Muzzle Energy and Terminal Ballistics, .357 & .30 Carbine


PDA






ArfinGreebly
March 31, 2011, 05:23 PM
One of the things that's puzzled me from time to time is a pair of assertions for which I have inadequate data to draw a solid conclusion.

Assertion #1: the .357 mag cartridge is a hard-hitting man-or-game stopper, and
assertion #2: the .30 Carbine cartridge is a wimpy pistol-class cartridge with no stopping power.

Now, I'm not a ballistics expert, and my high-level math skills are weak, but I'm reasonably literate and simple math isn't a real hurdle.

Given the numbers for the .357 standard factory load (110 gr, 1500 fps MV, 550 ft lbs ME) and the same numbers for the .30 Carbine factory load (110 gr, 1990 fps MV, 975 ft lbs ME), and given that using ball ammo (or soft points) in both should be something resembling apples-to-apples, what is it then about the .30 Carbine cartridge that makes it anecdotally so much less effective than the .357 mag?

I mean, just looking at the numbers, the .30 Carbine has not quite twice the ME for the same projectile weight.

So, I chuck a hunk of lead downrange at 1990 fps and it gently bruises the target, who limps away.

Then I chuck a hunk of lead (of the same weight) downrange at 1500 fps and the target falls like a sack of potatoes. DOA. Terminated. Paid in full.

Now, I'm presuming that my .357 numbers are derived from the cartridge fired from a four-inch barrel, and that the .30 Carbine numbers are done with an 18-inch barrel.

Somewhere, and I wish I could recall the source, I read that the .30 Carbine delivers effectively the same energy at 100 yards as the .357 does at 50 yards. Never personally tested that theory.

Now, just for clarity, we're not talking about the .357 fired from a rifle. Just a stock factory load fired from a stock factory pistol.

Are the numbers misleading?

Are the anecdotes statistically "salty" and given too much weight?

I've known guys who hunted deer with the .30 Carbine and had no complaints. I knew a guy in Reno who took down a bison at 70 yards with a .357 hard cast lead round. (My grandfather hunted deer with the .357, but he was a bullet and cartridge inventor, so maybe not the best example.)

So what I'm trying to grasp is the contradiction of ".30 Carbine weak, .357 mag strong" when the numbers would seem to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps someone with more miles on those cartridges can shed a little light?

If you enjoyed reading about "Muzzle Energy and Terminal Ballistics, .357 & .30 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
skoro
March 31, 2011, 05:35 PM
Sounds like the "wimpy .30 cal carbine" legend that came from the Korean War. Some troops reported that the 30 carbine round wouldn't penetrate the heavy winter jackets the Chinese troops wore. From my time in the service, talking to veterans of Korea, the consensus was those stories were the result of poor marksmanship. Those 30 cal rounds zipped right through the heavy coats, but the coats weren't tight fitting, so they didn't strike the guy underneath the coat in some cases.

That's how I heard it and it sounds reasonable.

Snowdog
March 31, 2011, 05:40 PM
I completely agree. However, I suspect people are indeed comparing apples to oranges. As a rifle cartridge, the ballistics of the .30 Carbine are quite anemic. As a handgun cartridge, the .357 magnum is quite respectable.

Unfortunately, some take that to mean the .30 Carbine is universally anemic and the .357 magnum is universally potent, so the .357 magnum (from a handgun) trumps the M1 carbine... which certainly isn't true. A .30 Carbine from an 18" barrel yields roughly double the energy of a .357 magnum from a revolver. It's really just that simple. However, it becomes a much fairer fight when the .357 magnum is chambered in a carbine.

With JSPs or JHPs, the M1 carbine has ample stopping power against ne'er-do-wells within reasonable ranges, as does the .357 magnum.

Remo223
March 31, 2011, 05:41 PM
There is more to it than that, skoro.

When people first began using 30 carbine in a handgun, they got pathetic results. the reason is a 30carbine cartridge is optimized for longer barrels and uses slower burning powder.

The theoretical power available from a projectile is directly proportional to the volume of the barrel it is being shot out of.

357mag has a larger bore and therefore you can get more power from it in shorter barrels than from a 30carbine.

General Geoff
March 31, 2011, 05:42 PM
So what I'm trying to grasp is the contradiction of ".30 Carbine weak, .357 mag strong" when the numbers would seem to indicate otherwise.

Because .30 carbine is weak for a rifle caliber, and .357 mag is strong for a handgun caliber.

