[The Grand Inquisitor]

This is just a question, being as I don't have a M1 Carbine (yet at least) and not much experiance with them, I'm not speaking as an expert here, but just as someone who wants to start some discussion.

For everything you hear about the M1 Carbine, invariably someone will add that it is an ineffective rifle because of its lack of stopping power. With the help of a friend, I looked into the relative power between a .357 magnum and the .30 Carbine, and they were very evenly matched.

I know that because the .30 carbine round is coming out of a longer barrel and more than likely will need to travel further to hit its target the evenness of the two rounds begins to dissapate, but wouldn't the lightness of the .30 carbine bullet help to keep its speed better?

All of this said, I don't know too much about the subject, and I am throwing it out there for those of you who do. So here it is, is it possible that the .30 Carbine myth that the .30 Carbine is a weak and ineffective manstopper is in fact a MYTH and not a fact?

[Cosmoline]

Speed and ft. lbs. aside, I would not put much trust in the small .30 Carbine bullets. .357 has the advantage of sporting a wider array of weights.

[Tony Williams]

My understanding is that it was considered ineffective by comparison with the .30-06, which was of course vastly more powerful.

One disadvantage it had over the .30-06 and most .357 Magnum loadings was the bullet shape. The .30-06 had a pointed bullet which would tumble in flesh (like all pointed bullets do, as they are basically unstable) and thereby create big wounds. .357 Magnum bullets don't tumble but they have a big frontal area to punch bigger holes, and the bullet shapes are usually flat-fronted and often expanding, which magnifies their effectiveness.

In contrast, the .30 Carbine bullet had a smooth round nose which would neither tumble nor produce nasty wounds. Had it been fitted with a pointed bullet with a rearward weight bias it might have performed better; it would have lost velocity more slowly and tumbled on impact.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[landon74]

If the choice is between a rifle/carbine in .30 Carbine, and a .357 Magnum handgun, I don't think it's much of a choice...... At the muzzle with .30 Carbine you've got about 950 ft/lbs of energy vs 550 (give or take) ft/lbs with a .357....
go to 100 yards with the .30 Carbine, you've still got as much energy left as the .357 had when the bullet left the barrel....

[wasrjoe]

Another thing to keep in mind is that we are not limited to FMJ bullets as those using it in our Armed Forces were. I imagine .30 softpoints in an M1 Carbine would be very effective. Hopefully someone with ballistic proof of some kind will come by and verify my statement.

[The_Antibubba]

What wasrjoe said. With modern loads and expanding bullets, it should be quite effective.

Remember what the M1 was designed for: a small, lightweight rifle for tanker troops and other non front-line troops. Still much more effective than the 45 auto.

[nhhillbilly]

Jim Crillo of the fames NY city stake out squad stated the M1 Carbine with soft points was one of the most effective man stopper he used. He was involved 15+ gun fights while with NY PD.

[nero45acp]

Will a .30 carbine FMJ cartridege fired from a M1 carbine penetrate body armor?


nero

[1911user]

The 30 carbine should not penetrate a decent kevlar vest.

30-06/308 ball just punches a hole through normal targets; no practical tumbling action.

[Onmilo]

Weak and ineffective compared to what?
The .30 Carbine will easily outperform any pistol caliber rifle or submachinegun.
Yes, it even outdoes the 10mm and .44 Magnum guns in ballistics at acceptable ranges and the bullets for the .30 Carbine actually perform as they should at these ranges,i.e. 150-200 meters.
The 10mm and .41/44 bullets do not.
It isn't in the same league as the .223/.308/.30-06 full power rifles.
It is more than sufficent for killing medium size animals to 150 meters.

Soft and hollowpoint bullets do for the .30 Carbine what they do for the 9mm/.40 caliber class firearms, i.e. improve performance dramatically.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with this caliber as long as it is used within its limitations.

[The Drew]

I would be suprised very much if the .30 carbine didn't penetrate soft body armor...

Since the 7.62x25 Tokarev penetrates pretty well, I would think the .30 carbine be better...

I mean, it fires a heavier bullet, at a bit higher velocity...

[Ed]

Hey Vern,
What will a carbine do to a tree? :)

[The Drew]

just for comparison...


7.62x25 tokarev 85gr 1647fps 514ft/lbs
.30 carbine 110gr 1990fps 967ft/lbs
7.62x39 Russian 123gr 2355fps 1515ftlbs

these are winchester specs...

