Why ".30" carbine???

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, right now let's stop the thread hijacking.

This thread is NOT about the M4/5.56 round.

You want to discuss that, find another thread, or start your own.

I repeat, this thread is NOT about the M4/5.56.

Any more posts going into great detail about how and why the 5.56 is the worst thing since sliced bread and I'll clean EVERYTHING out of the thread that isn't related to .30 Carbine.

I should have issued this warning earlier, but I didn't. But I am now.
 
The .30 carbine (I believe) was what they usually gave the paratroopers to use and in WWII. My dad (fought for the army in the Pacific) used one (motor pool) and also in other pics he has a Thompson .45 sub-machine gun with the big round magazine. He said when he hit one of the enemy (banzai charge) running at full speed towards them with that Thompson it would knock them clean off their feet.... backwards.
 
warbirdlover,

The Paratroopers were issued some Carbines, a special one developed for them, the M1A1. It had a folding metal wire stock and a pistol grip. There was even a holster for it. The Carbine would fit in it with the stock folded. There are a LOT of rigger made ammo pouches and holsters out there for them, but it's hard to determine which are fakes. They were used in both the D-Day jumps and Op Market Garden. I'm not really sure how many were made or what numbers they were used in. I do know Inland was the only company that made them leaving the others to do M1 and M2 Carbines.

I bet that Thompson did eat 'em up. Looked more like bowling than a Banzai attack I'm sure. Do you know what unit he was in and which operations he participated in?

Almost forgot there are two excellent books on the Carbine, "War Baby" and "War Baby Comes Home" by Larry L. Ruth. I am still learning about the Carbines and these books have helped me quite a bit. There are more out there but these seem to be the ones most recommended by the Carbine experts. I'm still nowhere near an expert on them yet. My specialty is the Garand.
 
Summary: Why .30 and not some other diameter? Smaller would have meant too light a bullet. Larger would have meant problems in mag capacity and weight of receiver. As designed, it made a good package--as many have noted since the end of military use. It pretty much functioned as intended, which is generall a sign of success.

Four pages is enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top