chutestrate
Member
Just doing some caliber comparisons for fun. How do the .223, .357, and .30 carbine compare?
Caliber comparison.223 vs .357 vs .30 carbine
- Thread starter chutestrate
- Start date
- Status
chutestrate
Member
good question. interested in ballistics, terminal effects, ease of shooting, etc.
ny32182
Member
One is a handgun round; the next is a.... slightly glorified handgun round, and one is a rifle round. Ballistically, they compare accordingly. Not to belabor the point, but a more specific question would probably help you find the answer you are looking for.
beerslurpy
member
My biggest beef with 30 carbine is that it is almost like the 7.62x39 except:
-it doesnt defeat armor
-it costs more
-is only widely available in FMJ
-has less effective range than 7.62x39 (truly damning words)
Everything I hate about the 7.62x39 I hate more about 30 carbine. Everything I love about 30 carbine I love even more about the 7.62x39. And the AK is more reliable than the M1 carbine, so this is really a lopside comparo.
The 357 really is a great revolver round, but unsuitable for other applications. In a carbine, it sucks in comparison to intermediate rifle rounds. It is even weaker ballistically than the 30 carbine, which is pretty telling.
223 is great from a long barrel, crappy from a short one. 16 inch or bullpup?
In conclusion, rifles for the win.
-it doesnt defeat armor
-it costs more
-is only widely available in FMJ
-has less effective range than 7.62x39 (truly damning words)
Everything I hate about the 7.62x39 I hate more about 30 carbine. Everything I love about 30 carbine I love even more about the 7.62x39. And the AK is more reliable than the M1 carbine, so this is really a lopside comparo.
The 357 really is a great revolver round, but unsuitable for other applications. In a carbine, it sucks in comparison to intermediate rifle rounds. It is even weaker ballistically than the 30 carbine, which is pretty telling.
223 is great from a long barrel, crappy from a short one. 16 inch or bullpup?
In conclusion, rifles for the win.
How do you make that determination? I look at Speer reloading manual and compare 357Mag 110gr (BC 0.12) at 2467fps v.s. 30 carbine 110gr (B.C. 0.179) at 1981fps.
Are you talking about trajectory? The drops for both seems to be about the same to 250yds.
beerslurpy
member
Sorry, I dont reload 357 mag so I have no idea why I would be expected to know that. Ok, so it is tied with 30 carbine for weaksauce round of the year. I dont know what point you proved.pbhome71 said:
Theyre still both pistol rounds shooting pistol bullets.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
Depends on how you look at it
The .30 carbine is a great round if shot out of a handgun. The ballistics have it moving quite well out of a handgun, possibly even piercing body armour if it is low level. Out of the M1 Carbine, it is mediocre at best when compared to any modern assault rifle, bolt action, semi auto, etc. (But the M1/M2 Carbine was a development over subguns of it's time, and assault rifles were a development over guns like the M1/M2)
The .357 Mag is great in a revolver, sucks coming from any platform besides a revolver.
The .223 is great for long range varmint work, and it's ability to break up in a body at close range makes it a good round in urban defence situations (riots, post natural disaster, etc.). But compared to .308, it doesn't hold a candle. Compared to any pistol caliber carbine, the .223 shines bright.
The .30 carbine is a great round if shot out of a handgun. The ballistics have it moving quite well out of a handgun, possibly even piercing body armour if it is low level. Out of the M1 Carbine, it is mediocre at best when compared to any modern assault rifle, bolt action, semi auto, etc. (But the M1/M2 Carbine was a development over subguns of it's time, and assault rifles were a development over guns like the M1/M2)
The .357 Mag is great in a revolver, sucks coming from any platform besides a revolver.
The .223 is great for long range varmint work, and it's ability to break up in a body at close range makes it a good round in urban defence situations (riots, post natural disaster, etc.). But compared to .308, it doesn't hold a candle. Compared to any pistol caliber carbine, the .223 shines bright.
