[Sandmann]

What is your opinion on which rifle is superior for self defense/CQB purposes, the AK-47 or the M-1 Carbine? Why?

[TIMC]

The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.

[BigG]

The carbine - a real one that is - is a lot handier than the AK type. The AK has all the ergonomics of a stick of firewood, imho. A better cartridge, but not much good for carrying in vehicles, etc. YMMV

[HankB]

The M1 Carbine, with original FMJ ammo, is not a reliable fight stopper. With expanding ammo, it ought to be pretty good, but there's not enough data around, and not all carbines will reliably feed JHP rounds.

I've never heard of the AK's 7.62x39 round being described as "inadequate" for its intended purpose (close combat, not long distance sniping) and most AKs will be reliable with expanding ammo.

Note that many states outlaw the .30 Carbine round - even with expanding ammo - for deer hunting.

Though I'm not particularly fond of the AK's manual safety, given a choice between the two, I vote for the AK.

[Father Knows Best]

If I didn't have to worry about the reactions from the media, prosecutors and a jury, I'd pick the AK. Since that's not the world we live in, I'll take the M1 carbine. It might not be quite as effective as the AK, but it's a lot "friendlier" in the aftermath.

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's a close call. The M1 is a lot handier, but it is not always as completely reliable and rugged as the AK. They can be picky about magazines, which the AK is not. M1s are also a bit harder to maintain. If lightweight is your first priority, the M1 would be the pick. If not, then the AK.

As for the rounds, the M1 is unfairly criticized. The reason for reported failures to stop charges in Korea was almost certainly due to bullet placement. Because of the bulky quilted winter clothes worn by the communists, what might have seemed like a direct hit to the torso could easily have been a superficial grazing or a clean miss. No way any conceivable amount of quilting in winter clothing is going to significantly interfere with a 110 grain .30 caliber FMJ bullet traveling at well over a thousand feet per second all the way out to its intended practical range of 300 yards. Come on, now. At 300 yards, it's traveling as fast as a 9mm at point blank range, and that's with a far superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density.

[benEzra]

Even assuming you're talking about civilian AK lookalikes rather than actual selective-fire AK's, I'd still say the AK wins hands down. The M1 carbine is lighter, slightly handier, and has a more ergonomic safety. The AK safety and mag release have the ergonomics of a Klingon warship, but the AK fires an arguably more effective cartridge, uses more robust magazines, and (to me) has a more ergonomic firing position--I dislike straight stocks like that of the standard M1.

I also personally like the aesthetics of the AK better, but they're both neat guns.

[MechAg94]

My opinion is that if all militaries carried 50 BMG rifiles, you could still find someone who would complain about stopping power and the round's effectiveness.

I would go for the AK for power, capacity, and reliability. You can get AK's with folding stocks that are pretty small and handy. Using 5.45 ammo might help with weight if that is a problem. I will say that you can get enforcer type carbine guns that are pretty handy as well.

Of course, everyone has their own opinion about what makes a gun handy and easy to use. Each to his own.

[444]

Good question.
Let's start with the cartridge. The .30 Carbine is a very poor round; especially when fired out of a carbine. IMO, if you are going to carry something as big as a carbine, have something that fires a serious carbine/rifle cartridge. Using perfectly safe, industry standard pressures, you can handload a 110 grain bullet in a .357 HANDGUN to greater velocity than the 110 grain .30 Carbine military ball load. And, most respected authorities don't consider a 110 grain load to be a good defensive load out of the .357 handgun: what does that say about the 110 FMJ out of a carbine ? The 7.62x39 is nothing to write home about in a rifle cartridge either, but it is far superior to the .30 Carbine. Both have a rainbow trajectory. Past 100 yards, you have to be reasonably close with your range estimation. Winner: AK

Sights: the carbine has better sights. The carbine has a longer sight radius. The carbine uses a rear peep sight. The carbine has windage adjustment on the rear sight that doesn't take any tools to adjust. Score one for the carbine.

Ergonomics:
Safety. I don't like either one. On the carbine, I can manipulate the safety without releasing my firing grip on the gun, so I give the carbine the nod on safeties.
Mag release. The carbine mag release is as good as any ever made. Can be manipulated without breaking your firing grip on the weapon and is located on the correct side of the receiver. BIG winner for the carbine.
Bolt charging handle. Both operate the same way and both are on the wrong side of the gun. Both require you to break your firing grip on the weapon to manipulate. Tie.
Reliability. I don't know. Reputation would say the AK and I have no reason to doubt it. This one goes to the AK.
General feel/handling. When handy, cool, best loved, emotion filled, quick handling guns are mentioned, the US .30 Carbine is always mentioned. This definitely scores one for the Carbine.

So, we have five for the Carbine, we have two for the AK, with one tie.

Knowing all that, I would go for the AK every time.
The .30 Carbine cartridge is totally inadequate and no matter how sweet the actual gun itself is, I can't get past the fact that the cartridge is a POS. If both guns fired the same cartridge, or if the carbine fired an even better cartridge, this would be a no-brainer. But that isn't the case.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Good question.
Let's start with the cartridge. The .30 Carbine is a very poor round; especially when fired out of a carbine. IMO, if you are going to carry something as big as a carbine, have something that fires a serious carbine/rifle cartridge. Using perfectly safe, industry standard pressures, you can handload a 110 grain bullet in a .357 HANDGUN to greater velocity than the 110 grain .30 Carbine military ball load. And, most respected authorities don't consider a 110 grain load to be a good defensive load out of the .357 handgun: what does that say about the 110 FMJ out of a carbine ? The 7.62x39 is nothing to write home about in a rifle cartridge either, but it is far superior to the .30 Carbine. Both have a rainbow trajectory. Past 100 yards, you have to be reasonably close with your range estimation. Winner: AK
Ok, you are making all kinds of mistakes here in your comparisons. First of all, the reason a 110 grain round out of a .357 goes faster out of the same barrel length is that fatter bullets require less powder to drive them faster. That said, you cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. Thirdly, the reason a 110 grain .357 bullet doesn't penetrate as deep as a 110 grain .30, assuming the same velocity, is due to inferior sectional density, which is why the authorities you've read don't consider the 110 grain .357 a good pick for self defense.

[444]

"the reason a 110 grain round out of a .357 goes faster out of the same barrel length is that fatter bullets require less powder to drive them faster. "
I am not talking about the same barrel length. I am talking about a handgun barrel length vs. a standard USGI carbine barrel. And, if you check the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition, you will see that a 110 grain .357 bullet requires 18.4 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 2006 fps, while a 110 grain .30 Carbine bullet uses 12.6 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 1893 fps. Both are max loads for that powder.

"That said, you cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. "
False. According to Cartridges of the World, 9th edition, page 51, the USGI ball load uses a 110 grain FMJ bullet at 1900 fps. If you will now turn to page 101 of the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition you will see that a Speer 110 grain JHP over 18.4 grains of Accurate #9 powder will give you 2006 fps out of a 8" .357 mag handgun barrel. I have actually used this load out of my own guns over my own chronograph and averaged 1990 fps out of my 6 1/2" Ruger Blackhawk. Note again that this load is out of the powder manufacturer's own manual that I am sure was approved by their legal staff prior to publishing and sales to the public. Their website used to list this load at 2100 fps.

"Thirdly, the reason a 110 grain .357 bullet doesn't penetrate as deep as a 110 grain .30, assuming the same velocity, is due to inferior sectional density, which is why the authorities you've read don't consider the 110 grain .357 a good pick for self defense."
That very well may be. I am not going to argue that point. But to me, this doesn't add much to the argument. The point is that as a carbine cartridge, the .30 Carbine is a very poor performer. Let's say you are right with this final argument. The .30 Carbine has better penetration than the lightest bullet normally found in a .357 handgun. Does that make it good ?

[The Real Hawkeye]

"You cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. "
False. According to Cartridges of the World, 9th edition, page 51, the USGI ball load uses a 110 grain FMJ bullet at 1900 fps. If you will now turn to page 101 of the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition you will see that a Speer 110 grain JHP over 18.4 grains of Accurate #9 powder will give you 2006 fps out of a 8" handgun barrel. I have actually used this load out of my own guns over my own chronograph and averaged 1990 fps out of my 6 1/2" Ruger Blackhawk.Well, I will accept what you say here as correct (though I am somewhat surprised by it), but it really goes to prove my point that it is easier to drive a fatter bullet faster than a slimmer bullet due to greater surface area having force exerted against it by expanding gasses. I just didn't think that this factor was capable of making up for such a great barrel length difference as between your typical carbine and your typical handgun, and you have to also admit that an eight inch barrel is far from standard on handguns. My point was that because a .357 caliber bullet of X weight can be driven to X velocity does not necessarily mean that a .30 caliber bullet of the same weight can be. That said, any gains in velocity due to a fatter bullet are lost in terminal effect due to SD, assuming the weight of the bullets are the same.

[444]

I love to have discussions like this, about guns. Actually discussing the pros and cons, specifications, performance numbers etc is FAR more interesting to me than reading someone's post who says: I got one and I love mine.
So, I know I am beating a dead horse as well as getting on some people's nerves. In the past, I have gotten in these discussions about the .30 Carbine and a number of people got seriously bent out of shape about it. It seems to be a sacred cow.

"you have to also admit that an eight inch barrel is far from standard on handguns."
Ok, I will admit that. I also said that I have fired that load over my own chronograph using my own 6.5" Blackhawk and still got a velocity that was greater than that of the .30 Carbine USGI ball load. But the point isn't to compare the .357 handgun to the .30 Carbine. It is to point out that you are carrying something that is bigger/longer/heavier than a handgun, yet it fires a cartridge that is SIMILAR to a .357 handgun. I haven't been into the whole defensive handgun debates for a couple years, but the last stats I saw, showed the .357 handgun as being the top or one of the top one shot stoppers. But, I want a carbine that is FAR more potent than any handgun round. I have seen quite a few real people shot with handguns in person, up close and personal. I have seen a few people shot with 7.62x39 carbines under the same conditions. The difference was huge. Dramatic. No comparison.

[ziadel]

I'll take the M1 with the paratrooper folding stock please :D

[molonlabe]

you can handload a 110 grain bullet in a .357 HANDGUN to greater velocity than the 110 grain .30 Carbine military ball load

I'm not so sure of that. 30 FMJ from PMC clocks about 2000fps. My own 110gr JHP with ww296 also clock at 2000fps. This is nothing to sniff at and should be quite lethal. I doubt you could push a .357 that fast but maybe you could out of a carbine.

