These silly laws really need to end. Half the fun of ending the NFA is watching this nonsense end and collectors losing their minds at their property dropping in value 100-fold.
despite being cheaper and easier to make than a tommy gun, they actually only built about 600k of them
compared to 1M tommy guns
it was over a much smaller time period, thanks to its stamped design, but it never fully replaced tommy guns in rifle companies due to them already having been equipped with tommy guns
so most M3s were sent to either tank crews or half-track drivers as a sidegrade to the M1 carbine
and the M3 didnt really have a wide post-war career, since the M2 carbine was available in korea
so it was mostly used by special forces who wanted a very compact, suppressed .45 SMG
and the philippines, who couldnt afford better
It was a major improvement over the 1911 as a weapon for troops that didn't need a full power rifle, and a good substitute for SMGs.
It can't really do the job of a service rifle though, range is limited to 200ish yards and the round is kinda anemic and inaccurate compared to rifle rounds.
The M2 Carbine was fully automatic, with a 30 round magazine, and adjustable irons with 100-400m settings. It effectively replaced the thompson and forced the M3A1 Greaaegun into specialized roles. Considering it had a bayonet lug and could mount a grenade launcher it was commonly heavily issued - more so than older SMG's were - and continued in service when the M14 was adopted in number
It was a major improvement over the 1911 as a weapon for troops that didn't need a full power rifle, and a good substitute for SMGs.
It can't really do the job of a service rifle though, range is limited to 200ish yards and the round is kinda anemic and inaccurate compared to rifle rounds.
>most engagements are at 200 yards or less
and yet every time SMGs came up against rifles, the rifles would win every time due to the greater range
so small caliber, full-auto weapons only got the firepower advantage in closed terrain like urban areas or forests
This is historical fuddlore and the exact opposite of what the Soviets both found out and produced against, hence their massive production of smgs after the failures of the Winter War.
each soviet rifle squad still had only 1-2 SMGs each just like any other country
while they did have dedicated SMG platoons unlike anyone else, they were still a specialized unit for infiltration and close combat
they were not a general purpose unit but a specialized close assault unit, hence why most rifle companies only got a single platoon each
tank units got a bigger complement of SMG-equipped units, but still primarily packing rifles
300 yards or less. That's 50% extra range that you don't really have.
A squad that can engage you at 300 more accurately while defeating medium cover will push your shit in if you're armed with what are basically pistol carbines.
Why not? Because up until the 60s, once the US had not only witnessed the true utility of intermediate calibers but also had issues in producing their own capable rifle-caliber select-fire rifle, they still held beliefs regarding those "lower power" calibers not being suitable for the average infantryman. The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
Regardless such arms weren't considered viable replacements for the entire force until then, by which time better contenders were available and the M2 was less relevant. In hindsight, maybe it would have been a better way, but it would be replaced by the armalite eventually anyway. 30-carbine is a fine cartridge and for WW2 it was probably sufficient when the only like-cartridge in largescale use was the 8mm kurz, but it is not a peer to true intermediates like 7.62x39 which was in use shortly after the war also, or eventually 5.56 that would inevitably take over for it.
Intermediate caliber select fire rifles were the future but if you compare the M14 to the FN FAL and G3 nothing is really wrong with it once some early manufacturing problems were corrected. It's design is a bit dated (wooden stock and all that) compared to those two but the US Army wanted it to basically handle like the M1 Garand. Unlike the FAL you can actually accurize the M14 into a good DMR or sniper rifle.
It has just become trendy to hate on the M14 because it used to be trendy to worship it.
>you can actually accurize the M14 into a good DMR or sniper rifle.
No you can't, it has to be bedded or put in a fancy chassis to achieve any kind of reliable accuracy and then it will rattle itself out of that accuracy within 1000 rounds or during disassembly (which you need for cleaning).
EBR came out in the 2000's, before that the best stock was the McMillan DMR stock (not fully bedded or free floating) which came out in the 90's. The M14 was plagued with shit stocks most of its career.
People say that yet several different variants going back to the XM21 were successful in the role. It can't have been nearly as bad as the critics say. It's just people shitting on it because it isn't an AR-10.
>full-auto widely regarded as near-useless due to very high muzzle climb even compared to other .308 rifles on the market >offering no appreciable advantage in a modern world dominated by new and better intermediate calibers, so not a good contender against its primary opponent: the AK >basically carrying on as an improvement of the M1 Garand in a world that was already advancing past these designs, with the only really substantial improvement being the use of box magazines
Don't get me wrong, it is a fine rifle, but by the time it came about there were already better options, and warfare was changing. If the M14 was in WW2, it would have been a great rifle. If it showed up in Korea, I'm sure it would be better than the M1 Garand at that stage. By Vietnam it was less than inadequate, and relegated to a stopgap until the M16 could be developed, tested and issued. It was out of place and time for that sort of doctrine, because the wars it was made to fight were already over.
