re: #240 Pawn of the Oppressor

That’s funny, my M1 Carbine is the same - my father bought it out of a barrel of surplus Carbines in a sporting goods store in the 60’s sometime. I think he even paid $20, too. It’s an Underwood, 1943 on the receiver but with post-war replacement parts. It rattles, it’s sloppy, and I never could group better than half a foot at 25 yards with it, but it’s a family thing. He shipped it to me out of New England because it’s an “assault weapon” under state law and he didn’t want any possible legal trouble. We had 5-round magazines for it, but they were aftermarket, crappy quality things.

I did a serial and markings lookup once and found that our rifle had been issued to an army unit from Maine. It even has holes in the stock for the grenade launcher sights (!). Oddly enough, my AR is exactly the same length and bulk, but far, far more “dangerous”. The technology change in just 30 years is astonishing.

It’s the plastic and metal over wood that did it, I think. That’s why the Thompson remained more popular within the Army than the M3 ‘Grease Gun’. Even though it was a good deal heavier, it was felt strongly to look more like a gun should, with a stock that good be properly polished and metal surfaces that could be made to shine. The weight even worked in its favor sometimes, since its forged steel construction gave a feeling of something built to last.

Practicality can easily lose out to emotion and a desire to present a good image, humans being what we are.