[Onmilo]

Thanks guys, I forgot to add that little bit of info.

NO Level 1, Level 11, or Level 11A vest is proof against the Carbine round.

Most Level 111 and the Level 1V Plate will stop the .30 Carbine but Level 111 Vests will cave to mutiple hits inducing penetration, however, the blunt trauma alone against the Level 111 vest may be enough to stop the armored assailant when using the Carbine round.

This information applies to all bullet types.

The .30 Carbine is most assuredly NOT a BB gun.

[nero45acp]

Looks like .30 carbine FMJ may defeat up to and including Level III-A soft body armor. Level III (High-Powered Rifle) will stop the .30 carbine FMJ (it will also stop the .308 and .223).


http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html

nero

[BigG]

No, imho, it's not a myth. Folks who give too much credence to paper ballistics often cite the 950 ft lbs of muzzle energy and then compare it to a 357 or 44 Magnum. That's comparing apples to oranges. Paper ballistics tables = actual performance like a map = the territory. Just ain't so, folks.

I have an Inland 30 US Carbine and love it to death, but the gun was created as a replacement for rear area support troops who would otherwise be armed with a pistol that took too much training to learn. The 30 Carbine has about the same terminal performance as a (non-magnum) pistol, and not much more effective range.

JMTC

Waiting for Vern Humphreys to show... :D

[bcochran]

I try to go to the question rather than go off on a tangent at the beginning.

is it possible that the .30 Carbine myth that the .30 Carbine is a weak and ineffective manstopper is in fact a MYTH and not a fact?

The context is unspecified. No range, bullet design, or medium is set forth.

If you want a better bullet design than military specified fmj, then use hollow points or soft points. Most people don't have an understanding that "international law" forbids the use of hollow points in a declared war.

If you want to shoot 600 yards (ala Garand), 800 yards (ala M1A) or 1 mile (Barrett 50), then get the right tool. Hey, if you want to shoot only 125 yards, get a forward scoped Ruger 10/22 .22 win mag rifle. The terminal ballistics are the same as a round coming out of an AR15. Ok, you get the picture.

If you shoot through a shirt, a hollow point round turns into a different configuration before it contacts skin. If you shoot through layers of insulation like an undershirt, shirt, field jacket, flak jacket (not a "bulletproof vest") in the dead of winter, it is going to be tough going if you expect the target to go down like playing pac man (registered copyrite) unless you are using a 50 cal machinegun. In the hypothetical world of the internet, anyone can speculate that the opponent wears certain layers of vest in every single encounter against you. In the real world, just look around and ask yourself how many people really wear body armor on every occassion. Yeah. Sure they do. I will be taking a course tomorrow in which every participant will use 400 -800 rounds of ammo. And just how many guys on the line will be wearing body armor - and they know there will be shooting?

In one form or another, this question is asked over and over again, year after year.

Here are some alternative questions for a person to ask himself:

1. when was the last time I practiced low light shooting in an environment wherein I couldn't see bullet holes in the target at 20 feet, couldn't see the firearm on the table, and couldn't see the gun when making magazine changes;
2. when was the last time I paid for training to enhance my skills or even learn a skill.
3. do I know enough to shoot any firearm while walking, running, or covering 360 degrees.
4. if I had to go with what I have right now in my car, on my person, on the job and not what is in the safe at home, the arsenal in the garage or on my wishlist to buy, do I have the best equipment for me.
5. is my skill level at a point that if I had to pick up a jammed HK pistol, 1911, Glock, Sig, Ruger pistol that I could clear it and engage under stress.
6. do I know how to take apart and reassemble my basic handgun or rifle. Don't laugh. A national instructor had me come over one day and show him how to take the slide off the frame of a Glock. He was using Glocks in training, owned many, and didn't know how to do it.

[Vern Humphrey]

Hey Vern,
What will a carbine do to a tree?

It'll leave some nasty scars on the bark -- if you hold it by the muzzle and swing it as hard as you can.

I've seen a man hit about 10 times with a carbine, and the SOB STILL managed to detonate a claymore from one position, then get up and run to another.

