M1 Carbine in 45 ACP

Not open for further replies.
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. [/b]
............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.

Ha ha! Many years ago as a kid I asked my father, a Navy vet who served in the Korean War, if he'd ever used a Thompson. IIRC we were watching a WW2 tv show which prompted the querry. He said only at a range in San Diego, so I asked what he thought of them. He paused a second and said, "they'd have made great anchors for those rubber zodiac boats we ran around in."
As I said in the above post I bought a Kahr Thompson, plus I've handled real ones (but never fired one unfortunatly) so I "get it" about the anchor analogy.;)

It's still a really cool gun though.:thumbup:
Jim Watson,

Yep Buddy of mine was all excited about getting a carbine converted to .451, with a fairly low round count the receiver cracked. I believe he said it only functioned reliably with 7 rounds in a 15 round stick (hah. hah, you thought I was going to say clip!) before the big failure.

My biggest beef was that if it could be made in .451 wouldn't it have made more sense to make it in .45 ACP?

I like M1 Carbines and I like them in .30 Carbine.

As a civilian I can shoot FMJ when punching holes in paper and junk and switch over to SP or HP when I think about Home Defense Or I can look at the over 90 percent One Shot Stops Marshal and Sanow's research found on GI Ball in police and civilian shootings and not worry about it, war stories or not.

So everyone and their brother has cloned the 1911 pistol....so, they have been around 50 years, how about the Ruger Mini-14 as the basis for a 10mm or .451 Carbine?

You should have seen a guys face when he commented that the Barrel on his StG44 was shot out and I suggested rebarrelling it in .44 AutoMag! I thought it would be neat, he thought I was crazy. I wonder what Col Jeff Cooper would have thought if it had been rebarrelled and had "Thumper" engraved on the new barrel?

Before the Carbine came along the Thompson SMG WAS hot stuff. Time just marched on. The biggest issue with it was folks tended to forget it was select fire. They tended to always shoot full auto. Most fired burst that were too long as well. I have bounced paint buckets regularly at 100 yards with a 1928 standing and hit them at 200 from the prone with the selector set on semi. Never got to shoot one beyond 200 but with those Lyman Ladder sights I would not be surprised to regularly ring 55 gallon drums out to 400 meters if I guessed the range right and set the sights properly. (like say in a defensive position) Still it and the ammo weighed a bunch, but if nothing lighter and with lighter ammo was available.....

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.
Well the M3 Grease Gun had rather dumb arsed magazine pattern after the British Sten. Would didn't the designers simply reused the M1 Thompson Stick Magazines?
Reising .45acp carbines, especially the folding stock versions were all the rage for MG shoots a couple decades back as they were found to be pretty accurate on FA up to 50 or so yards and relatively cheap.. The Swedish K I managed to get ahold of in Nam one tour would hit you at 200 yards without any problem, the M3 .45 grease gun I had for a while first tour was not up to that, It was a under 100 yard gun. I never was interested in M1 or M2 Carbines in nam, for unknown reasons. Maybe because I grew up with them around the house, including one in the rear enclosed porch of our farm house . I used one extensively from 45-60 YO as a ranch slaugfhter gun and found it about ideal for the purpose. THEN I discovered the CAR 5.56. Took a decade for me to sort it out to perfection and a short AR beats them all for such purposes IMHO.
I just bought a new Ruger Charger PCC in 9mm and put an Aim Point M2 on it , with no stock yet, and it is compact and fun. Hits shilos to 200 yards , completely reliable , cheap to feed , uses Glock Mags , has moderate recoil (!) which is surprising as it isn't that light . In the same size package (almost) I can have 5.56 Range and power , or .300 Blackout ! Heck I could have .458 SOCOM (But I stick to 16" in that ) and knowing how to make a short AR run reliably is no longer a secret.
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.

That is nice. Beautiful lines, curves. Very graceful and easy to hold at full auto. The guns not bad either.....
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. ...
o_O :scrutiny:

Heck, I had to watch it twice because on the first go'round I kept forgetting that I was supposed be watching the M2.

And, yes, I am also "sad" ... but I'm still smiling from watching that little video. ;)
My guess is that the M1 would have to be so fortified and reconfigured to handle the round it would no longer really be an M1. Besides they already had the Tommy in production with dies and plans so why bother pouring any R&D into it during a big war? Doing stuff like that arguably COST the Germans the war. So much for Progressivism.
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.

Now that you mention it... I think I handled a used one of those over at Cabelas about 6-months ago. I was not impressed with the build of it, which is probably why I don't remember it right off hand.
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.
The couple originals I have shot fed literally anything in the correct caliber as long as the mags were serviceable. They fired from an open bolt and the feed was strait into the chamber as with all the old open bolt designs. Hopefully your Kahr will function fine. Many do. The sad part was many did not as from the factory. If they do not they normally can be made to work, it's just at the price point they sell them for it seemed they could do a little better in the QA department. They had the same problem with the .30 Carbine clones they make. Sadly many get one that just does not want to work. They of course can be fixed but that still often would leave a bad taste in the mouth of the person who bought one at the price they sell for. So in any case when you can get yours to the range here's to hoping it will be reliable fun
As for M1 Carbines, like the Trapdoor Springfields on another thread, you can get a sound original for the price of a good reproduction... so far.

