Which gun would you rather have a M1 carbine or a AR-15 rifle?

Question

Are the M1 carbines made of all natural materials?

Does the M1 carbine have a lot of impact?

Answer 1

I'd go with the AR. The M1 has a wooden stock, which is susceptible to moisture and wear. The .30 Carbine cartridge is pretty weak, and was somewhat ineffective against soldiers in heavy winter coats. The AR system is highly adaptable, durable, and if taken care of properly, reliable. No rifle will function if it's not cleaned. On my AR, I've fired hundreds of rounds in a single sitting without jams. I'd say get the AR, ammo is more readily available, more effective, and parts and upgrades are more common, and it's a very fun rifle, and despite what gun grabbers want you to think, is very adaptable to sporting purposes.

Answer 2

Two entirely different weapons intended to be used in two entirely different ways. They don't really compare to each other.

The M1 carbine was designed as and meant to be used as a replacement for a handgun. The AR was a replacement for a full power battle rifle. The M1 carbine is more comparable to an Mp5 etc than a full power rifle. The AR is more comparable to an AK etc.

Which makes a better battle rifle? An Mp5 or an AK-47? See my point?

Anyone that thinks the M1 carbine is "underpowered" missed the entire point and needs to go back to the third grade for some reading comprehension work. The M1 carbine has more energy at 100 yards than a .357 magnum does at the muzzle. You would be hard-pressed to find another carbine in its intended class and usage with more energy.

You can easily replace an M1 carbine stock with any of about a half a dozen synthetics. You aren't limited to just the wood, no matter what folks here would imply. In fact, you can get more different types of stocks for the M1 carbine than you can for the AR.

Ammo for the M1 carbine is as cheap and as common as AR ammo....even moreso since Gulf II is eating up all the .223. Milsurp mags are common and cheap.

It has very little recoil....it weighs in at least two pounds lighter than a similarly loaded AR etc etc etc.

Answer 3

fishtrembleatmyname really sums it up. The 30 Carbine cartridge was a mental midget compaired to the 5.56 NATO.

The M-1 had faults it takes hours with one man at a mill to make it. Where it does not with an M-16. I am a wood stock fanatic. But in a combat situatition I want something that is tough and can take a beating and keep of going. That sure is not a wooden stock. No matter what you say wood will not hold up as well at the synthetic stock of the m-16 when I am bashing IRAQ Insurgance in the head in a firefight. Cut and dry. Our military is the best equiped military in the world. THey are also the best trained military in the world. Plese do not believe everything you see on the Commie News Network.

Wood can and will swell in high humidity rain snow heat. In the Iraq desert I am sure the stock could beceome so dry it became easy to crack. That never happens to an M-16.

The M-1 Carbine is a good weapon but the troops that had it when they brought it out did not like it. It was underpowered then as it is now.

In 8 years I had one malfunction in an m-16. That was it one. I was tough on my rifle. It rode around on a D-7 Bulldozer for hours on end in the middle of the Mojave (MoHave) desert. It fell out of my HMMWV and got ran over id even scratch it let alone break it.

Answer 4

Hard decision. I love them both, but for different reasons. The M1 is a classic hand made wooden stocked rifle for close in fighting. I love them for nostalgia reasons and for collecting. The newer post war rifles often came with the metal handgaurds however.

The AR-15 I love also, but because it is so versatile, easy to customize or change caliber or configuration. It shoots a very hot little rounds ball ammo leaving your barrel around 3250 feet per second and is capable of firing at a target at 500 yards it's maximum effective range. With a decent scope it is great on varmints up to and including coyote and has proven it is effective on man as well.

The troops love the M-16 and the versatility in hand loads let you make it hot or a harder hitter depending on your preference. Optics can be added or just about any other accessory you can dream up if equiped with the picantinny rails.

My vote for hunting or just target shooting is the AR-15/M-16.

Answer 5

AR-15 hands down. While the carbine does have a wooden stock, that is not necessarily a good thing. The AR's synthetic is more durable. There are infinitely more accessories for the AR, it has greater inherent accuracy and its cartridge is superior . The .30 carbine cartridge actually starts with more energy, but the .223 has surpassed the carbine inside 100 yards. At 200 yards the carbine has dropped 13.5" compared to -2.1" for the 223. http://www.sportsmansguide.com/resource/remington_charts/riflebal.htm

Answer 6

AR-15 for sure just don't beat it up too bad because it will break. M1 carbine is a stronger built gun in my opinion. AR-15 is much more fun though.

Answer 7

For firepower, the AR-15, however, I think the M1 carbine is a better made gun.

Answer 8

I would rather have the M1 carbine, mainly because I collect WWII rifles.... yes the buttstock is wood.... natural materials.... the round is .30 cal but only 1900 fps..... so it isnt a killer assault rifle... but it wasnt built for that anyway.... just for close combat of 200 meters fighting.... nice weapon that is very light.

Answer 9

AR-15

Answer 10

in terms of reliability and accuracy, impact ...a lot for its larger caliber...i'd go for the m-1 carbine. but if i like the upgrades or accessories availability...ar-15 of course.