.30 Carbine=Too Weak...A Myth?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Grand Inquisitor

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
790
Location
Iowa City, IA
This is just a question, being as I don't have a M1 Carbine (yet at least) and not much experiance with them, I'm not speaking as an expert here, but just as someone who wants to start some discussion.

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

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

All of this said, I don't know too much about the subject, and I am throwing it out there for those of you who do. So here it is, is it possible that the .30 Carbine myth that the .30 Carbine is a weak and ineffective manstopper is in fact a MYTH and not a fact?
 
Speed and ft. lbs. aside, I would not put much trust in the small .30 Carbine bullets. .357 has the advantage of sporting a wider array of weights.
 
My understanding is that it was considered ineffective by comparison with the .30-06, which was of course vastly more powerful.

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

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

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
If the choice is between a rifle/carbine in .30 Carbine, and a .357 Magnum handgun, I don't think it's much of a choice...... At the muzzle with .30 Carbine you've got about 950 ft/lbs of energy vs 550 (give or take) ft/lbs with a .357....
go to 100 yards with the .30 Carbine, you've still got as much energy left as the .357 had when the bullet left the barrel....
 
Another thing to keep in mind is that we are not limited to FMJ bullets as those using it in our Armed Forces were. I imagine .30 softpoints in an M1 Carbine would be very effective. Hopefully someone with ballistic proof of some kind will come by and verify my statement.
 
What wasrjoe said. With modern loads and expanding bullets, it should be quite effective.

Remember what the M1 was designed for: a small, lightweight rifle for tanker troops and other non front-line troops. Still much more effective than the 45 auto.
 
Jim Crillo of the fames NY city stake out squad stated the M1 Carbine with soft points was one of the most effective man stopper he used. He was involved 15+ gun fights while with NY PD.
 
The 30 carbine should not penetrate a decent kevlar vest.

30-06/308 ball just punches a hole through normal targets; no practical tumbling action.
 
Weak and ineffective compared to what?
The .30 Carbine will easily outperform any pistol caliber rifle or submachinegun.
Yes, it even outdoes the 10mm and .44 Magnum guns in ballistics at acceptable ranges and the bullets for the .30 Carbine actually perform as they should at these ranges,i.e. 150-200 meters.
The 10mm and .41/44 bullets do not.
It isn't in the same league as the .223/.308/.30-06 full power rifles.
It is more than sufficent for killing medium size animals to 150 meters.

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


There is absolutely nothing wrong with this caliber as long as it is used within its limitations.
 
I would be suprised very much if the .30 carbine didn't penetrate soft body armor...

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

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


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

these are winchester specs...
 
Thanks guys, I forgot to add that little bit of info.

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

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

This information applies to all bullet types.

The .30 Carbine is most assuredly NOT a BB gun.
 
No, imho, it's not a myth. Folks who give too much credence to paper ballistics often cite the 950 ft lbs of muzzle energy and then compare it to a 357 or 44 Magnum. That's comparing apples to oranges. Paper ballistics tables = actual performance like a map = the territory. Just ain't so, folks.

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

JMTC

Waiting for Vern Humphreys to show... :D
 
myth or fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've seen a man hit about 10 times with a carbine, and the SOB STILL managed to detonate a claymore from one position, then get up and run to another.
 
tony- i wonder about the tumbling stuff. i'm just a simpleton hunter that kills a few things every now and again, and i'm not sure what to look for to verify the tumbling stuff... but, in a deer, for instance, when i whack one, i usually get an exit hole in a straight line from the entrance hole and muzzle of the barrel. in fact, in all big game critter kills except one, this has been the case.

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

i have used maybe a dozen to 15 chamberings in my hunting, 30 carbine not being legal for deer here, hasn't been used by me (but the 308 and 30-06 have been).
 
i wonder about the tumbling stuff. i'm just a simpleton hunter that kills a few things every now and again, and i'm not sure what to look for to verify the tumbling stuff...
Click to expand...

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

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

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

The Soviet 5.45 X 39 is an exception to this. It has a blunt nose core inside a pointed jacket, so there is an empty space under the nose. When this bullet hits flesh, the core moves forward into the space, and the bullet will typically yaw 720 degrees or more in passing through a body.
 
I've shot a few small trees down with an M1 Carbine. More exactly, I shot several holes near the base of the trees, and pushed them down.

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

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

John, "only hits counts"
 
Who cares about myth or no myth. I mean, they look so cool!

Seriously, I agree that the myth is all about comparing it to rifles. As others have said, it's intended purpose was an alternate/replacement for the .45 for support troops. Simple as that. My uncle was a looie in WW II and had a carbine. He was front line. He told me more than once that he threw down the carbine and used an M-1.
 
Last edited:
Tumbling applies only to pointed FMJ bullets. Expanding hunting bullets do indeed plough straight on (usually).

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

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

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

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

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Ineffective .30 Carbines in Korea?
2 3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
10K
Art Eatman
A
M
  • Locked
.30 Carbine better than 5.56
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
lencac
L
cluttonfred
  • Locked
Modern .30 Carbine?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
6K
Maverick223
Maverick223
S
  • Locked
Wild Boar dropped in its tracks at 137 y with a 30 carbine...BS or unethical hunter?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
logjam
L
R
  • Locked
Good, cheap source for .30 Carbine?
Replies
3
Views
539
ball3006
B
Back
Top