Gurps: The Mandalorian

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Rupert

A

Alternatively they could be considered stocked pistols ('pistol-carbines').

Only if the stocks were used (which they aren't).

[borithan]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Yes, they were usually called blaster "carbines" in previous material but they are too small and/or spend too much time with their stocks folded to be be what I'd actually call a carbine. The only consistant feature to RW weapons called "carbines" is that they are short rifles by the standards of the time.

The British referred to sub-machine guns as "machine carbines" until after WW2, including the prototype predecessor to the Sterling the E-11 is based on. I think they had switched to referring to them as a sub-machine gun by the time the Sterling was actually issued though (though I have seen a suggestion that semi-automatic versions were referred to as "carbines").

I would have to agree that by definition that anything you would call an SMG should be capable of automatic fire. Now, if you are going by sources external to the films, some sources have said the E-11 is capable of automatic fire, but we never see that demonstrated on screen. Presuming that they are not you are then left as defining them as "pistols" or something else. Given the above I would argue that the only thing that truly defined a "carbine" is that it is not as long as a full rifle and bigger than a pistol, and it would appear to be exactly that.

On a practical side for filming, 1) unfolding the stock would have interfered with the armour the actors were wearing, 2) if we are being totally honest the armour doesn't look like it gives any good places to brace any stock and get your face in the right position anyway and 3) a lot of the background characters quite prossibly had rubber replicas, which probably would not have been moulded with movable stocks.