I must admit I personally find the M1 to be closer to the M2 in recoil, but I understand your point of view. As long as the .30 Carbine cartridge functions accurately I believe we both will be satisfied.
1 Like
you mean M3 grease gun or M3 carbine? if you mean M3 carbine that was not used in ww2 then yes those used same round but if you mean M3 grease gun then you are wrong about ammo
M1 carbine uses .30cal carbine and M3 submachine gun uses .45acp
I do believe you are “muddying the waters”, so to speak.
Oh I thought they both fired .45, my bad.
There is only one M3 (grease gun) in the game so M3 carbine is completely irrelevant.
But either way, as .30 carbine was a pretty weak cartridge, I still think it should have very low recoil.
PLEASE specify M1 Carbine or M1 Garand 
I apologise for the confusion, I was naturally referring to the M1 carbine when I mentioned the M1.
1 Like
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the M1 Carbine is the visibility of the sight. In close combat, the Rear Sight gets in the way, and at long range, the gun itself is useless.
And as with all grenade launchers, the M1 Carbine’s grenade launcher is powerful. It takes an inordinate amount of time to get ready to fire, and there are only a few situations where it can be used effectively…
You can get more kills with an M2 Hyde or Mortar… but at least it looks cool!
1 Like
Victor is definitely trolling. There was never such a thing as an M3 Carbine. And he’s intentionally being vague to get reactions because he thinks its funny
Ratardo is saying M3 is a thing
Garand one hit downs people at point blank unless theyre using health perks (idk how thats historically accurate that you get +35% hp) and Im still asking for the M1 Carbine to two hit to the chest (while in real life it would definitely still one hit). Also the recoil of the M1 Carbine shooting .30 carbine would be nowhere near that of the M1 Garand shooting .30-06. Theres a reason they made an M2 Carbine that is literally the same gun but fully automatic.
Okay so the M3 Carbine is just an M2 Carbine with an IR scope on it, why they changed the designation for a scope idk
I suppose one could also refer to it as the “T3”. https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=1194
and I just stated 3 minutes before you posted this that it WAS a thing, but it was just an M2 Carbine with a IR scope…
Dude I literally just showed you were trolling in another thread and proved you wrong so you come to one of my posts to troll it too? Get out.
3 Likes
I’m not trolling? I’d appreciate you’d stop using that as a strawman. My comment was not meant as a jab, just simply stating that I hadn’t had that experience myself but maybe I haven’t used the carbine enough.
I think upping the damage drop off might be good since it’s definitely got more muzzle velocity than 45.
Except for the fact that you saw my response, started typing out your own response, stopped, and came here and posted instead within two minutes of my post in the other thread. It’s not a strawman, you actually came here to troll this thread and derail it.
1 Like
i don’t wanna sound rude.
but why do you comment over topics that you are not sure, or you haven’t test them out properly.
we are trying to figure out a fix or a possible buff for this weapon.
it’s like leaving a good/bad review on a restaurant that you never have been there before.
it’s not constructive, nor helpful.
considering I’ve used the M1 carbine on multiple occasions I don’t think that analogy holds any weight.
Neither does the appeal to authority. I’m entitled to my opinion regardless of my veteran status on the weapon.
Do yall think the paratrooper model will be premium or free?
Just rechecked the damage drop off. I’ll have to pull up some ballistic tables for 30.carbine and see if that even makes any sense.
which one should hold any weight?
i’m sorry, but it actually does.
you see, it should be accounted to those who regularly plays the m1 carbines. aka veterans. not someone that rarely plays it.
because of said fix/buff.
so that later on, it doesn’t need to be touched again, insthead of giving a false adjustment for wasting dev times and make them again change values of that weapon once more.
- it’s complealty not related to this post.
- don’t go off topic as it’s against the rules.
i think that one should stay as it is.
after all, we would like to make it for close quarter and mid range unlike the m1 garand.
1 Like
I do think these can be helpful, especially if you can provide the tables for .45 and .30-06, so we can compare the three weapons (M1G, M1C and M3)
Obviously I’m not saying they should be TrUe To LiFe, but seeing where the difference lie could give us an idea roughly on how they should perform comparatively.
One of the difficulties with balancing when there’s no negative aspects for weight/ergenomics/size.
Soft buffing/nerfing ADS speed, collision models, movement speed (proportional to total weight) could give weapons a wider range to perform in rather than just nerfing/buffing damage/recoil into oblivion.
@8383908 I believe tested out whether there was any drawbacks to carrying two rifles vs 1 and found that there was no reduction in movement speed or turning speed.
ANother thing to consider is the 30-06 uses a spitzer bullet where the M1 carbine has a blunt nosed projectile.