Camshaft
Member
i know a dude that was in korea that said he shot a korean at 100 yds 5 times center mass and the guy didnt go down untill he ran another 50 yds.
.30 Carbine=Too Weak...A Myth?
- Thread starter The Grand Inquisitor
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
I had a nightmare last night that I'd saved up a nest egg for my next rifle, then blew it all on an M-1 Carbine. I kid you not! I woke up in terror, wondering how I could have wasted all my money on something so useless. 
HankB
Member
My late father had a carbine for a short time during WWII. One day as he and a buddy were walking down a trail on some Pacific island, they came upon a Jap coming the other way. The Jap turned to run, so they opened up on him.
The Jap disappeared - my Dad and his buddy thought they must have missed, but as the moved forward, they saw a blood trail.
They followed the blood trail for what would be at least a couple of city blocks, until they caught up to where the Jap expired - bled out.
They counted eleven (11!) torso hits!
The very scientific testing that followed showed that 1) the carbine didn't hit hard enough to knock a coconut off a tree; 2) A .45 WOULD knock a coconut off a tree; 3) A hit from an M1 Garand would blow the coconut open.
The carbine didn't always fail to stop, but lack of stopping power simply wasn't an issue with the Thompson or Garand.
My father soon acquired a Thompson.
The Jap disappeared - my Dad and his buddy thought they must have missed, but as the moved forward, they saw a blood trail.
They followed the blood trail for what would be at least a couple of city blocks, until they caught up to where the Jap expired - bled out.
They counted eleven (11!) torso hits!
The very scientific testing that followed showed that 1) the carbine didn't hit hard enough to knock a coconut off a tree; 2) A .45 WOULD knock a coconut off a tree; 3) A hit from an M1 Garand would blow the coconut open.
The carbine didn't always fail to stop, but lack of stopping power simply wasn't an issue with the Thompson or Garand.
My father soon acquired a Thompson.
The Carbine got the bad reputation I think in part because people were trying to compare it with a M-1 Garand which it ain't. If you except its limitations and use it at closer ranges like 100 yrds and under it will positively get the job done. On paper the cartridge looks very unimpressive but for people that have used this gun particularly with soft point ammo it appears to work. The thing to remember is it is basically a pistol caliber carbine its not a rifle and never will be. But at the ranges a civilian would likely use it at (25 yrds and under) I'd feel well armed.
If there was a market for it, the ammunition companies could easily improve the performance of the .30 carbine. Using today's bullet technology, it could be an ideal law enforcement or defense rifle. Light, short, no recoil, easy to train with.
But since it's not black and "tactical" looking, it probably won't happen.
But since it's not black and "tactical" looking, it probably won't happen.
Marshall
Member
I have a M1 .30 Carbine and have spent quite a bit of time with it just recently. While it is no 30.06 or .308, of which I have a few of both, I guarantee you that it will take care of business with proper ammo.
People will argue with me I'm sure but, if you've been around guns and killing/hunting long enough, you acquire a feel for knowing what a certain gun will do after shooting it quite a bit. I would have no problem with hunting medium sized game, ie. deer with this gun. Would it be my first choice? No but, it could be very effective if used. Point being, shooting a M1 .30 Carbine with HP ammo out to 100-150 yards or so, I have no doubt that I would have any trouble disabling anyone reading this.
Could I guarantee one shot drops, heck no but what gun do I have to shoot to do so?
When dissing the gun, keep in mind what it was designed and intended for. It was designed to provide GI's a lightweight, highly maneuverable gun that had more power than a pistol and was capable of shooting at longer ranges more effectively. It does that very well. I dismiss the myth.
People will argue with me I'm sure but, if you've been around guns and killing/hunting long enough, you acquire a feel for knowing what a certain gun will do after shooting it quite a bit. I would have no problem with hunting medium sized game, ie. deer with this gun. Would it be my first choice? No but, it could be very effective if used. Point being, shooting a M1 .30 Carbine with HP ammo out to 100-150 yards or so, I have no doubt that I would have any trouble disabling anyone reading this.
Could I guarantee one shot drops, heck no but what gun do I have to shoot to do so?When dissing the gun, keep in mind what it was designed and intended for. It was designed to provide GI's a lightweight, highly maneuverable gun that had more power than a pistol and was capable of shooting at longer ranges more effectively. It does that very well. I dismiss the myth.
bogie
Member
A little bitty rifle (I think they're actually smaller than a 10/22) is significantly better than no rifle.
Of course, I think they should have chambered them in .45... As it is, tho, I think they're a great little weapon.
Of course, I think they should have chambered them in .45... As it is, tho, I think they're a great little weapon.
Silent-Snail
Member
Is it just me or does the Magal look like a jacked MP-5?
bogie
Member
You know, I think that the .30 carbine would be an ideal zombie gun. Low recoil, decent sized magazines, compact, easily maneuverable, nice sights and reliability.