I know people who hunt deer with 357mag (rifle and revolver). They'd laugh at the idea of hunting dear with 30car.
According to Paco Kelly (here) Handloaded 357 can approach 30-30 winchester when fired from a rifle. Well, another famous round which approaches 30-30 is 7.62x39. Now I doubt that any 357 bullet would come close to the penetrating power of the 7.62 bullet, but against flesh I wold say they both work well.
According to Paco Kelly (here) Handloaded 357 can approach 30-30 winchester when fired from a rifle. Well, another famous round which approaches 30-30 is 7.62x39. Now I doubt that any 357 bullet would come close to the penetrating power of the 7.62 bullet, but against flesh I wold say they both work well.
Er - not exactly. .357 from a rifle is pretty serious medicine. It can really be moving, approaching 30-30 energies, with the right ammo.
Buffalo Bore:
180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
158gr. Speer Uni Core = 2153 fps
125gr. Speer Uni Core = 2298 fps
That gives 1300-1700 foot-lbs of energy, compared to 950-odd from a .30 carbine. I know which I would rather be shooting.
beerslurpy
member
This is what I am used to seeing for the 357.
125gr 1450 fps muzzle
140gr 1360 fps muzzle
Which is more in line with hot 9mm than 7.62x39. Do you guys think I handload the 7.62x39? At 7-10 cents a round, it is kind of pointless. Ditto 30 carbine. I doubt anyone reloads with crates of it available cheap from wolf.
Compare apples to apples.
125gr 1450 fps muzzle
140gr 1360 fps muzzle
Which is more in line with hot 9mm than 7.62x39. Do you guys think I handload the 7.62x39? At 7-10 cents a round, it is kind of pointless. Ditto 30 carbine. I doubt anyone reloads with crates of it available cheap from wolf.
Compare apples to apples.
Sunray
Member
"...only widely available in FMJ..." Since when? Winchester, Remington, Magtech, PMC, Federal, et al all load a 110 gr hp or a 100 gr sp. They're not the same as handloaded HP's though. Mind you, what does?
Go here.
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/
Go here.
http://www.remington.com/products/ammunition/ballistics/
beerslurpy
member
for 10-15 cents a round?
Devonai
Member
The .30 carbine when used in the M1 Carbine gives you 15-30 rounds of quick-changing-magazine love, which may or may not do it for you. When the distance between your stakes is filled with enemy the choices kind of narrow. 
Will Fennell
Member
barrel lenght
Beerslurpy,
When you chamber and fire the .357 mag out of a non-vented carbine barrel of 18" or so, you get alot of "free velocity" over the speeds attained by the same round in a vented 4-6" revolver barrel. You can take those rounds you are used to firing in a revolver and getting 1400 fps or so, and shoot them in a carbine and get speeds around 2000 fps.....more or less depending on the load. This is without handloading.
Regarding cost, I hear what you are saying, but the original poster didn't ask for comparisons with regard to cost.
chutestrate,
I've found that out of typical rifles chambered for each round that the .223 has given me better terminal ballistics on medium sized game[which should give you some idea of its antipersonel prospects]. The .223 has much higher velocity, making it easier to get long range hits with ease. The .223's that I have owned have generally been very accurate for the type of rifles that they have been chambered in, again making them easier to shoot "well" and get good hits with.
None of the 3 have much recoil. The .30 carbine has NOT been a stellar performer with regards to terminal performance on medium size game, even with non-fmj's. The .357 carbine performance has varied considerably depending on bullet construction. I remember one wild pig shot several times with a .357 carbine and 125 gr JHP "screamers".........very shallow penetration due to the bullet totally coming appart before it got into the chest cavity. This was not a huge"wild boar", but a nice 2 year old 125 lb young female [ with plans for BBQ in the shooters eyes ]. I have seen fair performance from heavier bullets.
