I was thinking of barrel lenght as much as weight. Does the .35 work well on short barrels?
Define 'short' Most 35 Remingtons sold in the past 100 years have been in leverguns that tended to the 18-20" range rather than the typical longer bolt action length, with the pump and autoloaders in between, but few 35s over 22" in general.
Without the NFA of 1934, you would have seen a good number of Deer Hunters being able to get a gun under 18" barrel length. 16" would be popular, if it was legal.
The Carbine got past the Infantry harcore brigade because it was not meant to replace rifles. A .35 caliber, longer barrel, slightly heavier carbine would have to be seen as a standard weapon,
My idea would have been a 16-18" barrel of same profile, and if all were issued wth a folding or collapsing stock, might have been around the same weight. Also make it less like 'real' rifle, esp. if a simple rear sight is there, not adjustable like on the M1903 or M1 rifle, but a flip rear notch, for 75 yard zero and 150 yards.
A good rifle for blasting away, but stores away easy.
And when used will end whoevers been shot with one.
But really, 30 Remington (pretty much a rimmed 30-30) still would have
been still better than than 30 Carbine
Didin't we have a debate about the Model 8 Remington in .35 caliber as a WW1 ATL combat rifle a while back?
Don't recall it, but wouldn't be surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zILCO-SzVdY
two guys blasting away with Model 8 Police rifle and carbines.
do like the front pistol grip.
But a Model 8 would need a lift off top receiver(like the AK) for easy access to the bolt for military use. Only fair, since the AK used the 8 for the safety and trigger group design.
Running slots in the shroud like the Sterling would be needed for cooling and to reduce the front heavy nature of it.