Charlie Martinez
Member
If the Thompson submachine gun was already in use during WWII why wasn't the M1 Carbine also chambered for 45 ACP instead of the a new & weaker 30 caliber M1 carbine round?
M1 Carbine in 45 ACP
- Thread starter Charlie Martinez
- Start date
- Status
Bwana John
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2004
- Messages
- 2,960
Weaker? Not so sure about that.
Lighter? Most defenitly! Ever actually picked up a Thompson?
How about trajectory at ranges farther than 100 yds?
I'd take a 30 cal M1 or M2 carbine anyday over a M1928 or M1 Thompson or M3 .
The M3 Grease Gun was the replacement for a 45cap subgun. Lighter, cheaper, faster to build. Less strategic materials used.
Lighter? Most defenitly! Ever actually picked up a Thompson?
How about trajectory at ranges farther than 100 yds?
I'd take a 30 cal M1 or M2 carbine anyday over a M1928 or M1 Thompson or M3 .
The M3 Grease Gun was the replacement for a 45cap subgun. Lighter, cheaper, faster to build. Less strategic materials used.
Last edited:
Tommygunn
Member
The .30 Carbine round was superior to the .45 acp. In WW2, some Japanese troops (usually officers) wore a type of plate metal body armor. .45 ACP wouldn't penetrate it, so a Japanese soldier shot with a Thompson would be knocked breathless but could survive unless head-shot or seriously wounded in a vulnerable area. The .30 carbine (and .30-'06 of course) both went through.
Interestingly, the Thompson might have been redesigned to use the .30 carbine round. But the famed Tommygun's days were numbered; the M3 "Greasegun" superceded it so the .30 carbine version never appeared, instead the M2 Carbine was introduced, which gave full auto to a lighter more pointable longarm.
And yes, The Thompson is a heavy klutz of a gun .....
Interestingly, the Thompson might have been redesigned to use the .30 carbine round. But the famed Tommygun's days were numbered; the M3 "Greasegun" superceded it so the .30 carbine version never appeared, instead the M2 Carbine was introduced, which gave full auto to a lighter more pointable longarm.
And yes, The Thompson is a heavy klutz of a gun .....
And completely uncontrollable due to the very light weight of the Carbine and very silly high Rate of Fire......instead the M2 Carbine was introduced, which gave full auto to a lighter more pointable longarm.
And yes, The Thompson is a heavy klutz of a gun .....
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
Have you ever actually been able to try an old M2? While they are not tack drivers in full auto they were VERY good for what they were made for. Here is one example of a small woman shooting one. When they let her try it full auto she has no problems with it.
Having fired a Thompson M1a1, the recoil isn't bad. It is controllable. Too bad it is a dammed boat anchor.
Also many years ago I made the mistake of buying a semi auto Thompson. An even worse boat anchor. No full auto to compensate for the 11 pounds and unwieldy barrel.
The M2 i got a chance to fire about 20 years ago also wasn't bad. It also fires a cartridge that is like a .357+p mag. Very controllable.
I'd take a M1 or M2 any day over a Thompson.
The ammo is lighter, flatter shooting, has greater penetration and generally more accurate.
Also many years ago I made the mistake of buying a semi auto Thompson. An even worse boat anchor. No full auto to compensate for the 11 pounds and unwieldy barrel.
The M2 i got a chance to fire about 20 years ago also wasn't bad. It also fires a cartridge that is like a .357+p mag. Very controllable.
I'd take a M1 or M2 any day over a Thompson.
The ammo is lighter, flatter shooting, has greater penetration and generally more accurate.
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
Yes sadly the Kahr version of the Thomson always left something to be desired especially at the price point they sell for, damn. The originals were easy to use because of the weight and the open bolt. The weight of the weapon and ammo was always a drag on troops who had to carry one. If I was to win the lotto I would move to where I could have some NFA stuff again and an M3 and an M2 would be on my list to buy. Both were a lot of fun to play around with.
I agree with all the responses, that being said...an M1 carbine, if produced today chambered in 45, would be a hoot to shoot. It would make an excellent pdw for home defense. It would be a handsome looking firearm, unlike the fugly hi point pcc. Unfortunately, it would likely be 3x the cost of the hi point. And, there would be some issues, mags for example. I'm not sure you could get a double stack 45 mag to work with the available real estate of an m1 carbine, and single stack mags would severely limit capacity.
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
I personally love PCC's. Always have. I was a fan boy for decades when they would come and go. Now last many years they have seen a huge resurgence. I currently have 2 AR's in 9mm one pistol version one full size, a Kel-Tec S2K in 9mm, Ruger Carbine in 9mm, and a couple of the Carbines made by a place in OR. They will use 9mm, 10mm, and .45ACP depending on how I set them up. The one thing they all have in common is they all use the same mags, Glock. The Ruger is easy to see made with the idea of more calibers later and they already have now started making it in .40S&W. If they offer it in 10MM or 45 I will probably have to have another one. This design is fairly close to what an M-1 in other calibers would be like. I have long wished someone would make some wood furniture for my Ruger to give it that M-1 "look".
I've grown to love 9mm carbines.
The Thompson is the only one that made me regret it.
Hell even the kp31 semi i have is a boat anchor but it at least has cheap drum magazines and 30 round magazines that are cheap.
Ain't nothing cheap for a Thompson. The semi I had wouldn't feed anything but ball.
