Just wondering - Page 2 - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Gun Forum > Rifles

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-26-2015, 07:33 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyGunn View Post
Aside from the WW2 BAR, there was the Thompson SMG. The early models were the 1928 Thompson and like every other it had the cocking knob, or actuator, on top. When the design was simplified due to cost, it became the M1, and later, the M1A1 Thompson and the actuator was moved to the right side, following the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine model.
It would never be produced (IIRC) but had the Thompson development continued, the M2 variant would have had the cocking knob on both sides of the receiver, therefore emulating (sort of) the BAR style....and also it would have been made in .30 Carbine caliber. This model was however, never actually made, due to (probably) the introduction of the TRULY cheap-to-manufacture M3 Grease Gun.
It was the success of the M2 Carbine that killed off the .30 Carbine Thompson (and most other .30 Carbine weapons). The M1/M2 was extremely reliable, very light weight, and so close to being an assault rifle. The Carbine was just well ahead of most other weapons at the time, and in many ways made the SMG a bit obsolete for most roles. Had they done a little more development of the M2's 30 round magazine to make it more reliable, the M2 may have been more prolific in US service. A perfected M2 would have been just as effective as the M16 in Vietnam and we could have skipped all the reliability drama.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 07:53 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
I think I recall that the Enfield SA80 (AKA - Bullpup AR1 was supposed to have a case deflector, but someone at the FACTORY decided it complicated manufacture and some factory manager dispensed with the feature. I read there was a lot of that going on and was the primary reason for the initial failure of the weapon. It started out as the L85 and the manufacturer butchered the weapon until it became completely unreliable. They closed Enfield, setup a new modern facility, redesigned several features and created a reliable weapon.

The FAL's op-rod is a direct copy of the BAR's. Many of the newer weapons have been designed to be more left hand friendly. The FAMAS was one of the first weapons that could be converted for left hand users. The AUG followed, and the new TAVOR can be made into a left hand weapon. Seems to be a trend in Bullpup rifles, it's too bad traditional pattern rifles aren't following this more closely.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 02:12 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Skeptic49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 2,242
Is the FN2000 convertible? It had neutral ejection.
Geoff
Who is a curious fellow.
Skeptic49 is offline  
 
Old 08-26-2015, 03:13 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
It was the success of the M2 Carbine that killed off the .30 Carbine Thompson (and most other .30 Carbine weapons). The M1/M2 was extremely reliable, very light weight, and so close to being an assault rifle. The Carbine was just well ahead of most other weapons at the time, and in many ways made the SMG a bit obsolete for most roles. Had they done a little more development of the M2's 30 round magazine to make it more reliable, the M2 may have been more prolific in US service. A perfected M2 would have been just as effective as the M16 in Vietnam and we could have skipped all the reliability drama.
I can see that. If you have a perfectly nice automatic M2 carbine that weighs 5 lbs or a little over, why bother with worrying out a more expensive to make, heavier Thompson .30 carbine; that would be wasteful and silly.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 03:17 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyGunn View Post
I can see that. If you have a perfectly nice automatic M2 carbine that weighs 5 lbs or a little over, why bother with worrying out a more expensive to make, heavier Thompson .30 carbine; that would be wasteful and silly.
Army brass wouldn't care about this, but from a shooter perspective a heavier weapon might help reduce felt recoil if it were set for an appropriate rate of fire. I've personally handled Thompsons with the locks set up for 900 and 600rpm, and for me... the 600 of the M1 felt a lot better despite the 1921/28's superior fit for my ergonomics. Maybe 300-450 for a .30Car? (What's an M2's rate of fire, anyway?)
Diamondback is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 03:20 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
A perfected M2 would have been just as effective as the M16 in Vietnam and we could have skipped all the reliability drama.
But then that wouldn't have been a contract opportunity for Captain Strange's cronies! We can't have that! [/sarc]
Diamondback is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 03:52 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 8,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
Army brass wouldn't care about this, but from a shooter perspective a heavier weapon might help reduce felt recoil if it were set for an appropriate rate of fire. I've personally handled Thompsons with the locks set up for 900 and 600rpm, and for me... the 600 of the M1 felt a lot better despite the 1921/28's superior fit for my ergonomics. Maybe 300-450 for a .30Car? (What's an M2's rate of fire, anyway?)
Diamondback, while I have never fired a realThompson, I have an M1 carbine, and have handled Thompsons. IMHO, the carbine has much better ergos than the Thompson, much better pointability, and is just a niftier shoulder-arm.
I guess different people have different opinions about ergonomics.
I know,I know....my avatar....and I prefer the carbine.
What can I say? Just my humble truthful opinion. YMMV.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 04:46 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,774
TG, I get where you're comin' from--I tend to be an oddball, one of those bass-ackward sorts who prefers an A1-style arched mainspring housing on his 1911s.

