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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah? Since you're not giving any context, that's not really a helpful statement.

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

John
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
 
Time for a dose of reality from the Box of Truth . Couldn't link the page directly, but go to "Begin Here" then select no. 8, Rags of Truth.

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

Rumors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War. Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
The pix are impressive.

BTW, the Box of Truth guys did numerous tests on military .223 shooting all sorts of stuff--vest material, walls, water jugs, etc. I don't recall seeing ANY tests where the military .223 failed to tumble. i.e. it tumbled in every test they ran, unless I am mistaken.
 
IIRC Boxotruth also did .30 carbine on an interior wall set up. It blew through all the dry wall and out the back, with insulation no less! Just don't try shooting the bad guys with your M1 carbine if they are hiding behind a solid cement wall and you'll be ok. Chances are if you can't see them behind that wall, you guys with the M1 rifle's shouldn't be firing either.
 
Plain and simple, the carbine is a light round. It was a rifle that was introduced when everyone was carrying a 30.06, which magnified the lightness of the round.

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

IMHO, the weapon/round is superseded by the SKS/7.62 combo in most practical matters (although I've handled few rifles that "felt" as good in the hands as a carbine--follow-up shots are a dream).

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

It's no 30.06, but I also don't want to get hit with one. :)
 
The carbine was not adopted for "rear area support troops" or cooks, or clerks. The main issue of carbines was to company grade officers (lieutenants and captains) who were platoon leaders and company commanders and definitely were in combat. In WWI, those officers carried pistols and the army found that at any distance the pistol was ineffective since it was simply not intended for use over a few yards. (Yes, I know a good shot can hit a man at 50 or more yards with a tuned M1911, but not with people shooting at him!)

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

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

Jim
 
"...an ineffective rifle because of its lack of stopping power..." That's with military ball only. This myth came out of the Korean War where it has been said that the quilted jackets worn by the Reds would stop or slow down a .30 carbine ball round. Mind you, I met a guy who was with 2PPCLI at Kap Yong. He said he didn't care if it took 3 rounds to put a Red down, he loved the carbine.
I can tell you that handloaded 110 grain HP's over IMR4227 will make a hole the size of a grapefruit in a ground hog and do it with no felt recoil out of a 6 pound rifle. If I ever had to go fight with the firearms I own, I'd reach for my carbine without a second thought.
The original intent of the Carbine was to issue it to any troopie that normally was issued a pistol. It's far easier to train thousands of inexperienced shooters to effectively shoot a rifle than it is any handgun.
 
I'm with Sunray. The M1 Carbine myth grew out of Korea.

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

I still kick myself for selling mine a few years back. The prices these days are just insane.
 
I've posted this before, but based on a comment he recorded in his autobiography, Audie Murphy (who certainly knew a thing or two about killing people) actually preferred the carbine over the Garand in certain circumstances (woods fighting). So while one might make an argument that it's LESS effective than a Garand, it would seem very unlikely that it's INEFFECTIVE.
 
Yeah, just like the .357, and ALL pistols, it is an inefective round :) Use a rifle!!!

Then again...

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

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

Some people are just harder to kill.
 
If I recall the armys ordance tests after the Koreia deal they figured out the issue was the powder in the rounds. Seemed the had been in storage since 1943 ammo tended to hit like between 750 and 1200 fps at -32 degress. Some rounds even where lucky to fire off at all. Just keep in mind they made a lot more carbines than garands and where always short on carbines.Oh by he way a .30 carbine will kill deer too.
 
First of all, all this stuff is relative. I don't think you can just make a blanket statement that round "X" is ineffective because there are too many variables. Ineffective compared to what is of course the big one. And, of course the question always comes up regarding the use of civilian expanding bullets.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Everything in life is a trade-off. :)
 
I know for a fact the .30 Carbine 110 gr. FMJ round will penetrate a single pane of household glass, travel 30 yards or so, penetrate a common household wall, enter a dry aquarium glass tank, and stop against a petrified rock. Yes, unfortunately I know this.
 
You obviously missed the point.
The point wasn't that someone is comparing the two directly. The point is that the .30 Carbine seems to hit a sentimental nerve with a lot of people on this board who refuse to believe the truth about it. While the 5.56 seems to invoke a lot of scorn by people on this board who say it is weak and ineffective. A lot of the same arguments are used in the threads. But, if the 5.56 is weak and ineffective, then you have to realize where that puts the even weaker and more ineffective .30 Carbine. And that my friend IS the topic of this thread.
 
Anything worth shooting is worth shooting at least twice.

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

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

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

Shouldn't we be out shooting? :confused:

John
 
"Shouldn't we be out shooting?"

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



That is all well and good John. You like your carbine and feel confident in it. I like mine well enough. They are probably the most fun little gun out there. I don't know anyone that doesn't enjoy the crap out of shooting them. But I don't think that is what the original post was asking.
 
There are no super wonder magic bullets. Shoot until you're not being threatened.

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

Use what you like.



http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound Profiles/223 Remington 50gr JSP.jpg

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

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

I have a .30 carbine, and I am pleased with it. I hunt deer with it, it carries easily in timber or brush. It is reliable. I limit myself to 100 yard shots (far enough in heavy timber), and it does a fine job for me.
 
Ineffective compared to what
Click to expand...
Ineffective is not a relative term. A thing is ineffective or it's not!

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

One mistake I've seen over and over on gun forums is the idea that "LESS EFFECTIVE THAN" or "INFERIOR TO" is the same thing as "INEFFECTIVE". Nothing could be farther from the truth.
 
I looks to me that you are comparing a rifle round to a pistol round.
Why?.
A handgun is mediocre in performance when compared to a rifle in every circumstance.
Even in this case where you take a powerful handgun cartridge and compare it with a relatively weak rifle cartridge, the edge still lies with the rifle.
As has been quoted here elsewhere " A handgun is what you use to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have put down to begin with"
 
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