101combatvet
New member
And the supposed 'complaints' have been factually refuted since rational thought was applied.
And how many days were you in combat with one?
And the supposed 'complaints' have been factually refuted since rational thought was applied.
Yes, because it was light, held more ammo. was semi auto, and found to be highly effective in combat.
There, I fixed it for you.
(you can't pick & choose some facts over others)
And how many days were you in combat with one?
Cite one...Sometimes the carbine worked really, really well in combat, sometimes it didn't. Most guns are like that. Lots of stories of failures, and while some of the failures are facts
There are a great many documented, fully vetted failure examples involving the Colt M/556 platform across multiple wars going back decades, so many in fact that there have been numerous studies, developments, design changes, etc, etc, etc.often the reason given isn't, and still it becomes legend.
I've never forgot...Remember what you are looking at
You're right, they are not equal, the .30 out of the the M1 Carbine exceeds the ballistics by a relatively wide margin. Out of common pistol lengths (where people rave about the effectiveness of the Magnum) the .357 produces about half the energy of the .30 Carbine. It isn't until you get close to the 200 neighborhood where the .30 drops enough in velocity to start to be comparable to the .357 at the muzzle.a .30 caliber round that is close, but isn't quite the equal of the .357 Magnum.
I haven't 'considered' it anything other than what it is.You can consider the .30 Carbine
I never asserted it was...I don't think the .30 Carbine round is the round of the future
As was the case in 1945... what's your point?there are a great many things available today that outperform it, in a great many ways
tbm900 said:Now with that said, name another military vetted semi-auto weapon that is as light, as compact, as rugged, as simple, and as fast, with equal/superior ballistics, is as efficient, all while producing equal/less recoil, flash, and muzzle blast, to the M1 Carbine.
Oh yippie... right into the non sequitur
Care to debate some actual specific aspect?
If so, feel free to bring one up.
(then I may answer your irrelevant question and may even provide the results)
M4 Carbine. Also cheaper, and the guns and ammo are much more available.
You're right, they are not equal, the .30 out of the the M1 Carbine exceeds the ballistics by a relatively wide margin. Out of common pistol lengths (where people rave about the effectiveness of the Magnum) the .357 produces about half the energy of the .30 Carbine. It isn't until you get close to the 200 neighborhood where the .30 drops enough in velocity to start to be comparable to the .357 at the muzzle.
The concept has evolved into the M4 carbine and it's SF variants.
Are you actually saying that the M1 evolved into the M4
That may have been it's intent, the reality is it was pressed into many frontline rolls, which is IMHO part of the reason for "inneffectiveness" reports.The M1 was mostly a replacement for the 1911A1, it did serve that purpose well by increasing max effective range beyond 50 meters.
As much as I like the little carbine, I dought it's the next big thing. I did find something funny, 45 colt fits into the M1carbine mags just fine.