just for fun.....Fantasy ww2 weapons

[Yournamehere]

When you get down to strict accuracy and what a gun is capable of, Hickok45 will disprove just about anything, and the range of 300 yards is an unrealistic maximum, but its a maximum nonetheless.

For the niche it was made to fill, it was as you said a "step up" from its alternatives like a lone pistol or one of the other unsuitable primary weapons of our Armed Forces of the time though, though as a strict "primary weapon", I don't think I'd take it in place of an M1 Garand or Thompson. But the argument of it being a horrible manstopper to me are complete rumor until I see some legitimate reports of some sort, though, and they don't weigh in on my thoughts on the gun or caliber itself, especially next to a potential .45 variant which would probably be worse.

[Excalibur]

Yeah, but hasn't the M1 carbine proven to be horribly underpowered in combat?

[k9870]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Yeah, but hasn't the M1 carbine proven to be horribly underpowered in combat?

Yes. Ive heard .30 carbine jsp ammo makes great small game hunting ammo but the ball ammo was awful. Id rather have a m1 carbine than just a 1911 but id take a garand, bar or thomson over the carbine any day.

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by k9870

Yes. Ive heard .30 carbine jsp ammo makes great small game hunting ammo but the ball ammo was awful. Id rather have a m1 carbine than just a 1911 but id take a garand, bar or thomson over the carbine any day.

In terms of weight, I'd take the M1 Carbine over the others. It only weighs five or six pounds, and a magazine loaded with 15 rounds weighs less than the other fully loaded mags. In terms of putting out a good volume of fire and not being weighed down too much, it has the advantage there. Most combat is more about supression than simply popping heads 300 yards out.

What I fail to see is why the .30 Carbine round is knocked so. It's a pistol caliber, and compared to rounds like the 9mm or 7.62x25mm Tokarov of the time, it was an effective bullet to put out of a rifle barrel, it had some extra powder behind it. If a bullet has enough in it to punch through a person, it did it's job. Bleeding, injury, and death can still occur. And if you can carry so many 15 round magazines for it, it does what needs being done.

In later years, old age made them less sound, but at the time they were extremely reliable, and for most firefight ranges it could hit it's mark (During the Normandy invasion, a lot of house to house fighting in French towns was a good place for it.)

[k9870]

It is a pistol caliber, being used in a rifle.....and weight....whatever, now a days you have 40 pouds of body armor, back the they wore a coat. They can take 3 more pounds of rifle, and good luck penetgrating a wall or vehicle with a pistol round.

[Mandolin1]

Half the M1 carbine's problem was coming out in an age in which 7.62 NATO, considered a "full-power rifle round" today, would be thought underpowered compared to German 7.92x57, Russian 7.62x54, the US 7.62x63 (.30'06) and others like them. The 30. carbine round is, according to Wikipedia, 7.62x36mm, placing it well out of the pistol range of 19-25mm long casings (only the 5.7x28 and 4.6x30 are longer. Seems 25mm is about the length limit for pistol rounds) and closer to the 7.92x33 Kurtz and 7.62x39 in power, though, admittadly the .30 carbine round is round-nose rather than pointed and the casing is strait. Still, .30 carbine is NOT a pistol round. Yes, some pistols are chambered. Still dosn't make it a pistol round.

The above issue bugs me almost as much as the whole "M1 Garnad ping got guys killed/used fake ping to expose enemies" nonsense.

[Yournamehere]

I believe the "underpowered" nature of the .30 Carbine is, like a lot of commentary in the gun world, pure rumor, and I'll think that until I see extensive reports saying otherwise. On paper, of course it's weaker that the full powered rounds, but by no means is it weak, from a ballistic point of view. And, again, it accomplished what the military needed it to, so no complaints. Stacking it against actual battle rifles is unfair though.

There's also this for what it's worth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ktaTbgQsU

Not sure at what range that is, but that's 6 layers of wet denim, and a 6 inch wooden block, and it goes clean through, so anything on penetration I'll about dismiss. If you say it's underpowered too, you have to say that the .45, which is ballistically weaker, is also underpowered, and the ever potent 7.62 Tokarev, is underpowered too.

[k9870]

Stacking it against actual battle rifles is unfair though.

Not when it was slated to do same job its not....

It was good in its original role (scout/rear echelon rifle) but then it tried to fill the battle rifle role, which was stupid.

[Yournamehere]

As if the gun acted of its own accord... the military rotated it into that role after nations were trying to phase out the several guns they would issue for specific roles for all around guns like the FAL and AK47. Even so, during the WWII era, it was built for a specific role, filled that role and perhaps then some. Comparing it to a main battle rifle during that era isn't fair, it wasn't supposed to be that during the time period.