U.S. Intelligence Report on Sturmgewehr 44

[Clay_Allison]

John Garand played no role in the design of the M-1 Carbine. He submitted a prototype for a full auto model which was scrapped. The design of his M-1 Garand was largely copied. The M-1 Carbine has a different gas system designed by others

All the rest is true, this part I disagree with. I think that Williams and Winchester workedon their own to make the M1 Carbine unless there is some sources you can site that point to their infringement on his patent rights.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

I don't know the specific parameters of the patent that would have been invaded on by the M1 Carbine. Was the internal bandoleer magazine system and gas system such an integral part of the rifle design, patented on April 21, 1930, that the M1 Carbine with a different gas system and designed for use with removable magazines did not violate the patent?

A patent merely gives you the legal right to challenge those who may be infringing on your patent claims. Parties are free to work out arrangements between themselves to allow what would otherwise be an actionable offense. Winchester produced 513,000 M1 Garand's from 1940-1945. I assume this was by license. I also don't know what role the U.S. government may have played in making sure borrowed designs were brought to fruition to advance the war effort.

This isn't rocket science. Work the action of the M1 Garand while studying it carefully. No other gun had that open, rotating bolt design when it was developed. Look at the M1 Carbine, the M-14 and Mini-14. Coincidence or borrowed (copied) design?

You yourself have already granted that the Mini-14 is a "Garand action." I assume you also agree about the M-14. Why the hesitation on the M1 Carbine?

Juha, I'm not sure if you're just being cute or if you really don't know the answers to those questions. I think the former. How about this though. The M-14 is so great and the U.S went with the M-16 and even though the M-14 is so great of a battle rifle, Israel opted for an assault rifle to succeed its FAL battle rifle. I don't see the contradiction or inconsistency.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

The Germans had determined that most engagements were at less than 300 meters with the vast majority less than 200 meters. Don't get too caught up on energy and power of cartridges. The 7.62 NATO has nearly twice the power of a 5.56 NATO cartridge but it is not much more lethal. In battle, if you could hit someone center of mass with a 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps, there was a good chance they were gonna die as even through heavy clothing, such a bullet could still penetrate more than 12". The .30 Carbine can muster the same energy at 350 yards. A hot 9mm Parabellum out of a submachine gun, at about 150 yards.
...

All you said works fine in theory. But...
1st, enemy need to be hit, therefore the bullet must not be deflected by a branch, piece of gear, or some other light obstacle found on battlefield. Then we have doors, windows, light/thin walls. The more powerful bullet would have less trouble with that.
2nd, after the enemy is hit, you want him either dead, or incapacitated. The 'light' bullet is again in trouble. The US police FBI found out the hard way that multiple 9mm torso hits do not guarantee a kill, so they asked got more powerful weaponry. As for M1 Carbine, Wiki says (FWIW):

Other soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration.[14] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Other soldiers and Marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration.[14] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.

My best friend's grandfather (I've known him since I was a kid) fought in the Korean war, he said that the insufficient stopping power complaints were excuse making for poor marksmanship. He loved the M1 Carbine, so did my grandfather who was in the national guard during the war but wasn't sent because he had 3 kids. Take that FWIW.

 

[renrich]

Your grandfather in the National Guard who was not sent to Korea is in the same position as I was. I carried the M1 Carbine all over central Louisiana and I liked it very well over the M14 or a Garand. Light, small, easy to carry. Does not mean that it was a good battlefield weapon. My suspicion is that the popularity of the Carbine has more to do with it's portability than with it's lethality. If I see a bunch of ChiCom soldiers at about 200 yards or more in Korea and I have a Carbine, there is not much I can do except wait until they get closer and even then the stopping power is lacking. If I cannot be sure that a Texas whitetail that weighs 100 pounds goes down with a hit from the carbine, then I am sure not going to be confident with the Carbine and chances of getting a disabling hit at 200 yards are not nearly as good as with a Garand. However, having a Carbine is sure better than having nothing or only a 1911 Colt. Having said that, though, the !911 did good work in VN at LZ X Ray.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Your grandfather in the National Guard who was not sent to Korea is in the same position as I was. I carried the M1 Carbine all over central Louisiana and I liked it very well over the M14 or a Garand. Light, small, easy to carry. Does not mean that it was a good battlefield weapon. My suspicion is that the popularity of the Carbine has more to do with it's portability than with it's lethality. If I see a bunch of ChiCom soldiers at about 200 yards or more in Korea and I have a Carbine, there is not much I can do except wait until they get closer and even then the stopping power is lacking. If I cannot be sure that a Texas whitetail that weighs 100 pounds goes down with a hit from the carbine, then I am sure not going to be confident with the Carbine and chances of getting a disabling hit at 200 yards are not nearly as good as with a Garand. However, having a Carbine is sure better than having nothing or only a 1911 Colt. Having said that, though, the !911 did good work in VN at LZ X Ray.

