.30 Carbine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Deer Hunter

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
2,800
Location
Chairborne HQ, MA :(
Hey guys, over the past couple of months I have had a desire to get a small semi automatic rifle that fires something more potent than .22LR. I like both the SKS, and the M1 Carbine, but I want to look into the Carbine before I buy an SKS.

What I'm looking for is a rifle that I can take with me into the woods. I will use this for basic critter defense (bears) but I would also like to hunt with it. I know 7.62x39 is much more potent than .30 Carbine, but what do you guys think about taking deer with the carbine?

I have heard that it is similar to a .357 Magnum round. If I do recall, some guys carry .357 revolvers into the woods for bear mace, and even hunt deer with them. I am not really certain as I don't actually know anybody who hunts with a pistol, but that's what I have heard over the web.

Thanks guys.
 
I've carried an M1 Carbine while still hunting before, so I would obviously do it. I also would not take anything but a neck, shoulder, or heart shot within reasonable (100 meter) distances.

The M1 Carbine has great ergonomics, but the SKS is considerably more potent, and good cheap hunting ammo (Wolf 154 grain) can be had. What kind of bears are you talking about? I would much prefer the 7.62x39mm to the .30 Carbine for defense against any bear over 200 lbs. If the bear's over 300 lbs, I would prefer a 12 gauge with slugs to either rifle. I've carried and used one of these still hunting, too. :)

John
 
The 30 Carbine is very light for deliberately shooting bears. I would not recommend it.

The 7.62x39 is less powerful than the 30-30 which is often discounted as ineffective for larger game and this cartridge towers over the 30 carbine.

If you want a hunting rifle why are thinking SKS and Carbines? These are not the best choices for hunting. They are not even the second best choices.

You seem enthralled with the type of rifle rather than what is most effective.
 
fwiw i consider the 30 carbine a very fun cartridge, but entirely inadequate for any big game. further, it is specifically mentioned in south dakota as illegal for big game purposes. your state laws may vary, so check into it before doing it.
 
If you want a hunting rifle why are thinking SKS and Carbines? These are not the best choices for hunting. They are not even the second best choices.

You seem enthralled with the type of rifle rather than what is most effective.
Click to expand...

I have a Remington 700 in .30-06 for hunting, so it's not like I don't have a completely adequate deer rifle.

I want a small rifle to carry in the woods that isn't as long and bulky as the 700. The 700 is great for stand hunting but sometimes I like to walk around all day instead of sitting around. In hind sight, the full sized 700 was a bit overkill on size, and a model 7 or even a lever action would have been better for New England, but I have my 700 now and that's that.


What I love about the Carbine is that they weight next to nothing and are a really compact package. It's also a cool rifle in general.

I also would not take anything but a neck, shoulder, or heart shot within reasonable (100 meter) distances.
Click to expand...

I usually aim for the heart.
 
Ex Carbine User

I used an M1 Carbine with surplus GI cartridges to kill several deer on a farm permit as a youth. The longest shot was about 80 yards, the closest about 25. All the deer died with one hit. None dropped on the spot, but none ran farther than 50 yards. As a bear defense cartridge, I would not carry anything less than a 12 gauge with slugs if a bear attack was statistically reasonably possible. Where I live here in MN there are only black bears and the number of attacks per the huge amount of people in the woods is astronomically low. I often take a Mini-14 with 55 grain or 62 grain bullets. I realize that a determined attack will not be stopped with the one shot I'll likely get as the attack proceeds (the average attack distance and bear running velocity gives you about 1 second for shooting before you meet bear). I accept this because the likelihood of a truly determined bb attack here is far less than being hit by lightning. As for the handling qualities of the M1 and Mini-14, I prefer these rifles to the AK and SKS rifles. With the M1 I can get an accurate shot off much faster than with the AK or SKS. The M1 and Mini also carry better for me than the AK or SKS. My thoughts, and to sum it up, I would carry the M1 comfortably as my camp rifle as long as big bears and likely bear attacks are non-existent and of low probablilty respectively where you live.
 
Last edited:
I will use this for basic critter defense (bears) but I would also like to hunt with it.
Click to expand...

As an adviser my first tour in Viet Nam, I was issued an M2 carbine (with the full-auto selector switch.) My advice is, don't shoot a bear with a gun that won't reliably kill a man.
 
You want light and handy with decent power? I suggest a lever action carbine with a 16" barrel in 44 magnum. I have a Model 94 Trapper and it is very handy, carries 9 rounds, is flat and compact, and a 240 grain JHP coming out of that 16" barrel at 1900 FPS will probably do what you want it to do.
 