[dakotasin]

tony- i wonder about the tumbling stuff. i'm just a simpleton hunter that kills a few things every now and again, and i'm not sure what to look for to verify the tumbling stuff... but, in a deer, for instance, when i whack one, i usually get an exit hole in a straight line from the entrance hole and muzzle of the barrel. in fact, in all big game critter kills except one, this has been the case.

so, what do i look for to prove/disprove tumbling? i look at the wound channels, and they appear small at the entrance, and then widen as the bullet travels thru the animal (bullet mushrooming), until finally exiting. which would indicate to me that the bullets are not tumbling. (i always have used a spitzer design, btw)

i have used maybe a dozen to 15 chamberings in my hunting, 30 carbine not being legal for deer here, hasn't been used by me (but the 308 and 30-06 have been).

[Commissar Gribb]

obviously the man wasn't hit those 10 times in the head...

[Vern Humphrey]

i wonder about the tumbling stuff. i'm just a simpleton hunter that kills a few things every now and again, and i'm not sure what to look for to verify the tumbling stuff...

First of all, "tumbling" is largely a myth. A full metal jacket or solid bullet may YAW, but it doesn't "tumble." The yaw occurs aftger the bullet transits from air to flesh, and if it travels through flesh long enough, it will usually stablize after 180 degrees and fly base first.

Yawing is a function of bullet shape -- flatnose bullets tend not to yaw, and softnose bullets of course change shape in flesh and usually don't yaw.

In the case of the M16, the thin jacket of the bullet would often rupture from yaw-induced stresses along the cannelure, and send out secondary missiles from the main trajectory. This might or might not have an effect on the target -- it might detatch large sections of tissue, or the major parts of the bullet failed to reach the vitals.

The Soviet 5.45 X 39 is an exception to this. It has a blunt nose core inside a pointed jacket, so there is an empty space under the nose. When this bullet hits flesh, the core moves forward into the space, and the bullet will typically yaw 720 degrees or more in passing through a body.

[JShirley]

I've shot a few small trees down with an M1 Carbine. More exactly, I shot several holes near the base of the trees, and pushed them down.

Super wonder magic bullets do not exist. While some rounds may be "better" than others for certain purposes, when it comes to shooting at people at close range, I think any centerfire round more powerful than a .22 Magnum is adequate.

The poor reputation the M1 Carbine has among some appears to have been created by M2 users attempting to hose down North Korean troops wearing extremely thick padded clothing, with lots of misses and poor hits. Shoot the target. Shoot until it falls. The M1 Carbine will work just fine, especially with better ammo.

John, "only hits counts"

[Skunkabilly]

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000671#000000

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/M1CarbineWP.jpg

There's a few more and a better one but can't find 'em right now.

[Frandy]

Who cares about myth or no myth. I mean, they look so cool!

Seriously, I agree that the myth is all about comparing it to rifles. As others have said, it's intended purpose was an alternate/replacement for the .45 for support troops. Simple as that. My uncle was a looie in WW II and had a carbine. He was front line. He told me more than once that he threw down the carbine and used an M-1.

[Tony Williams]

Tumbling applies only to pointed FMJ bullets. Expanding hunting bullets do indeed plough straight on (usually).

The reason why pointed FMJ bullets will usually tumble in flesh is that they are inherently unstable, because the centre of gravity is more than halfway back. If you drop them from a great enough height, they will land base-first because that is their naturally stable orientation. The fact that they fly point-first through the air is entirely down to the fact that they are rapidly spun by the rifling, which has a stabilising effect. However, flesh has about 400 times the density of air and spinning is no longer enough to keep them going straight, so they flip end-over-end and then continue travelling backwards - doing some nasty damage en route (and even more if the stresses of tumbling cause the bullet to break up). The rate at which the bullets tumble depends very much on the detail of their design.

You can find out lots more here, including diagrams of the paths taken by tumbling bullets (WARNING - it's a 5MB PDF file!):

http://www.btammolabs.com/fackler/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

Expanding bullets don't tumble even if they're pointed because the act of expanding - and thereby shortening - the bullet nose results in the CG being closer to the front than the back.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[JShirley]

Yeah? Since you're not giving any context, that's not really a helpful statement.

If I had gone over to Iraq with my unit, I'm certain there would have been times when I "threw down my M4" (slung, really) and used a real gun, like my 81mm Mortar or a nice M2 Browning. Close/long/cover/numbers- these all actually help in determing if a certain weapon is right for the job.

John

[Tony Williams]

First of all, "tumbling" is largely a myth. A full metal jacket or solid bullet may YAW, but it doesn't "tumble." The yaw occurs aftger the bullet transits from air to flesh, and if it travels through flesh long enough, it will usually stablize after 180 degrees and fly base first.