If you have to go around a corner or fight in any close urban or mountain environment, that Carbine sure does swing around easier than a Garand, like turning a Volkswagon versus turning a 64 Impala. Different weapon, different roles.

As a standoff weapon the M-14 can't be beat except with a similar gun (FN FAL, H&K G3, Dragunov, another M-14) and a better marksman. Fighting a fast moving running gun battle in a mountain village, that portability is a big combat advantage, not just a relief to tired soldiers.

 

[renrich]

On the other hand, if I know that enemy soldiers are in a house in a village or in a vehicle, I can penetrate the walls of most houses or the sides of most vehicles with a Garand or M14 but not with that puny round of the Carbine. As far as pointing is concerned, I can point my Model 95 Browning in 3006( a copy of 1895 Winchester) and a big rifle just about as fast as my Winchester 9422 a little rifle in 22 LR. The big advantage of the Carbine, IMO, is that, in the chow line under "combat conditions" you are holding your mess kit in one hand and your cup in the other with the Garand slung over your shoulder. Just as you get your coffee or Kool Aid, the damn Garand slides down off your shoulder and spills your drink. Then when you are washing your mess gear in GI cans with an immersion heater, the damn Garand slides off your shoulder into the hot water. The Carbine did not do that as much because of it's light weight.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"All you said works fine in theory."

No theory at all. I said center of mass hit even through heavy clothing with 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps. The .30 Carbine uses a 110 grain bullet that leaves the muzzle at 2,000 fps. There have been a lot of tests concerning deflection from interim objects like wooden dowels (simulating brush) and all bullets get deflected. There is no such thing as the mythical "brush buster." Yes, all things being equal, heavier bullets with more momentum can penetrate better through glass and steel.

As for "light bullets" which you have characterized my discussion of 100 grains, the current rounds used in the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less than 100 grains. They are in the 60 grain range. There is movement to use a heavier round of 77 grains though.

"The US police FBI found out the hard way that multiple 9mm torso hits do not guarantee a kill, so they asked got more powerful weaponry."

A shot in the torso with a .44 Magnum does not guarantee a kill. Many police agencies use the 9mm including the largest, the NYPD. The U.S Secret Service uses the 357 Sig. That's just a 9mm with a little more velocity over a +P+ 9mm Parabellum load. In real life police shootings, the 9mm has among the highest one shot stop percentages and contrary to popular belief, the .45acp has been shown not to do much better. The FBI uses the .40S&W. European countries use the 9mm Parabellum, the 9mm Kurz and even lighter chamberings. The MP-40 was not considered a child's toy either and it killed many G.I.'s. And the MP-5 is widely used today by police agencies and the FBI.

Those stories of the .30 Carbine not penetrating through the heavy clothes and coats of enemy soldiers in Korea are myth. Here is a Youtube video of a .30 Carbine, 110 grain FMJ bullet, zipping through eight layers of frozen denim, a pressure treated wood 6"X6" (that's a compressed, solid wood post) and a gallon jug of water. Not scientific by any means but you get the idea.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ktaTbgQsU

My original point on this was that the .30 carbine was really not less lethal than the 7.92 Kurz.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

In the interest of full disclosure I ought to mention that I personally carry a .40S&W which I prefer over the 9mm. I also prefer the .40 S&W over the .45acp.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I was not to fond of the 9mm, but then again the ones that were issued to us were crap.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

By "ones" do you mean the ammunition or firearm? Both?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

By "ones" do you mean the ammunition or firearm? Both?

The firearm itself. We were issued old weapons with lots of play in the parts, some were even bent slightly. People that normally would shoot expert, were having trouble with them. Fortunately in Iraq they re-issued us some new ones (at least those that needed them...)

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Any gun that is beat to hell will give you problems. I know that the M9 has detractors among those who carry it but in torture test evaluation after torture test evaluation, it has proven to be reliable and accurate.