Personally, I wouldn't get an M1 carbine OR a SKS. However, with that being said, I wouldn't consider the .30 Carbine a round that should be relied upon for ANY type of defense and/or big game hunting. It's weak, limited, and inferior to about everything on the market.
 
oh boy here we go again

First let me say this. The 30 carbine is looked at as a rifle round and it is but it should be looked at more as a pistol caliber rifle. So what would you shoot with say a 9mm rifle? The answer will apply to the 30 carbine.

The 30 carbine is over all ok for deer size thin skin game. Its not the best but not the worst either. Folks compair the 30 carbine to 7.62x30 and the only consistancy in this campairison is they are both 30 cal rounds. The 30 carbine is limited to case capacity and bullet selection. The 7.62 is an intermeidiate combat round. Both do what they were designed to do, shoot people. Killing is something else. I have seen documented cases of one shot stops by just about all bullets ever made on humans. I have seen some folks shot repeatedly and not be killed. What does this mean in the large scope of this discussion? Well it means both will work on people. Bears with thick hide, neither will be reliable. I feel like the 30 carbine would be better for many follow up shots and fast reloading. Neither is really accurate past 100 yards due to sights mostly. If you reload the 30 carbine is a no brainer as the bullets and brass are common. The 7.62x39 is harder to get due to unusual bullet size. Other than that both rounds cost about the same to buy ammo for.

As an adviser my first tour in Viet Nam, I was issued an M2 carbine (with the full-auto selector switch.) My advice is, don't shoot a bear with a gun that won't reliably kill a man.
Today 09:59 AM
Click to expand...
Vern has a decent point but then again not to put words in any ones mouth but I think the 7.62x39 is just as inefficient at a kill if it were loaded with a round nose fmj. The m1 carbine has no where the production numbers as any of the 7.62x39 rifles. Hence the 7.62 has racked many more kills in the world.

In closing if it were me I would go for the m-1 because
1. I reload (less steps to reload a 30 carbine)
2. Mag changes/reloading is faster
3. parts are way easier to find
4. its just american
5. IMO its more accurate to 200 yards than any ak I have shot
 
oh boy here we go again
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to stir this up, honestly.

I hear a lot about how underpowered they are, but what about all the soldiers that carried them into battle in WWI? I know it was supposed to replace a sidearm, but I don't think the US Government would issue a rifle that's an inadequate for killing.
 
I don't think the US Government would issue a rifle that's an inadequate for killing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US Government would issue a weapon that's inadequate for killing.

That's why mine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed an M1 Garand from the ARVN unit I advised and carried that from then on.
 
no big deal this comes up all the time, dont think of it as a side arm replacement think of it as a high capacity side arm. Its not inadequate much similar to a 9mm not being inadequate. Now as a full house rifle round lacking sure. I never really understood why folks think it is underpowered. The round does what it was suposed to do throw bullets down rande with reasonable accuracey and hurt people.

As a home defense weapon whats the max range you would take a shot at? 20 feet would be likely and a 110 gr bullet going 2100 fps(extreem figure) or so makes the curve to kill at that range. Shooting people at 200 yards when the bullet is going around 1000(conservitave figure) fps is still enough to kill. Its just a bit less than a 9mm at the muzzle infact at that range its roughly 10% less than a 124 gr 9mm fmj. So all in all if you would use a 9mm fmj why wouldnt you use a 30 carbine?

Vern I just dont question folks who have been there and got to see the effects up close, but the 30 carbine seemed to work plenty well for a bunch of folks from 1943 to 1973 and in some places all the way up to today? Why was your 30 carbine so bad? Would you have rather had a 30 carbine than an M-16 in the early days?
 
I know of people that hunt black bear with .357 revolvers and I always hear .30 M1 is like .357 as far as terminal ballistics.

I think it is worth noting as well that a USGS ball round is hardly a Cor-Bon softpoint. Ammo selection is your friend with intermediate and pistol caliber weapons.

FFMedic
 
JMHO... If I'm going to shoot something with the intention of eating it, especially at the ranges I had available in WI, a .30 carbine would be just fine. Not a whole lot of meat lost. Now if something has the potential to eat me, priorities change a bit...
 
Last edited:
There's a heck of a lot of difference between a 200 lb bear and a 350 lb one.

I don't believe reports of Chinese soldiers soaking up lead from M2 Carbines and not being stopped for one minute. I think there were likely a lot of misses and bad hits on those thick padded coats with skinny men inside them.

