Why do you beleive the M1 Carbine was considered a (relative) failure in retrospect? Underpowered cartridge? Too niche of a combat role (too big to be a true sidearm while also considered too lightweight to be a true service rifle.etc)? And what did the later M4 Carbine get right that the M1 didn't?
didn't look as cool
It only didn't look as cool in the hands of infantry and grunts. Police and officers with real uniforms wore the M1 well, which is probably why it became more successful amongst police
imo the paratrooper m1 carbine looks cool as shit
The pistol grip looks cursed as frick
Its very chunky.
Til the para version is heavier than the normal one
Yeah the pistol grip looks kinda poopoo on that one, personally I prefer the look of something like the mini 14's version
that 10/22 as an SBR would be slick as frick
Frick you Bill Ruger!
Perfection.
Looks like it came straight from Bubbas я Us.
You shut your prostitute mouth.
People of that era were mostly uneducated drunks who believed in muh stopping power.
>Why do you beleive the M1 Carbine was considered a (relative) failure in retrospect?
but I don't
It was extremely popular in the pacific, squads would often half their garands with them. Just go look at in theatre footage at how many carbines theyre hauling.
Krauts also loved captured carbines for some reason.
Because of sensationalist magazine articles boomers read and took as higher truth than the actual gospel.
God I want one so bad but I don't wanna pay the boomer tax
Get one bro, you'd be shocked at just how lightweight these guns are. Yeah its one thing to read that they're only like 5 pounds unloaded but its another thing entirely to actually hold one in your hands.
Buy a universal carbine and replace the springs with wolff extra power ones, they're cheaper than the GI ones by a fair margin.
Get a new one (literally) from here:
https://shopkahrfirearmsgroup.com/firearms/auto-ordnance-aom130.asp
I bought my Thompson M1 from here. Yeah it's a little expensive but it's new shit.
keep looking around anon. i found one for 800. israeli turn in. needs some work to fire but its just a matter of changing the springs out.
or just get one from rti. or check the cmpforums.
Nobody outside of boomers who read shit in magazines and on forums considers it a failure
>And what did the later M4 Carbine get right that the M1 didn't?
Mostly, being chambered in 5.56 plus having good magazines. M1 Carbine mags frankly weren't that well designed (though AR mags had their own issues, but honestly 20-rounders were fine and 30-rounder green followers onward are great) and susceptible to wear/damage. But honestly I think the M1 carbine's simultaneous greatest success and failure was its cartridge: 30 carbine, compared to 5.56 which was already seen as the meta and very useful for most combat scenarios. 30 carbine let the M1 Carbine stay very light, but it was also ballistically a glorified pistol cartridge to where 200m was really pushing its capabilities. I think it says a lot that there weren't that many post-WWII developments of different guns in 30 carbine (San Cristobal carbine, IMI Magal, FAMAE CT-30, etc.) and the ones that were there were largely meme tier or not very successful.
The problem is people often compared it to pistol cartridges for some reason. Its a dedicated carbine cartridge, its literally in the name, .30 carbine. The case is too long to be used as a pistol caliber but its too "weak" to be a full-sized rifle caliber, but that was kinda the point. The military wanted a gas-operated carbine so having a pistol caliber carbine just wasn't going to cut it because those were often simple blowback designs.
The M1 carbine chambered in .45 ACP would have been remembered very differently
Thats basically what the Thompson Light Rifle was but it wasn't adopted because ordinance believed .45 ACP had no place on a modern battlefield regardless of barrel length (and they were right) but 1911 gays will tell you otherwise even though the 1911 itself was mostly worthless which is what prompted ordinance to begin looking into a carbine sidearm instead in the first place.
it served pretty well actually. it wasn't until the m16 was adopted until other wwii era guns were dropped from use. i have a family friend that used to do recon during the early vietnam and he said he could have used a grease gun during missions if he wanted to.
but really what didn't help the m1 carbine was the cartridge it used as says. it didn't really have the penetration or range like the m1 garand did during its use throughout wwii and korea. i don't think people realize that the m16 really was a wunderwaffen compared to the previous set of weaponry that was available before.
In many ways it was more Americas answer to the AK-47 than the M16 was. Light, easy to manufacture, reliable, both used a .30 caliber cartridge albeit .30 carbine is about 20 grain lighter, I just think that given its design it should've been way more successful than it was but it certainly wasn't a failure. In a perfect world we would still be using it as a weapons platform though.