.357 mag is arguably stronger than .30 carbine flat-out, when comparing similar barrel length velocities and energies.

Remo223
March 31, 2011, 05:45 PM
btw, the stories of the carbine being weak in korea are true. It was determined that the powder used in those cartridges in use in korea was defective but that the defect doesn't show up unless you are using it in extremely low temperatures. ie...the powder was weak in below zero temps.

GRIZ22
March 31, 2011, 07:19 PM
the stories of the carbine being weak in korea are true. It was determined that the powder used in those cartridges in use in korea was defective but that the defect doesn't show up unless you are using it in extremely low temperatures. ie...the powder was weak in below zero temps.

Not trying to sharpshoot you but could you disclose your source of this info?

sixgunner455
March 31, 2011, 07:33 PM
I know two men who used a .30 carbine to good effect on goblins. One was on a Pacific island, and the other was in law enforcement.

I would not consider either weapon or cartridge weak. Choose your weapon for the role you need it for.

kragluver
March 31, 2011, 07:36 PM
Keep in mind too that 30 carbine ammo used in combat was FMJ - penetration through & through with a pencil diameter hole. Penetration was probably not a problem but stopping power was. At pistol fighting ranges, mass and bullet diameter have far more to do with stopping power than energy. Mass gives you penetration and diameter makes large holes - preferably two.

The Korean discussion about 30 carbine shouldn't even be considered here as for hunting purposes you would be using hollow points or soft points. I would imagine that FMJ in 30 carbine is pretty anemic.

yyz
March 31, 2011, 08:24 PM
when you compare the 30 carbine to it's true contemporaries, IMHO, the subguns rather then rifles or pistols. the 30 carbine round is a potent round but like the 7.62x25 it suffers from a problem with over penetration with a FMJ bullet. with a good soft point bullet it is much better. remember in the gun world there is a lot of opinion and fact that has to be sorted though for your self.

Remo223
March 31, 2011, 09:51 PM
Keep in mind too that 30 carbine ammo used in combat was FMJ - penetration through & through with a pencil diameter hole. Penetration was probably not a problem but stopping power was. At pistol fighting ranges, mass and bullet diameter have far more to do with stopping power than energy. Mass gives you penetration and diameter makes large holes - preferably two.

The Korean discussion about 30 carbine shouldn't even be considered here as for hunting purposes you would be using hollow points or soft points. I would imagine that FMJ in 30 carbine is pretty anemic.
really? Then you must really think the 556nato is worthless.

Remo223
March 31, 2011, 09:53 PM
the stories of the carbine being weak in korea are true. It was determined that the powder used in those cartridges in use in korea was defective but that the defect doesn't show up unless you are using it in extremely low temperatures. ie...the powder was weak in below zero temps.

Not trying to sharpshoot you but could you disclose your source of this info?
ah, I'm afraid that's going to take me awhile to remember. hafta get back to ya.

hso
March 31, 2011, 10:20 PM
357mag has a larger bore and therefore you can get more power from it in shorter barrels than from a 30carbine

The volume of the M1 Carbine barrel is greater than that of the .357 revolver, with the most common barrel length, so the "power" would be greater out of the M1 Carbine. That's the opposite of what you're contending. Obviously the volume of the barrel has less to do with the power as long as the powder all combusts before the bullet leaves the barrel.

Remo223
March 31, 2011, 11:15 PM
The volume of the M1 Carbine barrel is greater than that of the .357 revolver, with the most common barrel length, so the "power" would be greater out of the M1 Carbine. That's the opposite of what you're contending. Obviously the volume of the barrel has less to do with the power as long as the powder all combusts before the bullet leaves the barrel.
wow. you need to re read my words.

THEORETICAL AVAILABLE POWER

disregarding cartridge size and or powder charge

and no, not the opposite of what I'm contending. I'm comparing EQUIVALENT BARREL LENGTHS. as in a foot long 357 barrel compared to a foot long 30carbine barrel.

buttrap
April 1, 2011, 04:00 AM
That was from the Army Ord board and the army small arms lab backed up by the White lab. They concluded that the WW-2 ammo that had a tropical humidity inhibiter had degraded the powder and at 0 and below temps it would go off at around 650 FPS out of a 16 inch M-2 with a huge share of the charge not lighting off and clogging up the action and gas tappets.