For HD. I would feel safe with the carbine.

[444]

". 30 FMJ from PMC clocks about 2000fps": This isn't military ball.
" My own 110gr JHP with ww296 also clock at 2000fps.": And this isn't military ball.

"I doubt you could push a .357 that fast but maybe you could out of a carbine."
So, not to get aggressive here, but when I said that I averaged 1990 out of my Blackhawk, did you think I was making it up ? No, I think you read my first post and got excited and had to post without reading the rest of the thread. :)

I guess people get excited and defend the .30 Carbine the way I defend my own sacred cow, the 5.56 NATO.
Please don't be a hater: I own a USGI .30 Carbine. I own a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 Carbine. I handload for the .30 Carbine. I am negotiating a deal with a guy across the street to buy another USGI carbine. I love the carbine. It is one of the most fun guns you can own. Hell, I had a carbine replica BB gun as a kid. But when we are talking about effective combat tools, I just didn't drink the Kool Aid. By the same token, I don't really like the AK at all. I now own three of them, but as a sporting arm, the .30 USGI Carbine has it all over the AK. As a military/personal defense weapon, the opposite is true In My Opinion. YMMV.

Can you tell that I am off today and just wasted the whole morning drinking coffee and surfing the internet ?

[molonlabe]

Yup, missed that. I would believe that since the Rugar is a hefty gun. I pushed a 200gr .44 at a rate most people would cringe out of a Dan Wesson when I was shooting silhouette.

I'll add one more thing. I wasn't alive then but I think the .30 probably accounted for a lot of enemy killed in WW2. But it ain't a 30-06. Our WWII vets are passing wish they could chime in.

[Father Knows Best]

Can you tell that I am off today and just wasted the whole morning drinking coffee and surfing the internet ?

Dude, you're my hero.

Seriously, I voted for the M1 carbine. It's not because I think it is a superior weapon when compared to the AK. It isn't. For my own personal defense, however, it is certainly "good enough." By that, I mean it is plenty lethal when used with a moderate amount of skill. I don't expect to ever have to shoot through cover, or fend off waves of chinese wearing arctic gear, and I don't consider the ability to defeat body armor to be a realistic requirement for a personal defensive weapon. If the people coming for me are wearing body armor, I've got a lot bigger concerns than whether I be shooting .30 carbine vs. 7.62x39.

So bottom line -- the M1 carbine is compact, handy, lightweight, reliable, and "lethal enough" for a home defense weapon. It's certainly more lethal than the vast majority of handgun options. While the AK has certain advantages over the M1 carbine, in this context (personal/home defense) they are more than outweighed by the evil image of the AK and the nasty PR problems that could lead to.

I love my AK (an Arsenal SA M-7S with Kobra optics). But I'll grab my USGI M1 carbine first if I am ever in need of a long arm to defend my home against common criminals.

[rustymaggot]

m1 carbine is gonna be a bit quieter to use for hd than a ak. anything i can do to not go def protecting myself is a step in the right direction. ak can have a folding stock, m1 carbine has em available too. i dont know what the length of a folded ak is but my m1 carbine would be 26 or 27 inches long if i still owned a folding pistol grip stock for it. so the argument that the carbine is shorter and easier to maneuver in kinda bunk. unless we are talking about the m1 carbine enforcer, those were real short. the m1 carbine has very low recoil, lower than a ak. ive done 1 inch groups with my scoped m1 carbine at 50 yards, thats accurate enough for close quarters. 30 round mags common for both. m1 carbine mags are smaller and fit in pockets easier.

the m1 carbine is a good gun. i would pick it over a ak but i admit that this is because i am very very familiar with my m1 carbine. if i had a ak to play around with and compare, then i might go with ak. 7.62x39 is a better cartrige, i admit, but the 30 carbine isnt trash like some people say it is either. this now leads me to...................................THE RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

people badmouth the .30 carbine cartrige and quote how it didnt make it thru the coats of the enemy in the korean war. thats a load of bull. no one calls the .357 useless and the 30 carbine is approx the same. the chart im looking at is in the 2001 guns&ammo buyers guide. lists 30 carbine as 110 grain moving at 1990fps and 965 foot-lbs energy at muzzle, the highest energy rating i see listed for .357 is 834 foot lbs from a 150 grain moving 1542fps. theres no way the 30 carbine penetrates less than the .357 magnum, and 357 is praised by all. so why the bad rep? seriously, why?

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

" 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."............

read the site and tell me the 30 carbine is trash. knocks chunk out of cement after it goes thru cloth equal to a winter jacket, and then gallon of water and 3 inches of pine boards. hey, im sorry, but i just have to look down on anyone who calls the 30 carbine useless.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm

next example, the 30 carbine went thru 7 gallons of water, 30-06 armor piercing round did 7 gallons as well. gee, i guess the carbine isnt as useless as it was thought to be.

[molonlabe]

Rumors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War

I'd say just rumors not facts.

Rumors said the NVA could chamber and fire our round in their AK but we couldn’t chamber and fire theirs.:confused: That was repeated to me by a grunt years later and he asked me if that was true.:what:

[MICHAEL T]

I vote for M-1 any day.

[Carl N. Brown]

The M1 carbine Winchester 110 gr. Softnose hollowpoint shows
a wound channel like the .357 125 gr. hollowpoint in standard
ballistic gel.

If the 30 carbine M1 won't stop a home invader in a North Korean
winter coat, I won't worry because few of the crack heads or
Oxycontine shooters around here don't wear North Korean winter
coats when they break in residences.

The AK47 is a better outdoors battle rifle than the .30 Carbine M1,
but the .30 Carbine softnose is less likely to over-penetrate and
the gun is easier to handle (about three pound lighter) indoors.

[Ermac]

I might chime in because I own an Iver Johnson M1 Carbine (well the father has it)....There was reports about the M1 Carbine not being able to penetrate the winter clothes of the Koreans because of the COLD TEMPERATURE. The very low temperature (-25-30) during some of the battles affected the power of the round thus reducing the velocity of the round. If the .30 carbine was fired in normal operating temperature...it will dam for sure penetrate a wool-knit korean military outfit. Please do a search on this. The .30 carbine is a fun to fire round and not to expensive....rant off!

[rustymaggot]

I might chime in because I own an Iver Johnson M1 Carbine (well the father has it)....There was reports about the M1 Carbine not being able to penetrate the winter clothes of the Koreans because of the COLD TEMPERATURE. The very low temperature (-25-30) during some of the battles affected the power of the round thus reducing the velocity of the round. If the .30 carbine was fired in normal operating temperature...it will dam for sure penetrate a wool-knit korean military outfit. Please do a search on this. The .30 carbine is a fun to fire round and not to expensive....rant off!

id like to see stats on that if available. maybe a chart of other cartriges performance in extreme cold. thanks for the new perspective, i hadnt thought about reduced power from the cold.

[Ermac]

id like to see stats on that if available. maybe a chart of other cartriges performance in extreme cold. thanks for the new perspective, i hadnt thought about reduced power from the cold.

I will check as to where I found the info and post back

[wallysparx]

forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?

[30Cal]

forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?
There's the mini14 & the mini30.

Ty

[Dr.Rob]

To quote a Russian engineer... yes but our rifle is also a club!

A close range rifle doesn't need a peep sight. Or a bayonet. In spite of this the Carbine saw use in cqb all over the globe.

The AK fires a hotter round that goes through more stuff. Good if you are shooting bad guys behind walls/desks/furniture... not so good if you don't want to shoot through things.

The carbine weighs less, isn't banned as often as the AK and with proper bullets it's better than almost any handgun available.

[beerslurpy]

Well if they ever get around to banning my AK and taking it away, I'll be sure to give the M1 carbine a peek if I cant get ahold of an SKS or an SU16 or a Saiga or winchester defender or a garand or a mosin nagant or a fal or a k31 etc.

The M1 carb has always seemed like a great plinker, but it isnt really high on my list of military guns I want to acquire. It is too close to the 10/22 to be a good manstopper and too close to the AK to be a great squirrel gun.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well if they ever get around to banning my AK and taking it away, I'll be sure to give the M1 carbine a peek if I cant get ahold of an SKS or an SU16 or a Saiga or winchester defender or a garand or a mosin nagant or a fal or a k31 etc.

The M1 carb has always seemed like a great plinker, but it isnt really high on my list of military guns I want to acquire. It is too close to the 10/22 to be a good manstopper and too close to the AK to be a great squirrel gun.That's an exaggeration. The .30 Carbine is plenty powerful to stop a fight at close range, and is adequate out to 300 yards, equaling the velocity of a point blank 9mm way out there, with superior sectional density for superior penetrative power.

[DMK]

The carbine - a real one that is - is a lot handier than the AK type. The AK has all the ergonomics of a stick of firewood, imho. A better cartridge, but not much good for carrying in vehicles, etc. YMMV
i dont know what the length of a folded ak is but my m1 carbine would be 26 or 27 inches long if i still owned a folding pistol grip stock for it. so the argument that the carbine is shorter and easier to maneuver in kinda bunk.
SAR1 AK with folded stock (and no muzzle device) = 26.5"
With stock extended = 35.5" (same length as a full stock M1 carbine)
Weight (with no ammo): 7lbs (two pounds heavier than the carbine)

I think it's a tie for compactness, but the M1 is lighter and has better ergonomics.

[georgeduz]

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.

[ChevellRCR]

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.

I forsee a rough thread ahead.

[rustymaggot]

SAR1 AK with folded stock (and no muzzle device) = 26.5"
With stock extended = 35.5" (same length as a full stock M1 carbine)
Weight (with no ammo): 7lbs (two pounds heavier than the carbine)

I think it's a tie for compactness, but the M1 is lighter and has better ergonomics.

a 30 round mag for the m1 carbine is much smaller than a ak mag. i assume lighter when loaded but i dont know the weight of a loaded ak mag. m1 mags, you can easilly fit 2 in each back pocket. you gotta have a big pair of pants to do that with ak mags.

i agree, compactness is a tie, or close enough to just call it one at any rate.

[USSR]

Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.

The "heavy" winter coats worn by the Chinese are the same that were worn by the Soviets in WW2. They are called Telogreika (see photo below).

http://people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/ussr/telogreika1.jpg

Although I sell these coats, I would be happy to donate one free of charge to anyone who would like to play Superman and wear one while attemping to stop a speeding .30 Carbine bullet. My money is on the bullet.

