The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured.

[stanc]

They were used because nobody had the vision to make something better. That doesn't make them brilliant.

Or did the technology and then-current design practice keep a better design from appearing?

The technology was not a limiting factor.

When John Garand began working on semi-auto rifles at Springfield Armory, the .30 Remington existed, as well as other cartridges which would have been suitable parent cases for an intermediate-power, assault rifle cartridge. In fact, during WWI the French created such an intermediate cartridge -- the 8mm Ribeyrolles -- for a prototype assault rifle.



At the time that M1 carbine development began, spitzer bullets had been standard in rifle ammo for more than three decades. It would have been a simple matter to have designed a spitzer bullet for the .30 Carbine round.

And as noted in post #31, the M1917 Winchester machine rifle had a "straight-line" stock.

So, the technology was available. But, the prevailing mindset prevented use of the technology.

Instead of developing an intermediate-power cartridge and designing a lightweight assault rifle, Garand made a heavy, battle rifle that fired a full-power round.

Instead of fitting the M1 rifle and M1 carbine with "straight-line" stocks, they were given the same old "drop-comb" type stocks that had been used for centuries.

(For any who might be interested, there's a related discussion in Tony Williams' forum: https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/...msg=7217.1)

In other words, 'brilliance" needs to be defined by the then-current environment rather than the technology standards 90 years later.

I fully agree with that. I certainly don't fault the developers of that era for not creating things that came long after their time, like the SCHV concept, for instance.

But, to use ordinary "drop-comb" stocks? And round nose bullets in rifle ammo? I don't know how either could've been considered "brilliant" even 100 years ago.