JohnBiltz
April 1, 2011, 04:34 AM
My dad had one then and there and he never had a kind word about it. We also did not really hear that much negative about the round in WW II. There may be something to the story.

kragluver
April 1, 2011, 09:06 AM
I do not think the 556 is worthless although I do believe our forces would be better served by a larger caliber round that was more lethal at long ranges. At the engagement ranges the 556 is intended for, the round becomes unstable once it hits flesh and tumbles (not always, but that's what it is supposed to do). This causes terrific damage. The fmj 30 carbine is short and far too stable to tumble like the 556. Of course, in a hunting round, the results are different. The post above was right on about comparing the carbine to the contemporary rounds it was supposed to replace.

Snowdog
April 1, 2011, 09:15 AM
Certainly someone that has heard these stories has the time and resources to validate the likelihood of them. To track down this exact ammunition, a vintage M1 and similar clothing worn by the DPRK, freeze the ammunition for a few weeks (hell, the carbine as well) and shoot frozen wool clothing at 100 yards to try to recreate these failures... anybody?
I know the good fellow over at The Box of Truth gave it a good run, though many have argued that several variables were overlooked.

Actually, I would be happy with just finding the ammunition issued and leave 'em at below 0 temperatures for some time before shooting them over a chronograph. If the velocities differ vastly between the test ammunition and the control, then I'd be interested about learning more.

Devonai
April 1, 2011, 09:32 AM
Snowdog, I agree, except that in order for the test to be 100% scientific, the ammo would have to be of recent manufacture, loaded with the same type of components used in the original.

Of course, if one were to go through all that trouble, one could always sell it as a speciality round and charge a buck a shot. :)

Remo223
April 1, 2011, 10:12 AM
the stories of the carbine being weak in korea are true. It was determined that the powder used in those cartridges in use in korea was defective but that the defect doesn't show up unless you are using it in extremely low temperatures. ie...the powder was weak in below zero temps.

Not trying to sharpshoot you but could you disclose your source of this info?
see post 15, someone has a better memory than I do.

Remo223
April 1, 2011, 10:14 AM
I do not think the 556 is worthless although I do believe our forces would be better served by a larger caliber round that was more lethal at long ranges. At the engagement ranges the 556 is intended for, the round becomes unstable once it hits flesh and tumbles (not always, but that's what it is supposed to do). This causes terrific damage. The fmj 30 carbine is short and far too stable to tumble like the 556. Of course, in a hunting round, the results are different. The post above was right on about comparing the carbine to the contemporary rounds it was supposed to replace.
Ok.

Like the AK47?

LOL, same caliber as a M1carbine.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 10:58 AM
The comparison here really should be:

Hollow point expanding bullets are a effective man-or-game stoppers.

Small diamiter full metal jacketef bullets that do not expand have poor stopping power.

natman
April 1, 2011, 11:18 AM
One of the things that's puzzled me from time to time is a pair of assertions for which I have inadequate data to draw a solid conclusion.

Assertion #1: the .357 mag cartridge is a hard-hitting man-or-game stopper, and
assertion #2: the .30 Carbine cartridge is a wimpy pistol-class cartridge with no stopping power.


It's all a question of perspective. The 357 is fairly hard hitting - when used with hollow points and compared with pistol rounds.

The M1 Carbine is pretty wimpy - when used with FMJ ammo and compared with rifle rounds. Which is how it got it's bad reputation.

The M1 does OK, when used with hollow points and compared with other pistol rounds fired from a carbine. It's not in the same class as a real rifle round such as a 308.

ArfinGreebly
April 1, 2011, 11:30 AM
Alright, so given that the .30 Carbine should perform reasonably comparable to the .357 using comparable ammo and reasonable distances . . .

and given that I know a guy who brought down a bison at 70 yards with a S&W 686 (.357 flat nosed lead) . . .

then would it be reasonable to expect that, using soft point ammo (never seen hard cast lead for .30 Carbine) at approximately 70-100 yards, one could bring down similar game?

BrocLuno
April 1, 2011, 11:57 AM
I dunno, but I don't want to stand down range and be a test target for either.

Since 357 carbine rifles are readily available (levers mostly) this should not be a big problem to prove. Who has the chrono numbers for M1 and 357 out of a saddle gun?

Fastcast
April 1, 2011, 12:01 PM
I'll tell you this much, for home defense I'll take my M1 Carbine loaded up with 15 or 30 rounds of SP bullets, any day over a .357 revolver or lever carbine.

