I could see China using the K-31 as well.
Another thought occurred to me, the K-31 could butterfly the FG-42 ( a shame because I love that gun) but bring about an earlier STG-44 (STG-42?) and maybe even a folding stock variant.
WW2 carbines for other countries, too?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Another thought occurred to me, the K-31 could butterfly the FG-42 ( a shame because I love that gun) but bring about an earlier STG-44 (STG-42?) and maybe even a folding stock variant.
The AK-47 didn't have a straight folding buttstock but the FN-FAL did and considering the K-43 has a relatively light powered cartridge I think it could get away with the stock I gave it.
The STG with side folder I made has an AK stock.
The top of the two Stg44 has quite a sloping butt. The FN-FAL was significantly uncontrollable on fully automatic fire - this I know from personal experience - because of the slope of it's butt.
Well I've never fired an STG but I think the K-31 would've been controllable.
I don't think that the M1 Carbine had a wide acceptance in WW2 and after the war. It was only a dead end in weapon history.
No others countries produced a Carbine like weapons and the American stocks were distributed in all the world while the US troops were equipped with others weapons, more interesting weapons.
The idea behind the M1 Carbine is that the non frontline American soldiers and officers must be equipped with a more lethal weapons than the Colt 45. So the US industries choose the carbine because it was a tradition in the USA to have carbines such as the ACW Henry or the "Western" Winchester.
Others countries hadn't this tradition and don't have the need to provide weapons to all non frontline soldiers. European cavalry troops don't used carbines, they used the same rifles than infantry. The European carbines were not special weapons, they were just the same infantry rifle but with a shortened barrel. And no special or dual ammunition. Onlu one round used in all carbines, rifles, LMG and HMG.
During the WW2, the US troops had a lot of non frontline, a lot more than others armies.
The French Army, for exemple, choose to not equip all its services soldiers with weapons. And the German Army preferred to equip them with handguns, mostly from captured stocks, because in occupied territories, all German soldiers were a legitimate target for Underground or Resistance style armed groups.
Last edited:
The Germans beca
The M1 was not popular with US troops in Korea but was popular during the Vietnam conflict on both sides and many South and Central American countries used the M1 Carbine for many years, mainly for lack of funds for anything better but I understand the rifle was popular south of the border.
me quite fond of the M1 Carbine and there are lots of photos of late war era German troops carrying the rifle, they did have the problem of acquiring enough ammo though.
The M1 was not popular with US troops in Korea but was popular during the Vietnam conflict on both sides and many South and Central American countries used the M1 Carbine for many years, mainly for lack of funds for anything better but I understand the rifle was popular south of the border.
Goid point. For some reason I thought the Lanchesters were a late 30s thing.
I have read rather bad things about the M1 Carbine.
Yes a lot of people used it after WW2 but they have no others weapons.
I have an ex RN mild steel bladed training cutlass at home and received training from a grizzled old CPO back in 1980. Definitely not a weapon of finesse, his first instruction was Slash and bash, bash and slash! Oh and do not stop doing so until you run out of targets, A very wise man.
marathag
Banned
My Uncle had unique experience in two conflicts.
He hated it in Korean winter of 1951. He didn't think it an effective weapon against the Chinese 'Volunteers' not enough stopping power.
By 1967 in Vietnam, he traded Marvin the ARVN for a M2 and ammo to replace his M16, that he knew to be a real POS. On my asking, he said that unlike in Korea, the Carbine worked great against the guys in Black Pajamas.
My personal beliefs, from my Deer hunting when cold, like we get here in MN, some types of smokeless powder loses a lot of effectiveness below zero, that reduced MV, greatly.
The lack of production of carbines with a specific short or light round was already a fact in European countries before WW2.
Basically the M1 Carbine was an American idea that nobody followed. Most services non frontline units in European armies post WW2 were equiped with handguns or light SMG.
But are you not working backwards? Yes, it would be better in regards to stopping muzzle climb to have an inline design with a less sloping butt, but is it more likely.....? Would that not require a higher raised sight tower both front and rear, and they would be more easily damaged and get in the way of bayonets (and be new & less traditional) so It's less likely for the first generation until they learn about stopping muzzle climb without hindsight knowledge or ASB?
Last edited:
It got a bad rep in Korea but was liked in the Nam.
I've read that the winter coats used by the enemy Korea were very thick and this may have contributed to the lack of stopping power of the carbine.
I owned an Ivers & Johnson M1 Carbine back in the early 1980's only cost me $100 and I loved it, it was a cool gun, never jammed and just a lot of fun to shoot.
I had to sell it when I was unemployed for a time and needed the money, would love to buy another but dam has the price skyrocketed.
Not sure if it has been mentioned but the British Army had a 'sub machine gun' committee known as the small arms committee pre war that looked at various weapons including the Suomi 31 which they really liked - however nothing ever came of it - mainly due to financial issues where the army was struggling to purchase enough LMGs, Artillery peices and lorries etc
However one decent contender was the BSA-Kiraly.
BSA claimed that they could build them at £5 a unit but the trigger mechanism was overly complex and while Kiraly claimed to be able to simplify it (and did on subsequent designs such as his M43) the design was never adopted.
However had it been - it was a quality select fire weapon in 9mm x 25mm Mauser - a slightly hotter ammunition than the then 9mm parabellum/Luger
Had this weapon been adopted and developed then it would have been a very handy 'carbine'
It would not have stopped Thompsons being purchased by the many 1000s as the British army never had enough automatic weapons, nor for the same reason would it prevent the development and adoption of a STEN type SMG (which was built in its millions) - but it would have been an interesting weapon system.