Don

[rustymaggot]

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.

altho i am a big m1 carbine fan, i have to say that you might have missed the question, or how the question was posed. debate is for the better close quarters and home defense gun. the marginal accuracy of the ak doesnt matter at the ranges we are discussing. ak is reliable, has a good cartrige, and is cheap. cheap is great if it works, and the ak47 works.

personally i like the sks better than the ak, but only because of the feel to it. if the sks that took ak mags were legal here in california id have one of those. instead i have a russian sks and my sks is almost as accurate as my m1 carbine and much more accurate at longer distance. ive been told that my sks is a sniper edition. has all black parts, longer barrel, and has a barrel stamp rating of '2'. the lower the better with russian sks rating system. mine is quite accurate. but not in my hands, i have bad eyes, hehehehe. im not bad if im wearin my glasses.

[beerslurpy]

Considering how cold it was in korea, I really doubt the chinese were only wearing one layer. My bet would be on multiple layers with the outermost being soaked and cold. Add in reduced velocity from the severe cold and you might have inadequate penetration. The gangsters of the 30s were wearing silk/cotton vests that would stop 38 and 45 caliber slugs a decent percent of the time, and those werent that bulky.

Then again, the chinese might have been wearing only one layer- they would probably be so numb that they wouldnt feel getting shot.

[DMK]

a 30 round mag for the m1 carbine is much smaller than a ak mag. i assume lighter when loaded but i dont know the weight of a loaded ak mag. m1 mags, you can easilly fit 2 in each back pocket. you gotta have a big pair of pants to do that with ak mags.

i agree, compactness is a tie, or close enough to just call it one at any rate. True. The 30 round AK mags are pretty large, heavy and awkward. The Bulgarian Waffle mags are a little lighter, but personally I prefer the Hungarian 20 round mags. However, they still aren't as light or compact as M1 carbine mags, or even AR/M16 mags for that matter.

[Frandy]

Anyone here want to break into my house at night and face my M-1 Carbine as they stand 15-20 feet away?

Self defense in the home? Though I also have a 12-gauge and pistols loaded, I would feel quite protected with my Carbine. Quite! :D

[Ash]

And the M1 Carbine has greater penetration than any of the Chinese/Soviet subguns based on the 7.62x25.

Ash

[Destructo6]

IMO, the M1 Carbine is no more than its original design requirements: a little better than a pistol.

I don't really see superiority of the M1's ergonomics, either. Mag changes require a finger and a hand, the AK a hand. The carbine's safety isn't any better, either: neither are quick, like an AR or Garand.

The cost of purchase and feeding also gives the nod to the AK. To me, it's not a fair comparison.

[444]

"Mag changes require a finger and a hand, the AK a hand. The carbine's safety isn't any better, either: neither are quick, like an AR or Garand."

You are missing a couple things here. The mag change isn't about how many fingers or hands it takes to do a mag change. Mag changes are time critical, not hand critical. With the carbine, you can eject a used magazine AT THE SAME TIME as you are grabbing a fresh magazine with your other hand. Mag changes can be done quicker with the carbine than with an AK given equal amount of experience between the two operators. This means less time the gun is down and out of the fight. That is ALWAYS good. By the same token, being able to do a mag change while keeping your firing hand on the weapon in a good firing position is always a good thing.

Any time you can have your firing side hand remain on the weapon in a proper firing postion, this is good. It is always better than having to move your hand from it's correct firing position in order to perform a function on the weapon. If you can move the safety from safe to fire or from fire to safe while maintaining a good firing position: this is ALWAYS better.

[roscoe]

forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?

Check out the .22 Johnson Spitfire conversion.

Also, all this talk about heavy winter clothing - check out the Box O' Truth.

[glockamolee]

The carbine is MUCH MORE PC than the AK.
The AK is more reliable and fires a more powerful cartridge


New Orleans or other anarchy situation would call for an AK.

Home defense involving police, neighbors, and media calls for the M1 Carbine. Did I mention the media and the anti-gun neighbor??

Ok then.

[NineseveN]

That's a close call. The M1 is a lot handier, but it is not always as completely reliable and rugged as the AK. They can be picky about magazines, which the AK is not. M1s are also a bit harder to maintain. If lightweight is your first priority, the M1 would be the pick. If not, then the AK.

As for the rounds, the M1 is unfairly criticized. The reason for reported failures to stop charges in Korea was almost certainly due to bullet placement. Because of the bulky quilted winter clothes worn by the communists, what might have seemed like a direct hit to the torso could easily have been a superficial grazing or a clean miss. No way any conceivable amount of quilting in winter clothing is going to significantly interfere with a 110 grain .30 caliber FMJ bullet traveling at well over a thousand feet per second all the way out to its intended practical range of 300 yards. Come on, now. At 300 yards, it's traveling as fast as a 9mm at point blank range, and that's with a far superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density.


I believe the problems were from the M2/M3, not the M1. The M2/M3 were the select fire versions of the M1, and they had feeding issues and my guess is that soldiers were missing completely with FA fire, it wasn't the round that was lacking, it was basic fire control. I could be wrong though, it's late and I don't think so good right about now... :)

[NineseveN]

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.


Wrong.

Next.

[yonderway]

The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.

That is a commonly repeated myth that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Just for giggles, this is less scientific, but check out how the old M1 Carbine held up in the Box of Truth (http://www.theboxotruth.com/).

I'll be moving to NC in early 2006 to a country woodlot where I can set up a shooting range in my back yard. I'll be in a better position to do some more conclusive tests myself.

[yonderway]

personally i like the sks better than the ak, but only because of the feel to it.

Your average SKS will be a little more accurate, and also try firing that AK from a prone unsupported position. Try the same thing with an SKS. Also try carring 210 rounds in AK mags vs. stripper clips on a "chinese bra" for the SKS.

[MTMilitiaman]

My personal preference would be the AK cause I have more experience with it and I trust it. I shoot left handed so the ergonomics improve a lot for me. I can drop a mag, manipulate the safety, and operate the charging handle all without moving my firing hand. If I wasn't in a rural setting and had more reason to be concerned about penetration, I would test some soft points and various vamint bullets and load up a couple mags for defense. Since I am not, standard 122 gr Wolf FMJ do the trick. My experience shows that they actually flatten and deform quite well in a liquid medium. Noise may be an issue but not a huge one. My AK doesn't seem to have the sharp crack of my dad's Mini-14. Neither would be friendly in doors, but given my familiarity in the system and the round's better performance, I think the AK's advanatages outweigh its disadvantages. If I have to secure the homestead by moving outside, or I find myself in total anarchy, I know the AK has a bigger comparative "uummph" advantage as ranges increase. A 300 yards a Winchester 123 gr SP that leaves the muzzle at 2365 fps maintains 1465 fps for 586 fpe. A 110 gr hollow SP for the .30 Carbine leaves the muzzle at 1990 fps but reaches 300 yards with only 1035 fps and 262 fpe. This means the AK carries an expanding projectile of slightly heavier mass and comparible diameter to 300 yards with nearly twice the energy and 50% velocity to aid in bullet expansion. Not sure about the .30 Carbine, but the AK is accurate enough to put these rounds COM at that range as well. Indoors, the point may be moot but it never hurts to plan beyond the ordinary.

The AK is probably easier to add aftermarket sights to as well. I have Mojo ghost rings on my AK. And in addition to a side mount plate, foreward quad rails by Ultimak and Krebs, among others, make it very easy to add Scout scopes and reflex/red dot sights. This also makes it easier to put a weapon light on the AK as well as a vertical foregrip.

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.

By "tight group" are you insinuating that a controlled pair to the upper thoratic cavity is insufficient? Or perhaps that 4 to 5 MOA from a $320 rifle with atrocious trigger slap and crappy sights isn't sufficient to get the job done? Or that by spending a little time on the trigger components or spending $40 on aftermarket parts as well as $40 for improved sights and $20 for a more ergonomic pistol grip to get a ~$400 rifle that shoots the heck out of gallon water jugs at 150 yards with me behind it is simply scrap metal? Tell me, Dear Sir, what good is hitting "ur targets at long range" if your .22 caliber bullet fails to noticeably expand, fragment, deform, or tumble much past 200 yards? Now many targets to you think you're going to hit at any range if I put two in your chest with my $400 rifle while you're running SPORTS on your $800 rifle? The topic at hand, I believe, related directly to CQB. How much accuracy to you need to put metal COM across a room or street?
Why not use an AR-15? Maybe because some people find your selection of rifles to be an overrated abomination that craps where it eats and requires more maintenence than should be expected of a combat arm...or simply because some of us are still uncomfortable with the idea of using a cartridge that is commercially commonly restricted to varmint use in defense of life and limb against nature's most violent predator. Some of us find it sad that the best thing to be said about our current military rifle is that it is accurate enough to make a dandy poodle shooter or competition rig. Or maybe just because if everyone used the same rifle, the world would be boring and there would be nothing left for us to argue about on Internet chat rooms. Take your pick. Just don't blatantly attack someone else's choice with little or no supporting evidence while simulateously butchering our language and expect not you have your own choices submitted to open criticism.

[rustymaggot]

Your average SKS will be a little more accurate, and also try firing that AK from a prone unsupported position. Try the same thing with an SKS. Also try carring 210 rounds in AK mags vs. stripper clips on a "chinese bra" for the SKS.

if i need 210 rounds for home defense, then im in it pretty deep.

[Lone_Gunman]

The M1 Carbine has always suffered from the fact that its detractors don't understand why it was developed, and what its purpose is supposed to be.

The carbine was never intended to compete with medium or high powered rifles. It was intended to provide troops who were not primarily riflemen with a weapon easier to use and more accurate than the 1911. At now point in its development was power really a consideration. It was never intended to be used as a replacement of more powerful rifles.

The AK was designed with a different set of goals. It uses a medium powered rifle cartridge (inarguably more powerful than the M1 Carbine), and was designed as the primary weapon of the peasant army of the Soviet Union.

Asking the question "AK versus M1 carbine" is a bit unfair. It would be similar to asking which is better, 357 mag versus 380. The answer to the question depends on how you intend to use it. The AK is the more versatile weapon, and for a full scale SHTF scenario would be the better choice. But for home defense under usual circumstances, it would be hard to convince me that the M1 Carbine is a poor choice.

[benEzra]

the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.
And living in New Jersey, do you know this from personal experience, or secondhand?

