Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
I've always thought the M-1 Carbine is a bit underrated in the grand scheme of firearms history. It was innovative, but suffered from a lack of a suitable cartridge. I've found it telling that the Germans were very fond of them, issuing out captured ones in great quantity.
Not quite an assault rifle, but on the verge of one.
However, I feel the urge to quote Stephen Hunter, via his proxy Earl Lee Swagger, the .30 Carbine wasn't worth a cuss, and Earl Lee made it a point never to trust a man who carried one.
|
If looked at as a sub-rifle or submachine gun (which it technically was, as the .30 Carbine is a pistol round), the M1 Carbine is a very effective design. It's light, reliable, accurate, and the .30 carbine bullet has similar stopping power to a .45 at closer ranges. But being looked at as a rifleman's weapon, it doesn't really meet the requirements. The M2 Carbine, if addressed as a submachine gun, would have really been effective issued in higher numbers.
My martial arts teacher fought in Vietnam for special forces, and he had a knack for modifying guns (even after he left service, he continued to smith other's guns and ship them back) and built an M2 Carbine with a cut-down barrel (he relocated the sights) and a para-stock. He said for run and gunning, it was extremely effective.
I think the M1 Carbine should be rebuilt to modern standards today. A lot of the war bring backs from WWII/Korea/Vietnam are beat up, and the top cover of the forends are the first thing to wear out. I shot my dad's M1 that was issued during WWII, rearsenaled for Vietnam, captured by the NVA, and recaptured by the US (as far as the marking tell), the forend top flew off the gun when I shot it.
If someone made a modern one, say in stainless steel with a re-designed forend, it'd be a pretty nice weapon.