 

[tomo pauk]

"All you said works fine in theory."

No theory at all. I said center of mass hit even through heavy clothing with 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps. The .30 Carbine uses a 110 grain bullet that leaves the muzzle at 2,000 fps. There have been a lot of tests concerning deflection from interim objects like wooden dowels (simulating brush) and all bullets get deflected. There is no such thing as the mythical "brush buster." Yes, all things being equal, heavier bullets with more momentum can penetrate better through glass and steel.

I agree with most of what you've said. But (always that 'but'), requiring from a soldier to hit the enemy in the stomach from 200-300 yds, while receiving enemy fire, is too much to ask.

As for "light bullets" which you have characterized my discussion of 100 grains, the current rounds used in the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less than 100 grains. They are in the 60 grain range. There is movement to use a heavier round of 77 grains though.

Never was the great fan of 5.56, nor 5.45 bullets , and those provoked a fair share of controversy for some 40+ years.

"The US police FBI found out the hard way that multiple 9mm torso hits do not guarantee a kill, so they asked got more powerful weaponry."

A shot in the torso with a .44 Magnum does not guarantee a kill. Many police agencies use the 9mm including the largest, the NYPD. The U.S Secret Service uses the 357 Sig. That's just a 9mm with a little more velocity over a +P+ 9mm Parabellum load. In real life police shootings, the 9mm has among the highest one shot stop percentages and contrary to popular belief, the .45acp has been shown not to do much better. The FBI uses the .40S&W. European countries use the 9mm Parabellum, the 9mm Kurz and even lighter chamberings. The MP-40 was not considered a child's toy either and it killed many G.I.'s. And the MP-5 is widely used today by police agencies and the FBI.

I've liked the .40S&W the moment I've heard about it
As for 9mm weaponry, no need to compare SMGs that fire a stream of bullets with pistols.

Those stories of the .30 Carbine not penetrating through the heavy clothes and coats of enemy soldiers in Korea are myth. Here is a Youtube video of a .30 Carbine, 110 grain FMJ bullet, zipping through eight layers of frozen denim, a pressure treated wood 6"X6" (that's a compressed, solid wood post) and a gallon jug of water. Not scientific by any means but you get the idea.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ktaTbgQsU

My original point on this was that the .30 carbine was really not less lethal than the 7.92 Kurz.

With only 60% of energy (compared with 7,92 Kurz), I'd say .30 carbine is far less lethal

.

 

[renrich]

From "NRA Handloaders Guide" "The M1 Ball Service cartridge with 111 gr bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1970 fps and muzzle energy of 956 ft lbs. Performance of this cartridge on deer class game is marginal and it's use for hunting such game is expressly prohibited in some states. It's use in other states for hunting deer class game is prohibited indirectly because of it's relatively low muzzle energy."
From the Hornady Handbook- " The 30 M1 carbine lacks stopping power as a hunting round and the rifle itself lacks accuracy for varminting at any distance."
The 30 Carbine was supposed to have an effective range of 300 yards. From the Hornaday Handbook again:
The 30 caliber 110 grain round nose bullet at a MV of 2000 FPS has a ME of 977 ft lbs
At 100 yards, the velocity is 1500 fps and the energy is 550 ft lbs
If the rifle was zeroed at 100 yards, at 200 yards, the bullet has dropped 15.24 inches and at 250 yards the bullet has dropped 32.33 inches.
The energy at 200 yards is 317 ft lbs and at 250 yards is 264 ft lbs.
The rifle, I have read, was capable of two to five MOA accuracy. (The one I qualified with must have been the five MOA variety)
Combine all those factors and it seems to me that the weapon is about an effective 100 yard weapon if you can hit your enemy .
I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance. Neither one would I want to use in combat unless I had no other choice. "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing."

 

[Clay_Allison]

I agree that they should have beefed up M1 carbine performance. I would suggest a round based on a shortened .30 Remington case. 100 grains at 2500 fps would probably give adequate lethality.

On the other hand 150 Grain at 2000 FPS would give you the same bullet as the 30-06 and about 70% of the power/recoil. Like having a shorter range version of the same gun.