It depends on how you define 'tumbling'. I agree that the bullets flip over only once rather than continuing to rotate end-over-end (see my post above), but that is what people generally mean when they talk about bullets 'tumbling'.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

[Vern Humphrey]

obviously the man wasn't hit those 10 times in the head...


Nor in the "tear duct" either (as one gun writer advised when evaluating a .22 LR for defensive use.)

[Dave R]

Time for a dose of reality from the Box of Truth (http://www.theboxotruth.com/) . Couldn't link the page directly, but go to "Begin Here" then select no. 8, Rags of Truth.

This doesn't answer every ballistic question on the .30 carbine, but I found it very educational. Some snippets for those who don't want to follow the link:

Rumors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War. Let's see what happens.
The bullet, a military Ball, went through the entire box set-up, blew up the water jug, and flattened itself out against the solid concrete block, knocking out a big chunk of cement.
The pix are impressive.

BTW, the Box of Truth guys did numerous tests on military .223 shooting all sorts of stuff--vest material, walls, water jugs, etc. I don't recall seeing ANY tests where the military .223 failed to tumble. i.e. it tumbled in every test they ran, unless I am mistaken.

[The Grand Inquisitor]

Very good posts...great discussion.

[jobu07]

IIRC Boxotruth also did .30 carbine on an interior wall set up. It blew through all the dry wall and out the back, with insulation no less! Just don't try shooting the bad guys with your M1 carbine if they are hiding behind a solid cement wall and you'll be ok. Chances are if you can't see them behind that wall, you guys with the M1 rifle's shouldn't be firing either.

[MudPuppy]

Plain and simple, the carbine is a light round. It was a rifle that was introduced when everyone was carrying a 30.06, which magnified the lightness of the round.

It was designed before the assault rifles were common--it was lighter than the Garand, but more effective in most situations than the 1911.

IMHO, the weapon/round is superseded by the SKS/7.62 combo in most practical matters (although I've handled few rifles that "felt" as good in the hands as a carbine--follow-up shots are a dream).

I have taken whitetail deer with the round at about 200 yards. I would feel comfortable using it as a defensive weapon in any scenario I'm likely to be involved (but the target will get a few more rounds than they would out of the G3 .308 rifle where I to be using that).

It's no 30.06, but I also don't want to get hit with one. :)

[Jim K]

The carbine was not adopted for "rear area support troops" or cooks, or clerks. The main issue of carbines was to company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) who were platoon leaders and company commanders and definitely were in combat. In WWI, those officers carried pistols and the army found that at any distance the pistol was ineffective since it was simply not intended for use over a few yards. (Yes, I know a good shot can hit a man at 50 or more yards with a tuned M1911, but not with people shooting at him!)

Carbines were also issued in large quantities to MP's. Again, stories to the contrary, carbines were not issued to airborne troops (except to officers, who got M1A1 carbines if available); whether glider borne or parachute troops, the airborne carried the standard M1 rifle.

The carbine was fine for officers, as it was easier to carry than a rifle and officers usually had more to do than shoot at the enemy. Some carbines were also issued to others like artillerymen, but cooks and clerks carried M1 rifles because they were considered backup troops, as did combat engineers. Supply troops, truckers, and the like carried M1 rifles or M1903 or M1903A3 rifles. Tankers were issued submachineguns, either Thompsons or M3's. Shortened M1 rifles were experimented with for the airborne, not tankers; that term for an M1 rifle shortened in civilian life is advertising hype.

Jim

[Sunray]

"...an ineffective rifle because of its lack of stopping power..." That's with military ball only. This myth came out of the Korean War where it has been said that the quilted jackets worn by the Reds would stop or slow down a .30 carbine ball round. Mind you, I met a guy who was with 2PPCLI at Kap Yong. He said he didn't care if it took 3 rounds to put a Red down, he loved the carbine.
I can tell you that handloaded 110 grain HP's over IMR4227 will make a hole the size of a grapefruit in a ground hog and do it with no felt recoil out of a 6 pound rifle. If I ever had to go fight with the firearms I own, I'd reach for my carbine without a second thought.
The original intent of the Carbine was to issue it to any troopie that normally was issued a pistol. It's far easier to train thousands of inexperienced shooters to effectively shoot a rifle than it is any handgun.

[Gunsnrovers]

I'm with Sunray. The M1 Carbine myth grew out of Korea.

Have had the honor of hoisting more then a few pints with some old Marines (not ex-Marines) retired around Pendleton. The little M1 Carbine had a pretty solid following of guys who used it in anger and loved it.