>both used a .30 caliber cartridge
Anon are you having a fricking stroke trying to compare 7.62×39mm to .30
7.62x39 is a fricking beast but comparing it to .30 Carbine isn't quite as ridoculous as comparing .22LR to 5.56 NATO if you know what I mean
Sure anon
It's literally the same bullet diameter give or take 1 one thousandth of an inch.
You can technically say the same thing about .22LR and 5.56 NATO
da.
Your brain's probably the same diameter (and density) as a rock
What the frick is the diameter of a rock?
>answer to a gun that it predates by a significant margin
You're a fricking tard.
>the heavy, bloated sub gun that was hard to control was liked more than the light, accurate, and easy shooting rifle
I'll take "Things that are wrong" for $200, Alex.
The .30-06 M2 ball from an M1 garland is going to fire a bullet 1.5 times heavier at almost 3 times the muzzle velocity. It blows .30 carbine out of the water.
.45ACP will fire a bullet almost twice as heavy, but much slower. It will have around 1/3rd the energy of .30 carbine and a garbage trajectory.
As intermediates go, .30 carbine is on the weaker side and doesn't come close to full power rifle rounds. At the same time it most definitely is intermediate and is far and away superior to any pistol round. Relative effectiveness is kind of moot though when the real question is "is it good enough to kill at the ranges required of it?". The answer to that is "Yes". Stories of rounds bouncing off cotton jackets and the rifles falling short are largely creations of the 1960s-1970s fuddlore dark ages. First person and contemporary reports show that the M1 carbine was universally well liked and highly regarded by combat forces from many nations. The exception is common criticism of the magazines needed to be replaced very frequently.
Immensely aesthetic photo
>You're a fricking tard
Perhaps. Regardless, I think it is rather strange that the Soviet Arms Council would base their new cartridge dimensions on British/US customary units rather than metric units, because 7.62 is a rather strange number but .30 inches is a nice round number, but the Russians could've just rounded off the .02 mm for a 7.6mm cartridge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(unit)
interesting, but its still strange that the Germans and Russians used Line for their bullet calibers over mms
There was relatively standard measures used throughout Europe before the introduction of metric.
Most nations had something similar to an inch, foot, yard, mile. They differed in specifics, but rarely concept.
The Russians used the Line because that was traditional pre-Soviet times. They were very slow on adopting metric as a standard of measurement. The Mosin-Nagant was even called the '3 Line Rifle' in their documents.
And when developing the x39 cartridge, the idea of decreasing caliber wasn't really a thing yet when it came to intermediate cartridges. So sticking with the old 3 Line projectile size they used made sense.
For the Germans their cartridges were almost always built around metric after its introduction.
They were already using 7.62 and they didn't want to change. They made all their small arms 7.62 because that way all the barrel blanks could be made by the same machines. Hence 7.62 nagant and 7.62 tokarev. Yes it's dumb, yes that's the real reason.
The Russians were still using large numbers of .303 Lewis guns at the start of the war, and their big legacy GMPG cartridge was 7.62. They just sort of defaulted to continuing to use the measurement and designation because there wasn't any reason to re-designate everything when it was still working.
Typical Russians, even during the Soviet days they just hung onto legacy standards. Some things really don't change do they?
I mean it would be worse to throw out all the existing tooling because of numbers autism.
They had to produce new tooling for the reciever anyways so to me its just a wasted opportunity
Audie Murphy loved it. That's all the endorsement needed
Bruv.
M1 is literally fricking older than the AK47.
The actual state of /k/, I tried to check it out after a yearly break and I'm never going back here again because of you, frick this place
I'm glad I was able to drive people out of here, pretty based if I say so myself
The right idea, given the typical engagement range for infantry.
>it was more Americas answer to the AK-47 than the M16 was
"more ... than M16 was" for the illiterates. Yes, given the 47 was the doctrinal replacement for issuing things like PPSH in mass. See
No it isn’t and you are an idiot. The M1 carbine was in service in 1942. Even a cursory search would have told you that. The M1 carbine was a replacement for pistols for backline troops and other people expected to not be fighting much. It turned out to be a handy rifle that soldiers liked also. The AK was intended to be the main issue rifle for the entire soviet army. If you think the rounds are the same because they are both .30 cal then compare 7.62x25 Tok to .30-378 weatherby next.