The M1 shoulders and is on target quicker than any rifle/carbine I've ever tried. No thoughts here of using the little M1 on Bison at any distance or zombies out past 150yrds.....I have other rifles for that. Up close and personal, it's my go to weapon and any goblins who think my soft points are gonna just bounce off, we'll just see how that works out for 'em. ;)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/fastcast/100_2135.jpg

hso
April 1, 2011, 01:18 PM
M1 Carbine Energy at muzzle and >100 yards http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/30_carbine.html
.357 rifle Energy at muzzle and >100 yards http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/357_magnum_rifle.html
.357 4" revolver Energy at muzzle and 50 yards http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/357_magnum.html

Out of a .357 carbine you can get the same or a bit more energy on target at 100 yards than with an M1 Carbine, but a revolver won't provide anything near the energy of either at the same distance.

Claude Clay
April 1, 2011, 01:20 PM
Fastcast--i am of the same way of thinking.

i reload for 357 and m-1
m-1 are hard lead with a MV of 1800 fps and do not lead the bbl.
it took some time to find the right bullet/powder combo to achieve this and it is in my 'going to retire' pile of firearms. the 357 is not.

".30 Carbine weak, .357 mag strong"
Toyota Matrix weak, Toyota Supra strong.
both are cars, weigh the same and at 70mph get the same mpg's. but get to speed differently. we can cross compare many pairs of related items that achieve similar numbers in a specific catagory; but what the intended use of the item will be is my determining factor.

mac66
April 1, 2011, 01:56 PM
The M1 carbine was designed to replace a pistol with an intermediate, i.e., more effective round at closer than rifle ranges and farther than pistol range. It does that pretty well. Given a choice I would chose a M1 Carbine over any pistol.

Given a choice of a M1 Carbine or a real rifle caliber rifle, I would chose the rifle caliber.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 02:26 PM
This is an apples to oranges comparison. If .357 loads came with a 110 grain full metal jacketed round nose bullet it would have a reputation as a poor stopper also. If the military had been allowed to use an expanding hunting style bullet in the M-1 Carbine it would have done a much better job in Korea.

If both rounds are loaded with the same weight bullet and fired from the same length barrel the muzzle energy figures are about the same. it is the performance of the bullet on game that makes the difference and FMJ round nose bullets in ANY common hunting caliber are ill suited for hunting.

rocky branch
April 1, 2011, 02:58 PM
I had to carry a M2 Carbine as a CIDG advisor for a few months until we got upgraded.

I was not happy as I had owned surplus catbines and had some experience with their effectiveness.

The weakest point was the FMJ bullet which was required by law/regs/ whatever.
I saw a lot of non fatal wounds-the bad guys had lots of carbines as well.
Buddy of mine took a through and through to his shoulder standing about three feet from me.
He initially dropped his rifle and could not figure out why.
Said he never felt a thing.

The 5.56 was a whole different story.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 03:03 PM
The M-1 Carbine got its reputation as a poor stopper because of the BULLET it fired, nothing is wrong with the rifle.

McCall911
April 1, 2011, 03:38 PM
Good ole Brassfetcher did some testing of the .30 Carbine a few years back. Interesting results. It seems even some 1952 vintage FMJ performed well.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/30carbine.html

ArfinGreebly
April 1, 2011, 03:40 PM
Fastcast, you buy those hard lead rounds or cast them yourself?

I don't reload yet, but it would be interesting to have the load data you've worked up.

I'm a fan of whatever will make my old Rockola more versatile.

:)

Fastcast
April 1, 2011, 03:56 PM
Fastcast, you buy those hard lead rounds or cast them yourself?

I don't reload yet, but it would be interesting to have the load data you've worked up.

I'm a fan of whatever will make my old Rockola more versatile.

:)



That's not me loading the hard lead but Claude.....I am ramping up right now though to load my own, since the SP's can be hard to find and expensive. Just picked up some Redding dies and Sierra 110gr RNSP bullets. :)

Rockola huh, sweet!...Mine's a NPM w/original Marlin barrel....She's a good shooter!

Remo223
April 1, 2011, 04:00 PM
This is an apples to oranges comparison. If .357 loads came with a 110 grain full metal jacketed round nose bullet it would have a reputation as a poor stopper also. If the military had been allowed to use an expanding hunting style bullet in the M-1 Carbine it would have done a much better job in Korea.