>The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
We needed an American made rifle to kill morons, dammit.
>The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
Because they are equal, and in the end it would have made zero difference, both would be replaced by the m16.
United States military procurement was retarded and outright corrupt at the time (still is btw)
They coasted on inertia and while small arms aren't *that* important they aren't as irrelevant as some people here like to claim. Fact is we got lucky our enemies at the time were stuck with comblock and IJA surplus. It retroactively got used because in a manner similar to the MP44 since the enemy only had bolt actions but by the time cheap stamped SMG's and the AK had made their advent they shouldn't have dragged their heels refusing to face reality because the ordenence board had a hard on for the 1 man 1 rifle marksman concept (not to mention the kickbacks)
M1 Carbine is my favorite rifle and is still viable today for civilians and irregular partisans but it was pushed into roles it was never meant for as a stopgap to combat Chinese divisions armed with submachine guns and SKS's.
There were some novel variations like the Johnson Spitfire variant in what could be seen as a kinda sorta intermediate cartridge but Stoner invented the AR and the rest is history
and before anyone seethes over this and tries to vindicate the M14, glowies in the government deliberately sabotaged the early M16 field trials and got American servicemen killed as a result. None were ever charged with treason
Absolutely nothing has changed since then except maybe for the fact that pic related is intended by the feds to be used to quell domestic unrest not defeat body taliban/chicoms with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as. It's for defeating drywall in flat open areas and civies with homemade armor.
Fuck Sig. Brass is all garden gnomes and Sig
is run by garden gnomes. Do the math.
>pic related is intended by the feds to be used to quell domestic unrest not defeat body taliban/chicoms with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as. It's for defeating drywall in flat open areas and civies with homemade armor
Meds
> it was never meant for as a stopgap to combat Chinese divisions armed with submachine guns and SKS's.
There were as good as no SKSs being used in the Korean war
average rifle squad in WW2 would have an M1 garand for each member and a BAR for the BAR gunner
M1 carbines were issued to those who had other stuff to carry, like the radio man, or those who had other responsibilities other than fighting, like the squad leader or scouts
rifle squads actually got 0 M1 carbines as standard, though it was common to grab 1 or 2 when needed
M2 wasn't even issued until 1945 after VE day for Iwo Jima, via the T17 and T18 conversion kits.
New Manufacture of marked M2's did not happen until after WW2.
The M2 carbine, unlike the semi M1, was put directly into line Infantry squad/platoon ToE's replacing the Thompson, Grease Gun, and M1A1 Carbine (Airborne units)
30 round mag = post war = probably an M2 if you can't see the selector
They certainly made enough of them to have to change the definition of an SBR when they realized the surplus ones they sold to civvies all had less than 18in barrels. It's the reason for the discrepancy between NFA shotgun and rifle barrel lengths.
My understanding is that they didn't really consider the need for an intermediate cartridge. The M16 was meant to replace the M1/M2 carbine as a lightweight rifle for MG crews, mortarmen, jeep drivers, etc. and the point was never to be the new main battle rifle.
American military had a tism about every infantryman needing to have a match rifle that they could use to shoot 500+ yds with irons. They wouldn't abandon that until Vietnam, when being in a jungle with an average engagement distance of like 60 yards was the norm and the distance advantage was lost.
30 Carbine was an "intermediate" cartridge that didn't have as good performance as 8mm Kurz (or later, 7.62x39). We kept to 30-06 and changed to 7.62x51 because it killed morons pretty well.
The fight to introduce an intermediate caliber as a standard rifle is an interesting one and revolves, at least initially, largely around the carbine. You should read up on it.
The short version is basically the same reason that the Germans still used the Kar 98k and G43 as standard and the Soviets would only gradually introduce the SKS before finally adopting the AKM as standard in 1956. At the time, people making the decisions weren't ready to accept that smaller and intermediate cartridges could reliably kill people dead too.
At the same time, intermediates, at least those militaries were looking at, were fairly immature. 7.92x33mm is a truncated 7.92x57mm, 7.62x39mm is certainly better but future developments would prove that it's still slow and overweight relative to modern intermediates. .30 Carbine is easily the worst of these, but it wasn't designed as an intermediate rifle round and is comparable to magnum pistol cartridges, and is more similar to what we'd call a PCC today.
