wallysparx
Member
forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?
There's the mini14 & the mini30.wallysparx said:forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?
That's an exaggeration. The .30 Carbine is plenty powerful to stop a fight at close range, and is adequate out to 300 yards, equaling the velocity of a point blank 9mm way out there, with superior sectional density for superior penetrative power.beerslurpy said:Well if they ever get around to banning my AK and taking it away, I'll be sure to give the M1 carbine a peek if I cant get ahold of an SKS or an SU16 or a Saiga or winchester defender or a garand or a mosin nagant or a fal or a k31 etc.
The M1 carb has always seemed like a great plinker, but it isnt really high on my list of military guns I want to acquire. It is too close to the 10/22 to be a good manstopper and too close to the AK to be a great squirrel gun.
BigG said:The carbine - a real one that is - is a lot handier than the AK type. The AK has all the ergonomics of a stick of firewood, imho. A better cartridge, but not much good for carrying in vehicles, etc. YMMV
SAR1 AK with folded stock (and no muzzle device) = 26.5"rustymaggot said:i dont know what the length of a folded ak is but my m1 carbine would be 26 or 27 inches long if i still owned a folding pistol grip stock for it. so the argument that the carbine is shorter and easier to maneuver in kinda bunk.
georgeduz said:the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.
DMK said:SAR1 AK with folded stock (and no muzzle device) = 26.5"
With stock extended = 35.5" (same length as a full stock M1 carbine)
Weight (with no ammo): 7lbs (two pounds heavier than the carbine)
I think it's a tie for compactness, but the M1 is lighter and has better ergonomics.
TIMC said:Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.
georgeduz said:the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.
True. The 30 round AK mags are pretty large, heavy and awkward. The Bulgarian Waffle mags are a little lighter, but personally I prefer the Hungarian 20 round mags. However, they still aren't as light or compact as M1 carbine mags, or even AR/M16 mags for that matter.rustymaggot said:a 30 round mag for the m1 carbine is much smaller than a ak mag. i assume lighter when loaded but i dont know the weight of a loaded ak mag. m1 mags, you can easilly fit 2 in each back pocket. you gotta have a big pair of pants to do that with ak mags.
i agree, compactness is a tie, or close enough to just call it one at any rate.
forgive me if i'm missing something here, but if the only thing the carbine doesn't have going for it is the cartridge, then why haven't we ever seen anyone redesign the m1 carbine to fire 5.56 or 7.62x39?
The Real Hawkeye said:That's a close call. The M1 is a lot handier, but it is not always as completely reliable and rugged as the AK. They can be picky about magazines, which the AK is not. M1s are also a bit harder to maintain. If lightweight is your first priority, the M1 would be the pick. If not, then the AK.
As for the rounds, the M1 is unfairly criticized. The reason for reported failures to stop charges in Korea was almost certainly due to bullet placement. Because of the bulky quilted winter clothes worn by the communists, what might have seemed like a direct hit to the torso could easily have been a superficial grazing or a clean miss. No way any conceivable amount of quilting in winter clothing is going to significantly interfere with a 110 grain .30 caliber FMJ bullet traveling at well over a thousand feet per second all the way out to its intended practical range of 300 yards. Come on, now. At 300 yards, it's traveling as fast as a 9mm at point blank range, and that's with a far superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density.
georgeduz said:the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.
TIMC said:The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.
rustymaggot said:personally i like the sks better than the ak, but only because of the feel to it.
the m1 because ak,s are crap ,they should send them all back.why dont u just use an ar15.but if u like to keep on missing ur targets at long range than please buy an ak.they cant keep a tight group at 100 yards,they are nothing but scrap metal.
yonderway said:Your average SKS will be a little more accurate, and also try firing that AK from a prone unsupported position. Try the same thing with an SKS. Also try carring 210 rounds in AK mags vs. stripper clips on a "chinese bra" for the SKS.