Would the M1 Carbine had been a better performer if....

[Sunray]

"...many of those same people didn't every actually have to use it in combat..." Met a guy, while in the Queen's Service, who was with 2PPCLI at Kap Y'ong. He said he didn't care if it took two rounds to put a ChiCom down, he loved the carbine. 2PPCLI(2nd Batt Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) won a U.S. Presidential Unit Citation for stopping the ChiCom advance in Korea. That was with USGI .30 Carbine ball ammo. All the whining about the .30 Carbine round is based on ball ammo. Ball ammo is not made for spectacular terminal performance. It's made to go bang every time.
110 grain HP's with IMR 4227 will make a hole the size of a grapefruit in a soft target with outstanding accuracy.
Production machinery had nothing whatever to do with it. Most of the makers of carbines didn't make rifles of any kind before or after W.W. II.

 

[Grump]

Dig Deeper

Most of the makers of carbines didn't make rifles of any kind before or after W.W. II.

What about DURING? "Most"--who are the exceptions?

But who made their tooling? All on-site, or some provided by other Gov't subcontractors?

Regardless of whether IBM or Inland ever made component barrels for rifles, there is still the factor that specifications (bore, rifling, tolerances, etc.) were just copied from the existing rifle standards.

I don't know, but suspect that some tooling was made outside by specialists who were *good* at what they did--just like how TRW did NOT bother with making certain parts for the M14.