just for fun.....Fantasy ww2 weapons

[SPEMack618]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

Extended mags for 1911s would be easy to make, all one needs is longer sheet metal and springs, and of course machines and knowhow, but it certainly wouldn't be impossible for the day and age. As far as .45 ACP being a problem, one could make at least a 15 round mag and it wouldn't be too long.

I don't know...I would be hesitant to carry such an extended magazine sticking out of the weapon like that. Afraid I would bang it on something and have a failure to feed in a critical situation. That's why they taught us never to tape two mags together "jungle style".

[Yournamehere]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

I don't know...I would be hesitant to carry such an extended magazine sticking out of the weapon like that. Afraid I would bang it on something and have a failure to feed in a critical situation. That's why they taught us never to tape two mags together "jungle style".

Fair enough, but the point is it could have been made to fill that particular personal defense niche.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Unless it's supposed to be clip fed

I want an M1 Carbine chambered in .45

An M1 Carbine in .45 ACP wouldn't have the velocity or energy to be effective (on paper at least) at the ranges of one chambered in .30 Carbine, granted the weapon wouldn't be in a proprietary caliber anymore.

[Excalibur]

You sure? I've seen demos on how the .45 ACP fired from the 1911 had greater power than the .30 caliber carbine.

[Yournamehere]

In terms of velocity and energy, no, the .30 Carbine is much faster and has more energy behind it. I read info everywhere that says it's a very puny round, and perhaps within a stones throw, or in a lab shooting something at point blank range, the .45 ACP is better, but out past that at excess of 50-100 yards or further, the .45 won't be very effective, and perhaps neither will the .30 Carbine, but the .30 Carbine will at least have better ballistic efficiency out to those ranges making hits easier.

[Excalibur]

So you're saying close range weapon, the .30 Carbine would beat the Tommy when it comes to fire power

[Spades of Columbia]

Originally Posted by Yournamehere

In terms of velocity and energy, no, the .30 Carbine is much faster and has more energy behind it. I read info everywhere that says it's a very puny round, and perhaps within a stones throw, or in a lab shooting something at point blank range, the .45 ACP is better, but out past that at excess of 50-100 yards or further, the .45 won't be very effective, and perhaps neither will the .30 Carbine, but the .30 Carbine will at least have better ballistic efficiency out to those ranges making hits easier.

Thats a little misleading...The .30 is only pushing a 110gr bullet out of a conciderably long barrel in terms of ballistics and busting velocity...were most of the testing on a 45 acp is out of a 5" barrel with much much heavier bullets. If you would make a +P 185gr .45ACP bullet and shoot it out of a longer barrel like the m1 carbine has then i think you would be a little bit more impressed with your accuracy distance, velocity, and energy knock down.

[Yournamehere]

I cross referenced a velocity/energy chart on another site where they shoot different loads out of different barrel lengths, and .45 ACP still didn't put out that much more velocity or energy when fired out of a 16 inch barrel, or at least it wasn't close to the .30 Carbines output. And within the parameters of this thread, there would not have been a 185 grain +P round in that time, only 230 grain military ball.

And again, this is all just in theory with numbers on paper. When you have people like Hickok45 shooting handguns at 230 yards and hitting, this kind of stuff all goes out the window. I'm only trying to rationalize or figure out why the DoD chambered it in .30 Carbine and not .45 ACP at the time.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

So you're saying close range weapon, the .30 Carbine would beat the Tommy when it comes to fire power

No, I'm saying the opposite, the .45 will probably do better at closer range, and I base that on its heavier weight bullet and much lower velocity, and because of the latter, lessened risk of overpenetration next to the .30 Carbine, but for the intended use behind the M1 Carbine, close range is only one factor. They wanted a light weapon useable to ranges out to 300 yards, which the Thompson was not, and so for the niche that needed to be filled, the M1 Carbine was much better suited.

[k9870]

The m1 carbine is horribly overrated. It was s atep up for scouts or rear troops who had originally been given pistols and needed a light but better powered weapon, but it should never have been issued as a main infantry rifle, the 30 carbine ball was a horrible manstopper and the thing was not accurate at range, 100 yards is a realistic estimate, not 300.