Most of the soft point or hollow point .30 carbine I've seen shot into gelatin didn't look too great. One of the HP's wouldn't expand at all.
Today, imagine a bonded core .30 carbine, or an SXT, an HST, or a Gold Dot bullet, designed around the carbine's velocity window. You could still have good barrier penetration, with great expansion out to probably 150 yards. In a simple, light and short package.
Write the ammo companies. It would be an easy round for them to do. I've talked to at least one that has played with the idea. They just have to be convinced that it would sell.
Now if Ruger would make a new carbine with today's modern steels, and a polymer stock, decent ghost ring sights.... perfect LE patrol rifle.
Today, imagine a bonded core .30 carbine, or an SXT, an HST, or a Gold Dot bullet, designed around the carbine's velocity window. You could still have good barrier penetration, with great expansion out to probably 150 yards. In a simple, light and short package.
Write the ammo companies. It would be an easy round for them to do. I've talked to at least one that has played with the idea. They just have to be convinced that it would sell.
Now if Ruger would make a new carbine with today's modern steels, and a polymer stock, decent ghost ring sights.... perfect LE patrol rifle.
Carl N. Brown
Member
.30 Carbine = Too weak ... A Myth?
Let's get back to the original question.
.30 Carbine Too Weak, fact or myth.
On paper, the .30 carbine is almost one-third the kinetic energy
of the .30-06 Springfield/Garand and is one-half the kinetic energy
of the .30-30 Winchester. The .30 carbine round does compare
nicely to the .32-20 Winchester (thirtytwo twenty folks) which was
intended as a large varmint round in rifles and served Charles Bronson
quite well in his revolver in his first vigilante movie.
Martin Fackler maintained data on bullet performance as Aberdeen
proving ground tech and expert trial witness. According to his data,
the .30 carbine FMJ round equals the performance of the .38 Special
and the Winchester softnose hollowpoint hunting round equals the
performance of the .357 Magnum, on real life shootings.
My father fought with the 6th Army in New Guiena and the Phillipines
in WWII. He usually carried a BAR. If he could not get a BAR he got
a M1 Garand. He could not shoot through trees with a carbine or
Thompson and had no use for them. BAR or Garand or nothing.
I own a M1 carbine and the .30 carbine round is very effective on
cardboard and does as well against targets in vintage military matches
as other folks' M1 Garands, M98 Mausers or M91 Mosin-Nagants.
It is light and short and harder to hold steady than a real rifle.
Too weak becomes, too weak for what? If faced with a rogue bear in
the woods, yes, I would want something bigger.
Let's get back to the original question.
.30 Carbine Too Weak, fact or myth.
On paper, the .30 carbine is almost one-third the kinetic energy
of the .30-06 Springfield/Garand and is one-half the kinetic energy
of the .30-30 Winchester. The .30 carbine round does compare
nicely to the .32-20 Winchester (thirtytwo twenty folks) which was
intended as a large varmint round in rifles and served Charles Bronson
quite well in his revolver in his first vigilante movie.
Martin Fackler maintained data on bullet performance as Aberdeen
proving ground tech and expert trial witness. According to his data,
the .30 carbine FMJ round equals the performance of the .38 Special
and the Winchester softnose hollowpoint hunting round equals the
performance of the .357 Magnum, on real life shootings.
My father fought with the 6th Army in New Guiena and the Phillipines
in WWII. He usually carried a BAR. If he could not get a BAR he got
a M1 Garand. He could not shoot through trees with a carbine or
Thompson and had no use for them. BAR or Garand or nothing.
I own a M1 carbine and the .30 carbine round is very effective on
cardboard and does as well against targets in vintage military matches
as other folks' M1 Garands, M98 Mausers or M91 Mosin-Nagants.
It is light and short and harder to hold steady than a real rifle.
Too weak becomes, too weak for what? If faced with a rogue bear in
the woods, yes, I would want something bigger.
Tony Williams
Member
Quite so. The problem with the Carbine was that despite being intended as a handgun replacement, it looked like a rifle, so some people expected to use it like the M1 Garand. It certainly was weak in comparison with that.
Had they been comparing it with a handgun, they would have been much more impressed.
TW
Had they been comparing it with a handgun, they would have been much more impressed.
TW
I too had a father who served in combat overseas in WWII. Being a shooter, I was interested in and received many personal accounts from him of the .30 carbine, and others of that time.
Long story(s) short on this caliber; I cannot recall a single, positive account about its effectiveness, or even any personal desirability (at all) for this carbine for those “in the mix” back then. When younger and less experienced, I also quickly learned from him that there was a HUGE difference between the two M1’s. I learned this by getting fully chastised whenever I failed to add the word “carbine” whenever I was referring to that gun. I wouldn’t make such a mis-speak today, but back then “a rifle was a rifle” to me.