I still kick myself for selling mine a few years back. The prices these days are just insane.

[JohnKSa]

I've posted this before, but based on a comment he recorded in his autobiography, Audie Murphy (who certainly knew a thing or two about killing people) actually preferred the carbine over the Garand in certain circumstances (woods fighting). So while one might make an argument that it's LESS effective than a Garand, it would seem very unlikely that it's INEFFECTIVE.

[artherd]

Yeah, just like the .357, and ALL pistols, it is an inefective round :) Use a rifle!!!

Then again...

Read Hathcock's book where it took over 14 rounds of .308 and .30-06 to stop a determined VC.

Read Black Hawk Down where it took multiple hits from .50BMG, and 40mm grenades to stop one woman.

Some people are just harder to kill.

[buttrap]

If I recall the armys ordance tests after the Koreia deal they figured out the issue was the powder in the rounds. Seemed the had been in storage since 1943 ammo tended to hit like between 750 and 1200 fps at -32 degress. Some rounds even where lucky to fire off at all. Just keep in mind they made a lot more carbines than garands and where always short on carbines.Oh by he way a .30 carbine will kill deer too.

[444]

First of all, all this stuff is relative. I don't think you can just make a blanket statement that round "X" is ineffective because there are too many variables. Ineffective compared to what is of course the big one. And, of course the question always comes up regarding the use of civilian expanding bullets.

Ok, first of all, the .30 Carbine is approx. equal to a .357 handgun. The stadard US Military ball ammo load is a 110 grain bullet at 1900 fps. I just looked it up in "Cartridges of the World". Ok, you can shoot a 110 grain bullet out of a .357 revolver FASTER than 1900 fps and do it safely with loading data provided by a major powder manufacturer. The only difference is the .357 is doing it with a Larger diameter bullet. So, the statements about the .30 carbine being more effective than any pistol caliber carbine are ridiculous. And this isn't even getting into the MUCH heavier bullet of the .44 mag out of a short rifle. The .30 Carbine isn't even in the same league.
Now, that being said, the .357 mag is considered one of the top defensive handgun rounds out there. So, the .30 Carbine shouldn't be too bad and would certainly be more effective if you were using good bullets. But compared to any rifle, the .30 Carbine again, isn't in the same league. As was mentioned, the .30 Carbine was designed as a substitute for a handgun and it seems to fill that role OK. But, it isn't a substitute for a rifle of any kind. And, it doesn't even make a good substitue for a .357 or .44 mag out of a short rifle.


It is funny how there seems to be trends on the internet like this. When this topic is brought up, people defend the .30 Carbine to the death. They really want to believe in it. Facts and figures won't cause them to waver in their belief. By the same token, people can't wait to be critical of the 5.56 Nato round. They can't wait to tell stories from an E-Mail where some guy they don't knows' cousin's friend met a guy in a bar that told him the cartridge let him down in the Mog. This is puzzling to me when I consider the fact that the 5.56 NATO round is F A R more potent than the .30 Carbine ever will be no matter what bullet you are using in the carbine compared to 5.56 GI Ball ammo. That doesn't even get into the same cartridge loaded with good civilian bullets.

[grendelbane]

It seems that some people have lost sight of the fact that the idea behind the carbine is that it is easier to hit with than the pistol, not more powerful.

Paper ballistics are misleading. Using military FMJ ammunition the .45 ACP is going to be the better performer at close range. In some instances it will even outperform the .30/06. :what:

This all changes when expanding bullets are considered, but the military was stuck with FMJ.

Given the original mission of the carbine I think a lightweight, closed bolt semi-auto taking 1911 magazines would be just the thing. Think of something with the profile of a Mech-Tech. Cheap sheet metal construction, simple and rugged, and capable of 5" groups at a 100 yards.

This would not be as pretty as a carbine, however. Perhaps the carbine would have been better if issued in the Spitfire caliber, but WWII era prejudice against small caliber cartridges would have made that impossible. A larger bore carbine cartridge would have made a better stopper, but at the expense of extra weight.

Everything in life is a trade-off. :)

[El Rojo]

I know for a fact the .30 Carbine 110 gr. FMJ round will penetrate a single pane of household glass, travel 30 yards or so, penetrate a common household wall, enter a dry aquarium glass tank, and stop against a petrified rock. Yes, unfortunately I know this.