The .223, with proper bullets for the given task, gave me better performance across the board than the other 2 calibers. YMMV
Beerslurpy,
When you chamber and fire the .357 mag out of a non-vented carbine barrel of 18" or so, you get alot of "free velocity" over the speeds attained by the same round in a vented 4-6" revolver barrel. You can take those rounds you are used to firing in a revolver and getting 1400 fps or so, and shoot them in a carbine and get speeds around 2000 fps.....more or less depending on the load. This is without handloading.
Regarding cost, I hear what you are saying, but the original poster didn't ask for comparisons with regard to cost.
chutestrate,
I've found that out of typical rifles chambered for each round that the .223 has given me better terminal ballistics on medium sized game[which should give you some idea of its antipersonel prospects]. The .223 has much higher velocity, making it easier to get long range hits with ease. The .223's that I have owned have generally been very accurate for the type of rifles that they have been chambered in, again making them easier to shoot "well" and get good hits with.
None of the 3 have much recoil. The .30 carbine has NOT been a stellar performer with regards to terminal performance on medium size game, even with non-fmj's. The .357 carbine performance has varied considerably depending on bullet construction. I remember one wild pig shot several times with a .357 carbine and 125 gr JHP "screamers".........very shallow penetration due to the bullet totally coming appart before it got into the chest cavity. This was not a huge"wild boar", but a nice 2 year old 125 lb young female [ with plans for BBQ in the shooters eyes
]. I have seen fair performance from heavier bullets.The .223, with proper bullets for the given task, gave me better performance across the board than the other 2 calibers. YMMV
beerslurpy
member
Sorry, you guys are right, I didnt realize how much powder is wasted in the pistols vs rifles. I guess the second problem becomes, how do you make a reliable semiauto around it?
Speaking of 9mm caliber guns, why havent we seen any 9x39mm soviet? It was the commie answer to 338 whisper, only before we had 338 whisper. It uses existing AK mags and only requires a barrel change to work. It is basically a subsonic version of 7.62x39 with much bigger bullets.
Speaking of 9mm caliber guns, why havent we seen any 9x39mm soviet? It was the commie answer to 338 whisper, only before we had 338 whisper. It uses existing AK mags and only requires a barrel change to work. It is basically a subsonic version of 7.62x39 with much bigger bullets.
BryanP
Member
Here are the #'s for the Buffalo Bore rounds through various test pistols and a Marlin 1894C w/18.5" barrel (like mine ) This is one of the reasons I like my 1894C. I can take it to the range and plink away with inexpensive .38spl, or ramp all the way up to .30-30 performance if I ever felt the need.
) This is one of the reasons I like my 1894C. I can take it to the range and plink away with inexpensive .38spl, or ramp all the way up to .30-30 performance if I ever felt the need.gazpacho said:
I like the idea of being armed with a .357 revolver for close-in and a .357 lever-action carbine for short to midrange work. One interchangeable ammo supply, two practical uses. Not to mention the ability to use .38 special. Oh, did I mention the relative sizes and weights of each of the respective cartridges? You can pack a lot more .357 ammo into a given size than either .223 or .30, and it will weigh a lot less, too. I'm not a reloader, but I've heard reloading .357's is pretty easy.
wanderinwalker
Member
Of the three, the most useful in my eyes are the .223 and .357. The .30 Carbine, while fun, low-recoiling and easy to shoot, just doesn't fill any particular role in my view of the world. (Well, other than being fun to shoot and a good gun for smaller people and the recoil sensitive.)
The .223 has oodles more useful range. I mean, I routinely shoot my AR-15 at 600 yards. Good luck doing that with a Marlin in .357! On the flip-side, for shorter ranges, I'd prefer the Marlin. Ditto with the Carbine. 100-200 yards, tops.
Recoil is a wash between the 3. None of them is an unpleasant kicker. Perhaps the worst is the noise generated at firing. I find the .223 the most offensive, through hearing protection, with the .30 Carbine and .357 being slightly below that level. Load some .38s in a .357 rifle and there is practically no noise to speak of. Seriously!