If both rounds are loaded with the same weight bullet and fired from the same length barrel the muzzle energy figures are about the same. it is the performance of the bullet on game that makes the difference and FMJ round nose bullets in ANY common hunting caliber are ill suited for hunting.
You are not thinking your position through.

The M1 garand is a full metal jacket bullet of the same caliber. No one has criticized the 30-06 for being a weak man stopper.

ArfinGreebly
April 1, 2011, 04:29 PM
Fastcast, you buy those hard lead rounds or cast them yourself?

I don't reload yet, but it would be interesting to have the load data you've worked up.

I'm a fan of whatever will make my old Rockola more versatile.

:)



That's not me loading the hard lead but Claude.....I am ramping up right now though to load my own, since the SP's can be hard to find and expensive. Just picked up some Redding dies and Sierra 110gr RNSP bullets. :)

Rockola huh, sweet!...Mine's a NPM w/original Marlin barrel....She's a good shooter!

:o

<ahem>

So, Claude, same question as above to you.

What can you tell me?

GRIZ22
April 1, 2011, 07:52 PM
The M-1 Carbine got its reputation as a poor stopper because of the BULLET it fired, nothing is wrong with the rifle.


Jim Cirillo has much more gunfighting experience than most people. He said that the FMJ M1 Carbine was kind of wimpy but a SP or HP made it a totally different weapon. He liked the M1 carbine as a stakeout gun.

kragluver
April 1, 2011, 09:42 PM
Yes the 7.62X39 is the same caliber - definitely not the same bullet though. From what I've read about the 7.62x39 in FMJ, it penetrates to far before yawing and tends to generate through & through wounds. I'm sure that is a function of the engagement range though. A spitzer bullet should exhibit greater instability in flesh than a short round nose bullet. I think comparing the .30 carbine to the 7.62x39 is apples & oranges.

The .45-70 and .458 Win Mag are the same caliber as the .45 ACP. I don't think anyone would argue which has greater stopping potential.

1stmarine
April 1, 2011, 09:50 PM
The problem with the .30 carbine is not the caliber but the poor bullet ballistics for this round.

content
April 1, 2011, 11:07 PM
Hello friends and neighbors // I have the greatest respect for both, a little more for the M1 past 100yards. In my case, I have to credit this to the M1s sights.

I have and carry both the M1 carbine (Underwood) and an Interarms (Rossi) Model 92 .357 lever when walking the property after hunting season.

The M1 edges out the M92 in accuracy (YMMV) at 100yards but in felt recoil they are very close. I'm shooting 110gr.FMJ from the M1 and 158gr.JHP from the M92.

I also carry a sidearm to match caliber.
For the M1 a . Ruger BlackHawk, 7 1/2 inch, 30carbine cal.
For the M92 a S&W M586, 6 inch, .357.
Again the .30 cal edges out the .357 at 25yards, SA and in felt recoil they are very close. It could be the slightly longer 7 1/2" compared to 6" barrel.

If someone in the Charlotte N.C. --Rock Hill S.C. area would like to make exact loads for each caliber and has a chrono I can offer this option.
Unless someone wants to contribute a 7 1/2 BlackHawk in .357. I would be glad to set up a Dan Wesson M15 with an 8 inch barrel and also provide the M1, M92 and 7 1/2 inch BlackHawk in .30cal.
.
**I'll be Turkey hunting most of this week.***With a shotgun.:D

As far as being capable of taking Bison with either caliber at 50-70 yards, ---------Yep You Bettcha.
Would I rather have my scoped .30-06 at that yardage for that size game? --------Yep You Bettcha.

Owen Sparks
April 1, 2011, 11:20 PM
Out of curiosity I just checked my Speer reloading manual for an actual apples to apples comparison.

I found load data for both the .30 carbine and .357 Magnum (rifle).
Both listed loads with 110 grain bullets.
Both listed loads for that weight with H-110 powder
Both were fired from guns with non-vented 18 inch barrels, the M-1 Carbine and a Model 94 Winchester. This is about as equal testing peramiter possible.

Firing the same weight 110 grain bullet,

the .357 burned 23 grains of H110 in the top load.

The .30 Carbine only used 14 grains of H110.

The .357 had a muzzel velocity of 2,431 FPS.

The .30 Carbine had a muzzle velocity of only 1,885.

The .357 is roughly 15% larger in diamiter.

The .30 Carbine bullet has a better balistic coeficient, meaning that it retains velocity better over distiance than the .357’s stubby pistol bullet, though it is still not very good by rifle standards.