One of the first lessons I used to teach my own shooting students: "Try different things and be open to new ideas, but if a weapon doesn't *feel* right in your hand don't try to force it to fit, keep sampling until you find one that does."
Diamondback is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 05:54 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
Diamondback,

I too like the arched mainspring housing on a Colt's GM, as that's what Il earned to shoot as a MP upon. For the self-same reason, I like the old Colt's Official Police & S&W K-frame revolvers, as that's what I carried as a rookie/young LEO almost a HALF-CENTURY ago.
(Some of the EOF here know that my first LE revolver was a pre-WWII version of the Model 10 for which my Mother paid 40.oo for, including a River holster, Sam Browne, cuffs & a flashlight, so that I could "go to work".)

ImVho, there would have been NO NEED to ever build the M-16 or M-4 had the .30 Carbine been a .401 Winchester, as David M "Carbine" Williams designed it to be.- Carbine Williams was a convict, imprisoned in NC, when he designed the first of 5 forerunners to the .30 caliber Carbine & he LIKED the 15-shot Model 1910-P Winchester semi-auto .401 carbines that the guards at the prison camp had for "tower guards" & "road gang" use.

For those who aren't familiar with the .401WSL, it is VERY effective out to 200+M on big game, up to elk in size/toughness, while having little muzzle report and recoil.
(I've never shot a WT or other game animal with my 1910 that "I had to go look for".)

a personal note: I briefly met & "had coffee" with Mr. Williams in 1969, when he came to our Army post, while promoting his book's re-release.
In the aftermath of the official presentation, Mr. Williams had coffee/donuts with a group from our MPOB class & in response to another 2LT's question said, "Some Generals didn't want anything bigger than a .30 caliber for the Carbine, because of the caliber of the Garand rifle."
He also commented that Remington "came near to" selling a pump-rifle like the Model 141 in.401WSL caliber, after WWII but "killed the release" because the .401 was "too identified with Winchester".

yours, sw
stand watie is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 06:44 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Diamondback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Seattle area--Sodom & Gomorrah on Puget Sound
Posts: 1,774
Interesting... about how difficult would it be to redesign the beast for an up-bore? Obviously the magazine, barrel, bolt and entire chamber area would need rework just as a start...

Then the problem would be that the .401 is probably a bit obscure and hard-to-find today--SW, your post is the first time I'd ever heard of it.
Diamondback is offline  
Old 08-26-2015, 07:16 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
Army brass wouldn't care about this, but from a shooter perspective a heavier weapon might help reduce felt recoil if it were set for an appropriate rate of fire. I've personally handled Thompsons with the locks set up for 900 and 600rpm, and for me... the 600 of the M1 felt a lot better despite the 1921/28's superior fit for my ergonomics. Maybe 300-450 for a .30Car? (What's an M2's rate of fire, anyway?)
The M2s cyclic rate of fire is about 750 rpm.
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 08-27-2015, 12:41 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Daniel Watters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
Interesting... about how difficult would it be to redesign the beast for an up-bore? Obviously the magazine, barrel, bolt and entire chamber area would need rework just as a start...

Then the problem would be that the .401 is probably a bit obscure and hard-to-find today--SW, your post is the first time I'd ever heard of it.
The M1 Carbine has been rechambered for rounds as large as the .50 Action Express. It isn't a terribly good idea, but it is is possible.
Daniel Watters is offline  
Old 08-27-2015, 12:30 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyGunn View Post
Diamondback, while I have never fired a realThompson, I have an M1 carbine, and have handled Thompsons. IMHO, the carbine has much better ergos than the Thompson, much better pointability, and is just a niftier shoulder-arm.
I guess different people have different opinions about ergonomics.
I know,I know....my avatar....and I prefer the carbine.
What can I say? Just my humble truthful opinion. YMMV.
I'm with you there. The Thompson just oozes cool, but it has it's flaws. It's HUGE, heavy and the ergo's just aren't very good. It's easy to control in FA fire once you learn how to use an open bolt. But I just can't think of a time where I'd want a Thompson over an M1 Carbine. I mean, if you choose a Thompson, you get to carry that boat anchor, AND that heavy ammo.

M2 Carbines are less controllable, but not so much that they're out of control. I don't care much for FA fire in an individual rifle so I don't put much stock in FA control-ability.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 08-27-2015, 12:34 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Watters View Post
The M1 Carbine has been rechambered for rounds as large as the .50 Action Express. It isn't a terribly good idea, but it is is possible.
Correct. When you "super-size" the M1 Carbine you end up with cracked slides, and broken bolts. It's made to handle what it was designed for and it does that exceptionally well. If you wanted a small carbine with more power, I think the best idea is to look to another platform because carbines are very expensive to build and very soon you'd price yourself right out of the market.