The kp31 gobbled up even my cheapest cast lead loads like nothing.
The Thompson is the only one that made me regret it.
Hell even the kp31 semi i have is a boat anchor but it at least has cheap drum magazines and 30 round magazines that are cheap.
Ain't nothing cheap for a Thompson. The semi I had wouldn't feed anything but ball.
The kp31 gobbled up even my cheapest cast lead loads like nothing.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Marlin made a Camp .45 which took 1911 mags. They were pretty scantly built, however, and will tear themselves up if the buffer isnt changed regularly.
Interestingly, Army Ordnance toyed with the idea of converting some of the old single-heat treated 1903 Springfield receivers into .45 carbines,. but the plan never got beyond the prototype stage.
Interestingly, Army Ordnance toyed with the idea of converting some of the old single-heat treated 1903 Springfield receivers into .45 carbines,. but the plan never got beyond the prototype stage.
Speedo66
Member
Life must be sad when your only contribution to it is to allow your main asset to be filmed while you fire a gun and smile for the camera.
OK, enough philosophy for today. Carbines are great, Thompsons not so much, I think that about sums it up.
Heavy has no place in the woods, let alone a battlefield. Even full sized Uzi's with a wood stock are way too heavy.
For their designed application, a light replacement for pistols that soldiers could actually hit something with, Carbines worked well.
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Along time ago when I was young (20) , health and physically fit I found myself a participant in the South East Asia games as a medic. (Hence the handle"Doc")
I absolutely hated the M-16 (a story for another thread.)
In its stead I "secured" an M-2 carbine and a bunch of mags and ammo, from our pathetic South Vietnamese allies.
Light, reliable, 30 cal.goodness saved me and my patients a few times from Charlie's aggressive misbehavior.
I absolutely hated the M-16 (a story for another thread.)
In its stead I "secured" an M-2 carbine and a bunch of mags and ammo, from our pathetic South Vietnamese allies.
Light, reliable, 30 cal.goodness saved me and my patients a few times from Charlie's aggressive misbehavior.
Charlie98
Member
I've always wondered why no one made a 10mm or .45ACP version of the M1 carbine, and I wouldn't be opposed to a 9mm version. Yes, the Marlins were close, but as was mentioned... they had parts issues. Ruger came pretty close with the PCC, but in typical Ruger fashion they buggered it up... and that only in 9mm.
Neat. I had no idea that a rifle barely a little over 5 lb with a 750 rpm on full auto was controllable at all...
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
They have it in .40 now too. I keep hoping they will offer it in 10MM and .45 later. If they come out with it in either 10mm or .45 I will have to get another.
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
30 carbine hits like a 357 coming out of a rifle barrel. I don't see why you'd step that back to 45 ACP - even in a really light gun, the recoil and noise aren't objectionable at all.
Heck, I had an M1 carbine that had a habit of doubling/tripling shots - little bit of an M2 simulator. It was always a surprise because you never knew if you were going to get one shot per trigger pull or three, but keeping control of it during a 3 shot burst was never an issue. If you told me "this gun is going to go full auto, hose down a target 50-100 yards away", it would have been cake.
Heck, I had an M1 carbine that had a habit of doubling/tripling shots - little bit of an M2 simulator. It was always a surprise because you never knew if you were going to get one shot per trigger pull or three, but keeping control of it during a 3 shot burst was never an issue. If you told me "this gun is going to go full auto, hose down a target 50-100 yards away", it would have been cake.
Jim Watson
Member
There was an outfit that converted M1 Carbines to .45 Win Mag. An unaltered 15 round .30 magazine would hold 7 or 8 .45s.
A rare objective gunzine article found it reliable only with 230 gr ball.
There were hints that the round was up into the Carbine's safety margin and they tended to blow up every once in a while.
A rare objective gunzine article found it reliable only with 230 gr ball.
There were hints that the round was up into the Carbine's safety margin and they tended to blow up every once in a while.
I would not hold your breath waiting on Ruger to produce a different PCC capable of using 45/10mm.
I've talked to a couple of Ruger engineers and was told at the time, 2018, their internal market research showed that such a thing was not economically viable.
Jim Watson
Member
CMMG and Flint River make .45 carbines. Prices are high and I suspect the market is small.
Alex Clayton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2020
- Messages
- 789
Yes the AR style carbines CMMG makes are VERY nice. One of them in 10mm is VERY tempting. Only reason I have not bought one yet is price. I keep hoping Ruger may offer theirs in that caliber for much less. The first one, 9mm was such a hit it took me a good long while to be able to lay hands on one. Even then I had to buy it off one of the auctions. When I went to my dealer to tell him it was on the way he said he had been trying real hard to get one for 6months and could not. Now they started in with it in .40, so keep hoping they will later come out with it in 10mm.
Already have one Carbine from TNW that will shoot both 10mm and .45. If Ruger ever comes out with one I will re-home the TNW
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Iver Johnson made a few 9mm M1 carbines, I dont recall what they used for magazines. Chiappa currently sells one, but it is mostly cheesey plastic. I handled one and handed it back quickly, in disgust.
Tommygunn
Member
I bought a Kahr Thompson M1A1 style back in February. Haven't gotten to shoot it due to first, range was closed then Covid19 hit us. The instructions say only use ball ammo. I have to wonder if originals would choke on hollow points or not?
I bought mine for a fun range toy, not really for anything serious. For me ball ammo would be just fine.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