While the M2 carbine probably would have been a suitable and forward-thinking service rifle to adopt, it was very much a first attempt, not intended to replace but instead supplant a larger service rifle, and would have become outdated very quickly. The most compelling argument you could make would be that an alternative M14 program, replacing amd derived from the M2 carbine instead of the M1 rifle, could have resulted in a superior product than the M14 that was actually developed. Or at least one using something more like a modern intermediate round instead of 7.62x51mm.
the 30 carbines were fine for fighting at short ranges but it was in a weird spot >military wants big bullets with lots or range >military wants ammo commonality for resupply and logistic reasons >there arent any lmg/gpmg chambered in 30 carbine >military wants 1911 pistols on their hips >having 1911 pistols means lots of 45, well thompsons and grease guns are 45 and they have a bunch sitting around
it was a replacement for the thompson SMG
the M1 garand was still preferred as the rifle because it had much more range and power
full-automatic capability was desired, but that would have to wait until the M14
Possibly the most retarded post on PrepHole.
How is he wrong? M1/M2 was envisioned primary as a replacement for submachine guns and pistols.
Am I forgotten?
Nope, if you were $8-$12k like you should be I would own you.
<$12,000 for a piece of pipe with a trigger
These silly laws really need to end. Half the fun of ending the NFA is watching this nonsense end and collectors losing their minds at their property dropping in value 100-fold.
despite being cheaper and easier to make than a tommy gun, they actually only built about 600k of them
compared to 1M tommy guns
it was over a much smaller time period, thanks to its stamped design, but it never fully replaced tommy guns in rifle companies due to them already having been equipped with tommy guns
so most M3s were sent to either tank crews or half-track drivers as a sidegrade to the M1 carbine
and the M3 didnt really have a wide post-war career, since the M2 carbine was available in korea
so it was mostly used by special forces who wanted a very compact, suppressed .45 SMG
and the philippines, who couldnt afford better
Not a wide post-war career but a long one for sure. I think tankers had them up till Desert Storm.
You're a nogunz poser
The M2 Carbine was fully automatic, with a 30 round magazine, and adjustable irons with 100-400m settings. It effectively replaced the thompson and forced the M3A1 Greaaegun into specialized roles. Considering it had a bayonet lug and could mount a grenade launcher it was commonly heavily issued - more so than older SMG's were - and continued in service when the M14 was adopted in number
Care to point out the inaccuracy?
The M2 was fully automatic before the M14
nta but I understand where you got mixed up. the "have to wait until the M14" was meant for keeping the M1 Garand as a service rifle.
Don't jump the gun and call others retarded when it's your reading comprehension that failed. No one else here had trouble understanding.
You need to be 18 to post hear
Based self-describing gay
Do you still think chemical weapons render entire areas uninhabitable for centuries?
You haven’t been on here long enough
You must go back home retard
Because cool things never happen
It was a major improvement over the 1911 as a weapon for troops that didn't need a full power rifle, and a good substitute for SMGs.
It can't really do the job of a service rifle though, range is limited to 200ish yards and the round is kinda anemic and inaccurate compared to rifle rounds.
>limited to 200ish yards
most engagements are at 200 yards or less
>most engagements are at 200 yards or less
and yet every time SMGs came up against rifles, the rifles would win every time due to the greater range
so small caliber, full-auto weapons only got the firepower advantage in closed terrain like urban areas or forests
This is historical fuddlore and the exact opposite of what the Soviets both found out and produced against, hence their massive production of smgs after the failures of the Winter War.
More important than the SMGs was probably the sheer number of tanks the guys with SMGs were riding on back of in the assault.
each soviet rifle squad still had only 1-2 SMGs each just like any other country
while they did have dedicated SMG platoons unlike anyone else, they were still a specialized unit for infiltration and close combat
they were not a general purpose unit but a specialized close assault unit, hence why most rifle companies only got a single platoon each
tank units got a bigger complement of SMG-equipped units, but still primarily packing rifles
300 yards or less. That's 50% extra range that you don't really have.
A squad that can engage you at 300 more accurately while defeating medium cover will push your shit in if you're armed with what are basically pistol carbines.
US WWII analysis was 90% of all rifle hits were under 200 yards, shooting was at longer range but shooting =/= hitting
Less than a MG42
Enemy is not retarded, if they know you only have a 200y rfile, they will engage from further away.
>anon's squad is taking fire from 400 yards
>anon: THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED
>the enemy realizes his success is a statistical improbability and surrenders
Cause .30 Carbine has no better ballistics than 9mm
Intermediate cartridges were the next setup, not straight-walled brass
> Cause .30 Carbine has no better ballistics than 9mm
Straight up false. It’s ballistically closer to .357mag
Who fucking cares? Its still too anemic and only capable out to 150 yds.
