Magazine belt for an M1 Carbine?

[chesapeake]

Was there a belt used to hold magazines for the M1 Carbine, like there was for the Garand, 03 and 1917? I know in WWII there were magazine pouches that held two mags and could be slipped over the butt stock and that would snap on a dismounted cartridge belt and M1936 pistol belt. In Korea there were the magazine pouches that just slipped onto a belt.

 

What did they guys who were issued a Carbine use. There is only one snap on a M1936 pistol belt, I know they had to take more than two mags into battle. Without snaps the pouches would slid all over the belt. The bandoliers they carried were just stripper clips.

 

Am I way off here? Any ideas? I know the guns weren't really issued to the front line, but they made it up anyway.

 

Thanks

[Sabrejet]

Was there a belt used to hold magazines for the M1 Carbine, like there was for the Garand, 03 and 1917? I know in WWII there were magazine pouches that held two mags and could be slipped over the butt stock and that would snap on a dismounted cartridge belt and M1936 pistol belt. In Korea there were the magazine pouches that just slipped onto a belt.

 

What did they guys who were issued a Carbine use. There is only one snap on a M1936 pistol belt, I know they had to take more than two mags into battle. Without snaps the pouches would slid all over the belt. The bandoliers they carried were just stripper clips.

 

Am I way off here? Any ideas? I know the guns weren't really issued to the front line, but they made it up anyway.

 

Thanks

 

 

I believe only the USMC used a belt with multiple snaps for securing magazines but, for whatever reason, not the Army. Shelby Stanton's WW2 uniforms book illustrates the Army's experiments with various carbine pouch/belt arrangements.

 

Sabrejet

[chesapeake]

I had heard that there was a M1936 pistol belt (or something close to it) that may have been modified and then I heard that they were actually manufactured, but I can't find one or info anywhere on them.

[101CH47]

You may want to invest in some books dealing with M1 carbines. Canfield's Complete Guide to the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine as well as Ruth's War Baby are good places to start.

[Mr-X]

Carbine pouches were carried on the M1936 pistol belt.

 

First type carbine pouches had the large single piece belt loop with a single male pres stud that mated to the female on the pistol belt. Any extra carbine pouches were just looped over the belt and could slide around a bit. But if suspenders and other equipment such as a canteen etc. were worn the amount of sliding would be limited.

 

I have just checked T/O&E 17-7 Infantry Rifle Company dated 26 Feb 1944. It stated that every infantryman armed with a carbine (there were 28 men so armed in a company) was authorized 2 carbine pouches.

 

If one was kept on the pistol belt and the other on the stock then there would only one pouch on the belt using the one snap.

 

Remember that the pistol belt was designed well before the carbine and anyone issued a pistol was authorized a single pistol pouch hence the need for a single snap on the belt when it was designed.

 

The later issue carbine pouch (which would also hold Garand clips) had two small belt loops and did not have a press snap at all.

[chesapeake]

I will look into the books and thanks to all three of you for helping. I really figured there would have been more than 2 pouches issued and a belt with more than one snap. 60 rounds plus 15 (75) in the gun is not a lot.

[SocietyBrandHatCo]

I will look into the books and thanks to all three of you for helping. I really figured there would have been more than 2 pouches issued and a belt with more than one snap. 60 rounds plus 15 (75) in the gun is not a lot.

 

The thing to remember is the M1 Carbine was never designed to be a frontline weapon. It was a replacement/substitute for the M1911. It was issued to truck drivers, cooks, mortarmen, artillerymen, officer, senior NCOs, etc. so they wouldn't need a combat load of ammunition. I have about 100 original photos of GIs in Normandy and the majority of them only have 1 or 2 ammo pouches.

[chesapeake]

I knew they weren't front line weapons, I just figured since they did end up at the front, the soldier/Marine would be carrying ample ammunition. I just really need to stop assuming. Thank you for your help

[SocietyBrandHatCo]

And some frontline GIs and Marines did carry carbines. Audie Murphy preferred carrying an M1 carbine over an M1 rifle. I've heard some vets say they carried extra magazines in a GP ammunition bag.

[chesapeake]

Forgive me, but what is a GP ammunition bag. i know more about weapons than gear.

[kphfun]

Here are some WW2 carbine belts I have put together..As far as it not being designed as a front line weapon that is wrong, it was designed as a front line weapon but it's intention was to add more firepower then the .45 M1911 could bring and not be burdened with the weight of the Garand. I think Paratroopers are front line troops and lots of them had this weapon.

