What if: M1 Carbine were chambered for .30 Remington?
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Shortround6
Major General
Then it wouldn't be a .30 carbine.
Carbine was designed to replace the .45 pistol for troops whose main job (artillerymen, signalers, drivers,etc) made carring a full sized rifle too difficult. There was a definite weight limit and length limit in the original specification.
No .30 Remington rifle would meet the specifiaction.
Carbine was designed to replace the .45 pistol for troops whose main job (artillerymen, signalers, drivers,etc) made carring a full sized rifle too difficult. There was a definite weight limit and length limit in the original specification.
No .30 Remington rifle would meet the specifiaction.
- Thread starter
- #3
- Thread starter
- #5
No no no...
Not rechambering an M1 Carbine with a full power battle round.
What if the firearm was originally designed for .30 Remington
.30 Remington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would be a larger, heavier firearm.
The operating mechanism, scaled up, could very well have formed the basis of the first "assault rifle."
Not rechambering an M1 Carbine with a full power battle round.
What if the firearm was originally designed for .30 Remington
.30 Remington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would be a larger, heavier firearm.
The operating mechanism, scaled up, could very well have formed the basis of the first "assault rifle."
Last edited:
Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
It would have had the power of a .30-30 and it would've been more lethal.
Last edited:
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
The point is that it is redundant. We already had heavy battle rifles, so why? Chambered for .30 Carbine filled a definite niche, but the heavier round was superfluous.
- Thread starter
- #8
There are a lot of fun "what if" posts in the aircraft section, I ASSumed one would be appropriate here too.
Guess not.
The point is to explore the possibility if the operating mechanism design that developed into what was to be called the M1 carbine could have formed the basis of what came to be called an assault rifle.
Perhaps there is no way, regardless of how it was scaled up, the mechanism could have fulfilled this roll.
Or perhaps yes.
Guess not.
The point is to explore the possibility if the operating mechanism design that developed into what was to be called the M1 carbine could have formed the basis of what came to be called an assault rifle.
Perhaps there is no way, regardless of how it was scaled up, the mechanism could have fulfilled this roll.
Or perhaps yes.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The U.S. Army did not want an assault rifle during the WWII era. Otherwise they would have procured something similiar to the Mini 14 rather then the historical M1 Garand.
- Thread starter
- #10
Matt308
Glock Perfection
OK, forget it, this obviously won't work here
Perhaps a bit more enthusiasm in the defense of the "what if" and it might bait folks. Whatcha think?
You are talking about a round with half again as much energy. The intent of the M1 carbine was to give a rifle to an untrained user. Size was very important. So as soon as you start increasing barrel length, adding compensators, and beefing up the breach/bolt area to handle the extra stress... you are quickly creating a different animal that likely would not have matched the original premise.
Also of note is that the 30 Remington was yet another cartridge whose deveopment was made for lever action carbines where round nose bullets were required. Therefore, you are buying additional power, but not much range. Sure you can put a pointy thing in the case, but you can't exceed OAL. For if you did it wouldn't be a .30 Remington now would it. Thus you would have to load fairly light FMJBT and with the need to keep them short in length, ballistic coefficient would similarly suffer.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
The M1 carbine was issued to people who in other armies would likely be carrying a SMG or pistol. You cannot make either the weapon or the ammunition much heavier.
Personally I'm surprised the U.S. Army didn't chamber the M1 carbine for the .45cal pistol cartridge.
Personally I'm surprised the U.S. Army didn't chamber the M1 carbine for the .45cal pistol cartridge.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
I agree. However it introduces a new ammunition type into the army supply system. The .45cal round is already the standard SMG and pistol round. Might as well use it for the new carbine also.
diddyriddick
Staff Sergeant
The only problem there is that the .44 Magnum wasn't available till the 50s.
Shortround6
Major General
.44 Magnum is also about 10-15 years too new. It's rimmed case wouldn't be loked upon favorably by automatic weapons designers.
Since recoil is proportinal to momentum rather than energy the heavy bullets of the .44 Magnum aren't going to do much for full auto fire froma light rifle either.
Since recoil is proportinal to momentum rather than energy the heavy bullets of the .44 Magnum aren't going to do much for full auto fire froma light rifle either.
Doughboy
Staff Sergeant
That would defeat the purpouse....The M1 Carbine was made to give an officer a little bit more firepower and range....tht their side-arm didn't have.
Last edited:
Didn't think about that.
As stated already, the .30 Carbine is basically a pistol replacement. Unfortunately it looked like a rifle so people used it like one and thus gave it a bad reputation. At one point, I believe prototypes were chambered for something resembling a .223 Remington and it functioned well enough. Now THAT would be a good "Light Rifle" / Assault Rifle. The problem here though is that because of its design (check the way it is held together), the accuracy is severly limited.
Just my opinion regarding design and accuracy.
- Ivan.
Just my opinion regarding design and accuracy.
- Ivan.