As for reloading, the .357 and .30 Carbine are easier to reload for. Factory ammo costs seem pretty similar to me, at least regarding like-quality ammunition (ie WWB to WWB). There isn't enough difference in expense to make me automatically pick one over the others.
Of course, my favorite is to step up to the .44 Magnum. More expensive, but more close-range power. This round out of a rifle does actually kick pretty good. My Marlin 1894PG seems to recoil almost as hard as my .260, when both are stoked with top loads. Most shooters can't handle it out of a revolver, no matter what their egos have to say about it. In a rifle is more manageable, but still suffers derision as "just a pistol round."
The .223 has oodles more useful range. I mean, I routinely shoot my AR-15 at 600 yards. Good luck doing that with a Marlin in .357! On the flip-side, for shorter ranges, I'd prefer the Marlin. Ditto with the Carbine. 100-200 yards, tops.
Recoil is a wash between the 3. None of them is an unpleasant kicker. Perhaps the worst is the noise generated at firing. I find the .223 the most offensive, through hearing protection, with the .30 Carbine and .357 being slightly below that level. Load some .38s in a .357 rifle and there is practically no noise to speak of. Seriously!
As for reloading, the .357 and .30 Carbine are easier to reload for. Factory ammo costs seem pretty similar to me, at least regarding like-quality ammunition (ie WWB to WWB). There isn't enough difference in expense to make me automatically pick one over the others.
Of course, my favorite is to step up to the .44 Magnum. More expensive, but more close-range power. This round out of a rifle does actually kick pretty good. My Marlin 1894PG seems to recoil almost as hard as my .260, when both are stoked with top loads. Most shooters can't handle it out of a revolver, no matter what their egos have to say about it. In a rifle is more manageable, but still suffers derision as "just a pistol round."
Vern Humphrey
Member
I really can't think of a use for the .30 Carbine. For the record, I was issued an M2 carbine my first tour in Viet Nam, and wrapped it around a tree and carried an M1 Garand thereafter.
The .357 is probably the most versatile handgun round ever developed -- especially since it can also shoot .38 Specials. In a carbine, with 158 grain bullets, it is virtually a duplicate of the original .30-30 loadings (160 grain bullet at 2,000-2,100 fps) and still gives the .30-30 a run for its money (although with the new leverevolution ammo, it is outclassed.)
The .223 is the classic varmit round -- although only Robert MacNamara would consider it a battle round.
The .357 is probably the most versatile handgun round ever developed -- especially since it can also shoot .38 Specials. In a carbine, with 158 grain bullets, it is virtually a duplicate of the original .30-30 loadings (160 grain bullet at 2,000-2,100 fps) and still gives the .30-30 a run for its money (although with the new leverevolution ammo, it is outclassed.)
The .223 is the classic varmit round -- although only Robert MacNamara would consider it a battle round.
SpookyPistolero
Member
This is probably a better thread to ask this question, so does anyone know whether or not low power .38's out of a 16" or 18" barrel would work for small game hunting in a pinch? Is it still just too much weight to pick off critters with? I've been really curious to find this out.
Vern Humphrey
Member
SpookyPistolero said:
I've probably killed a freight car load of squirrels with my Colt M357 using .38 Special cases loaded with a 148 grain hollowbased wadcutter and 2.7 grains of bullseye.
The classic "Squirrel Rifle" of the flint and cap lock days was .36 caliber, and while these were roundball guns, they weren't all that different from a light .38 Special load from a rifle-length barrel.
Vern Humphrey said:
That's why I would use an M1 for medium to long distance work, the .357 (or 9mm) carbine for medium to close in, and the .357 (or 9mm) for close in. All the bases are just about covered, and the supply and carry logistics is KISS. [Yes, I know and agree the .357 is oodles better than the 9mm, but 9mm +P JHP's are cheap and pretty effective if well placed.]
Vern Humphrey
Member
perpster said:
I used the M1 and carried my Colt M357 that tour -- with the radio, ammo, grenades and all the other cr*p we carried, I wouldn't have had room for another gun.
- Status