 

Here are some WW2 converted M36 belts..

[kphfun]

A M44 pack set up..

[kphfun]

A M36 pack set..

[kphfun]

And just for S&G's a Korean War set.

[chesapeake]

Thanks for pictures. Those look awesome. Did you modify the M1936 belts or did you pick it up that way. Those are the belts I have seen pictures of, but have yet to find for sale.

[SocietyBrandHatCo]

It's true it was used as a frontline weapon, but in it's original conception it was never intended to be issued to frontline troops. Paratroopers appreciated it's light weight, shorter overall length, and high rate of fire. If you look at the TO&E for infantry divisions, you'll notice a very low number of carbines in ratio to the U.S. Rifle, M1. This is the GP ammunition bag: http://www.atthefront.com/us_gear_M1_ammo_bag_main.jpg

[chesapeake]

Thanks for the picture of the GP bag. That seems like it would be quicker to grab a mag from than the pouches would be.

[kphfun]

Thanks for pictures. Those look awesome. Did you modify the M1936 belts or did you pick it up that way. Those are the belts I have seen pictures of, but have yet to find for sale.

I got them that way, one is a converted 1942 dated belt and the other is a converted 1944 dated belt. I have put together around a dozen Carbine belts in different config's. :thumbsup:

[kphfun]

It's true it was used as a frontline weapon, but in it's original conception it was never intended to be issued to frontline troops. Paratroopers appreciated it's light weight, shorter overall length, and high rate of fire. If you look at the TO&E for infantry divisions, you'll notice a very low number of carbines in ratio to the U.S. Rifle, M1. This is the GP ammunition bag: http://www.atthefront.com/us_gear_M1_ammo_bag_main.jpg

It was never intended to replace the Garand but was made to give to front line troops who had other duties then a basic rifleman, I.E. Machine gunners, Bazooka man, light mortar crewman, Combat engineers, etc.. Hence it would show a large disparity in a I.D. TO&E..

[101CH47]

If you want period photos of the M1 Carbine in use Tom Laemlein's The M1 Carbine is an excellent book of photos. It is the next to the last book on this page - http://www.armorplatepress.com/books-weapons.html

 

Well worth the price.

[SocietyBrandHatCo]

It was never intended to replace the Garand but was made to give to front line troops who had other duties then a basic rifleman, I.E. Machine gunners, Bazooka man, light mortar crewman, Combat engineers, etc.. Hence it would show a large disparity in a I.D. TO&E..

 

kphfun,

 

You're absolutely right. Sorry, I should have specified, when I was saying the frontline GI, I was referring to the frontline rifleman (not saying the others aren't frontline... don't want to offend any veteran mortarmen or engineers out there).

[B229]

Where are you all getting this idea that the M1 Carbine was "not a frontline weapon"? It was designed to replace the pistol, for anyone armed with one, to provide greater range than the pistol. True that it was not intended to replace the M1 Garand service rifle that armed the infantry, however, I find it pretty silly to say that all the infantry platoon leaders, combat engineers, mech recon personnel, artillerymen, airborne personnel, etc. that where armed with carbines were not at the frontline!

 

And many soldiers issued the Carbine actually hated it's light weight, short range and lack of stopping power...and traded it for a Garand at the first opportunity.

 

Edit: never mind, I just saw kphfun's post that said the same thing I just wrote....

[kphfun]

Where are you all getting this idea that the M1 Carbine was "not a frontline weapon"? It was designed to replace the pistol, for anyone armed with one, to provide greater range than the pistol. True that it was not intended to replace the M1 Garand service rifle that armed the infantry, however, I find it pretty silly to say that all the infantry platoon leaders, combat engineers, mech recon personnel, artillerymen, airborne personnel, etc. that where armed with carbines were not at the frontline!

 

And many soldiers issued the Carbine actually hated it's light weight, short range and lack of stopping power...and traded it for a Garand at the first opportunity.

 

Edit: never mind, I just saw kphfun's post that said the same thing I just wrote....

I think we already established this fact.

Opps, you corrected your post as I was responding.

[chesapeake]

I should have chose my wording better. I am sorry if I offended anyone by implying that certain personnel were not on the front line.

[J_Andrews]

Carbine-armed soldiers took out the ammo that came packed in bandoleers, load that ammo into magazines, and put the loaded mags in the bandoleer.