[The Grand Inquisitor]

444 - thanks for your rant, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is comparing .30 carbine to 5.56 in any way what-so ever.

[444]

You obviously missed the point.
The point wasn't that someone is comparing the two directly. The point is that the .30 Carbine seems to hit a sentimental nerve with a lot of people on this board who refuse to believe the truth about it. While the 5.56 seems to invoke a lot of scorn by people on this board who say it is weak and ineffective. A lot of the same arguments are used in the threads. But, if the 5.56 is weak and ineffective, then you have to realize where that puts the even weaker and more ineffective .30 Carbine. And that my friend IS the topic of this thread.

[JShirley]

Anything worth shooting is worth shooting at least twice.

Personally, I like the additional bullet weight the Carbine has over the 5.56; I think it makes a more versatile round, at least at shorter ranges. I had a Colt AR-15 before I bought my first carbine. I believed, and still believe after thousands of 5.56 rounds downrange, that the Carbine was much better suited to my needs.

What I want in a defensive shoulder arm is something light and handy, with controllable recoil, so I can carry lots of rounds, and put multiple holes in anything that confronts me. Yes, I've fired more rounds through an M4 than anything else. Yes, if ammo availability isn't an issue, I do prefer the M1 Carbine.

Anything more powerful than a .22 magnum, that is reasonably ergonomic and handy, is just fine. Bonus points if I can kill game up to deer with decent shots.

Shouldn't we be out shooting? :confused:

John

[444]

"Shouldn't we be out shooting?"

Maybe you, I should be at work. And I am. Shooting was yesterday.



That is all well and good John. You like your carbine and feel confident in it. I like mine well enough. They are probably the most fun little gun out there. I don't know anyone that doesn't enjoy the crap out of shooting them. But I don't think that is what the original post was asking.

[JShirley]

There are no super wonder magic bullets. Shoot until you're not being threatened.

I've shot things with the Carbine. I've shot things with the 5.56. The Carbine tends to penetrate deeper. The 5.56 tends to be more explosive (at least, with the ammo I used). I can hit with both of them. Neither is magic.

Use what you like.



http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/223%20Remington%2050gr%20JSP.jpg

Unfortunately, not able to find Carbine gel tests...

John

[ksnecktieman]

The reason the army had the .30 carbine designed and issued was because the behind the line soldiers in Europe in WW2 had been issued pistols, and they were inadequate for the defensive needs. A cook, or a clerk can not carry a full size battle rifle and perform his job efficiently. The carbine was designed to replace or augment the .45, not the garand main battle rifle. It was often considered as and compared to a main battle rifle, and in that context it is woefully underpowered. With defensive combat ranges up to 150 yards it far surpasses effectiveness of the .45 because of ease of targeting with a rifle, over a pistol.

I have a .30 carbine, and I am pleased with it. I hunt deer with it, it carries easily in timber or brush. It is reliable. I limit myself to 100 yard shots (far enough in heavy timber), and it does a fine job for me.

[JohnKSa]

Ineffective compared to whatIneffective is not a relative term. A thing is ineffective or it's not!

The .30 carbine is certainly LESS EFFECTIVE than many rifle rounds and maybe LESS EFFECTIVE than some pistol rounds, but that doesn't make it INEFFECTIVE.

One mistake I've seen over and over on gun forums is the idea that "LESS EFFECTIVE THAN" or "INFERIOR TO" is the same thing as "INEFFECTIVE". Nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Bigfoot]

Test results.
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000671#000001

[Sir Aardvark]

I looks to me that you are comparing a rifle round to a pistol round.
Why?.
A handgun is mediocre in performance when compared to a rifle in every circumstance.
Even in this case where you take a powerful handgun cartridge and compare it with a relatively weak rifle cartridge, the edge still lies with the rifle.
As has been quoted here elsewhere " A handgun is what you use to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have put down to begin with"

[Camshaft]

i know a dude that was in korea that said he shot a korean at 100 yds 5 times center mass and the guy didnt go down untill he ran another 50 yds.

[Cosmoline]

I had a nightmare last night that I'd saved up a nest egg for my next rifle, then blew it all on an M-1 Carbine. I kid you not! I woke up in terror, wondering how I could have wasted all my money on something so useless. :D

[JShirley]

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/M1CarbineWP.jpg

HP performance should be considerably better.

[NMshooter]

The M-2 carbine got a reputation for unreliability in Korea, not ineffectiveness.