 

[renrich]

I have read that the ballistics of the round in the AK are about the same as the 30-30 and I think that is about where you are talking, Clay, and I agree. As I said before, I would rather go into combat with a Model 94 Win in 30-30 if ammo was available than with the carbine. If an enemy head was sticking up at 100 yards, I would feel more confident with the Model 94 than with the Carbine.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I have read that the ballistics of the round in the AK are about the same as the 30-30 and I think that is about where you are talking, Clay, and I agree. As I said before, I would rather go into combat with a Model 94 Win in 30-30 if ammo was available than with the carbine. If an enemy head was sticking up at 100 yards, I would feel more confident with the Model 94 than with the Carbine.

The model 94 wasn't very reliable under combat conditions. Hunters are able to pamper their guns than soldiers. I'd expect the 94 Winchester to be about as reliable as the 30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifle (which was, incidentally a very fine deer rifle when bought surplus).

But, yes, the .30 Remington is nothing but a rimless 30-30. an auto-loading carbine chambered for this fine round using the M1-Style action (call it a Garand action if you want, generically I guess that's appropriate) would be a true assault rifle with more accuracy than the AK-47 (albeit more expensive).

It would probably handle and shoot a lot like a Ruger Mini-14 (Mini-30 is the 7.62x39 version).

 

[DAVIDICUS]

"With only 60% of energy (compared with 7,92 Kurz), I'd say .30 carbine is far less lethal."

Approximately 980fpe vs. 1,400fpe. It has 70%. But your math aside, you are again caught up in the energy as the measure for lethality. The difference between the 7.62NATO in a battle rifle (2,520fpe) vs the improved 5.56NATO 77gr load out of an M4 assault rifle (1,246fpe) has the M4 with just 50% the energy of the M-14. By your logic, the 5.56NATO is "far less lethal" to a far greater degree than the .30 Carbine is to the 7.92Kurz.

This is not the case so I again ask that you rethink your use of energy as the measure of lethality. Your conclusions would never prefer the use of assault rifles over battle rifles.

"I agree with most of what you've said. But (always that 'but'), requiring from a soldier to hit the enemy in the stomach from 200-300 yds, while receiving enemy fire, is too much to ask."

This is the case with any rifle and a hit at 200-300 yards with a .30 Carbine or a 7.92Kurz would be indistinguishable to a doctor able to render immediate surgical aid. At 200 yards, both cartridges would likely fully penetrate a soldier as a 9mm at very close range with 124 gr fmj will fully penetrate a person's torso and the .30 Carbine with a 110gr. bullet at 200 yards has about the same velocity as the 9mm at the muzzle and has greater sectional density (.166) than the 9mm (.140). Moreover, the intelligence report was very critical of the Stg.'s accuracy but I do not know of any tests that would allow us to compare the two rifles against each other.

We're talking about the Stg 44 vs. the .30 Carbine. One weighs twice as much and is so unreliable in its operation that there is an official directive to refrain from full auto fire. It does have a 30 round capacity. The other weighs half, is fully automatic (.30 Carbines issued in the latter half of 1944 when the Stg. 44 were full auto), is very reliable but it has a magazine capacity of 15 rounds).

You would choose the Stg. 44. You apparently feel that the difference in lethality plus the higher magazine capacity would outweigh the reliability and weight issue.

I for one start from the position that any fully automatic rifle that is so unreliable as to trigger an official directive not to use full auto except in emergencies, and even then only in short bursts, is simply crap. There is no appreciable difference in lethality between the two. All things being equal, I believe that two forces, one with the .30 Carbine and one with the Stg. 44, would see the force with the .30 Carbine come out on top.

 

[DAVIDICUS]

Renrich, I assume that you would also find the .223 Rem / 5.56NATO only marginally effective as a deer hunting cartridge too. It is quite effective in dispatching humans, even with fmj ammo though.

"I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance."

I am looking at the Federal website and at 100 yards, the jhp 210gr .41 mag has 507fpe. The 30 Carbine 110gr fmj is listed at 597fpe at 100 yards. There is a 210 grain Swift A Frame bullet load for the .41 Mag that is showing 529fpe at 100 yards. In order to develop 595fpe at 100yards, a 210 grain bullet needs to be traveling 1,130fps at 100 yards.

Neither one would I want to use in combat unless I had no other choice. "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing."

But the issue is whether in late 44 and 45 you would rather carry the Stg. 44 or .30 Carbine. I would rather carry an M1 Garand myself but as between the two at issue, I would rather have a .30 Carbine.