[JonM]

Originally Posted by JTJ

My brother was a combat engineer in Korea during the hostilities. He fired 15 rounds from an M1 Carbine into the chest of a charging enemy soldier on a bridge. It was winter, he did not miss and the enemy soldier did not go down. The man next to him dropped him with 1 round from a Garand. My brother traded off his M1 Carbine for a Thompson and never had the same problem again. He said when he hit them with the 45 they went down. He did not mention how many rounds he used with the 45. The Thompson also had a longer barrel and therefore more power. It was hard to get him to talk about combat in Korea but he credited the Thompson with saving his butt on more than one occasion.
I believe Myth Busters did an show on the carbine and said it was bull but I have heard several 1st hand stories of carbines not taking out the enemy in the winter. I have personally had 30 carbine rounds ricochet off of a 55 gallon drum at 50 yds while the 1911 45 ACP would punch holes.

the 30 carbine is an very weak rifle cartridge. its equivelant to 9mm in power levels. however it was never designed to be a battle rifle. it was designed to be a replacement for pistols for rear echelon troops that were not liekly to see combat. pistols were time consuming to make carbines were quick and easy.

the problem with the round wasnt an issue until the morons in charge started issuing the things to front line troops.

they are VERY fun to shoot on a range or plinking.

[JTJ]

I have always wondered why they did not make a 45ACP carbine instead of adding another round to the supply mix. A lot of grease guns were issued later on but they were short barreled. A 16" or 18" carbine would have been nasty weapon. They could have also made a rimless 357 mag. Now that would be interesting. I would like to see a 9mm round on the on the AR platform. I am talking about the same length as the 5.45 round not a Luger.

[JonM]

Originally Posted by JTJ

I have always wondered why they did not make a 45ACP carbine instead of adding another round to the supply mix. A lot of grease guns were issued later on but they were short barreled. A 16" or 18" carbine would have been nasty weapon. They could have also made a rimless 357 mag. Now that would be interesting. I would like to see a 9mm round on the on the AR platform. I am talking about the same length as the 5.45 round not a Luger.

i think it was weight issue and construction issue. the thompson m1 is a really heavy gun that takes a lot of intricate machining, direct blowback tend to be heavy. they wanted a lightweight carbine that was easy to produce with few parts. if you look at the carbine its either blocky parts or circular parts neither of which take many machine passes to create. the cartridge was designed to be low powered as to not stress the gun and be light to carry.

for the intended use it wasnt going to be used very much so supply wasnt that much of a concern at the time. the ammo was lighter round for round so shipping was easier than tossing in more 45acp. the thinking of the time was different than logistic theory today.

our supply lines were super efficient compaired to german russian or japanese.

thats my thoughts on it but im prolly not right.

[JTJ]

The Thompsons were a machine while the grease guns were functional. I think the Thompson weighs about 4 lbs more than the carbine. I would bet a better system could be developed today if Kel-Tec hasn't already done so. I dont believe the P3AT is a true blow back.

[JonM]

with modern plastics and polymers instead of wood that a guarantee. in fct you can easily turn the AR15 into a light weight 45acp carbine if you want to.