seeker_two
Member
I've been watching BAND OF BROTHERS this weekend, and it got me thinking about something....
The M1 .30 Carbine developed a poor reputation of stopping power during WWII. A lot of that came from the fact that it was compared to the M1 Garand i.r. stopping power (apples to oranges). The fact was, the M1 Carbine was developed for rear-echelon troops who couldn't carry Garands for whatever reason but needed more power & accuracy than the 1911's or 1917's.
What puzzles me is that many who deride the Carbine tend to praise the SMG's that we used--the M1 Thompson & the M3 "Grease Gun" as great mansstoppers. The Carbine is lighter, more accurate, & uses a cartridge that gives more range, penetration, and ballistic energy than any .45ACP round. But it supposedly pales to the power of the SMG's.
What gives?...
Does anyone here have knowledge/experience w/ both to explain?
Many thanks in advance...
The M1 .30 Carbine developed a poor reputation of stopping power during WWII. A lot of that came from the fact that it was compared to the M1 Garand i.r. stopping power (apples to oranges). The fact was, the M1 Carbine was developed for rear-echelon troops who couldn't carry Garands for whatever reason but needed more power & accuracy than the 1911's or 1917's.
What puzzles me is that many who deride the Carbine tend to praise the SMG's that we used--the M1 Thompson & the M3 "Grease Gun" as great mansstoppers. The Carbine is lighter, more accurate, & uses a cartridge that gives more range, penetration, and ballistic energy than any .45ACP round. But it supposedly pales to the power of the SMG's.
What gives?...
Does anyone here have knowledge/experience w/ both to explain?
Many thanks in advance...