nody
Member
Join Date: July 18, 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 39
Little surprised by all the fans of the M1 Carbine. Crummy little round, short range weapon, little knock down power. Only of any use for close range fighting.
Talking what you'd prefer to carry into combat, if you are thinking M1/M2 up through Korea, I'd rather have a Thompson, though for this discussion, that's not a rifle and it does weigh more.
As a peacetime civilian owner the Carbine has economical advantages. So does a 10/22.
I think a lot of GI's liked the Carbine because they were city folk and afraid of recoil/noise/weight/complexity of the Garand. Not to mention they liked their thumbs. The ammo was lighter to hump, too.
Where did I just read it? Once an Eagle, by Anton Myrer. A must read novel for you guys. In the intro, Myrer, an Marine infantry veteran, says it is a fact a large percentage of men in combat NEVER fire at the enemy, can't bring themselves to do it. Call it "spray and pray" or what you will. They figure making noise is enough. I wasn't there, so maybe I'd do the same thing.
The carbine was light and makes noise, and that is enough for some perhaps. I can't say. I'm a vet, but I dropped bombs and only in peacetime.
p.s. Great pic, CZGuy
Last edited by nody; Yesterday at 08:42 PM.
At least with the Carbine the Non-Proficient shooter could hit something. The same could not always be said for their prowess with a 1911