What is the difference between M1 Carbine and the M1A1 Carbine? I saw the weapon list in the same forum, and it contains both of them.

"The (M1)carbine fired a much smaller and lighter round than the Garand, though of the same 0.30 in calibre. The smaller round allowed a much lighter weapon which was fed from a detachable box magazine which held 15 rounds. A larger 30 round box was introduced towards the end of the war. The carbine replaced the pistol as the official armament of many ranks of officers and became almost standard among men serving heavy weapons such as mortars or artillery pieces...the M1A1 with a folding stock for Airborne troops " - Semi Automatic & Assault Rifles, Gary Kennedy

The M1 Carbine is the solid wood stock, and the M1A1 Carbine is the Airborne version with the folding metal stock.

Yup Eckner has it right, the M1A1 was tha Airborne version with the wooden stock removed and replaced with a folding metal frame instead to make it more compact and light for jumps etc..

Also remember be careful about using "airbone" version because there is many documented cases of para's using the reuglar full stock m1 carbine.

Doug

Airborne works Dfritz because very few to none pictures exist of anyone else other than paratroopers using the folding stock.

Also the M1 Carbine (Para) was popular with machine gunners and other crew served weapon crews because it allowed them to carry a reliable firearm with distance and decent stopping power.

I was watching "The Color of War - GI Equipment and Weapons" on the history channel. There was a guy who served in the Pacific. Apparently he caught this Japanese soldier running in the open, and he put the entire clip on him. Said he knew he hit the guy with atleast 5 of those rounds, and he still ran for 20 feet before he finally dropped. He said he went back to the quarter master, traded his M1 Carbine in for a M1911 and used that.

And we can't forget the stories of the Carbine being incapable of penetrating uniforms, in the winter during the Korean War. Remember the stories of US troops hitting North Koreans or Chinese with M1's, and watching them go down. Then get up, dust themselves off and charge again.

I always hear mixed things about the m1 carbine. In concept they always sounded great. I personally would have loved to have an M2 Carbine, same weapon with a 30 round box mag and fully automotic capabilities.

Give me a M1 Garand any day of the week, it will put a hole in you the size of a base ball, thats got to hurt.

You know on second thought. The story above may have been related to the guy trading in a Carbine for the Garand. On the other hand, there was a guy who did trade in the a Garand for a 1911. Apparently, he got a permanent shoulder injury just from carrying the Garand around all day on that shoulder strap. Remember, it's heavier than the Springfield, K98, and Enfield rifles.

The M1 Carbine wasn't intended to replace the M1 Garand as a front-line weapon. It comes as no shock that it was less lethal than the Garand's .30-'06 cartridge. It's still better than a .38 revolver at any range, or a 1911 at long range.

Kind of off-topic, but did anyone notice in the manual it said that the M1 carbine chambered the same round as the BAR and Garand? Sloppy, quite sloppy.

Yeah, I noticed that. A common misconception, but the two rounds are totally different other than projectile diameter.

I'm not really sure that the M1 or M1A1 Carbine was supposed to be used all that often tho. Like as already stated, it was given to crews of mortars and MGs so they wouldn't have to deal with the weight of a full M1 or Thompson (which were really heavy actually). It was basically a pistol with a little longer range and a stock. The M1 Carbine was issued to a lot of people like clerks, cooks, and other people in the rear...also some people who couldn't really handle the kick or size of the full M1. The Paratroops liked their M1A1s because they were compact and easy to carry. But if you want stopping power, go for the M1. However, the M1A1 DID have the larger clip...but then you'd need the full one to put one person down. They also weren't that accurate either. But anyway, thats all I know

well they did fire the same caliber round .30 but the carbines was much shorter and less aerodynamic.

They killed just fine if you hit properly. The .30 Carbine cartridge is pretty close to the .357 Magnum in terms of ballistics, and I've yet to see anyone call the .357 a poor manstopper. Shot placement is vital with any weapon short of a MIRV, and the Carbine is no different. It definitely lacked range compared to the Garand, though.

The shortened 30 calibur round was very weak. If the weather was cold enough, it wouldn't penetrate cloth at a descent range.

.357 Magnum on the other hand.. Well, Magnum's have a considerably larger powde charge than rounds of the same size. Go compare a .357 Magnum round, with a .357 SiG.

Let's compare the two, shall we?

The .357 Magnum fires a 125-grain projectile at 1450 fps, producing 584 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. At 100 yards, this drops to 1102 fps and 337 ft-lbs of energy.

The .30 Carbine fires a 110-grain projectile at 1990 fps, producing 967 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle. At 100 yards, this drops to 1564 fps and 597 ft-lbs of muzzle energy.

Thus, as you can see, the .30 Carbine load is more powerful at 100 yards than the .357 Magnum is at the muzzle!

Chances are, that actually the .30-06 and the .30 Carbine had slightly different diamaters, like the .30-06 and the .300WM.