake before, been corrected before which makes it even more irritating to have done it this time
John Kepler
04-09-2010, 04:54
The concept of a seperate Carbine and Infantry rifle was one of the casualties of the "smokeless, highpower revolution" at the close of the 19th Century. The US, following developments in Britain of "Standard Model" rifles with a barrel-length in the 24" range with the adoption of the SMLE (Short-Magazine Lee-Enfield) in1902, eliminated the US Carbine in 1903. The Huns were late adopting the "Standard Model", and fought most of the "Great War" with the GEW98, though the K98 was being built in 1916...the Japanese didn't get around to it until 1936!
Inceased range and did not require the skill necessary to master the pistol. Meant to be used by behind the lines troops and officers, others who nomally carried only a side arm. It just didn't work out that way! Carbines were produced in excess of such needs and pistol production was also increased!
The M1 Carbine was developed from a requirement established by the Chief of Infantry for infantry soldiers whose primary function was not engaging the enemy as a rifleman. The original memorandum stated existing weapons did not meet the need, specifically the M1 rifle was too heavy and the M1911A1 pistol didn’t have enough range.
inland44
04-09-2010, 07:09
There was an interesting article in Rifle Shooter magizne a few years back about the proposed 1903 carbine. The Ord. Dept was tasked to develop a carbine of .30 US cal. The autor actually used the proposed specs to bulid a replica.
Unique to the carbine was a shortend forend and hand guard so about 12 inches of the barrel was exposed( I do not recall the specified brrl length). The front sight was protected by ears similar to the 1917 Rifle. The front sling swivel was mounted on the side and the rear inlet into the side of the butt stock, this spec was ordered to allow the carbine to lay flat against the troopers back while slung. The autor chambered the carbine in .35 Whelen, he did this I belive because Townsen Welen was the Chief of Ord. at the time.
There was some interesting history in the article and the end result of the build was a sharp looking weapon. It kind of had the feel of an Enfield Jungle Carbine. I have kept the maginze in hopes of someday buliding one myself possably in .308.
As a side not although never offiically an issue wepon there was a shortend verion of the 1903 produced during WWII several were bulit and tested in Panama during the war, I recall seeing some photos of them in use but I belive they were all returned for arsenal rebulid after the war.
They were called "Bushmaster Carbines" and were actually assembled in the Canal Zone as I recall. Very few were built, so few that only a handfull of pictures exist. They are sort of the Model 1903 equivalent of the "Tanker" Garand.
inland44
04-09-2010, 07:32
I want to say one turned up on Gunbroker here a while back, I do not recall if it was touted as an orginal or not.
Told ya Weasel was smart. Yeah Yankee Boy:banana100::banana100:
I want to say one turned up on Gunbroker here a while back, I do not recall if it was touted as an orginal or not.
If it was a certified proovable original you'd need the money of Bill Gates to buy it :-)
John Sukey
04-09-2010, 09:41
[QUOTE=Art;53686]Fred, the 45/70 rifle and carbine used the same cartridge, just different loadings. I understand the 45/70/500 could be fired in a carbine (but who would want to.)
It was a favorite trick of the old hands, to substitute a rifle round for a carbine round with new recruits on the range:D
snakehunter
04-09-2010, 10:21
Can any of you carbine experts tell me if the U.S cavalary was ever equipped with the Winchester Mod 95 carbine?
They were called "Bushmaster Carbines" and were actually assembled in the Canal Zone as I recall. Very few were built, so few that only a handfull of pictures exist. They are sort of the Model 1903 equivalent of the "Tanker" Garand.
There was a carbine based on the 1903 that was shortened which chambered and fired the 45 acp. Anyone know of this? I've seen a picture of one. Pretty slick looking.
It is easy to get confused Art as there were so many different cal. Carbines made during the Civil War. I have never understood why they make the reproduction Sharps in .54 cal though. As far as the 45/70 trapdoor carbines I always shot mine with a the 70 gr. of black powder with a 400 gr bullet. It does bite a bit but not near as much as the 50/70 Sharps.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.