I own a SAR-1. It will stay on a pie plate at 200 yards. The fact that it won't shoot a 2" group at 200 doesn't mean it's "scrap metal."

I'd like to own an AR, but can't afford one due to my 6-year-old son's medical bills (we're at >$1 million total bills and >$50,000 out of pocket so far, with more open-hearts to go). If you'd like to send me the money to buy one, I'd add a RRA 16" to my gun safe tomorrow. :D

The carbine is MUCH MORE PC than the AK.

(snip)

Home defense involving police, neighbors, and media calls for the M1 Carbine. Did I mention the media and the anti-gun neighbor??
The M1 carbine is now considered an "assault weapon" by the prohibitionists at the same level as my SAR-1. Check out S.1431/H.R. 2038 last session, or McCarthy's 2005 bill; the M1 carbine is banned by name. The M1 is slightly more PC due to the wooden stock, but on the other hand an M1 can be accurately described by a zealot prosecutor as a "weapon of war." So that may be a slight advantage of the carbine, but not by much.

Your average SKS will be a little more accurate, and also try firing that AK from a prone unsupported position. Try the same thing with an SKS.
As far as using an AK lookalike while shooting prone, if you limit yourself to 10-round magazines like the SKS, you can shoot an AK prone also. Even the AK Hungarian 20-round mags let you get lower than with a 30, though I don't see that as being necessary in a HD situation where I live.

[Hollowdweller]

I can shoot my M1 in a variety of light conditions at a higher rate of fire and more accurately than almost any other military style gun I have shot. I like that with the clipping 2 30's clip and the belt stock you can carry 90 rounds on the gun.

[yonderway]

if i need 210 rounds for home defense, then im in it pretty deep.

There is precedent for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge).

[The Real Hawkeye]

There is precedent for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge).Good point.

[BOBK48]

AK-47 or M1 carbine?

I've owned both. My answer is whichever one is handy when I need it. I owned a carbine for many years and am quite familiar with them. I also have a SAR1 which is now banned in my state as of May 2002.

Between the 2 my carbine was more accurate. But that's just paper targets. As I have not been in combat or had to use a weapon in self defence. I think both would work with the edge going to the Ak firing an more powerfull round.

[antarti]

The .30 Carbine cartridge is totally inadequate and no matter how sweet the actual gun itself is, I can't get past the fact that the cartridge is a POS.

Having actually shot and downed pigs (not Javelina, boar) with a little carbine loaded with softpoints (only took 1 to do it), I think you fail to understand what the carbine can do with either old mil-ball or modern softpoints.

Having (owning and shooting) both AK and M1 carbine, I would prefer the carbine for all indoor encounters, or ones that might require any sort of room clearing. It will perforate any wall/window anybody is going to use for cover, is far handier, mags are lighter and quicker to change, non-existant recoil, etc. The .30 carbine will out-penetrate a .223 against common construction materials in ball form. I doubt the softpoint is going to be slowed by wallboard much, but the studs are a different story.

Both AK and carbine are trustworthy (and just plain WORTHY, in all respects) light rifles, neither is an MBR by any stretch. Out in the woods only?? then AK for its better (but still not MBR-like) barrier penetration since trees are good cover. Either will make whomever catches one out to 300 or so wish (probably posthumously) they had stayed in bed that morning.

[444]

"I think you fail to understand what the carbine can do with either old mil-ball or modern softpoints."

No, I think I have a pretty good idea.
I think that many people on this thread fail to understand what I am saying. I am saying that it's performance is very similar to a .357 handgun using light bullets. Is a .357 handgun effective against humans ? Certainly. What about game animals ? Sure it is. If you want an interesting read, research the hunting down by Col. Wesson before the debut of the .357 Registered Magnum by S&W. The shot all manner of North American big game: elk, and I am pretty sure he even took some of the big bears.
So, if I knew that Col. Wesson downed elk and grizzly bear with a .357 handgun, should I be impressed that you killed a boar with a .30 Carbine ? No.
The fact that the .30 Carbine has killed humans or animals isn't the issue. Both humans and all manner of animals including some of the biggest on earth have been killed with .22 long rifle. Does that mean the .22 long rifle is something I would recommend for self defense or for hunting big game animals ? Hell no. Will it work ? It might. Can people post examples of where it did work ? Sure. Does this now make it a good choice ? Not at all.
I know the .30 carbine can and has killed animals as well as people. That wasn't the question. The question asked which I would rather have and why ?

[antarti]

That wasn't the question. The question asked which I would rather have and why ?

Sorry, I thought the question was:


What is your opinion on which rifle is superior for self defense/CQB purposes, the AK-47 or the M-1 Carbine? Why?

Edit: too LOUD

[.50DE]

weapons and like them both. However, for self defense, I prefer the third pic
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/455HO/30m1s.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/455HO/aks.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y40/455HO/minimonthapril2003.jpg
:D

[Destructo6]

With the carbine, you can eject a used magazine AT THE SAME TIME as you are grabbing a fresh magazine with your other hand. Mag changes can be done quicker with the carbine than with an AK given equal amount of experience between the two operators. This means less time the gun is down and out of the fight. That is ALWAYS good. By the same token, being able to do a mag change while keeping your firing hand on the weapon in a good firing position is always a good thing.
I disagree. The AK takes a different method to change magazines, but I do not believe it takes longer. You rock the empty forward and the full back: it's not a complex movement. BTW, why would you take your firing hand off the AK's pistol grip while changing magazines?

[MTMilitiaman]

The M1 Carbine may be faster in mag changes if you're dropping your empties but if you're keeping them, then I think they are pretty even. Then again, I have no real experience with the M1 Carbine so I could be mistaken. I can pull the mag out of an AK with my support hand in less time than it takes to describe it. Then it is a matter of putting the empty mag in a pouch or pocket, grabbing a fresh mag, and rocking it in.

I still agree with some others on here when I say the M1 Carbine may be adequate for most situations but I don't see too much of an advantage choosing a rifle chambered for what is essentially a pistol cartridge over a serious, though admittedly intermediate powered rifle round.

[444]

MTMilitiaman, you got it. If you are doing a speed reload, or an emergency reload or whatever you want to call it, you have to remove the magazine from the weapon and drop it. Then you have to get another magazine and rock it into place.
With the carbine, you can use your trigger finger to punch out the old magazine at the same time as you are reaching for a new one.
At this point, the carbine's bolt is locked to the rear and you can release the bolt with your weak side hand. With the AK, you CAN run the action with your weak side hand, but it is much more comfortable to run it with your stong side hand since the bolt handle is on that side of the weapon and the bolt is not locked back.

If you are doing a tac load, the carbine's magazine is smaller and you can change mags like a pistol. You can grab a new magazine , put you had under the old magazine, punch the magazine out to your palm, pivot your palm so that you are grasping the old magazine between your pinkie and fouth finger while you are inserting a new one.
With the AK, it takes one hand to release the mag/hold the mag/and stow the mag, then you can get a new one and insert it.

As always, this is just my view of things and my opinion. If you don't agree I would appreciate the education.

[MTMilitiaman]

Okay forgive my lack of experience with the Carbine but is the mag release ambi? If not then the Carbine's ergonomic advantage may be largely negated for me as a lefty.

I shoot left handed so I can keep my firing hand in place and manipulate all the controls on the AK with my right hand, which conincidentially is still my strong hand since I am right handed but left eye dominant. With the tab style mag release, I find it very easy to push the tab with my right thumb and pull the mag out with the rest of my fingers. If you have big enough hands, and I do, it is faster to grab the fresh mag and bring it up beside the empty, thumb the lever and flick the empty out of the magwell, and rock the fresh into place. I'll admit it was this conversation that got me thinking and I just thought that up. I just tried it a couple times with my WASR and a couple empty steel 30 round mags. I was a little bit clumsy doing it but with practice you could be pretty quick. That is not to say other designs, perhaps even including the M1 Carbine, are not faster. But with smart training the disadvantages of the AK can be minimized and I still feel the added power afforded by its cartridge, the ease of sighting options, and the design's inheriant reliability and durability make it the more versitile option, if not simply the best in this case. I think I stand with you when I say that if I am upgrading from a pistol to a long arm, I want my long arm to give me an appreciable advantage in firepower over my pistol. I just don't see that in the M1 Carbine.

[444]

This is a good reason to have Mag-puls on your magazines. When you are working with the larger rifle magazines (larger than pistol magazines). You can grab a fresh magazine, put your pinky through the magpul and release the mag from the gun. The mag is now hanging on your pinky allowing you to use your other four fingers and hand to seat the fresh mag. Actually, I don't know about this: I have never tried it with anything other than an AR. I guess maybe you couldn't put your pinky through the magpul and still reach the mag release ?? I am at work and can't try it. It works great on an AR, but on the AR you have a mag release button that you operate with your firing side index finger.
The carbine mags are not much larger than pistol mags and you can manipulate them with one hand just like pistol mags.

[DMK]

With the AK, you CAN run the action with your weak side hand, but it is much more comfortable to run it with your stong side hand since the bolt handle is on that side of the weapon and the bolt is not locked back. That's not a huge drawback. You hold the PG in your right hand, rotate the weapon to the left about 45 degrees, reach over the top, pull the bolt all the way back, then release. If you're left handed, you do it the way MTMilitiaman describes.

With the AK, it takes one hand to release the mag/hold the mag/and stow the mag, then you can get a new one and insert it.That's the biggest drawback. The problem is with the paddle mag release and the fact that the mags have to be rocked in to lock. The release can't be reached with the firing hand to drop an empty mag while you retrieve a full one with the off hand. If you are doing a tac reload (which is even more important with the AK due to lack of bolt hold back on last round), you need your full hand to grab the mag and rock it while you thumb the release. It's difficult to manipulate two mags at the same time with the AK mag latch. Even Magpuls don't help a heck of a lot due to the action of rocking the mags in or out.

[444]

"You hold the PG in your right hand, rotate the weapon to the left about 45 degrees, reach over the top, pull the bolt all the way back, then release."

I realize that it certainly can be done that way. But, it isn't ideal. But, then again we arn't talking about the ideal way to design a rifle: that is the way it is, and your method is the only method I know of dealing with it. The problem with having the charging handle on the strong side of the gun is that you are reaching over the gun, if you want to run the gun with your weak hand. This presents several problems. First of all, if you have the rifle at the ready position, your support side arm is blocking your vision of the target when you are running the action. Second, if you are trying to clear a malfunction, the ejected case could bounce off your arm and back into the action. Third, when clearing a complicated malfunction: type II, or III, it would be nice to be able to visualize the chamber when you are clearing it to see if the failure to eject or the feedway stoppage has been cleared by your actions. But, there is nothing that can be done about it.
The bolt handle on the right, and the paddle type mag release are certainly a feature of many popular rifles and certainly arn't limited to the AK>

[MCgunner]

Get an SKS paratrooper carbine, handier than the AK, but same cartridge.

Really, the M1 Carbine shoots a pistol load, a weak one at that. It's got velocity, but not much bullet. With expanding bullets, it should stop as well as a .45ACP, but what tested SD loads are out there?

Any rifle is too much for home/urban defense IMHO, though. If you want a long gun, get a 12 gauge. If it's for afield, the AK round is better by far and "handy" ain't the big deal. Now, my SKS can group cheap ammo into 3" at 100 yards and the AK does good to get 6" from what I've seen. I much prefer the SKS and it's cheaper and doesn't have the media stigma of the AK either. A SKS is a great pick up gun and the design of the magazines, you can leave one loaded and the spring will never take a set. I love the things for that sort of use. Not a better dollar for dollar deal out there for a "ranch rifle", IMHO.

[NineseveN]

. I much prefer the SKS and it's cheaper and doesn't have the media stigma of the AK either.

What do you think every media account is gonna call your SKS if you ever have to use it or you get arrested for something?

Yes, that's right, an "AK-47 Assault Rifle"...if I had a dollar for every time that's been done, I think I'd have close to six figures. :banghead:

Just an observation.

[antarti]

If you are doing a tac reload (which is even more important with the AK due to lack of bolt hold back on last round), you need your full hand to grab the mag and rock it while you thumb the release.

Hmm... I've seen what might be called "sacrificial" mag changes with the AK (don't know the proper term) at a 3-gun match. You grab the new mag, jam/smash it (front edge of new mag) into the mag release and follow through, where it rocks/knocks the mag out, then insert/rock/lock new mag. I tried it with a couple old chinese mags, and it worked ok but took a little practice to get consistent. It also beat hell out of the mags, and that would be worse (I imagine) with the mags with the rolled rear ledge. Made for a rapid mag change if you didn't need to hang on to the old one though. One good smack and mag gets out of your way, hand on grip stays put.

There are extended "tactical" AK mag releases that allow you to extend the trigger finger to drop a mag? No idea if these work well.

[NineseveN]

There are extended "tactical" AK mag releases that allow you to extend the trigger finger to drop a mag? No idea if these work well.


The one from www.redstararms.com works well.

[444]

I thought about buying that, but decided I was getting too much junk on my AK. I might be worth considering though if it is really that much better.

[DMK]

"You hold the PG in your right hand, rotate the weapon to the left about 45 degrees, reach over the top, pull the bolt all the way back, then release."

I realize that it certainly can be done that way. But, it isn't ideal. But, then again we arn't talking about the ideal way to design a rifle: that is the way it is, and your method is the only method I know of dealing with it. The problem with having the charging handle on the strong side of the gun is that you are reaching over the gun, if you want to run the gun with your weak hand. This presents several problems. First of all, if you have the rifle at the ready position, your support side arm is blocking your vision of the target when you are running the action. Second, if you are trying to clear a malfunction, the ejected case could bounce off your arm and back into the action. Third, when clearing a complicated malfunction: type II, or III, it would be nice to be able to visualize the chamber when you are clearing it to see if the failure to eject or the feedway stoppage has been cleared by your actions. But, there is nothing that can be done about it.
The bolt handle on the right, and the paddle type mag release are certainly a feature of many popular rifles and certainly arn't limited to the AK>
All excellent points. Which is why I like my FALs and ARs much better than AKs and M1 Carbines. :) (although the FAL still has the same mag swap problem, who know why the Belgians copied the AK magwell design :rolleyes: ... if it had the AR magwell design and upper receiver mounted rear sights, it would probably be the almost perfect rifle).

[rustymaggot]

Get an SKS paratrooper carbine, handier than the AK, but same cartridge.

Really, the M1 Carbine shoots a pistol load, a weak one at that. It's got velocity, but not much bullet. With expanding bullets, it should stop as well as a .45ACP, but what tested SD loads are out there?

.


ok, 30 carbine is not a weak pistol round. it has twice the energy of +p 9mm. its closer to being equal to 357 than anything else. AND, 30 CARBINE HAS ENERGY EQUAL TO SOME LOADS OF 44 MAGNUM! there are softpoints available for it and those have better penetration than 9mm. ball has 20 cm MORE penetration than softpoints! and.......... its semi accurate to 300 yards! even out of carbine id like to see how 9mm fairs at 300 yards.

im sorry, but your just plain wrong. i wish you guys would actually look at the info about somthing before you say its somthing its not. people suffer from a term called "primacy" i might be spelling that wrong, but what it is is the trend to believe whatever youve been told first, regardless of how wrong you are proven to be later. whatever people are led to believe first, sticks with them. so all these veterans of the korean war say 30 carbine isnt worth poop and regardless of the proof later you guys still badmouth it. thats herd behavior, man. look at the info available and forget what youve been told. 30 carbine is unpopular, but its not weak.

a m1 carbine was a early attempt to do the same thing a mp5 does. fire a pistol round out of a short rifle.

[JShirley]

Really, the M1 Carbine shoots a pistol load, a weak one at that

Hogwash. A "weak one" would be .380 (power level) or less, which the M1 Carbine clearly exceeds.

For close-range home defense type stuff, I'd take the better ergonomics of the M1 and try to find some HP ammo (sure wish Federal EFMJ was available for it).

For all-around "militia" purposes, AK.

Neither are powerhouses. Both will work.

Folks here get too caught up in the caliber debates, at least in terms of defensive use. It's more germane when addressing hunting.

John

[MrAcheson]

The Ak is cheaper, more powerful, and has higher magazine capacity.

The M1 is lighter, far more handy, and has better sights.

As always it depends on how you weight these variables. If you are small and require something little and light, then M1. If money is an object, then certainly AK.

I have an M1 for shooting fun, but for home defense/CQB it's all about the shotgun.

[deadly50bmg]

The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.


So your seriously saying that "Clothes" stopped a .30 caliber centerfire round?:uhoh: :uhoh: :confused: :confused: :scrutiny:

[rustymaggot]

So your seriously saying that "Clothes" stopped a .30 caliber centerfire round?:uhoh: :uhoh: :confused: :confused: :scrutiny:


hes just plain wrong. check out my other posts on this here in the thread. one person had the idea that -30 deg weather made the rounds less powerful, but if thats the case then all the ammo would have been less powerful. also possible that a fat coat and a skinny enemy could look like he got hit solid but only nicked him.

[Carl N. Brown]

I have heard a few stories that when the .30 carbine failed to
stop Communist soldiers in their winter uniform coats, the
disgusted carbine user traded off his carbine for a .45 Thompson.
But I have not heard one where the .45 Thompson was actually
used against winter dressed enemy troops. Has anyone followed
up on these stories?

Also, if the -30 degree weather adversely affected the .30 carbine
penetration, it would adversely affect the .30-06 in the Garand rifle,
but the .30-06 has about three times the kinetic energy of the carbine
round to start with.

[MCgunner]

ok, 30 carbine is not a weak pistol round. it has twice the energy of +p 9mm. its closer to being equal to 357 than anything else. AND, 30 CARBINE HAS ENERGY EQUAL TO SOME LOADS OF 44 MAGNUM! there are softpoints available for it and those have better penetration than 9mm. ball has 20 cm MORE penetration than softpoints! and.......... its semi accurate to 300 yards! even out of carbine id like to see how 9mm fairs at 300 yards.

im sorry, but your just plain wrong. i wish you guys would actually look at the info about somthing before you say its somthing its not. people suffer from a term called "primacy" i might be spelling that wrong, but what it is is the trend to believe whatever youve been told first, regardless of how wrong you are proven to be later. whatever people are led to believe first, sticks with them. so all these veterans of the korean war say 30 carbine isnt worth poop and regardless of the proof later you guys still badmouth it. thats herd behavior, man. look at the info available and forget what youve been told. 30 carbine is unpopular, but its not weak.

a m1 carbine was a early attempt to do the same thing a mp5 does. fire a pistol round out of a short rifle.

Good points on energy levels, but a 110 grain FMJ doesn't thrill me. Okay, call it a strong pistol round of small caliber.

Anyway, I wouldn't, say, hunt deer with 30 carbine and I have with an SKS, though there are better calibers. For self defense in .30 carbine, I'd look for hollowpoint loads and make sure they feed okay. But, I'd rather carry a pistol. A carbine don't fit my IWB too well.

I've always wanted a .30 carbine cause the lieutenant on "Combat" carried one and I didn't miss an episode of that show when I was a kid. I remember naggin' the step dad for a .22 that looked like a .30 carbine, think Iver Johnson made it. I never got it, though.

.30 carbine is rather useless to me, would just be another plinker, so I've never bought one. I can plink with the SKS cheaper. :D

[444]

" its semi accurate to 300 yards! even out of carbine id like to see how 9mm fairs at 300 yards. "

Here in Las Vegas we have a monthly, vintage semi-auto military rifle match held on the third Saturday of each month at Desert Sportsmans. I shot the match a few months ago using my .30 Carbine (I bought if from a guy on this board although I can't recall who: he was way up in the Northeast somewhere, Maine ?). Anyway, on one stage we had a steel plate, approx. 1 foot wide by two feet tall at 385 yards as one target and two more tagets at 200 and 300 yards. You simply rotated through the targets, one shot each starting with the far target. This meant that you shot at the far plate...4 times ? I set my rear sight for the far target and used Kentucky windage on the closer ones. I was able to hit the far target at 385 yards ever time, but at 200 I had to hold so far under the target due to the cartridges rainbow trajectory I missed it all but once.
I have shot at that far plate with a 9mm carbine with an 11.5" barrel. With a 50 yard zero, I was holding somewhere around six feet to lob rounds in the same zip code as that plate. I never shot the 9mm carbine at a known 300 yards, but it would be a lot easier than 385. At 300, the cartridge is out of gas and is falling hard, the drop would be far less than it would be at 385.
I have also shot that match with an SKS and it was far flatter shooting than either of those others. First round hits were FAR easier.

[USSR]

444,

You would have had to hold 45" low to hit the 200 yard target with a 385 yard zero.

Don

[444]

About four feet. :eek:
But, it is all guess work. You can't set my carbine's rear sight for that range. It only goes up to 300, but my carbine shoots high for the sight settings: at 100 yards, it shoots bout 6" high. So, at that far target, it was pretty close with the 300 yard sight setting, but I had to hold at the top of the plate. Plus, this isn't pinpoint accuracy, you have two feet of elevation to play with (the height of the plate) and all that counts are hits, even on the edge.

[mr.trooper]

The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.

Yea...If you listen to the actualy interviews of the guys who said that, you will notice they said that it "failed to penetrate their heavy winter cloathing at 400 yards or more".

The reason it would not penetrate is because they were using it at ranges EXCEEDING the intended ranges of the rifle. Check the BOT:RAGS (http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm). the 30 carbine doesn't have ANY problems penetrating heavy clothing at anything approaching reasonable ranges.

its amazing how baseless myths can persist for 50+ years. :rolleyes:

For CQB, the M-1 Carbine is far better. Less recoil, faster follow-up shots, less noise...

[NineseveN]

For CQB, the M-1 Carbine is far better. Less recoil, faster follow-up shots, less noise...

You forgot "better sights". :)

[GW]

I vote AK
Better round, More reliable rifle

[Sandmann]

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

[rustymaggot]

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

my book lists velocity of 30 carbine at 1040fps at 300 yards. book is 2001 guns &ammo annual buyers guide.

[Sandmann]

Rusty Maggot,

How does this compare to a 5.56 out of a 14.5 inch tube at 300 meters? I bet its superior to the M-4's at the same range.

But a lot of people are complaining about the .30 Carbine's performance at "long range".

[Father Knows Best]

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

These are good points. I did some quick calculations of energy and momentum for the M1 carbine vs. the M4. I don't have time right now to throw in the MP5 and AK, but I'll try to add them later.

First, a caveat -- I subscribe to the general belief that "energy" is a poor predictor of "stopping power." A much better measure is a rounds momentum, calculated as mass x velocity.

I used a ballistics calculator, with data for the M193 5.56mm round fired out of an M4 (55 grain projectile with BC of .255, 2850 fps muzzle velocity), and with a .30 carbine load assuming Speer's 110 grain JHP (BC .136) loaded to 1,990 fps muzzle velocity.

What it showed is that the M4/M193 992 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, dropping to 863 ft-lbs at 50 meters (velocity of 2,659 fps) and 754 ft-lbs at 100 meters (2,485 fps). Note that the generally accepted minimum striking velocity for reliable fragmentation of the M193 round is 2,600 fps, meaning that you can't expect reliable fragmentation much beyond 50 meters.

The .30 carbine developed 967 ft-lbs at the muzzle, just 2.5% less than the M193/M4. It lost ground quickly, however, with 716 ft-lbs and 1,712 fps at 50 meters, and just 531 ft-lbs (1,474 fps) at 100 meters. The .30 carbine round had consistently higher momentum, however, which would tend to indicate stopping power at least equal to, if not better than, the M193/M4. At the muzzle, the .30 carbine round had a momentum of 31.3 lb-ft/sec. At 50 meters, it had 26.9 and at 100 it still retained 23.2 lb-ft/sec. By contrast, the M193/M4 had just 22.4 lb-ft/sec at the muzzle -- less than the .30 carbine retained at 100 meters. The M193/M4 did a better job at carrying its momentum downrange, with 20.9 lb-ft/sec at 50 meters and 19.5 lb-ft/sec at 100 meters. That means it lost just 13% from 0 to 100 meters, vs. a 26% momentum loss for the .30 carbine round over the same range. Since the .30 carbine started out with 40% greater momentum, however, it was still 19% greater at 100 meters despite the more rapid loss.

When I can, I'll run the numbers for the 7.62x39 out of an AK, and for the 9mm out of an MP5 or similar carbine. In the meantime, my conclusion is that the M1 carbine is at least equal to the M4 at "CQB" ranges. In addition, it may actually have a significant advantage at the 50-100 meter range, because the M193 bullet by that time is moving too slowly to fragment reliably. The M1 carbine's .30 caliber JHP, however, should still have enough velocity (1500-1700 fps) at those ranges to expand reliably.

[briang2ad]

1) The m1 Carbine can penetrate THICK clothing. People who say they hit 'em and it didn't penetrate simply didn't hit'em.

2) The Carbine was meant for pistol+ ranges. It is much easier to shoot more accurately than a pistol. 45 MV is 850, 357 1200, Carbine 1900 - it IS flatter shooting than pistols in general, and has enough energy to be effective at 100-150M. Beyond that, the AK is clearly the winner - but that is a battle rifle.

3) While designed for support troops who had to carry all day and shoot little, it was used by line troops. My Dad had occassion to carry one as a squad leader in WW2.

In a house, or CQB scenario, it may be a bit more effective because it has ENOUGH energy, and is a bit easier to negotiate tight spaces. But, for general purposes, I'd take the AK.

[rustymaggot]

These are good points. I did some quick calculations of energy and momentum for the M1 carbine vs. the M4. I don't have time right now to throw in the MP5 and AK, but I'll try to add them later.

First, a caveat -- I subscribe to the general belief that "energy" is a poor predictor of "stopping power." A much better measure is a rounds momentum, calculated as mass x velocity.

I used a ballistics calculator, with data for the M193 5.56mm round fired out of an M4 (55 grain projectile with BC of .255, 2850 fps muzzle velocity), and with a .30 carbine load assuming Speer's 110 grain JHP (BC .136) loaded to 1,990 fps muzzle velocity.

What it showed is that the M4/M193 992 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, dropping to 863 ft-lbs at 50 meters (velocity of 2,659 fps) and 754 ft-lbs at 100 meters (2,485 fps). Note that the generally accepted minimum striking velocity for reliable fragmentation of the M193 round is 2,600 fps, meaning that you can't expect reliable fragmentation much beyond 50 meters.

The .30 carbine developed 967 ft-lbs at the muzzle, just 2.5% less than the M193/M4. It lost ground quickly, however, with 716 ft-lbs and 1,712 fps at 50 meters, and just 531 ft-lbs (1,474 fps) at 100 meters. The .30 carbine round had consistently higher momentum, however, which would tend to indicate stopping power at least equal to, if not better than, the M193/M4. At the muzzle, the .30 carbine round had a momentum of 31.3 lb-ft/sec. At 50 meters, it had 26.9 and at 100 it still retained 23.2 lb-ft/sec. By contrast, the M193/M4 had just 22.4 lb-ft/sec at the muzzle -- less than the .30 carbine retained at 100 meters. The M193/M4 did a better job at carrying its momentum downrange, with 20.9 lb-ft/sec at 50 meters and 19.5 lb-ft/sec at 100 meters. That means it lost just 13% from 0 to 100 meters, vs. a 26% momentum loss for the .30 carbine round over the same range. Since the .30 carbine started out with 40% greater momentum, however, it was still 19% greater at 100 meters despite the more rapid loss.

When I can, I'll run the numbers for the 7.62x39 out of an AK, and for the 9mm out of an MP5 or similar carbine. In the meantime, my conclusion is that the M1 carbine is at least equal to the M4 at "CQB" ranges. In addition, it may actually have a significant advantage at the 50-100 meter range, because the M193 bullet by that time is moving too slowly to fragment reliably. The M1 carbine's .30 caliber JHP, however, should still have enough velocity (1500-1700 fps) at those ranges to expand reliably.


30 carbine lists at 1540fps at 100 yards. it loses momentum quickly at long range. if the bullet was a spitzer(is that the correct term for a pointed bullet?) and had a boat tail like the .223 i would suspect a flatter trajectory as well as less loss of speed.

[Father Knows Best]

30 carbine lists at 1540fps at 100 yards. it loses momentum quickly at long range. if the bullet was a spitzer(is that the correct term for a pointed bullet?) and had a boat tail like the .223 i would suspect a flatter trajectory as well as less loss of speed.

My ballistics calculator showed 1,474 fps at 100 meters, which is pretty close to the 1,540 at 100 yards you reference. The difference probably has to do with bullet choice. I ran the calculator based on Speer's hollow point 110 grain, because I would assume that would be a better projectile for defensive use than military ball. Of course, the JHP almost certainly has a lower ballistic coefficient than ball, so it will lose velocity and momentum more rapidly.

You are correct in your main point, though, which is that the 5.56 has a flatter trajectory, and loses speed (and therefore momentum) much more slowly. Thus, at some point, the 5.56 will almost certainly overtake the .30 carbine round in terms of its effectiveness. I haven't carried the calculations out far enough to see where that point is, but since the question we're debating is the .30 carbine's effectiveness at close range, it doesn't matter for this discussion.

My point is just that the .30 carbine is plenty effective at ranges of 100 meters of less. It's certainly at least as effective as the 5.56/.223 and the .357 magnum when loaded with a decent projectile. While it may be substantially inferior to the 5.56, 7.62x39 and others at ranges somewhat beyond 100 meters, that doesn't matter if your only concern is personal/home defense and CQB scenarios.

[MTMilitiaman]

I find it ironic that both the cartridges in question, the 7.62x39 and the .30 Carbine, are often plagued with a lack of modernized, high-performance ammunition. They are then expected to compare favorably to people's pet cartridges using the latest in bullet technology. There is a real absence of modern .311 caliber projectiles. I have wanted to see some loads for the 7.62x39 using something along the lines of a 125 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. This would work well in rifles chambered for the cartridge with true .308 bores but I wonder how it would do out of the many surplus SKS rifles and the plethora of AK clones that it would more than likely be used in. Similarly, I would like to know if anyone has ever tried something along the lines of the 110 gr Hornady V-max in the M1 Carbine. The Speer JHP listed previously has a BC of .136 while the Hornady bullet has a BC of .290. This should provide good expansion and terminal performance at close range, maintain velocity and momentum better at longer ranges, straighten the trajectory out a little, and provide the carbine with a modern bullet designed to perform accurately and reliably. Since the M1 Carbine feeds from a box style magazine, I can see no reason why the more efficent spitzer projectile wouldn't work well, provided it could be seated within the cartridge's maximum OAL.

[LeonCarr]

IME the .30 Carbine is easy on the shoulder, easy to reload for, and just plain fun to shoot :).

Do a search (google or whatever you like) on Jim Cirillo, a former member of the NYPD Stakeout Squad and legendary police gunfighter, and see what his favorite rifle was when he was on the stakeout squad. It was the M1 Carbine, loaded with JSPs. He knows a little about gunfights :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Father Knows Best]

I find it ironic that both the cartridges in question, the 7.62x39 and the .30 Carbine, are often plagued with a lack of modernized, high-performance ammunition. They are then expected to compare favorably to people's pet cartridges using the latest in bullet technology. There is a real absence of modern .311 caliber projectiles.

I agree, and I tried to convince Hornady that they should fill that gap. I had several email exchanges with Hornady pointing out that lots of people own AK's, SKS's and Mini-30's and like to use them for defensive purposes. I argued that Hornady could sell a fair amount of its TAP FPD line in 7.62x39. Hornady told me "nope" in no uncertain terms. They claim there is no market for "premium" 7.62x39. They say they've tried, and can't make money on it. They even told me that they tried selling premium .311 bullets for those of us who roll our own, they just gather dust on distributors' shelves.

It's a pity. I'd love to keep a mag or two of TAP 7.62x39 handy for my AK.

[BigG]

Energy figures never killed or wounded anybody. Enough people I know and trust used the 30 carbine to fight foes and questioned its fight ending ability for me to accept their testimony. Anecdotal, yes. But no more anecdotal than taking a paper table and extrapolating to "real world" performance. Life ain't like that, folks; it's messy and unpredictable. :uhoh: :neener:

[rustymaggot]

Energy figures never killed or wounded anybody. Enough people I know and trust used the 30 carbine to fight foes and questioned its fight ending ability for me to accept their testimony. Anecdotal, yes. But no more anecdotal than taking a paper table and extrapolating to "real world" performance. Life ain't like that, folks; it's messy and unpredictable. :uhoh: :neener:


do these same people claim that the 357 magnum is a ineffective round?

[jobu07]

Eh, I've seen a whitetail put down by an M1 carbine. I've also seen them put down by a variety of AK's. And these weren't Texas deer.

[BigG]

Rusty Maggot, you are comparing apples and oranges. The people I know are WWII vets who used the carbine on the front lines. I don't know if any of them know about 357 magnum on live bodies. I do know a simple paper comparison of the two rounds does not tell the whole story. :uhoh:

[rustymaggot]

Rusty Maggot, you are comparing apples and oranges. The people I know are WWII vets who used the carbine on the front lines. I don't know if any of them know about 357 magnum on live bodies, but do know a simple paper comparison of the two rounds does not tell the whole story. :uhoh:

we have established that the cartrige needs a softpoint to be a better stopper. it isnt apples and oranges. a projectile moving x fast and y heavy is comparable because what gun its fired from is irrelevent. after speed and weight the only issue is shape of projectile and materials it consists of.

your wwII buddies were either shooting out of the intended range of the cartrige, or were missing the enemy. it is proven that the cartrige itself is not what is lacking. see here..... http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

note that the 45acp penetrated far less than the 30 carbine. and the 45 was told to be exelent stopping power in wwII. these are not paper tests as you say, these are tests of what cartriges really do. these guys do this for the fun of it and are not being paid to lie about what works best. these are facts.

the 30 carbine hits like a high power pistol. it is not meant to be compared to a rifle round. ive said it before and i say again, the m1 carbine was a early attempt to do what the modern mp5 does. fire a pistol cartrige from a short rifle size weapon. no one tries to use a mp5 at extended distances. no one blames the 9mm for not killing a enemy at 400 yards.

the m1 carbine was not intended to be accurate at extended distances. the 3 carbine cartrige was not intended to be much of a stopper beyond 2 or 3 hundred yards. but, that said, your friends were either shooting beyond the accuracy and effective range of the m1 carbine and are to blame fot its shortcommings, or they were in close quarters(like the thread is about) and were missing. either way, its human nature to blame the equipment when its user error.

some more examples of proof that the 30 carbine cartrige is not to blame.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm

see how the ball 30 carbine went thru 7 jugs of water? see how a armor piercing 30-06 out of a 03a3 went thru 7 jugs? granted it isnt fair to compare the cartriges, but do you see my point?

[Father Knows Best]

Energy figures never killed or wounded anybody. Enough people I know and trust used the 30 carbine to fight foes and questioned its fight ending ability for me to accept their testimony. Anecdotal, yes. But no more anecdotal than taking a paper table and extrapolating to "real world" performance.

I think you're missing the point. From my point of view, the question isn't whether the .30 carbine round is "better than" or even "as good as" the 7.62x39, or 5.56, or anything else. It's whether the .30 carbine round is "good enough" for home defense.

In my view, it is. While true "rifle" cartridges of either the full power or assault rifle variety certainly offer better "stopping power" or "fight ending ability" or whatever you want to call it, so does a 20mm cannon round. The 20mm isn't very practical for home defense, however.

I think we would all concede that the .357 magnum and .45ACP rounds are pretty good man stoppers at home defense range, even when fired out of pistols. They aren't as good as the 7.62x39, perhaps, but they're better than .32ACP or .38 special. More importantly, if you accept the constraints of a pistol round, they're pretty darn good, and "good enough" for most home defense purposes.

Similarly, the 9x19 (9 mm parabellum) round is generally considered barely adequate as a manstopper at close range, and is certainly much better when fired out of a carbine like the MP5. 9x19 carbines are often the weapon of choice by SWAT and special forces in CQB scenarios.

The .30 carbine round out an M1 carbine is certainly at least as capable than the 9x19 out of a similar firearm, and much more potent than pistol rounds fired out of pistols. If the 9x19/MP5 combo is "good enough" for SWAT, therefore, the .30 carbine/M1 carbine should be more than good enough.

[MTMilitiaman]

the 30 carbine hits like a high power pistol. it is not meant to be compared to a rifle round.

That's weird. It's in a rifle.

The bottom line is that the .30 Carbine offers performance that counts as high powered in a pistol. But it is in a rifle and it is only fair to compare it to other rifles, some of which are no bigger and only slightly heavier dimensionally but offer far more punch, especially at longer ranges. How many people do you know would vulunatirly go to war with a .357 Magnum knowing they would have to face off against rifles and submachine guns? People talk about hunting. How many people do you think would choose a .357 Magnum handgun over a .30-30 rifle and be better off for it? Somehow I think that putting pistol performance in a rifle sounds wrong when you can have a rifle for marginally more weight.

[444]

It's a carbine.
Let's keep this in perspective: we arn't talking about hunting, and we arn't talking about military engagements. We arn't worried about heavily bundled up North Koreans or Red Chinese.
We are talking about home defense.
Would I choose a .357 as a home defense weapon ?
Absolutely
Would I feel adequately armed with a .30 Carbine FOR HOME DEFENSE ?
Heck yes.
BUT, as a personal preference it wouldn't be my first choice: but that is only because I DO have a choice. It would work fine and I would be comfortable with it.

[rustymaggot]

That's weird. It's in a rifle.

The bottom line is that the .30 Carbine offers performance that counts as high powered in a pistol. But it is in a rifle and it is only fair to compare it to other rifles, some of which are no bigger and only slightly heavier dimensionally but offer far more punch, especially at longer ranges. How many people do you know would vulunatirly go to war with a .357 Magnum knowing they would have to face off against rifles and submachine guns? People talk about hunting. How many people do you think would choose a .357 Magnum handgun over a .30-30 rifle and be better off for it? Somehow I think that putting pistol performance in a rifle sounds wrong when you can have a rifle for marginally more weight.

home defense isnt a war.

now your changing the issue. put the 357 in a reliable short rifle and sure, why not? do you look down on the tommy gun? because that was a proven killer in wwII. 357 has just as good of a punch and penetration as the 45acp.


you say 30-30 rifle, is that a lever action? bolt action? because in close quarters the semi auto would have a distinct advantage. is there a semi auto 30-30? if so what magazine size? advantage still falls to the m1 carbine.

[MTMilitiaman]

It's nice that you bring up the Tommy Gun beings as how you make it sound as if the M1 Carbine was supposed to be a SMG. The Allies already had an SMG to provide automatic fire from a pistol cartridge. After the Tommy Gun, it was the M3 Grease Gun. These were submachine guns. There limits were accepted because they were never expected to engage at ranges significantly longer than the pistol. The M1 Carbine isn't a SMG. It was supposed to offer more range than the Thompson with less weight than the Garand. Do you really think they would have complicated logistics enough to offer two weapons in two seperate cartridges with little or no interchangeability between parts to do the same job? The M1 Carbine isn't comparible to the MP5 nearly as much as it is to the M4 carbine, AK-47, SIG 552, G36K or any other carbine. It isn't a submachine gun, it is a carbine, as clearly dictated by its name, meaning it is a short rifle or a shortened version of a rifle. Now if having pistol performance in a rifle is fine with you, fine. If planning for the average and accepting "good enough" does it for you, fine. But don't expect everyone to see the logic in it when you can carry another pound and a half and get an actual rifle cartridge with more power at every range. That is my stance--pistol cartridges for pistols and SMGs--rifle cartridges for rifles and carbines because, well, why use your handgun to fight yourself to a longarm that is only marganially more powerful than your handgun?

My reference to the .30-30 was comparing both the M1 Carbine and the AK to their ballistic rivals. The 7.62x39 offers roughly the same performance as the .30-30--not quite the same but close. The M1 Carbine is more comparible to the .357 Magnum revolver.

[Father Knows Best]

The M1 Carbine isn't a SMG. It was supposed to offer more range than the Thompson with less weight than the Garand.

Nice try, but not really. The M1 carbine was never intended to be an offensive weapon. It was intended to be a personal defense weapon for rear echelon troops. Pistols didn't work very well because the troops couldn't hit anything with them. The M1 carbine provided a lightweight weapon that your average soldier could actually hit with at the short ranges typical of defensive engagements.

And there is a full auto version of the M1 carbine, of course. It's the M2. They came along too late for WWII, but they were used extensively in Korea.

Finally, there are lots of other pistol caliber carbines, many of which are semiauto. The HK94, for example, is to the MP5 what the M1 carbine is to the M2. There are literally dozens of other examples. Even when departments use selector-equipped MP5's (as my brother's SWAT team does), they often use them in semi-auto mode.

