04-12-2012, 03:56 PM
I have to say that 12oz. less rifle weight is not a trifle matter, nor is 10rds vs. 8 rounds. The combat power that could be projected by riflemen equipped with 10rd clips vs. 8rd clips may seem trifle to us now, but would have been pretty decisive back then, especially against the German mix of bolt-action Mausers and MP38's and MP40's.
![[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=1175&d=1334196679]](http://www.65grendel.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1175&d=1334196679)
This rifle concept raises an interesting point, as I tend to agree that the M1 carbine might not have gained favor with Infantry, but what about the support troops the M1 Carbine was meant for? Is that photoshopped, BTW?
I agree that a .30 Remington case with less taper would be better for mags, but if I could have been influential back then, I would like to have seen it necked down to .26 caliber of course, learning from the Swedes.
This rifle concept raises an interesting point, as I tend to agree that the M1 carbine might not have gained favor with Infantry, but what about the support troops the M1 Carbine was meant for? Is that photoshopped, BTW?
I agree that a .30 Remington case with less taper would be better for mags, but if I could have been influential back then, I would like to have seen it necked down to .26 caliber of course, learning from the Swedes.