It's almost identical in "stopping power" (shut the frick up Boomer) as an AK shooting 5.45. it isn't underpowered at all. In fact it's competing with the STG as the best individual weapon of the war. Ironically both had shit mags.
You can always tell how much someone knows about firearms of WW2 when they shit on the M1 carbine.
>You can always tell how much someone knows about firearms of WW2 when they shit on the M1 carbine.
but muh Garand! Muh ping clipperinos!
Everything M1 did, the Thompson did better. M1 was a truckdriver/cook gun.
The Thompson was a simple blowback design while the M1 was gas operated. To call the M1 the "truck gun" when comparing the two is laughable.
How can you be so wrong?
I genuinely think he might be referring to an unsourced statement on a wikipedia article that it was "more accurate and reliable" like every other armchair "expert"
>Everything M1 did, the Thompson did better.
Oh really?
>M1 Carbine
5lbs
>Thompson
1/10th the weight of a typical Filipino prostitute.
I think your statement is falsifiable my man.
>1/10th the weight of a typical Filipino prostitute
Sooooooooo… lighter than an M1?
Wasn't the tommy crazy expensive though?
$200 at the time, or $4175 adjusted for inflation.
for a modern service weapon, thats expensive as frick
Why do you think they switched to the grease gun ASAP
Gotta add another 30% to that number to adjust for inflation these days anon.
M1 was too expensive and heavy
Lol you dumb gay
Enjoy your 11lb smg
Oh I’m a dumbass and thought you were talking about the carbine
Oh no I'm the dumbass I should've said Thompson
You are both dumbasses, now kiss.
>M1 was better
Ok do you mean Garand, Thompson, Carbine, helmet, bayonet, flamethrower, bazooka, chemical mine, frangible grenade?
>Everything M1 did, the Thompson did better. M1 was a truckdriver/cook gun.
Really?
>range
>accuracy
>recoil
>power
>ammo cartridge weight (230 grain bullets vs 110 grain bullets = .45 ACP is heavier)
>carrying capacity
>half the damn weight
I sure as hell know what I'd rather lug around.
>twice as heavy
>ammo twice as heavy
>worse range
>less accurate
>less precise sights
>more expensive to manufacture
The Thompson is cooler and had better mags but that’s it.
all jokes aside, how does the .30 differ from both .45 and 30-06 ballistics wise? How "intermediate" was it really?
It has comparable bullet weight to 9mm but about twice the muzzle energy so I would argue its probably far superior to .45 ACP
>twice the muzzle energy
*muzzle velocity I mean
Its basically .30cal .357mag.
Similar power, similar size. Rimless and slightly smaller in bullet diameter.
M1 carbine being a sucky gun is an opinion I never really encountered until Karl said it in a few videos.
Its certainly less reliable than modern guns but if you want the convenience, weight, and firepower its worth it to have to clear a stoppage every so often so long as the failures aren't catastrophic. Keep in mind there was nothing comparable.
Soldiers in WW2 just said you had to toss the mags. They'd get ammo dumped in pre-loaded magazines, and basically toss their old ones.
Yep. Watched a MOH interview awhile back where a dude was talking about how much he liked the carbine. Specifically pointed out he would toss every mag into fires when he cycled out and grabbed brand new ones on the way out.
It wasn’t, it just evolved to something better in the form of the M16/M4. Once the select fire M2 Carbine came around it was essentially the 50’s M4. The M4 is just everything the M1 did perfected.
Am I the only one that sees similarities with a Ruger 10/22?
Ruger actually did that on purpose to make their gun more popular with the WW2 and baby boomer generation as the 10/22 looked nostalgic to the war
I'd say since it's more of an equivalent to a PDW, conceptually, then a rifle or SMG in an era where that niche was occupied by pistols primarily give it a bit of a weird legacy. It was neither fish nor fowl in the eyes of the people who used it, but it could and did fulfill a role that a rifle or SMG would be unnecessary.
I think people saying it is failure are coming from a position of comparing to an M1 Garand, when it was not meant to completely replace at all, but used in it's place when it would be too cumbersome.
I'd still take an M3 Grease Gun over it though if I had a choice.
I'd say that the Carbine was better than the Grease Gun. Lighter, and more powerful.
Fair enough, but the Grease Gun does have rate of fire, for obvious reasons, over the the Carbine while being more compact. I'm not saying the Carbine is bad, but I prefer the utility of being able to fire full auto if necessary.