I would much rather have something in 5.56mm myself, but any round that requires an insert plate to stop will get the job done...

[Rebar]

It might be that veterans who learned to keep their cool when under fire, and went for headshots, would prefer the carbine.

Just a theory.

[HankB]

My late father had a carbine for a short time during WWII. One day as he and a buddy were walking down a trail on some Pacific island, they came upon a Jap coming the other way. The Jap turned to run, so they opened up on him.

The Jap disappeared - my Dad and his buddy thought they must have missed, but as the moved forward, they saw a blood trail.

They followed the blood trail for what would be at least a couple of city blocks, until they caught up to where the Jap expired - bled out.

They counted eleven (11!) torso hits!

The very scientific testing that followed showed that 1) the carbine didn't hit hard enough to knock a coconut off a tree; 2) A .45 WOULD knock a coconut off a tree; 3) A hit from an M1 Garand would blow the coconut open.

The carbine didn't always fail to stop, but lack of stopping power simply wasn't an issue with the Thompson or Garand.

My father soon acquired a Thompson.

[Bud Light]

The Carbine got the bad reputation I think in part because people were trying to compare it with a M-1 Garand which it ain't. If you except its limitations and use it at closer ranges like 100 yrds and under it will positively get the job done. On paper the cartridge looks very unimpressive but for people that have used this gun particularly with soft point ammo it appears to work. The thing to remember is it is basically a pistol caliber carbine its not a rifle and never will be. But at the ranges a civilian would likely use it at (25 yrds and under) I'd feel well armed.

[Elmer]

If there was a market for it, the ammunition companies could easily improve the performance of the .30 carbine. Using today's bullet technology, it could be an ideal law enforcement or defense rifle. Light, short, no recoil, easy to train with.

But since it's not black and "tactical" looking, it probably won't happen.

:(

[Marshall]

I have a M1 .30 Carbine and have spent quite a bit of time with it just recently. While it is no 30.06 or .308, of which I have a few of both, I guarantee you that it will take care of business with proper ammo.

People will argue with me I'm sure but, if you've been around guns and killing/hunting long enough, you acquire a feel for knowing what a certain gun will do after shooting it quite a bit. I would have no problem with hunting medium sized game, ie. deer with this gun. Would it be my first choice? No but, it could be very effective if used. Point being, shooting a M1 .30 Carbine with HP ammo out to 100-150 yards or so, I have no doubt that I would have any trouble disabling anyone reading this. :neener: Could I guarantee one shot drops, heck no but what gun do I have to shoot to do so?

When dissing the gun, keep in mind what it was designed and intended for. It was designed to provide GI's a lightweight, highly maneuverable gun that had more power than a pistol and was capable of shooting at longer ranges more effectively. It does that very well. I dismiss the myth. :)

[Tony Williams]

If they sold these in the USA it mnight do something for the image of the cartridge: the Israeli Magal, in .30 Carbine:

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk) and discussion forum (http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/)

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MAGAL.jpg

[Elmer]

You may have something there.

According to an Israeli site, it's 2 lbs heavier than an M1 Carbine, with a shorter barrel for less performance, and it's proven to be less than reliable.

But it looks tactical!

[bogie]

A little bitty rifle (I think they're actually smaller than a 10/22) is significantly better than no rifle.

Of course, I think they should have chambered them in .45... As it is, tho, I think they're a great little weapon.

[Silent-Snail]

Is it just me or does the Magal look like a jacked MP-5?

[bogie]

You know, I think that the .30 carbine would be an ideal zombie gun. Low recoil, decent sized magazines, compact, easily maneuverable, nice sights and reliability.

[Elmer]

Most of the soft point or hollow point .30 carbine I've seen shot into gelatin didn't look too great. One of the HP's wouldn't expand at all.

Today, imagine a bonded core .30 carbine, or an SXT, an HST, or a Gold Dot bullet, designed around the carbine's velocity window. You could still have good barrier penetration, with great expansion out to probably 150 yards. In a simple, light and short package.

Write the ammo companies. It would be an easy round for them to do. I've talked to at least one that has played with the idea. They just have to be convinced that it would sell.

Now if Ruger would make a new carbine with today's modern steels, and a polymer stock, decent ghost ring sights.... perfect LE patrol rifle.

[JShirley]

Federal's EFMJ bullet should be perfect for the M1 Carbine.

[Carl N. Brown]

Let's get back to the original question.

.30 Carbine Too Weak, fact or myth.