>gets called on making an objectively false claim
>”who cares”
Ok dude
Why not? Because up until the 60s, once the US had not only witnessed the true utility of intermediate calibers but also had issues in producing their own capable rifle-caliber select-fire rifle, they still held beliefs regarding those "lower power" calibers not being suitable for the average infantryman. The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
Regardless such arms weren't considered viable replacements for the entire force until then, by which time better contenders were available and the M2 was less relevant. In hindsight, maybe it would have been a better way, but it would be replaced by the armalite eventually anyway. 30-carbine is a fine cartridge and for WW2 it was probably sufficient when the only like-cartridge in largescale use was the 8mm kurz, but it is not a peer to true intermediates like 7.62x39 which was in use shortly after the war also, or eventually 5.56 that would inevitably take over for it.
What was the problem with m14?
Intermediate caliber select fire rifles were the future but if you compare the M14 to the FN FAL and G3 nothing is really wrong with it once some early manufacturing problems were corrected. It's design is a bit dated (wooden stock and all that) compared to those two but the US Army wanted it to basically handle like the M1 Garand. Unlike the FAL you can actually accurize the M14 into a good DMR or sniper rifle.
It has just become trendy to hate on the M14 because it used to be trendy to worship it.
It is only natural to shit on the M14 when the AR10 existed
>you can actually accurize the M14 into a good DMR or sniper rifle.
No you can't, it has to be bedded or put in a fancy chassis to achieve any kind of reliable accuracy and then it will rattle itself out of that accuracy within 1000 rounds or during disassembly (which you need for cleaning).
Rule of Cool does mean that the EBR negates all disadvantages. Sorry anon I don't make the rules.
>that thing
>cool
It looks fucking sick and nothing you say can ever change that.
EBR came out in the 2000's, before that the best stock was the McMillan DMR stock (not fully bedded or free floating) which came out in the 90's. The M14 was plagued with shit stocks most of its career.
People say that yet several different variants going back to the XM21 were successful in the role. It can't have been nearly as bad as the critics say. It's just people shitting on it because it isn't an AR-10.
>full-auto widely regarded as near-useless due to very high muzzle climb even compared to other .308 rifles on the market
>offering no appreciable advantage in a modern world dominated by new and better intermediate calibers, so not a good contender against its primary opponent: the AK
>basically carrying on as an improvement of the M1 Garand in a world that was already advancing past these designs, with the only really substantial improvement being the use of box magazines
Don't get me wrong, it is a fine rifle, but by the time it came about there were already better options, and warfare was changing. If the M14 was in WW2, it would have been a great rifle. If it showed up in Korea, I'm sure it would be better than the M1 Garand at that stage. By Vietnam it was less than inadequate, and relegated to a stopgap until the M16 could be developed, tested and issued. It was out of place and time for that sort of doctrine, because the wars it was made to fight were already over.
>The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
We needed an American made rifle to kill morons, dammit.
>The real question is why they decided to not go with the vastly superior FAL instead of the abortion that became the M14 if that was their doctrinal policy.
Because they are equal, and in the end it would have made zero difference, both would be replaced by the m16.
Why is it so ugly?
United States military procurement was retarded and outright corrupt at the time (still is btw)
They coasted on inertia and while small arms aren't *that* important they aren't as irrelevant as some people here like to claim. Fact is we got lucky our enemies at the time were stuck with comblock and IJA surplus. It retroactively got used because in a manner similar to the MP44 since the enemy only had bolt actions but by the time cheap stamped SMG's and the AK had made their advent they shouldn't have dragged their heels refusing to face reality because the ordenence board had a hard on for the 1 man 1 rifle marksman concept (not to mention the kickbacks)
M1 Carbine is my favorite rifle and is still viable today for civilians and irregular partisans but it was pushed into roles it was never meant for as a stopgap to combat Chinese divisions armed with submachine guns and SKS's.
There were some novel variations like the Johnson Spitfire variant in what could be seen as a kinda sorta intermediate cartridge but Stoner invented the AR and the rest is history
and before anyone seethes over this and tries to vindicate the M14, glowies in the government deliberately sabotaged the early M16 field trials and got American servicemen killed as a result. None were ever charged with treason
Absolutely nothing has changed since then except maybe for the fact that pic related is intended by the feds to be used to quell domestic unrest not defeat body taliban/chicoms with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as. It's for defeating drywall in flat open areas and civies with homemade armor.
Fuck Sig. Brass is all garden gnomes and Sig
is run by garden gnomes. Do the math.
