Dear Lord, what were they on when they thought this thing up, acid? PCP? Crack? I mean who would not look at this and go, "What the Hell do You do with this thing, guide airplanes?" Why would the U.S. Military take this seriously for even half-a-second? - Kilgore 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, and you're using modern sensibilities in your comment. ;) Pal, this is 1940s technology! LOL! Of course it's ungainly, clunky and really ugly. When the powers that be try to create new things, a lot of them will be epic fail. The IR sniper sighting system for this rifle, however, was the basis for newer and newer night vision devices throughout the decades. Ever saw what the first CARS were like, before the Model T?MoviePropMaster2008 02:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand. A few years ago I found an M1 Garand with this kind of scope mounted to it (it was from the late 50's and both the rifle and scope were beat to hell).
This image looks like a non-standard configuration or someone trying to make the rifle look more complicated than it actually was; I've only ever found pictures of M3s with the IR lamp in one or other position, but never both like this. From what I've heard, it could potentially have been useful in the Korean war if it had been more reliable; the Chinese were very fond of night ops. Sadly, there are certain inherent issues with a scope that weighs this much and is only good to 150 (M1 / M2 scope) or 300 (M3 scope) yards, and has you effectively holding a searchlight if anyone with IR optics of their own is watching. Evil Tim 02:55, 20 July 2011 (CDT)
There is no way that's a 1940s IR scope. Evil Tim 10:52, 4 May 2012 (CDT)
I concur. Looks just like a .22 rimfire scope, which would probably work on the M1 Carbine, but certainly NOT an IR scope from the 1940s. MoviePropMaster2008 14:16, 4 May 2012 (CDT)
That is the Weaver 330 riflescope used also on the Springfield M1903A4 in WWII, a 3/4" tube 'scope built to big game 'scope standards, usually 2.2x. Yes, it looks like the early 1950s 3/4" 'scopes popular for .22 rimfires. --Carl N. Brown 20:45, 15 August 2012 (CDT)
En Bloc magazine?
My friend said earlier versions had en bloc magazines with a clip ejector like the Garand, is there any truth to this at all? That's One Angry Duck 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Haven't heard anything about that. As far as I know, this was designed from the beginning to feed from detachable box mags. --HashiriyaR32 15:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Winchester carbine adopted was always a detachable box magazine design. Larry Ruth's books on the M1 Carbine development are pretty exhaustive, and don't show any en-bloc magazine designs associated with the .30 Carbine. .30 carbine prototypes were submitted for testing by various companies; Springfield submitted a test model designed by Garand with a top feeding detachable box magazine. An AutoOrdnance design would lock the bolt back when empty and drop the magazine; when a loaded magazine was inserted, the bolt was released on the first round. --Carl N. Brown 20:56, 15 August 2012 (CDT)
M1 Conversions?
Does anyone know if there was any M1 Carbines, with 30-round magazines, converted to full-auto but without fire-selector (in factories or in the field) and used in combat in World War II (either Europe or the Pacific)?
Thanks in advance. Z008MJ (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2013 (EDT)
Assault Rifle?
I don't think the M1 carbine should be classed as an Assault Rifle because technically it isn't Excalibur01 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2014 (EDT)
Erma-Werke EM1 calibers
The section for the EW EM1 states "other versions also existed, including carbines in .22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire (WMR) and .22HBA calibers." What is .22HBA? Ive never heard of this being a caliber, rather I believe that the When Iver Johnson imported these rifles they changed the name of the .22LR EM1 and the .22WMR ESG 22 to the Model EW.22HBA and the Model EW.22MHBA respectively (I think the HBA might have had a longer barrel than the standard M1 taking it up to a similar length as the ESG 22 but not sure). I assume this odd model name is where the confusion comes from? --commando552 (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
The text is: "The more common Erma Werke rifles are the E M1's 1967-1969 and the EW .22HBA's in 1985. The least common are the .22 magnum versions" (The ERMA-Werke Model E M1 .22 LR Self-Loading Rimfire Rifle (the text is on the bottom of the page). This site seems to be a very complete article about EM1 but maybe I misunderstood the description. I'm not very good in .22 cartridges (personally have dealt only with .22LR) so maybe I was wrong to put it on the page. I'll better delete this info as it's seems to be incorrect. Thanks for the correction. Greg-Z (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
The explanation for the model names is in part one of that article: "In 1986 Iver Johnson's Arms introduced the Model EW.22HBA in .22 LR (the E M1 with a longer barrel) and the EW .22MHBA in .22 WMR (an ESG 22)." What the text you were quoted was saying was basically that the .22LR versions (be they original EM1s or the IJ rebranded .22HBAs) were the most common, with the .22WMR versions (ESG 22 and the rebranded EW.22MHBA) being less common. Also, just FYI about the ID on the Death of a Hoodlum page, the rear sight is indicative of nothing as it is removable to allow you to use a dovetail scope mount underneath it. The more telling parts are the shape of the bolt handle and ejection port which on the film gun match that of the .22LR EM1. --commando552 (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (EDT)
OK, now I understand. Many thanks! Greg-Z (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2015 (EDT)