Fast forward many years and today I wouldn’t want this caliber, even for fun. A good friend has one and I've shot it a whole bunch. The weapon itself is certainly interesting and historical, but that’s about it. Overall it’s way too expensive as a plinker and (exactly like the 5.56 Nato round) any caliber I wouldn’t chose for deer-sized game I damn skippy won’t choose for ANY serious personal use whatsoever. That same above mentioned father “didn’t raise no fools”.
Maybe one in .45 acp.
Long story(s) short on this caliber; I cannot recall a single, positive account about its effectiveness, or even any personal desirability (at all) for this carbine for those “in the mix” back then. When younger and less experienced, I also quickly learned from him that there was a HUGE difference between the two M1’s. I learned this by getting fully chastised whenever I failed to add the word “carbine” whenever I was referring to that gun. I wouldn’t make such a mis-speak today, but back then “a rifle was a rifle” to me.
Fast forward many years and today I wouldn’t want this caliber, even for fun. A good friend has one and I've shot it a whole bunch. The weapon itself is certainly interesting and historical, but that’s about it. Overall it’s way too expensive as a plinker and (exactly like the 5.56 Nato round) any caliber I wouldn’t chose for deer-sized game I damn skippy won’t choose for ANY serious personal use whatsoever. That same above mentioned father “didn’t raise no fools”.
Maybe one in .45 acp.
Carl N. Brown
Member
.45 ACP M1 Carbine?
Nice idea:
Army Ordnance resisted to idea of adding the .30 Carbine cartridge
because the U.S. Military had basicly two small arms rounds in the
supply system: .45 ACP (M1911 Pistol and Thompson SMG) and .30-06
(M1903 and M1 rifle, BAR and Browning MG). Compare two cartridges
to the mess the Japanese and Italians had: dozens of different small
arm cartridges. The Ordnance guys could see cartridge chaos looming.
Now, if the gas-operated M1 carbine had been developed to use
.45 ACP and either the M1911 pistol or Thompson stick magazines,
we would not be discussing the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine.
A 5.5-pound semi-auto .45 carbine would have been the real answer
to the question the carbine was supposed to solve: replacing the
pistol or revolver for folks who would not be armed with a M1 Rifle
or Thompson SMG. And ammo resupply would be kept simple.
Nice idea:
Army Ordnance resisted to idea of adding the .30 Carbine cartridge
because the U.S. Military had basicly two small arms rounds in the
supply system: .45 ACP (M1911 Pistol and Thompson SMG) and .30-06
(M1903 and M1 rifle, BAR and Browning MG). Compare two cartridges
to the mess the Japanese and Italians had: dozens of different small
arm cartridges. The Ordnance guys could see cartridge chaos looming.
Now, if the gas-operated M1 carbine had been developed to use
.45 ACP and either the M1911 pistol or Thompson stick magazines,
we would not be discussing the effectiveness of the M1 Carbine.
A 5.5-pound semi-auto .45 carbine would have been the real answer
to the question the carbine was supposed to solve: replacing the
pistol or revolver for folks who would not be armed with a M1 Rifle
or Thompson SMG. And ammo resupply would be kept simple.
C-grunt
Member
Id say the carbine faces the same downfalls as the green tip 5.56.
If you get a good chest or head shot, it does the job.
BUT, wing the guy and he isnt going down.
I would say the myth is true. In combat, I want a round that takes the enemy down when I (more often than not) dont get a stellar shot off.
If you get a good chest or head shot, it does the job.
BUT, wing the guy and he isnt going down.
I would say the myth is true. In combat, I want a round that takes the enemy down when I (more often than not) dont get a stellar shot off.
223 Softpoints do a better job than 308 ball,with poor hits
because the 223's blow 1" diameter holes in buttock, thigh, bicep, forearm, calf. If they hit bone, you can expect near-amputation, too. They do a great job, and let me not bother with an extra 10 lbs of gun and ammo. That's a great advantage and there are other advantages to the AR and the 223. Like short barrels, one-handed use and concealment when disassembled. I know you guys would just leave your buddy laying in his blood, but I'd help him, and that means that I'm likely to have only one arm with which to fire my rifle. Rifles often have to be used out of vehicles, while driving, etc, etc, too.
because the 223's blow 1" diameter holes in buttock, thigh, bicep, forearm, calf. If they hit bone, you can expect near-amputation, too. They do a great job, and let me not bother with an extra 10 lbs of gun and ammo. That's a great advantage and there are other advantages to the AR and the 223. Like short barrels, one-handed use and concealment when disassembled. I know you guys would just leave your buddy laying in his blood, but I'd help him, and that means that I'm likely to have only one arm with which to fire my rifle. Rifles often have to be used out of vehicles, while driving, etc, etc, too.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked