M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine


PDA






bushmaster1313
April 9, 2010, 04:01 PM
Who got which, why and when.

What type of punch does the carbine deliver?

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
WNTFW
April 9, 2010, 04:07 PM
I have heard a lot of .30 carbine comparisons to .357 Magnum

You can do more with the Garand in some respects. I would get it first.

It really depends on what your trying to accomplish.

longdayjake
April 9, 2010, 04:16 PM
They are two totally different rounds. The only thing similar is the diameter of the bullet. I own both and like both but for different reasons.

nbkky71
April 9, 2010, 04:19 PM
I've got a few M1 rifles that I've acquired over the years. I bought my first one after I shot in a JCG match with a borrowed rifle. Most have been purchased through the CMP.

5.9mil SA (my JCG match gun)
5.8mil SA (my .308 NM gun)
5-digit SA (mid Dec, 1941)
6.09mil SA (luck of the draw from the CMP)

I currently own one M1 carbine, which is an early Inland. Bought it from the CMP a few years ago at the Creedmoor Cup matches. It only comes out of the safe once a year to shoot at the CMP carbine matches at Camp Perry.

The carbine launches a 110gr bullet at 1900fps. Performance is generally equated to be be on par to a .357magnum

1KPerDay
April 9, 2010, 05:18 PM
Get both. Then get more.

bhk
April 9, 2010, 05:27 PM
The .30 carbine has 967 ft-lbs of muzzle energy. .357s out of handgun run 400 to 600 ft. lbs. .44 magnums out of a handgun run 740 on up to maybe 1000 ft. lbs.

Energy doesn't necessarily translate to killing power, but it does give us a basis for comparison. A .30 carbine with good expanding bullets is nothing to sneeze at!

The Garand is in a totally different catagory and has much, much more power. It is also much heavier, longer, and has a smaller magazine capacity (8 vs. 15/30). It really depends what you want to use the firearm for. The carbine is a great HD weapon, plinker, and farm gun. Women and kids also find it a joy to shoot.

Maverick223
April 9, 2010, 05:28 PM
I have never owned a Garand, though I probably will at some point later on (it is pretty low on the list). The Garand is just about the most useless rifle one can own IMO. It is heavy and bulky, so it is unsuitable for easy carry in the field. It makes a pretty good heavy plinker, was an exemplary battle rifle, and has tons of history. The M1 Carbine is pretty much the antithesis of the Garand; it is light, and extremely easy to carry. It is a great little plinker and magnificent rifle for hiking, camping, and HD/SD, et al. It also served its country well, is very reliable (though not as accurate or powerful), and also has loads of history. As you can probably tell by now I bought the carbine first and am glad that I did.

:)

USSR
April 9, 2010, 05:40 PM
I have never owned a Garand, though I probably will at some point later on (it is pretty low on the list). The Garand is just about the most useless rifle one can own IMO.

Hmmm, never let the lack of experience with something, get in the way of a d@mning opinion.;)

Don

Maverick223
April 9, 2010, 05:48 PM
Hmmm, never let the lack of experience with something, get in the way of a d@mning opinion.I didn't say I didn't have experience with one...just never owned one. What do you think they are good for, other than just being a fun target rifle (besides who said that's a bad thing)?

:)

Marlin 45 carbine
April 9, 2010, 06:51 PM
my dad was in the first wave to hit Pelelui, a Seabee and they were issued Carbines as they weren't 'attack' troops just had to be ready in case of a charge by the enemy. the Marines had some attached to them for suppresing fire towards the snipers.
they were tasked with putting an ammo dump together then a field aid station. after that they had a little rest/water time and many of them got Garands from wounded or killed Marines so they could shoot at the snipers themselves which the Carbine just wasn't capable of doing a decent job. evidently it was regarded as a good defense weapon though as some kept them handy in foxholes at night.

bernie
April 9, 2010, 07:17 PM
At the risk of thread drift, I actually use an M-1 Rifle as my primary walk around rifle on the farm when I need something larger than a rimfire. While heavy, it actually does not seem as heavy as what it really is when I carry it. I grasp it around the receiver and it carries fine from it's point of balance for me. The sights also allow me to reach out and touch critters like coyotes and beavers at distance.

Now this is just my opinion. This is not to disparage anyone, but to state what another contemporary purpose for an M-1 Rifle is.

Tommygunn
April 9, 2010, 07:53 PM
M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine

Who got which, why and when.

What type of punch does the carbine deliver?

Usually, officers and "rear echelon" people (who would be support troops not primarily involved in actual fighting) got the carbine while infantry and marines and other frontline personnel got the Garand.
The carbine was favored by many who liked small easily handled weapons. A marine who served in the Pacific refered to the M1 Carbine as "the ace weapon of the war." In the Pacific, where a number of battles were fought in close circumstances, the carbine's light 5 pound weight with its fifteen round magazine proved effective and versatile.
In Europe, where it seems a lot more longer ranged battles were fought, the garand seemed to win preference for its ability to reach out and hit distant enemies where the .30 Carbine round just couldn't hack it. A number of soldiers disparaged the carbine because of the lower power of the round, but when used as intended for closer encounters it worked pretty well.

USSR
April 9, 2010, 08:35 PM
What do you think they are good for, other than just being a fun target rifle (besides who said that's a bad thing)?

I've got 9 highpower rifles, of which only 1 is used for hunting for 3 weeks each year during deer season. So, I will argue that a gun that is a fun target rifle, is simply fulfilling it's primary role.

Don

Art Eatman
April 9, 2010, 10:41 PM
My pet Weatherby, all dressed up to hunt, weighs the same as a Garand. I toted Ol' Pet on many and many a multi-mile walking hunt over some thirty years of happiness. Short hunts were three to six miles; many were twelve to fifteen.

My old Garand works real good. So does my bring-back Carbine of my father's...

Birddog1911
April 9, 2010, 11:43 PM
My pet Weatherby, all dressed up to hunt, weighs the same as a Garand. I toted Ol' Pet on many and many a multi-mile walking hunt over some thirty years of happiness. Short hunts were three to six miles; many were twelve to fifteen.

My old Garand works real good. So does my bring-back Carbine of my father's...
This is an excellent point, Art. I think Maverik either forgot that, or if he hunts, must use an ultralight. 9.8 lbs isn't heavy. My Sharps buffalo rifle was heavy. My M1A dressed with scope, mount, and what not was heavy. The Garand isn't that heavy.

Maverick223
April 9, 2010, 11:52 PM
This is an excellent point, Art. I think Maverik either forgot that, or if he hunts, must use an ultralight. 9.8 lbs isn't heavy. My Sharps buffalo rifle was heavy. My M1A dressed with scope, mount, and what not was heavy. The Garand isn't that heavy.It is more than just the weight (though I do find it a bit excessive for most hunting); the rifle is a bit bulky, difficult to scope, and finicky to load for. Same goes for SD, and hiking/camping. I'm not going to attempt to argue that it is impossible to use for any of the above, but it would be near the bottom of my list. Don't get me wrong I like the M1 Garand, just don't have much use for one.

:)

Birddog1911
April 9, 2010, 11:58 PM
I'll give you that it isn't suitable for HD; it's a dang 30-06 battle rifle for Pete's sake! But given anything out of doors, and I would argue with you on self defense.

Of course, my go to rifle for anything, other than home defense, is my M1A. The carbine gets top billing for a HD rifle. Did you see the pics of mine, Maverik? ;)

gbw
April 10, 2010, 12:06 AM
I've owned both for many years, a mint Standard Products carbine that I think is original, and a pre-war Winchester (receivered) mix master Garand also in excellent condition. The Garand is great and I've fired thousands of rounds through it. The carbine is far lighter, handier, more fun, much lower recoil and noise, is very accurate to 150yds or more, easier on brass and less expensive to shoot i.e. you can shoot more.

Maverick223
April 10, 2010, 12:29 AM
Did you see the pics of mine, Maverik?Yep, it sure has a good looking stock. Are you sure it's original; I don't see how that could have made it through WW-II, Korea, and Vietnam in as good of shape as it is; perhaps just refinished? Either way, great lookin' carbine...don't paint it. ;)

hso
April 10, 2010, 12:36 AM
I own a couple of each.

You can't compare the 30.06 against the .30 carbine fairly since the M1 carbine was intended as an "improvement" over a pistol to give support troops more engagement range as opposed to a lighter alternative to the Garand.

Quality .30 carbine ammo out of a good M1 Carbine will perform much like a .357, which is not even in the same class for range or energy as the much more powerful 30.06.

nathan
April 10, 2010, 01:31 AM
THe quintessential rifle is the Garand . But it s nice to have a carbine for the family . THe wife and kids can easily handle the recoil . If worse come to worse, if the wife or kids has to protect themselves without you in the home, the carbine is perfect .

Onmilo
April 10, 2010, 01:41 AM
Asking for a comparison of the 30 Carbine to the .30/06 is somewhat similar to asking to compare the .243 to the .375 H&H

Both had their place, their are advocates and detractors of both.

My opinion on the matter is the M1 Garand is a superior battlefield cartridge and the .30 Carbine is an excellent urban combat cartridge.

Like I said, they both have their place.

Art Eatman
April 10, 2010, 09:30 AM
My first centerfire, back when I was a kid, was a 1917 Enfield '06. I was grumping about the sights and having some difficulty in hitting jackrabbits out beyond a hundred yards. My uncle gave me "that look" and commented, "When I was your age, anything inside of 300 yards belonged to me." He was talking about the '03 Springfield--which had a shorter sight radius.

I crawled back under my flat rock and took a big dose of Shut Up.

Anybody who hunts with an iron-sight rifle oughta do as well with a Garand as with any other semi-auto. Heck, most any other rifle, period.

Around the house? Civilian usage? Gimme the Carbine...

SharpsDressedMan
April 10, 2010, 10:11 AM
My dad entered the war effort in late 1942, and was shipped to the South Pacific as a heavy mortarman in Oct-Nov42. He trained on a 1917 Enfield at a small fort in Texas, and was later issued an M1 Carbine because he was rear of the infantry, and had to carry 40 some pounds of mortar, ammo, or baseplate, etc. They issued the carbine to lessen their loads, and because they were not front line combatants. He had no faith in the carbine, probably due to it not feeling as potent as an M1, and because of infantry troops preferring the M1 Garand to the Carbine. He quickly dumped the Carbine, and retrieved an M1 Garand from a deceased GI, and carried it all though Borneo, the Phillipine campaigns, and Occupational Japan for several months. I used to wonder when he said he could not hit the side of a barn witht the Carbine. I now have two carbines, and they will not only hit the barn, but can put the round through the window of the barn at 100 yards, and maybe even 200 yards. I think he just adopted an "I don't like it" attitude towards the carbine, and didn't want to take chances with his life with it. He did fire his Garand from the hip one time, and killed a Jap at about 15-20 yards that had been lying with a small number of dead enemy along a roadway (probably laid out by the advancing infantry). Dad thought something did not look roght when he passed the lying dead, and turned to see one getting up with a rifle. Apparently, the "live" one was a little dryer looking than the others; he had been laying under a poncho or tarp, and that is what triggered my dad's attention (almost subconsciously). I am here today because dad shot first. He said that was the only guy he can remember killing with the rifle, but he had seen, many times, the hundreds, or maybe thousands, they had killed with the mortar after the battle (81mm mortar).

amd6547
April 10, 2010, 10:24 AM
They are both great weapons for different purposes...The Garand would be a useful addition to our troops even today in Afghanistan, where ranges are long, and an eight shot capacity wouldn't be a problem.
The carbine makes one of the best HD weapons ever...that is what I use my CMP Inland for, even though I also own an AR and an AK...I prefer the lighter fast handling carbine.
While the carbine had plenty of detractors, it also had its wartime fans...like Audie Murphy.

longdayjake
April 10, 2010, 10:44 AM
the rifle is a bit bulky, difficult to scope, and finicky to load for.

Now the truth comes out... You're weak, can't see, and against 4895. No wonder you don't like the Garand. ;)

On a more serious note, I own 15 other rifles including an m1a NM, 3 ar15s (one of which is a 6.5 grendel), and an sks or two but the Garand still remains my favorite semi auto weapon to shoot and carry around. It may feel bulky when carrying it around but it feels so good when you bring it up to your shoulder and squeeze one off.

Maverick223
April 10, 2010, 11:21 AM
Now the truth comes out... You're weak, can't see, and against 4895. No wonder you don't like the Garand.Exactly. :p I really can't see, but the M1s aperture does pretty well for me (at close range anyway).

:)

Kleanbore
April 10, 2010, 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushmaster1313
M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine

Who got which, why and when.

What type of punch does the carbine deliver?
Usually, officers and "rear echelon" people (who would be support troops not primarily involved in actual fighting) got the carbine while infantry and marines and other frontline personnel got the Garand.

Tommygunn nailed it.

My dad was an NCO in the USAAF on Okinawa in WWII. He had a carbine.

I do not remember when M-1 Carbines first became available to civilians. I came across a couple of men shooting turtles from a bridge with one in Mississippi in 1958 or 1959. I've always suspected that it had been stolen.

In 1960 (I think) Guns Magazine (I think) had an article on using the M-1 Carbine to hunt javelinas in Texas. At that time the guns were not generally available, IIRC.

I wanted one when I was a kid (light weight, low recoil, semi-auto, neat) but never got one.

Deaf Smith
April 10, 2010, 07:29 PM
Read "Shots Fired in Anger' by Col. John George. He was a Lt. on Guadalcanal and Merrill’s Marauders veteran (as a Captain.) He felt the M1 Carbine AND the Garand were ace weapons. He was in several battles and used the M1 Carbine to shot his way out of traps. It's an excellent book on weapontry, ours and the Japanese.

bushmaster1313
April 10, 2010, 10:50 PM
Great posts!

Gelgoog
April 11, 2010, 12:43 AM
M1 carbines are by far my favorite rifle ever made...however the price of ammo is a huge turnoff. It used to be fairly cheap to shoot them now .30 carbine is just as expensive as .30-06 so with that...get a Garand.

If the M1 carbine is ever rechambered or .30 carbine gets more reasonably priced then I might just pick one up again.

Maverick223
April 11, 2010, 02:22 AM
M1 carbines are by far my favorite rifle ever made...however the price of ammo is a huge turnoff.Have to agree with that. I really hope that other carbines will be produced in the same round, thus reducing the price of ammo (though it isn't ridiculously priced here...about $25-30.00/50rnds). Besides it is a great carbine cartridge, we could use more carbines in this chambering (rather than a pistol cartridge).

:)

USSR
April 11, 2010, 02:36 PM
If the M1 carbine is ever rechambered or .30 carbine gets more reasonably priced then I might just pick one up again.

How does as cheap as .22 rimfire sound?

Don

http://ussr.clarityconnect.com/30carbinebullet.jpg

61chalk
April 11, 2010, 04:53 PM
Both are great rifles, an as others have said, two very different rifles.
I've had a Carbine years ago...very fun. I am somehow addicted to the
Garands, for many reasons. I love the feel, how they shoot, easy to load,
the power of the 30/06, history...I have one Garand, a HRA that is scoped,
scoping is very easy with S/K mount from Fulton Armory. And then theres
the PING thing. I love working with the wood an refinishing them also. I can't
deer hunt with it here, but plan on doing some groundhog an coyote hunting.

Old Time Hunter
April 11, 2010, 07:05 PM
I have both...DO NOT GET the M1 Carbine!

First, you will find that one magazine is not enough, then you will need higher capacity mags, then you will have to start reloading your own 'cause you can't afford thousands of rounds even of the less expensive 30 carbine ammo. Then you will start casting your own, like Don does....

So do NOT get the M1 Carbine...unless you want to find the easiest gun to tote, easiest to shoot, easiest to tear down, and it is kind of cute too.

Maverick223
April 11, 2010, 07:51 PM
I have both...DO NOT GET the M1 Carbine! [...] So do NOT get the M1 Carbine...unless you want to find the easiest gun to tote, easiest to shoot, easiest to tear down, and it is kind of cute too.OTH, you must really hate the M1 Carbine. :p

nwilliams
April 11, 2010, 08:22 PM
Buy one of each, that's what I did:D

Almost correct Inland M1 Carbine and all correct IHC M1 Garand. I bought the M1 Carbine and then about a month later I picked up the Garand.

Love em both equally for different reasons.
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb264/nwilliams27/M1s.jpg

FMJMIKE
April 11, 2010, 08:54 PM
I love them equally..............:D
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/mbmphoto/winausb.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e350/mbmphoto/SAGarand1.jpg

Quentin
April 11, 2010, 09:20 PM
It's a tough decision, the M1 Garand or M1 Carbine. I like the Garand and love the Carbine but know the Carbine lacks power. Many years ago I worked with a WWII vet who said the carbine nearly killed him in one battle because it was ineffective. He said he had to throw it down and pull out a 1911 to do the job. (Kinda sounds like something Sgt Major Basil Plumley would say!)

Anyway, I don't have either but would love to have both. Problem is I'd rather have an M1A over the Garand and an M4gery over the Carbine. I did get the AR but maybe, someday, maybe, will get a Carbine.

HavelockLEO
April 11, 2010, 09:32 PM
I have four Garands, two in 06' and two in 7.62mm. Wouldnt trade them for anything. When I have the urge to use a Carbine, I got to my folks and borrow my Dad's DCM Inland.
On the practical side of the argument, I'll take John Garands invention over its little brother anytime. And thats from talking to greater men than I'll ever be telling the up and down sides to both weapons.

Maverick223
April 11, 2010, 09:34 PM
I'll take John Garands invention over its little brother anytime.May not look like it from the outside, but the two are completely unrelated from a design (innards) standpoint. Garand designed the Garand (who woulda' thunk?), and the Carbine was mostly John Moses Browning's design (though David "Marsh" AKA: Carbine Williams and other folks at Winchester helped to finish the preliminary design after JMB expired).

:)

Deaf Smith
April 11, 2010, 10:03 PM
You can get a Lee turrent press and Lee carbine dies for the M1 carbine. I reload my own carbine ammo. Not hard at all. And then get a Ruger 10/22 as the understudy and you have quite a pair!

My 10/22 has a Ramline polymer .22 16 inch barrel and Williams peep sight. Looks very much like my Kahr M1 Carbine (even same push button safety.)

So no need to run low on M1 Carbine ammo or practice.

Deaf

Maverick223
April 11, 2010, 10:34 PM
I reload my own carbine ammo. Not hard at all.I don't agree at all...I just can't keep up with how much I want to shoot. It is easily loaded for, I don't load for pistol, but I imagine it is similar, the only thing that I find easier to load for is the .45-70Govt. (probably just due to the easier to work with size).

:)

Carl N. Brown
April 11, 2010, 11:10 PM
M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine
-------------------------------
Who got which, why and when.
What type of punch does the carbine deliver?

In 1938 a specification was put out for a Light Rifle for troops who would ordinarily not be issued the rifle, for two main reasons: (a) in mechanised warfare, the rear can become the front, with paratroopers, etc. arriving behind the lines, and (b) the only alternative to the rifle was .45 pistol which was not the best general issue choice for most troops. (If you were in a position where you couldn't add a rifle to your combat load, you couldn't add a trench gun or submachinegun either). There were elaborate calculations that mortar crews, ammo carriers, clerks, cooks etc could only carry an extra 5 pounds or so in addition to their regular gear, so that became the design goal of what became the M1 carbine in 1941. Short form on what, why and who on the M1 carbine.

When was 1942 onward. In actual use according to sources like Leatherneck magazine asking US Marines of WWII, the Carbine was often preferred in jungle fighting over the 1928 Thompson (and especially over the M50 Reising) by a lot of Marines. And it began to show up in front line use alongside the M1 Rifle as the war went on. Paratroopers were issued carbines. (My dad was in the Sixth Army Division, fought in New Guinea and Phillipines, and preferred the BAR but would use the M1 Garand if a BAR was not available; he had a low opinion of the carbine and submachinegun, although there were a lot of WWII vets who loved them.)