For civilians you can have your cake and eat it to, just feed your carbine Cor-Bon's 100gr JHP with Barnes X bullet. Your little M1 will have MUCH more terminal performance than a .223 out to and just beyond 150 yards.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 08-27-2015, 02:28 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
csmkersh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 9,699
Thanks, Kevin. I recently bought a carbine but the ammo that came with it all ball. I want/need something better and you answered my problem.
csmkersh is online now  
Old 08-27-2015, 07:16 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
stand watie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,286
Diamondback, et. al.,

The .401WSL prototype was slightly larger in every dimension BUT weighed almost exactly the same as the standard M-1 .30 US Carbine.

Fwiw, at the time of the carbine's invention by David Williams the Winchester Model 1910 and the .401WSL cartridge was fairly common in LE armories. - Today the cartridge is a collector's item & "factory-loaded" rounds are nearly 4.oo each. = 78.90 per 20.
Nonetheless the .401 has more than 3X the ME than the .30 carbine round has & it has at least another 50-75M effective range against human targets.
(Btw, the 180 grain JSP factory loads for my .300 Savage Model 760 Remington are now 2.10 each! = !@#$!)

Being a cheapskate, I've started reloading again, btw.

Note: IF I was going to chamber the little .30 carbine for any other caliber (I'm NOT planning to.), it would be to .221 Johnson Spitfire, which is a REALLY efficient cartridge & equal to the .223 Remington in power, IF one thinks of the .223 Remington as a "big game cartridge".

yours, sw

Last edited by stand watie; 08-27-2015 at 07:24 PM.
stand watie is offline  
Old 08-28-2015, 11:48 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 5,678
Stand,

The development of the .30 Carbine cartridge had to do with two things.

1 - The proliferation of .30 caliber barrel making equipment
2 - The barrier penetration requirements. The .30 Carbine in FMJ is an excellent barrier penetrator out to about 200 yards, even better than the 5.56 (in most cases). And the .30 carbine round had better barrier penetration than the .401.

I personally think the got it right. The M1 Carbine was a resounding success. It's only "fault" was being so good at it's job, people forgot it wasn't a full scale battle rifle. Problems with stopping power usually had more to do with the employment of the weapon rather than the cartridge itself. It never once bounced off heavy winter clothing. It was either fired at a range that severely limited the effectiveness of the cartridge, or the user didn't score a solid hit; simple as that. And secondary to that, the closest direct comparison was the M1 Garand, and most cartridges come up wanting against the grand ole .30-06, including the well established and accepted 5.56 and 7.62x39.
Kevin Gibson is offline  
Old 08-28-2015, 03:31 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
bearcat6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Gibson View Post
Stand,

The development of the .30 Carbine cartridge had to do with two things.

1 - The proliferation of .30 caliber barrel making equipment
2 - The barrier penetration requirements. The .30 Carbine in FMJ is an excellent barrier penetrator out to about 200 yards, even better than the 5.56 (in most cases). And the .30 carbine round had better barrier penetration than the .401.

I personally think the got it right. The M1 Carbine was a resounding success. It's only "fault" was being so good at it's job, people forgot it wasn't a full scale battle rifle. Problems with stopping power usually had more to do with the employment of the weapon rather than the cartridge itself. It never once bounced off heavy winter clothing. It was either fired at a range that severely limited the effectiveness of the cartridge, or the user didn't score a solid hit; simple as that. And secondary to that, the closest direct comparison was the M1 Garand, and most cartridges come up wanting against the grand ole .30-06, including the well established and accepted 5.56 and 7.62x39.
Amen, I'm tired of hearing that old myth about the 30 carbine round not being able to penetrate the Chinese winter clothing in Korea. Here is a test, you ghave to scroll down to get the carbine results.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-...-rags-o-truth/

Last edited by bearcat6; 08-28-2015 at 03:44 PM.
bearcat6 is offline  
Old 08-28-2015, 04:20 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
WaltGraham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,434
Right handed and left eye dominant.

A shooter's curse.
WaltGraham is offline  
Old 08-28-2015, 06:52 PM   #40
Forum Admin
 
SpecialEd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wilmington, DelaWhere?
Posts: 6,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaltGraham View Post
Right handed and left eye dominant.

A shooter's curse.
Me too.
SpecialEd is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Gun Forum > Rifles

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
just wondering tigeroldlone Rifles 9 06-30-2008 11:23 AM
Was just wondering, but... shadowdiver CCW 10 01-15-2008 03:37 PM
For those who've been wondering… Dean Speir Gun Talk 0 02-02-2004 04:36 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2017 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.