If the M2 Carbine was on the table, I'd use it over either.
>I want a weapon with a quarter the range, double the cartridge weight, worse sights, less comfortable stock, worse lop, more recoil, while walking all over Europe.
If you're going full moron you might as well just say you'd prefer the Thompson. BTW no one who's ever even touched a vegana would prefer a Thompson over just about anything issued in WW2 solely for the mag latch alone. It's literally shit. Not to mention it's like 12lbs yet recoils like a tec-9.
I'm just being realistic. Given we're talking about the M1 Carbine, odds are I'd either get that or the M3 at the time. I'd prefer a Thompson or a Garand obviously personally.
I can understand the Garand, but why the Thompson?
Less out of practicality, but because it's just a sexy gun.
It was a shit pea shooter, Eugene Sledge confirmed this, troops would throw them away for jap rifles when they could, or hand them out to moronic replacements and take their M1 rifle.
See
And look at any pic of Korea, Indochina or vietnam.
The M1 Carbine was the most produced American small arm or the war. What the frick are you talking about?
>designed by a cop killer
>Dinkheller shooter used one
by a cop killer
shooter used one
Based
Rest in peace Andrew. Locked up for years then executed.
I don't think it was a failure, it was well liked and we used up up to Vietnam
It was super successful, read any book infantry dudes loved those shits, they would ditch their garands immediately when they found one, and german soldiers who captured american small arms wouldn't touch any of them except for the carbines. Like in the battle of the bulge there are reports of stacks of captured american weapons with everything except for carbins which the germans took.
What a failure, you stupid fricking Black person homosexual.
Ok, maybe they built a lot of them, but 6 million?
Some say 6 million, I say 600 hundred.
>Ak74 muzzle energy 1006 ft/lbs
>M1 Carbine muzzle energy 964 ft/lbs
The M1 carbine isn't an assault rifle because Uncle Adolf hadn't invented the term yet and ordnance stripped full auto off the gun as designed. In every other case it absolutely meets the definition.
Any other opinion is redditweapons "achshully" posting.
The M1 carbine was one of the best weapons to come out of the war and was a highly effective infantry weapon, as well as an excellent police weapon in the post war decades. If .30 carbine ammo and mags were more available (and the mags improved) today it would still be a viable option for police. There was an NYPD robbery squad guy who swore by it for one shot stops in the 70s and 80s. Cirillo I think?
>Jim, make sure we send these to frickin detriot
The late 60s riots were pure kino. Lots of M1 carbines seeing use. Back when cops and Nasty Girls just shot motherfrickers
>nigs
>advance loans
Smells like america
End of my M1 carbine stash. Needless to say, OP is a silly goofball who is wrong. M1 carbine is based as well as a highly effective weapon
Oh heres one more. NYPD ESU with M1 carbines. One of which is heavily modified/bubba'd
Talking to my dad who was born in 1960, its an entirely different country than it was anon. He and I grew up in different worlds. When he was growing up in the 70s guys who worked at gas stations could buy new cars and houses fairly comfortably.
That M1 isn't bubba'd, they were sold in that configuration by one of the post war manufacturers.
>3% interest was something only poor urban ghetto dwellers would agree to in the 70s
>Now that's a "good" credit minimum with 25+% being the norm for poor credit.
>Back when cops and Nasty Girls just shot motherfrickers
they still shoot mfers what t do you think half those riots are about
They dont shoot enough of them, thats the problem. Those riots wouldve ended with 40 people getting smoked in 1967
holy shit what riot?
Detriot 1967
During the late 1960s the government inplemented Insurrection Act to put down the nationwide riots. Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, Detriot, etc. Active duty military, National Guard, police etc. And it wasnt to stand around like they did in 2019, Ferguson, and Freddy Gray. They cleared the streets and pacified the cities. Not to hijack the thread, sorry. M1 carbines were used in these efforts as you can see from my above pictures
More than any other period of time the 1960s fundamentally changed the US.
Really its almost night and day in some cases to read about what the US was like culturally before and after the 60s. For better and worse.
AR18 SPOTTED
it was perfect for what it was
M2 Carbine looks fun.
imagine the M2 carbine with modern weight-reducing and recoil softening techniques. I bet it would be an insanely effective close-medium range weapon if it had like a polymer stock making it even lighter and a fat ass compensator or muzzle brake. Just look at the Colt Monitor, they slapped a giant muzzle brake on it and it has almost no visual recoil.