Having shot real Thompsons, I fail to see the attraction of a semiautomatic version.
Actually, having shot real Thompsons and other full autos, my itch is scratched and I would not buy one at even the pre-1986 semi-free market price.
Isn't the Ruger Mini 14 a kinda M1 carbine clone ? Seems closer to that than an M14 to me.
The story I read one time quoted Bill Sr as saying the idea for the Mini came from a driver who was taking him somewhere one time. Guy was asking him if it would be possible to chamber the old M14 in the at that time new .556. So Bill thought about it and set out to do so. Even though the finished product became known to shoot patterns instead of groups it still made quite a hit. Even when the price of a decent AR went to half what the Mini sells for the Mini still kept on selling. So was quite an idea. Was just a damn shame it took so long to get them to not throw patterns.
Well the M3 Grease Gun had rather dumb arsed magazine pattern after the British Sten. Would didn't the designers simply reused the M1 Thompson Stick Magazines?
The Thompson mags were really pretty clunky affairs, as first generation SMGs The stick mags were double colum but single-feed. The Hyde M2 used the same mags to try and simplify production.

The M3 mags were also double-stack single feed, which the M3A1 addressed by having a mag loader built into the stock.
Really, very few SMGs ever knuckled down to the mechanical complexity that allows double-feed magazines.The Sterling solved that riddle, and very, very elegantly, too.

The bolt geometry needs careful design to accept rounds from either side of a feeding device.

With all the issues that Remlin is having of late, I would love for somebody--KelTec, Desert Tech, K-T, whoever--to recreate the Camp Carbines. Just in a delayed blowback (lever, roller, whatever) form rather than Marlin's original straight blowback (which would help with the battered buffer issue). (Mind, the materials science makes the Blackhawk buffers substantially better than the delrin/nylon Marlin used.) In may perfect world, the mag wells would be interchangeable as much as possible, which would boost sales.

I still have my first generation Camp 45 and have no plans to part with it, even if it does have the wonky hold-open that falls out wile your are reassembling it.
The Carbine was designed to WOUND-- kill a guy and he is just dead. Wound him and it will take a couple other guys out of action to carry him out. Or so I was told long ago. :)

You were told wrong.

The Carbine was meant to replace the handgun and often used at handgun ranges. Yes, the Army did say its maximum effective range was 275 yards (Max Effective Range is that range at which the average soldier can obtain 50 percent or greater hits on a kneeling man target) The sights on the later modifications/ rebuilds were to 300 yards.

With a couple of hundred shootings Marshal and Sanow recorded 100 percent pass throughs on unarmored humans at self defense ranges. The GI Ball has suffiecient power to shatter the FMJ bullet at 300 yards on AR500 plate.

Back in the 1970s when some departments were still using WWII ceramic over thin steel plates over fiberglas clooth in multi layers as armor the stuff would stop .38 Special and down, which were the main threats. M1 carbine ammo, GI Ball of either commercial hunting round of the time would penitrate front and back. GI Ball will penitrate a Type IIA soft vest.

It was a weapon for folks that did not normally get issued a service rifle and in no way a replacement for say an M1 Garand, but a replacement for the M1911A1 Pistol.

While it does not penitrate materials as well as .223 FMJ or Main Battle Rifle Ball ammo it was never intended to.


Check out your Thompson magazines again, they are double feed.

Besides the Sterling Patchett, the M45 "Swedish K" and the S&W 76 have double feed magazines as does the UZI
I am sure folks could name others but those came to mind first.

The M3 Magazines are much like the Sten Magazines which are much like MP38/40 magazines.

Making the M3 be able to use Thompson Magazines would have made the M3 more expensive to produce and M3 magazines were cheaper and faster to produce than Thompson magazines.

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?

Two different cartridges for different roles, and while Uncle Sam wasn't looking for a .45 M1 Carbine, there was an experimental Thompson made in .30 Carbine:

First off, thank you to all veterans for both their service and their first hand contribution to our forum. I have both a Thompson Arms 1927A1 and a nice Winchester M1 Carbine. I bought them both for my father who recently passed away. He loved gangster (1930's type) movies as a kid and we both loved shooting our friends Carbine, so I got him both. We had a ton of fun shooting those guns! Our Thompson is has a 16" barrel, so I realize that this is not an apples to apples comparison, but Carbine is no way the weaker of the two. We mostly shoot in the desert and the Thompson gets hard to make solid hits with after about 75 yards, the M1 is pretty good to about 200. The Carbine is lighter, easier to aim and shoot, and feels more like a weapon that the average American would be used to handling in the 1940's era. For me, if I had to choose, I would pick the Carbine over the Thompson. I feel very fortunate to have both and will pass them on to my son to continue the family tradition.

There is also lots of good information on the M1 Carbine on why it might or might not still be a good choice for self-defense/combat support on Lucky Gunner. Here is an interesting ammo report:

Last edited:
The Thompson was a 1921 design, somewhat updated in 1928 and cheapened in 1938. The Carbine had 20 years advantage in design, manufacture, and tactical doctrine.

I don't know how reliable an M3 is, but the 2 into 1 magazine is the weak point of the STEN. Did German quality make up for an inefficient design?
I don't know, but the Patchett corrected the problem with a dual feed, roller follower, curved magazine.
Not open for further replies.