Even out of a vented 6 inch revolver the .357 is able to achieve over 1,700 FPS with a 110 grain bullet which, when you account for the increase in diamiter should be at least as effective as a game/man stopper as the M-1 Carbine if fired at close range.

So here is the definitive answer, out of a rifle the .357 wins hands down at close range.

Out of a pistol, the .357 virtually ties the .30 M-1 carbine at close range though obviously, the rifle has an edge with long shots.

A more equal comparison would be the .30 Carbine Vs. the new .327 Magnum if someone ever chambers a rifle for it.

Snowdog
April 2, 2011, 02:43 AM
Shot for shot, I would agree that a .357 magnum from a carbine would yield more energy at the muzzle than the .30 carbine from an M1.

That's shot for shot... focusing solely on the ballistics of each individual round and not taking into account the overall "package", with the .357 magnum being a tube-fed lever gun and the M1 carbine a magazine-fed semi automatic.

I believe what the OP was originally referring to is something that has long irked me as well: the askew view of the .30 carbine from the M1 Carbine as an "anemic" cartridge in terms of ballistics while viewing the .357 magnum from a revolver as a powerhouse. The .30 carbine is anemic as a rifle cartridge, though still offering half a ton of energy... something not commonly offered by handguns, including the .357 magnum.

These views also, for whatever reason, almost always preclude the use of JHPs or JSPs from the M1 carbine, further muddling the argument.

The M1 carbine was developed from the ground-up as an implement of war and thus has features incorporated into its design that, IMHO, allow it to possess a significant edge as a "fighting tool" over anything .357 magnum, revolver or otherwise.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 04:33 AM
However, in a defensive situation, I know how fast I can crank 15 carbine shells through that piece. Or five. Faster and more accurately than I can work the lever on a saddle gun.

This is why my primary is a shotgun, and my wife's primary is the M-1. It's in the closet with two magazines on the butt stock right now.

Carl N. Brown
April 2, 2011, 07:20 AM
I own a .30 Carbine carbine and a .357 Magnum revolver and carbine and have only range experience with them.

.30 Carbine v .357 Magnum

M1 Carbine generates about 1/2 the muzzle energy (foot-pounds) of the .30-30 Winchester and about 1/3 the muzzle energy of the .30-06 Springfield. Compared to most deer rifle or military rifle rounds, that's weak tea, comparing apples to apples.

.357 Magnum generates two or three times the muzzle energy of the .38 Special or 9mm Luger, especially when .38 Special or 9mm Luger are downloaded by the factories for collectible antiques. Compared to most handgun rounds, .357 is expresso, comparing oranges to oranges.

Supposedly the forensic ballistics data collected by Fackler from shootings show that the .30 Carbine with full metal jacket military bullets has an effectiveness comparable to the .38 Special and the .30 Carbine with softnose hunting bullets has an effectiveness like the .357 Magnum. Another ballistics expert, I believe it was Wolberg, said his home defense weapon of choice was an M1 carbine and Winchester softnose hollowpoint ammo.*

.30 Carbine in a carbine is more effective than .357 in a handgun with the right bullets. The .357 magnum in a carbine however is impressive: it gains 400 or 500 ft per sec velocity and almost doubles its energy (most pistol cartridges like .45 or 9mm only gain 50 to 100 fps when used in carbines).

.30 Carbine in a revolver is better compared to the .32-20 Winchester when used in revolver than to the .357 in a revolver.

*IIRC the Winchester ammo box for their .30 carbine hunting round is coded with a logo of a large varmint animal rather than a deer or bear.

armarsh
April 2, 2011, 08:06 AM
Berry's makes an excellent 110 grain plated. They work great in 30 Tokarev, too.

GBExpat
April 2, 2011, 08:08 AM
...At the engagement ranges the 556 is intended for, the round becomes unstable once it hits flesh and tumbles (not always, but that's what it is supposed to do). This causes terrific damage....

Sounds like the "M-16" as Stoner developed it ... before the US military changed his propellant & rifling specifications.

IIRC, the original design sported a 1in14(?) twist barrel that left the 55gr bullet just barely stablized ... and the result was often fearsome wounds from tumbling.

For those interested in the kind of damage that the wimpy round will do, Google info on the murder of Bugsy Siegel.

I have always thought that the Wimpy vs Powerful argument was primarily the result of (for a)Rifle vs (for a)Pistol ... but I find the information about the sub-zero temperature effect on the propellant during the Korean War very interesting.