MP-5 in 30. Carbine would be pretty sexy, although I'm sure you could design a better round with modern powder and CFD.
Muzzle breaks suck for close combat though.
yea I think overall a modern redesign/overhaul of the M2 carbine would be awesome, cartridge overhaul as well. In a lot of ways I guess that PDWs are kind of a continuation of the idea, but those rounds are more like miniaturized rifle cartridges while the .30 carbine is basically a magnum handgun cartridge.
That's what .300 blackout Ar's are for.
Nobody believes it was a failure
The reason we use intermediate cartridges to this day is that WW2 taught us that slinging a large volume of okayish lead downrage is preferable to a smaller volume of high-powered rounds, because the goal isn't to put a bullet in them, the goal is to keep them pinned until the artillery can blow them to bits.
It's doctrine son. "Underpowered cartridge" is not a significant factor, though people trying to fight the last war still argue that the bullets aren't big and shooty enough.
>inb4 M5 next gen rifle
It wasn't a failure. It was a PDW, designed for the role of a PDW, before we really had a name for it. Any issues it had were the result of misuse, treating it as a front line weapon instead of a rear echelon PDW. It was supposed to replace the 1911, not the Garand.
It was a PDW/assault rifle(M2) in an era dominated by bolt actions, battle rifles, and near the end of its service life superior assault rifles/PDWs. Military doctrine was still fixed on arming grunts with full sized rifles through WW2 and Korea and while many soldiers and Marines who used the carbine loved it many didn’t, and while stories of the carbines successes where widespread so were stories of its failure and lack of “muh stopping power”, the most famous being in Korea stories of soldiers armed with M1s not being able to penetrate the heavy winter coats of chicoms, which I don’t think anyone really needs to explain is the fakest and gayest thing ever. Basically by the time big army realized that a semi/full auto intermediate cartridge rifle that takes 20rd+ magazines was very effective at killing there were already superior weapons such as the M16
Was it really an assault rifle, though? 30 carbine is pretty piss compared to 7.92 Kurz or 7.62x39.
.30 carbine is most comparable to .357 from a rifle iirc
A rifle firing .357 would be called a pistol caliber carbine, not an assault rifle
when did I say it was an assault rifle?
357 and 44mag give you the velocity of old western blackpowder rifles out of a pistol
the hottest 44-40 that used early dupont gunpowder was 200gr @ 1500fps
handgun loads are designed to burn quick to get the most muzzle velocity out of a short barrel. 9mm muzzle velocity for example peaks out of a 16 inch barrel and gradually falls off do to friction becomming the dominant force. Pistol caliber carbines are often very simple blowback designs for this very reason. Smokeless powder loads for rifles burn slower and let off more gas because they're designed for longer barrels and a gas operating system. They're just not that comparable
Do you know the peak barrel length/muzzle velocity for a .45 ACP? Been thinking of making a AR-45 ACP build.
>Do you know the peak barrel length/muzzle velocity for a .45 ACP?
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto2.html
http://ballisticsbytheinch.com/
so generally its about 16 inches as well save for a few cartridges like the Liberty Civil Defense
From the chart most of them really flatten out around 12 inches. Even beyond 6 inches the velocity gains go down. Its a round you could go quite short with if you wanted to. I think that would generally be more practical too as a pistol carbine.
The M2 was a select fire rifle that fired an intermediate cartridge and loaded from a removable magazine, and if you want extra brownie points the para version had a pistol grip, I'm not sure what more you’d want in the definition of an assault rifle
M1 was well liked in the pacific theater during WWII and Korea.
Who would've guessed that troops liked a lightweight gun with lightweight ammo and a larger magazine.
>I don't
>it wasn't (if anything it was adopted into too wide a roll
>intermediate rifle csliber carbine =/= pistol caliber carbine
I just like them anons. I don't wanna fight about my surp
Basically a handful of neverserveds in the 1970s and 1980s got alhold of bawdy shot-to-shit surplus guns that had been through three wars with two 30-year-old disposable GI mags on their hundredth reload, didn't check the feed lips or springs, and then pulled a "critical re-evaluation" out of their collective buttholes. The gun press of the time was even more of a Human Centipede-style echo chamber than the internet is right now. If you read the articles and memoirs by guys whose job it was to go out and fight they pretty much all fellate the M1, full stop. I've shot the absolute PISS out of a properly-maintained M1 carbine and I loved every second of it. Put over a 600 rounds through the thing in one afternoon. Which should already tell you a hell of a lot about why a combat man would like it.