>with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as. It's for defeating drywall in flat open areas and civies with homemade armor.
Why not both
Well because it's not capable of defeating level 4 plates firstly
>pic related is intended by the feds to be used to quell domestic unrest not defeat body taliban/chicoms with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as. It's for defeating drywall in flat open areas and civies with homemade armor
Meds
>pic related is intended by the feds to be used to quell domestic unrest
retard
>with level 4 plates as they're attempting to market it as
Defeating level IV body armor was never a stated goal of the program
>Sig is run by garden gnomes
Proofs?
> it was never meant for as a stopgap to combat Chinese divisions armed with submachine guns and SKS's.
There were as good as no SKSs being used in the Korean war
No, they used select fire Arisaka carbines firing an overpressure version of the Nambu cartridge that fed from Type 100 magazines
Same slew of reasons we got 762 Fudd and not .280 Brit, or the M14 and not the FAL.
Didnt they make an ass load of them? Practically was the main service rifle
average rifle squad in WW2 would have an M1 garand for each member and a BAR for the BAR gunner
M1 carbines were issued to those who had other stuff to carry, like the radio man, or those who had other responsibilities other than fighting, like the squad leader or scouts
rifle squads actually got 0 M1 carbines as standard, though it was common to grab 1 or 2 when needed
M2 wasn't even issued until 1945 after VE day for Iwo Jima, via the T17 and T18 conversion kits.
New Manufacture of marked M2's did not happen until after WW2.
The M2 carbine, unlike the semi M1, was put directly into line Infantry squad/platoon ToE's replacing the Thompson, Grease Gun, and M1A1 Carbine (Airborne units)
30 round mag = post war = probably an M2 if you can't see the selector
They certainly made enough of them to have to change the definition of an SBR when they realized the surplus ones they sold to civvies all had less than 18in barrels. It's the reason for the discrepancy between NFA shotgun and rifle barrel lengths.
.30 isn't a round you want your military based around. M1 Carbine makes sense for police but not for infantry fighting Pinkos shooting 7.62
My understanding is that they didn't really consider the need for an intermediate cartridge. The M16 was meant to replace the M1/M2 carbine as a lightweight rifle for MG crews, mortarmen, jeep drivers, etc. and the point was never to be the new main battle rifle.
American military had a tism about every infantryman needing to have a match rifle that they could use to shoot 500+ yds with irons. They wouldn't abandon that until Vietnam, when being in a jungle with an average engagement distance of like 60 yards was the norm and the distance advantage was lost.
America never even considered this but I saw somewhere the French did and it was their plan before 7.62 and all that
>fires a downscaled 30-06 inspired by 7.92 Kurz
why not
This moron out here inventing the mini-14 lmao
Mine looks better (unmodded) though right?
We could have had Mini-14s in the 50s instead of the 70s/80s
Based retard
30 Carbine was an "intermediate" cartridge that didn't have as good performance as 8mm Kurz (or later, 7.62x39). We kept to 30-06 and changed to 7.62x51 because it killed morons pretty well.
The fight to introduce an intermediate caliber as a standard rifle is an interesting one and revolves, at least initially, largely around the carbine. You should read up on it.
The short version is basically the same reason that the Germans still used the Kar 98k and G43 as standard and the Soviets would only gradually introduce the SKS before finally adopting the AKM as standard in 1956. At the time, people making the decisions weren't ready to accept that smaller and intermediate cartridges could reliably kill people dead too.
At the same time, intermediates, at least those militaries were looking at, were fairly immature. 7.92x33mm is a truncated 7.92x57mm, 7.62x39mm is certainly better but future developments would prove that it's still slow and overweight relative to modern intermediates. .30 Carbine is easily the worst of these, but it wasn't designed as an intermediate rifle round and is comparable to magnum pistol cartridges, and is more similar to what we'd call a PCC today.
While the M2 carbine probably would have been a suitable and forward-thinking service rifle to adopt, it was very much a first attempt, not intended to replace but instead supplant a larger service rifle, and would have become outdated very quickly. The most compelling argument you could make would be that an alternative M14 program, replacing amd derived from the M2 carbine instead of the M1 rifle, could have resulted in a superior product than the M14 that was actually developed. Or at least one using something more like a modern intermediate round instead of 7.62x51mm.
the 30 carbines were fine for fighting at short ranges but it was in a weird spot
>military wants big bullets with lots or range
>military wants ammo commonality for resupply and logistic reasons
>there arent any lmg/gpmg chambered in 30 carbine
>military wants 1911 pistols on their hips
>having 1911 pistols means lots of 45, well thompsons and grease guns are 45 and they have a bunch sitting around