Fastcast
April 2, 2011, 08:44 AM
Supposedly the forensic ballistics data collected by Fackler from shootings show that the .30 Carbine with full metal jacket military bullets has an effectiveness comparable to the .38 Special

Overall, nice write up Carl but I believe this part is non-sense. I realize these aren't your words. The military designed the cartridge/carbine to be more effective than the 45acp 1911......Not to mention the numbers on paper for .30 carbine and .38sp are in a completely different universe.

Others beat me to it but yes the .357 (round for round) out of a carbine may have a slight "ballistic" advantage but that's it.......With the M1 one can lay down a whole lot more firepower with both speed and accuracy, than any .357 revolver or carbine.

If I had to defend my home or go to war tomorrow, the M1 Carbine wins hands down, as compared to anything firing the .357 round.

Owen Sparks
April 2, 2011, 03:43 PM
Luckly civilians can use expanding bullets (unless they live in The Peoples Republic of New Jersey) so the terminal effects of the M-1 Carbine can be greatly improved.

buttrap
April 2, 2011, 09:24 PM
I have used the carbine loaded with 100 grain half jackets on deer with good results. 4 dead deer is a small sample but it did take 4 rounds.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 10:05 PM
My dad once killed two mulies on the same day with it. I wouldn't hunt deer with it.

mljdeckard
April 2, 2011, 10:08 PM
I now find myself curious to look into these options.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_97

Sunray
April 3, 2011, 12:28 AM
"...assertion #2:..." Applies to military ball ammo only. In any case, it's an apples and oranges thing.
"...same caliber as a M1 carbine..." Nope. .308" vs .311".

ArfinGreebly
April 3, 2011, 01:23 AM
I now find myself curious to look into these options.

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/index.php?cPath=21_97

Holy cow.

$80 for 50 rds for the Barnes copper ammo.
$60 for 50 rds for the soft point.

MV 2010 fps, 980 fpe.

A little higher velocity, a little more energy at all points.

I'd love to see some data on the terminal performance of these rounds.

Of course, that's some pricey performance.

I pay less than that per round for Hornady .30-30 ammo, good out to 200, even 300 yards, with a whole lot more punch.

Of course, a couple of 15-rd mags of the Barnes TSX stuff might well be hell on wheels. As insurance, that's pretty cheap. And if it makes for more effective hunting, an extra dollar for meat in camp? I could live with that. Surely not gonna light off a case of that down range on paper, though.

Still, I'm intrigued. Love to have more data.

Snowdog
April 3, 2011, 01:24 AM
mljdeckard, I had no idea that Douple Tap loaded for the .30 Carbine. I see it's not all that much hotter (if at all) than run-of-the-mill fodder. Though I suppose it wouldn't be wise to hot-rod loads for 60-year-old warhorses.
I have a couple boxes of DPX for my carbine, but I have yet to function test them, so I still have mine loaded with JSP which I have plenty confidence in.

I would't mind seeing a Pow'r Ball-esque load or round-nose profile EFMJ type bullet engineers specifically for the M1 carbine.
I understand many of the feed issues with JSP loads are due to the exposed soft lead slightly deforming after striking the feed ramp, soaking up just enough of the forward momentum of the bolt to cause issues.

I would imagine much of this would be corrected with a EFMJ with a harder material of copper/gilded metal jacket or a Pow'rBall format with hard polymer at the tip (both with a soft lead core, of course).

However, I don't mean to sound as if complaining. My M1 carbine has fed everything just fine so far. I think that's generally the norm.

billw_willy
April 3, 2011, 11:12 PM
Energy means little in ballistics. I calculated momentum, the force that makes a bullet penetrate for the two examples with both in 110 gr, the 30 Carbine won handily and by the way, the Carbine can aim and hit more reliably than a handgun. The MVs of each were really too high but used them anyway. With a 158 gr 357 Mag at 1200 MV, the momentum numbers were nearly the same with the Carbine edging the handgun.

I loaded some 155 gr cast bullets for my M-1 Carbine and successfully shot them using reduced loads of powder, having no load data and arriving at what I considered maximum pressure that functioned the action without jams. The longer bullets shot accurately at 25 yards but the bullet prints were slightly yawed. The primer pockets were loosened and I quit such load development.

If you enjoyed reading about "Muzzle Energy and Terminal Ballistics, .357 & .30 Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!