View Single Post
  #3  
Old 09-03-2011, 03:41 PM
Amsdorf Amsdorf is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Ballwin, Missouri
Posts: 889
Default

I welcome your correction, and thanks for watching. I am always looking to learn more.

The reason I said what I did is based on the research I've done using any number of excellent sources, for example.

Here is what Craig Riesch writes in his book U.S. M1 Carbines, Wartime Production:

"The U.S. Army wanted to develop a semiautomatic light rifle with a larger-capacity magazine than the pistol to supplement or replace the issue of the Model 1911A1 pistol. The Army felt that a light rifle would prove easier for troops to shoot more accurately at distance than a pistol. As it turned out, the soldiers to whom .45 pistols were issued were reluctant to give them up and requested they also be issued the new M1 Carbine. . . . In the late 1930s, the U.S. Army Ordinance Department began the search for a light carbine-type long arm for combat support troops and officers as a substitute for the Model 1911A1 pistol. . . . " (p. 1)

The "front line" enlisted me were issued the M1 Garands, support troops including: mortar, machine gun, communications, command, and even their officers, were issues the Carbine and generally also carried the 1911A1 sidearm.

If however your correction is intended to indicate that paratroopers carried it, yes, that would be an appropriate notation.

I'm flattered that you think my rapid firing would be mistaken for full auto, but....highly doubtful.

Here is what the Carbine does when it is on full auto, in its M2 configuration.

Last edited by Amsdorf; 09-03-2011 at 03:46 PM.
Reply With Quote