.30 Carbine 110gr bullet, 1950 fps, 950 ft/lbs energy. The .30-06 fired a heavier bullet at higher velocity for three times the impact energy. .30-06 bullet from an M1 Garand or BAR could shoot through a palm tree trunk that would stop a bullet from a .30 carbine or .45 Thompson. By comparison the venerable civilian .30-30 deer hunting cartridge has twice the energy of the .30 Carbine, or two-thirds the energy of the .30-06.

levallois
April 11, 2010, 11:40 PM
I like both although I lean toward the Garand because i just shoot it well -

I have an unmolested Rock-Ola -

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/Levallois/Rock-ola002.jpg

A genuine Inland Paratrooper like my dad used to carry in WWII as a glider-rider - you want light and easy to carry around then this is it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/Levallois/M1A1001.jpg

And an HRA Garand - that I don't have a photo of. I used to have a Springfield and a Winchester but pared it down to just one. There's nothing like being at the range with other Garand shooters sprinkled about and here that ping coming from up and down the line as the clip is ejected - magic!

So, I'm with those that say get both.

John

CZguy
April 12, 2010, 12:41 AM
You really need both.

SA SG,

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii299/badgerone/M1I.jpg

1943 Underwood

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii299/badgerone/M1CarbineII.jpg

C-grunt
April 12, 2010, 04:53 AM
Kinda related but funny story.

My grandad was in the Army Air Corp as a MP and was stationed on a bomber base somewhere near India during WWII. He told me when they were getting ready to ship out they had to qualify with all the shoulder weapons. Shotgun, Garand, Thompson and the Carbine. Which ever you qualified with you could bring. The only one you couldnt turn down if you qualified with was the Garand.

My grandad didnt like the weight of the rifle so he decided to intentionally mess up his sights so he didnt qualify. Well his Captain caught on to his game because he knew he could shoot and issued him all four guns. Thats on top of his 1911.

levallois
April 12, 2010, 09:48 PM
C-grunt,

That's a great story. My dad was originally issued a Garand but since he was 6 ft tall and weighed 140 pounds soaking wet, he didn't enjoy lugging it around. So when he was promoted to corporal he somehow got a paratrooper carbine. He loved that carbine and spoke kindly about it until he died. Unfortunately, neither of us had the means to buy one before he passed.

I have a question - why did so many Marines carry the carbine in the pacific during WWII? Seems like more enlisted men had them than in Europe. Thanks!

John

Maverick223
April 12, 2010, 10:06 PM
I have a question - why did so many Marines carry the carbine in the pacific during WWII?Because they were particularly handy for jungle combat (where light weight & speed generally beat power & range).

:)

LibShooter
April 12, 2010, 10:42 PM
Another question:

Does anyone know why the War Department didn't require the carbine be chambered for the .45 ACP? It seems like that would have made the quartermaster's job a lot easier.

Maverick223
April 12, 2010, 10:49 PM
Does anyone know why the War Department didn't require the carbine be chambered for the .45 ACP?I would suspect range and weight both played factors. The .30Carbine is good for about 250yds or so (sight goes to 300yds, but that is a bit farther than practical IMO), whereas a .45ACP would be good for about half that (just too much elevation needed). The heavier .45cal bbl and ammunition would also have made the carbine chunkier, heavier, and hold fewer cartridges in the magazines (probably 10 instead of 15). Also the .30 carbine has more energy (whilst retaining it for longer distances), and is better suited to longer barrels than the .45ACP (because of the powder used and case capacity). I believe the cartridge choice was a good one...in fact I would love to see more rifles chambered for it (particularly the FN PS90).

:)

RP88
April 12, 2010, 11:08 PM
I got both at the same time, more or less. I got them for collector's interest and not fo much else, although I do plan to shoot them one day.

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 30-06 Garand vs. .30 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!