Among American gun owners, there is a pejorative term for those who say they support hunting, but also advocate for more strict gun control laws against firearms they perceive as outside the bounds of traditional design, and cling to a lot of myths that are not borne out by reality. It can also refer to someone whose personal perception of their own skill and knowledge is betrayed by ignorance and reckless disregard for the safety of others, similar to the automotive clovers mentioned in Eric Peters' car blog.
That term is Fudd. As in, Elmer Fudd, that hapless hunter from classic Merrie Melodies and Loony Tunes cartoons by Warner Brothers.
I would like to poke holes in a Fudd myth to spark a conversation in the comments. Are you pro-gun, anti-gun, on the fence, uncertain, or otherwise in the mood to discuss or argue about firearms? You know what to do.
The M1 Carbine Was Weak!
The M1 carbine was an intermediate-caliber light rifle firing a .30 carbine cartridge more powerful than the .45 ACP used in the 1911 and submachine guns, but less powerful and bulky than the .30-06 used in the M1 Garand rifle. It seems to have been intended as a select-fire rifle that would have been one of the first of what we now call assault rifles along with the German MP43/StG44. Wartime production pressure resulted in a semi-auto-only carbine, with the select-fire M2 model to follow later, and an M3 was the M2 with an early infrared sight system.
Tangential note: Just prior to World War II, the United States military switched to sequential model numbers instead of using the year of official adoption to designate small arms. Thus, the M1 Rifle, the M1 Carbine, the M1 'bazooka' rocket launcher, and so on. Carbine model numbers would stop after the M3 until shortened versions of the M16 rifle were designated 'M4' in 1994.
During the Korean war, the M1/M2/M3 saw service again, and gained a reputation for inadequate power. Soldiers reported North Korean soldiers surviving direct hits because frozen clothing and gear stopped the bullets. Here's where I think the meat of the stopping power myth comes into play.
No, Bubba, you missed.
The .30 carbine is no slouch. The data on Wikipedia is an imperfect comparison, because all bullet velocity data is subject to variability in environmental conditions and chronometer accuracy. Further, barrel length has a significant effect on velocity. Kinetic energy is calculated as mass times the square of the velocity, so in general, a rifle will be more powerful than a pistol. But it is safe to say the .30 carbine is on par with a .357 round from a rifle, and that is not weak by any means. The .357 Magnum from a 2"-6" revolver barrel is considered more than adequate for self-defense, after all.
Further, gear and frozen coats are not equivalent to body armor. Sorry. Hang a frozen blanket and some military surplus gear around a punching bag at the range this winter, and take a few shots with an M1 carbine. If you can hit it, Bubba, I'd wager the payout from this post that you'll need a new bag because the old one will be perforated by .30 carbine bullets in short order.
Now, it does appear there were other issues with the M1 carbine family. The range and power were less than that of an SKS, AK, or M16. There do seem to have been issues with parts and maintenance in winter combat conditions. While it was more powerful than a pistol, it was also more cumbersome. I also have some doubts about its suitability to replace a submachine gun due to higher recoil, while its lower power made it a poor replacement for a proper battle rifle.
One other note: Bullet configuration seems to play into a lot of Fudd myths. A smaller-diameter round-nose bullet with a full metal jacket as required by war conventions is not ideal for self-defense, but on the other hand, this bullet shape is also better for penetrating barriers, so it makes less sense to say it was stopped by web gear and icy clothes.
As usual, if Paul Harrell discusses a subject, his video is worth a watch, too. I found it while poking around the web for more info on this subject, and he had a lot of relevant tests for those who want to crunch numbers and verify data.
So, the M1 is a mixed bag, but the Fudd claims do not hold up to scrutiny in my opinion.
What do you think? Should I make this a series? Is .45 ACP really vastly superior to 9x19mm NATO, and was the Beretta really a terrible substitute for the Colt 1911? Is the AR15 a worthless wiffle bat poodle shooter or a high-powered terrorist assault rifle, and in either case unfit for civilian ownership? Comments are welcome!