I don't know where all the nostalgia for the M-1 carbine is coming from? Sure, it is fun to shoot, but you have to remember, when it was adopted, it was never intended to function as a front-line weapon. Rather, it was supposed to serve as a replacement for the 1911A1 .45 pistol. The Army did a study and found that many personnel issued the pistol, like artillery, armored personnel, drivers, etc... were terrible shots! It takes hundreds of rounds and hours of practice to become really competent with the .45, especially with the military issue's tiny fixed sighting system. The M-1 was intended to serve as a replacement for the pistol in a self-defence role, since it could be handled, used and fired the same as any rifle...just shorter and lighter. It is much easier to become a competent rifle shot, than handgunner.
The .30 carbine round essentially gives the same performance as a hot .38 pistol round. Accuracy isn't stellar, with most M-1 barerly shooting 6-8" groups at 100 yards. Their combat record as a man stopper is similarly lacking using ball ammo. If expanding bullets had been authorized, there would have been a dramatic improvement in the weapon's effectiveness. That didn't happen.
The M-16 got a bad rap, because of two idiotic decisions made at the Pentagon's highest levels. First, they changed the propellent used in thed 5.56 round to a very dirty burning ball propellent, which caused excessive fouling, whereas the original propellant functioned far better, without excessive cleaning. Secondly, the M-16 was rushed into service, without necessary cleaning kits, while the troops were told that the rifles didn't require regular maintenace and cleaning. Being the 60s and the flower power generation, who was going to argue that yes they wanted to spend more time cleaning their weapons?
Anyone who has seen combat knows that your weapon is your life! You take care of it, before you take care of yourself. So, stupidity and laziness, compounded by climatic conditions, i.e., super-humid jungle environment, all contributed to neglected weapons that had to jam! And thus the M-16 earned an underserved reputation as an unreliable piece of junk. Its performance since Vietnam has proven that it is a good weapon system.
Sure its not perfect, but it is the best compromise we now have. Look at the M4. You wanted a short, light and handy weapon for Special Ops guys to use in CT/CQB/Urban Assault type missions that normally take place at ranges under 100 yards and/or second line support troops who need a weapon for self-defense that is handy to carry and won't interfere with their primary tasking too much -- so 4-5" of barrel was hacked off and the butt stock shortened giving you your handy weapon, but causing a reduction in muzzle velocity due to the shortened barrel. Then you are faced with the same problem the M-1 had to deal with. Using a poorly designed projectile that was better suited to penetrating hard objects than expanding and/or transferring kinetic energy to soft targets - at the same time being designed to work at the substantially higher velocities that only the original 20" barrel provided and not the newly shortened barrel. You can't have it both ways, something has to give. So why, again, are people surprised when some nut-case Iraqi feydayeen doesn't drop with a single shot at 300 yards from an M-4???
The M-14 was a great semi-automatic battle rifle, but it was heavy, you couldn't carry as many rounds and it wasn't worth crap firing full auto. If troops are complaining that their current M-16 with 20" bbl and 7lb weight is too big and bulky to get in and out of a Humvee with, how much bitching would they do having to hump all that wood and steel? What about our "genderless" military? How far is some 18 year old, former cheerleader who weighs all of 98 lbs, soaking wet, and is fresh out of high school, going to get with a '14??? How soon would the discrimination suits begin to be filed by female personnel and small framed males?