I tried shooting some stuff with commercial U.S. softpoints from a carbine. While expansion certainly wasn't dramatic, that stuff would penetrate like the dickens.

Look at the M1 Carbine as a 150 meter carbine, and you'll be fine. As I said previously, if big bears are a potential threat, carry something else. I'm more of a fan of rifles than shotguns, but if bears over 300 lbs might be encountered, a ghost ring or rifle-sighted 12 gauge with good slugs sounds like perfect medicine. If they are "only" black bears and no chance of grizzly, a .30-30 with 170 SPs will work fine, as will 240-300 grain .44 Magnums or stout .45 Colts, or .444 or .45-70 of any type other than 300-grain HPs.

I guess the question is more: do you want a defensive rifle that you really think of more as people defense, or do you want a hunting/bear defense gun?

John
 
I don't believe reports of Chinese soldiers soaking up lead from M2 Carbines and not being stopped for one minute.
Click to expand...
I once counted 13 hits, mostly in the body, on a Viet Cong who was still going strong when I hit him with my .357 (using a hollow-based wadcutter loaded backwards.)
 
Well, Vern, how effective do you think other rounds would have been? (Not a rhetorical question.)

I saw a deer hit solidly with a .35 Remington. Should have been dead within minutes. That SOB jumped up and ran when we walked up half an hour later. He finally got tired of running and lay down, and I hit him behind the jaw with a .40 155-grain XTP. But, in general, the .35 Remington is a great deer round.

I remember stories of perps soaking up insane amounts of expanding 9mm rounds until being stopped by rifles or shotguns. IIRC, in at least one instance, the bad guy also took a few .45 ACP shots without being stopped. Is the .45 ACP with expanding rounds a poor stopper?

Vern, I have a great deal of respect for you, for your experience, and for your knowledge. Personally, I think there are no totally reliable machines (including firearms), bullets, calibers, you name it. If it's mechanical, it will screw up at some point. Nothing always works. Sure, some things in general work better than others. OTOH, if you want to tell us that you've seen near identical shots fired .30 Carbine and .223, with the .223 almost always being more successful in stopping aggressors, I'll immediately suggest to folks that .30 Carbine with ball is probably not a very good way to stop a threat in their house. (Though I already believe that, incidentally. No reason not to use expanding ammunition.)

When I was in Afghanistan two years ago, we had a live ANA troop brought in who'd been lit up by an Apache. I'm pretty sure no-one is going to claim 30mm isn't a decent manstopper.

John
 
Well, Vern, how effective do you think other rounds would have been? (Not a rhetorical question.)
Click to expand...
One hit from my .357 did the job.

I used both the M1 Garand and a BAR on other occasions, and they generally settled the issue -- I never had to shoot anyone twice with the Garand. On my second tour I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 (pre-M21) sniper rifles and carried one myself. This rifle, with ballistics identical to the M2 .30 caliber ball, was highly effective.
 
I'm sure it did. Don't you think using effective expanding ammunition might have had something to do with that?

It sounds like you're saying that .308 ballistics are identical to .30 Carbine.

M118 = M118 Special Ball - 173gr FMJ-BT (2550fps)
.30 Carbine FMJ is 110 gr @ less than 2000 fps.

That doesn't invalidate what you're saying about effectiveness, by any means, but I think everyone would naturally assume a bullet that's 40 to 60 grains heavier, traveling about 600 fps faster, is going to be more effective! The question for logistics guys would be whether 2 .308 110 gr FMJs at about 1900 fps will usually be more effective than 1 .308 147 to 170 gr bullet at 25-2800 fps. It sounds, in your experience, like this is the case. If so, I certainly understand your decision.

John
 
Last edited:
M2 .30 caliber ball is the standard .30-06 non-AP load for the Garand.

I think everyone would naturally assume a bullet that's 40 to 60 grains heavier, traveling about 600 fps, is going to be more effective!
Click to expand...
That's my point -- and at the time, the effectiveness was not simply a theoretical question, it was a vital issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
  • Poll
Which would you prefer in a pinch, M1 Carbine or the SKS Paratrooper.
2
Replies
46
Views
4K
ralfus
R
S
  • Locked
.30 carbine
Replies
19
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
BP Hunter
  • Locked
a gun for the woods
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
K1500
K
cluttonfred
  • Locked
Modern carbine in... .30 carbine?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
.50DE
5
R
  • Locked
M1 .30 Carbine OR SKS?
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
MudPuppy
M
Back
Top