>what did the M4 get right
Modernized cartridge, slightly better QC, much better magazines. By the time the M4 came out the army was no longer under the illusion that clips and mags were going to be disposed of in the field and started building them to a more robust spec. Obviously the M4 can take modern accessories as well. It's pretty hard to bring yourself to put rail on a $2000 collector's piece like the M1 when you can just buy a mini-thirty and accessorize that instead.
There were, and still are, plenty of M1s made for the civillian market to higher than military spec. The M1 I got my hands on was from the 70s and never saw a single war in its lifetime. Iirc its still the official rifle of the Civillian Marksmanship Program.
idk but they're pretty cool
Don't pretend like I don't see a Winchester pump action .22 up there
that's an old 1300 12 ga
middle is a Ruger .44 mag carbine
Every Winchester rifle made after 1964 basically has the same two piece stock and aluminum recievers
what the frick boomer bullshit have you been reading
>like 10 million made
>failure
Great grandpa hated the M1 carbine because whenever one was put in his hands it meant they were going house to house and he didn’t like killing people up close. Fought in Normandy and Belgium. Loved the Garand though apparently
Damn, what's his story on the front?
Didn’t talk about it much. All I know is he wasted some germans in a house right after D Day and he was shot 3 times in Belgium during what I assume was Germany’s last counteroffensive.
I mean, it was extremely light and better than a pistol, and that's all that was really needed of it, anything more than that was just good fortune.
>Why do you beleive the M1 Carbine was considered a (relative) failure in retrospect?
I really hate idiots like you.
>Why do you beleive the M1 Carbine was considered a (relative) failure in retrospect?
several million were produced
hardly a failure
>Underpowered cartridge?
more power than a .357 magnum
myth comes from using shoddy ammo on full-auto and missing
>Too niche of a combat role (too big to be a true sidearm while also considered too lightweight to be a true service rifle.etc)?
arming every single cook, truck driver, and radio-man with a gun was a pretty big niche
every squad got one or two for any one who had to carry a lot of utility equipment
>And what did the later M4 Carbine get right that the M1 didn't?
the army stopped caring about preserving peoples knees
If i was in ww2 i'd want one
>magazine
>light
>ok power
>light
>good sights, unlike notch and post
>did i mention its light and takes mags
But it wasn't, it was an excellent rearline weapon and it wasn't even supposed to be used for frontline combat but regularly found itself there anyway. It's only real shortcoming were it's relatively weak magazines and even then it still lasted in service until around Vietnam in some form or another.
Why didn't they use spitzer ammunition?
The only advantage to doing so would've been longer effective ranges but the M1 really was only designed for intermediate range in terms of accuracy. I imagine it was just cheaper to go with a standard round nose
I wish a company like magpul would invest the time to make a good polymer magazine for the M1. Its biggest issue is crummy mags
Holding the sling in place with an oil can in a little cutout in the stock was pretty weird and quirky. As far as I'm aware the gun really doesn't drink through gun oil or anything like that so its just an odd design decision
>As far as I'm aware the gun really doesn't drink through gun oil or anything like that so its just an odd design decision
It's two fast machining passes for the slot, pressing in one sleeve, and then looping the sling on it and punting it out the back door. The total operation should take about 10-20 seconds on a factory line.
Compare that to drilling two pilot holes, screwing in a more conventional sling mount, drilling a cavity for the oil bottle in the butt, putting in a sleeve, and then adding a multi-part trapdoor buttplate (which in itself adds at least four more machine operations) to hold the oil bottle.
Makes sense. Its just not something you see on other rifles
>six character captchas
oh no /k/ommandettes...
>true service rifle
That wasn't the purpose of the M1 Carbine.
The M1 Carbine was designed and conceived as a "more than pistol" arm for rear echelon troops.
With a slightly better cartridge, the M2 carbine could have been the first true assault rifle.
carbine and a 1911, thats all you need right there, any claimed operator using more is trouble or up to no good.
handy around the ranch carbine is more than enough gun for civilians.
I like how they made it look like a mini-14
>And what did the later M4 Carbine get right that the M1 didn't?
Real round instead if 7.62 eternal boomer idiocity.