On paper, the .30 carbine is almost one-third the kinetic energy
of the .30-06 Springfield/Garand and is one-half the kinetic energy
of the .30-30 Winchester. The .30 carbine round does compare
nicely to the .32-20 Winchester (thirtytwo twenty folks) which was
intended as a large varmint round in rifles and served Charles Bronson
quite well in his revolver in his first vigilante movie.

Martin Fackler maintained data on bullet performance as Aberdeen
proving ground tech and expert trial witness. According to his data,
the .30 carbine FMJ round equals the performance of the .38 Special
and the Winchester softnose hollowpoint hunting round equals the
performance of the .357 Magnum, on real life shootings.

My father fought with the 6th Army in New Guiena and the Phillipines
in WWII. He usually carried a BAR. If he could not get a BAR he got
a M1 Garand. He could not shoot through trees with a carbine or
Thompson and had no use for them. BAR or Garand or nothing.

I own a M1 carbine and the .30 carbine round is very effective on
cardboard and does as well against targets in vintage military matches
as other folks' M1 Garands, M98 Mausers or M91 Mosin-Nagants.
It is light and short and harder to hold steady than a real rifle.

Too weak becomes, too weak for what? If faced with a rogue bear in
the woods, yes, I would want something bigger.

[Tony Williams]

Quite so. The problem with the Carbine was that despite being intended as a handgun replacement, it looked like a rifle, so some people expected to use it like the M1 Garand. It certainly was weak in comparison with that.

Had they been comparing it with a handgun, they would have been much more impressed.

TW

[Warner]

I too had a father who served in combat overseas in WWII. Being a shooter, I was interested in and received many personal accounts from him of the .30 carbine, and others of that time.

Long story(s) short on this caliber; I cannot recall a single, positive account about its effectiveness, or even any personal desirability (at all) for this carbine for those “in the mix” back then. When younger and less experienced, I also quickly learned from him that there was a HUGE difference between the two M1’s. I learned this by getting fully chastised whenever I failed to add the word “carbine” whenever I was referring to that gun. I wouldn’t make such a mis-speak today, but back then “a rifle was a rifle” to me.

Fast forward many years and today I wouldn’t want this caliber, even for fun. A good friend has one and I've shot it a whole bunch. The weapon itself is certainly interesting and historical, but that’s about it. Overall it’s way too expensive as a plinker and (exactly like the 5.56 Nato round) any caliber I wouldn’t chose for deer-sized game I damn skippy won’t choose for ANY serious personal use whatsoever. That same above mentioned father “didn’t raise no fools”. :)

Maybe one in .45 acp.

:cool:

[Carl N. Brown]

Nice idea:

Army Ordnance resisted to idea of adding the .30 Carbine cartridge
because the U.S. Military had basicly two small arms rounds in the
supply system: .45 ACP (M1911 Pistol and Thompson SMG) and .30-06
(M1903 and M1 rifle, BAR and Browning MG). Compare two cartridges
to the mess the Japanese and Italians had: dozens of different small
arm cartridges. The Ordnance guys could see cartridge chaos looming.

Now, if the gas-operated M1 carbine had been developed to use
.45 ACP and either the M1911 pistol or Thompson stick magazines,
we would not be discussing the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine.
A 5.5-pound semi-auto .45 carbine would have been the real answer
to the question the carbine was supposed to solve: replacing the
pistol or revolver for folks who would not be armed with a M1 Rifle
or Thompson SMG. And ammo resupply would be kept simple.

[bbgun]

Anyone claiming that it does is flat out of his gourd. The 06 has almost 3x the momentum and 8x the energy.

[C-grunt]

Id say the carbine faces the same downfalls as the green tip 5.56.
If you get a good chest or head shot, it does the job.
BUT, wing the guy and he isnt going down.

I would say the myth is true. In combat, I want a round that takes the enemy down when I (more often than not) dont get a stellar shot off.

[bbgun]

because the 223's blow 1" diameter holes in buttock, thigh, bicep, forearm, calf. If they hit bone, you can expect near-amputation, too. They do a great job, and let me not bother with an extra 10 lbs of gun and ammo. That's a great advantage and there are other advantages to the AR and the 223. Like short barrels, one-handed use and concealment when disassembled. I know you guys would just leave your buddy laying in his blood, but I'd help him, and that means that I'm likely to have only one arm with which to fire my rifle. Rifles often have to be used out of vehicles, while driving, etc, etc, too.