But I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. So what if the M1 carbine isn't full auto? Neither are any of the other firearms that 99% would consider for home/personal defense. And as I pointed out, if full auto capability is important to you, there is always the M2.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The M1 carbine is a useful weapon. It doesn't do everything that lots of other weapons do, but it does some things better than any other. It was designed as a lightweight and easy-to-hit-with semi-auto firearm that is effective at short ranges (<150 meters). That sounds like a very good description of what most of us want in a home defense weapon. The M1 carbine is a reasonable compromise that combines positive attributes of both a rifle and a pistol combined with a cartridge that is more powerful than most pistol cartridges but less so than most rifle cartridges. If you feel the need for something more powerful, then by all means use something more powerful. If you feel that a carbine is too much, then use a pistol. But why deny that the M1 carbine can play a useful role?

[Frandy]

What FKB said! :D

[MechAg94]

I didn't care for that Box of Truth test. They didn't use a very thick bundle of fabric, and I would rather have seen it mounted up against the water jug. A mishmash of different fabrics would have been good also. In other tests, FMJ pistol rounds penetrated just fine against other materials.

I think what others said about the probable source of that myth are probably right. The only guess I could make would be if the bullet would deflect in the fabric, but I don't know.

[444]

The problem I have with the box of truth is that it was immediately adopted by the internet crowd as being the absolute last word on ballistics. Even if it contradicts what all the recognized experts in the field agree upon: on occasion.
The author of the website cautions against this, but the internet warriors didn't listen: as long as it supports their arguments.
This isn't to discount what this guy did: it was very interesting and informative. But it is an informal test conducted in a guy's backyard. Keep things in perspective.

[MTMilitiaman]

But I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. So what if the M1 carbine isn't full auto? Neither are any of the other firearms that 99% would consider for home/personal defense. And as I pointed out, if full auto capability is important to you, there is always the M2.

You're the one stuck on automatic fire capabilities. I only brought that up once and it was in reference to the Thompson. If you continue to read things into people's responses, don't be surprised if you miss the point.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The M1 carbine is a useful weapon. It doesn't do everything that lots of other weapons do, but it does some things better than any other. It was designed as a lightweight and easy-to-hit-with semi-auto firearm that is effective at short ranges (<150 meters). That sounds like a very good description of what most of us want in a home defense weapon. The M1 carbine is a reasonable compromise that combines positive attributes of both a rifle and a pistol combined with a cartridge that is more powerful than most pistol cartridges but less so than most rifle cartridges. If you feel the need for something more powerful, then by all means use something more powerful. If you feel that a carbine is too much, then use a pistol. But why deny that the M1 carbine can play a useful role?

I am not denying that the M1 Carbine may be useful, may be fun, or may be adequate for most scenerios of home defense. My entire point, however, is that there may be better options for those willing to accept a small weight gain for a substancial increase in power.

[kent m. lane]

The AK-47 I would carry. The .30cal carbine was a rifle for supply troops [back of the line] doctors medics mechanics. Did you all know it was built and designed by a prisoner here in the states in prision, I forget his name but after the war he got a presidental pardon.

Kent

[444]

David "Carbine" Williams

[goon]

MechAG94 - I have done some informal tests with different guns and shooting through things and into a "hidden" target. If anything, I think it would make the wound even nastier if the bullet tumbled before it hit. I have seen bullets only punch a hole on an exposed but tear extremely wicked holes when they were shot through something first.
An uncle who fought in Korea told me that the M-2 would climb right up in the air on you when fired in FA. I think that is where alot of the complaints about the carbine come from.
Still, I would rather have an AK. Ammo is still cheaper for them and they are still more powerful.

[Mad Chemist]

What is your opinion on which rifle is superior for self defense/CQB purposes, the AK-47 or the M-1 Carbine? Why?

For CQB? Definitely a handgun. If I'm fighting for my life at contact distance I want a weapon I can effectively use one-handed.

I think an AK is the better fighting rifle of the two. I still think M1 carbines are cool, but they weren't designed to serve as primary combat weapons. The purpose of the carbine was to arm vehicle crews and non-infantry units with a compact weapon. The FN p90 was designed to serve a similar role and seems subject to the same type of criticism.The fact that the carbine was widely used in Korea and WW2 was due mainly to swapping and poor logistics, "fog of war".
The M1 carbine is still a great gun and a skilled shooter could overcome its limitations.

[BigG]

Father Knows Best said:
From my point of view, the question isn't whether the .30 carbine round is "better than" or even "as good as" the 7.62x39, or 5.56, or anything else. It's whether the .30 carbine round is "good enough" for home defense.

That was my point, also. I said in my first post I would choose the 30 US Carbine for home defense in preference to the AK47 which, IIRC, I said had all the ergonomics of a stick of firewood. The 30 Carbine (real GI) is a fine weapon within its limitations. It was not a great front line weapon but is good for the homeowner. The AK47 is also a good little weapon but for carrying around with you it is not very handy, with its protuberances, etc. That was my point.

[Paradiddle]

Some of you should do some reading on the actual reasons why the M2 Carbine and not the M1 got a bad rep in Korea. Had very little to do with the caliber and "not putting down the enemy with one round in their winter clothing" and more to do with a complete lack of fire dicipline due to it's full auto nature, light weight/difficulty to control at full auto, and lack of reliabililty at full auto. The weaon wasn't really designed for full auto fire and while they had a WWII version that was full auto it was deemed unreliable and therefore abandoned. The General who drafted the letter in Korea constantly refers to the fact that the weapon offers no firepower advantage at full auto because the shooter wastes his ammo quickly and doesn't hit anything. He was comparing it against the Garand. In his letter, which I've read, he makes multiple references to converting the Carbine back to semi auto and coming up with another SMG or fire superiority weapon. Note that in WWII we had the Thompson (another weapon who the soldiers who actually used it said only worked at short range).

The militarys requirements for spray and pray were much different then (coming off the 8 round Garand) and I suspect that the first issue M16 which were only full auto suffered the same criticisms in Viet Nam against the more accurate and much harder hitting M14. Now all our M16 based weapons are semi auto/3 round burst - probably to address some of the generals concerns.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either rifle - but I'd take the Carbine since I'm a WWII geek.

[Ares]

Cartridge and SHTF situations aside... from a collector shooter standpoint if someone was standing there with an M1 Carbine in one hand and a Semi Auto Ak inthe other and they were going to give me one, but only one of them for free... I'd take the Carbine hands down. :) My best choice of rifle in a real SHTF situation would be neither of the two, athough if it was a choice of only those two... I suppose I might get a slight edge to the AK if for no other reason than even here in the US the ammo is more readily available....

As for which I would rather own and collect, the Carbine... :)

[Paradiddle]

One more comment. I think these weapons were designed with different criteria and therefore aren't a fair comparison. The M1 had weight, size, cartridge, and capacity requirements placed on it by ordinance that were very specific (it was, as has been stated, designed to replace the combat ineffective .45 pistol (not enough firepower/capacity and too difficult to use effectively in combat was the major beef with the 1911 from WWI) for support/rear troops).

The German's effectiveness at overrunning rear support and artillery troops during their Blitzkrieg heyday of early WWII really jump started the Carbine program.

As far as I know the AK was designed to be a front line assault/battle type weapon and has been beyond effective in that mission.

Jeff

[MechAg94]

+1 What Ares said.

As for the Box of Truth. I like the tests and they are good information, but you have to pay attention to their set up, their test method, and how they measure things. You have to take it and any other testing with a grain of salt.

One good bit of information was in showing how much pistol rounds penetrate normal drywall. Rifle rounds as well. It really shows that you need to be very careful how you shoot in home defense and where. I am in a townhome and I could easily put bullets through my neighbors homes. I suggested to the guy that he should put a water jug in front of the drywall to simulate shooting through a bad guy, but he has not added that to his tests yet. :)

[NineseveN]

Some of you should do some reading on the actual reasons why the M2 Carbine and not the M1 got a bad rep in Korea. Had very little to do with the caliber and "not putting down the enemy with one round in their winter clothing" and more to do with a complete lack of fire dicipline due to it's full auto nature, light weight/difficulty to control at full auto, and lack of reliabililty at full auto. The weaon wasn't really designed for full auto fire and while they had a WWII version that was full auto it was deemed unreliable and therefore abandoned. The General who drafted the letter in Korea constantly refers to the fact that the weapon offers no firepower advantage at full auto because the shooter wastes his ammo quickly and doesn't hit anything. He was comparing it against the Garand. In his letter, which I've read, he makes multiple references to converting the Carbine back to semi auto and coming up with another SMG or fire superiority weapon. Note that in WWII we had the Thompson (another weapon who the soldiers who actually used it said only worked at short range).

The militarys requirements for spray and pray were much different then (coming off the 8 round Garand) and I suspect that the first issue M16 which were only full auto suffered the same criticisms in Viet Nam against the more accurate and much harder hitting M14. Now all our M16 based weapons are semi auto/3 round burst - probably to address some of the generals concerns.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either rifle - but I'd take the Carbine since I'm a WWII geek.


I think I mentioned this on page two, didn't help. There's just no helping some folks. :p

[Paradiddle]

I think I mentioned this on page two, didn't help. There's just no helping some folks. :p

My fault for not being able to read all this and restating it! :D

[NineseveN]

My fault for not being able to read all this and restating it! :D

Not your fault at all, nor mine that some folks just don't get it, but hey, we gotta try and help them, right? ;)

[106rr]

I would use my M1 Carbine for HD in my present location. If I lived in Somalia, Croatia or Northern Burma I would use the AK 47. The answer is situational not mechanical.
The M1 is by far more handy and convenient. It is much easier to handle for ALL family members. My petite wife can easily handle and reload the M1 Carbine not so with the Kalashnikov.
There is a guy who did professional gelatin tests on the 30 M1 with modern ammo. He said it got 16" of penetration and expanded to .57 - .64 inches. This was Rem and Win 110 gr expanding bullets. He posts on Tactical Forums under the name Doc GKR. A smart person would do a search in that forum.
If you are interested in the 30 M1 please e mail Cor Bon about the production of the 30 M1 DPX. This would help M1 Carbine owners a lot.

[MTMilitiaman]

If you are interested in the 30 M1 please e mail Cor Bon about the production of the 30 M1 DPX. This would help M1 Carbine owners a lot.

I have to admit that load would be rad.

[444]

"He posts on Tactical Forums under the name Doc GKR. "

I am assuming this is Doctor Gary Roberts ? Who is a recognized authority on balistics ? Not a retired guy conducting tests in his backyard ? :)