dogsoldier0513
Member
INSIDE 150 yards, is there REALLY any PRACTICAL difference between the two, given good ammunition, reliable mags, etc?
AR/M4 v M1 Carbine?
- Thread starter dogsoldier0513
- Start date
- Status
Lever Gun Nut
Member
Just the difference in calibre IMO. But, I really love the M1 Carbine. The 5.56 has a little more power though.
ccsniper
member
no. I personally wish that m1 carbines were more prevalent because I absolutely love the gun, The ammo, not so much. Both would be fine home defense guns.
guywithfastcar
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 48
I own both, love them both, but shoot the AR because of ammo costs... just get them both and put your mind at ease ; )
C-grunt
Member
Both are good guns and would serve you well. However the 223 has a definite advantage over the 30carbine at distance and will penetrate body armor.
Tommygunn
Member
At the beginning of the Vietnam War soldiers had an opportunity to use both the M-1 carbine and the M-16s. Most seemed to feel that they were both equally effective in combat with an edge to the M-1 carbine since it was more reliable. Keep in mind that the M-16 had teething problems and that would come into play at this early time in the AR-15/16 history.
Earlier posters are correct that the 5.56mm. is flatter shooting and a better cartridge for distances while the carbine was a shorter range deal.
For home defense either would be a good platform.
Earlier posters are correct that the 5.56mm. is flatter shooting and a better cartridge for distances while the carbine was a shorter range deal.
For home defense either would be a good platform.
barneyrw
Member
The M1 carbine was meant to replace the pistol for non frontline troops, it was never intended to be a frontline battle rifle. For the military, the M16/M4 is a far superior weapon, even under 150 yards. And actually the M4 has finally done what the M1 was originally intended to do which is replace the pistol. The Marine Corps now issues the M4 carbine to most ranks below Colonel which formerly were issued pistols. Now for home defense or any scenario short of all out war, the M1 is certainly a viable option and maybe even better than an AR15, in that over penetration is less of a concern.
Define over penetration in this context, would you please?
What/how does the .223/5.56 over penetrate?
Little Wolf
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 43
I think the M1 carbine is a superior weapon inside of 150 yards, esp with soft point ammunition!
Why?
Snowdog
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 4,606
Both are excellent for defensive use, IMO. I keep Gold Dots loaded in my M1 Carbine and 60gr TAP for my AR. I have no doubt either will perform as advertised.
I personally give the edge to the M1 carbine as far as being handy, but to the AR when it comes to 30-round magazines (from my experience with both).
Bullet on the left is a PMC RNSP, also a decent SP.
I personally give the edge to the M1 carbine as far as being handy, but to the AR when it comes to 30-round magazines (from my experience with both).
Bullet on the left is a PMC RNSP, also a decent SP.
Ignition Override
Member
Dogsoldier: Do you mean for defensive situations in a civilian setting?
Which gun's sights give You the best chance of hitting the target?
Which gun's sights give You the best chance of hitting the target?
meanmrmustard
Member
Good question.
I don't know about the M1, but in the case of the AR15, for a rifle inside 150 yards mine will do MOA or better scoped. I feel more confident of scoring hits that way, especially if my life was on the line. Is the M1 as accurate? Heavier bullets in the wrong spot don't do squat like a small bullet in the killzone will.
SharpsDressedMan
member
The availability of MOA at 100 yards does not define "practical". If you can't shoot the AR any better STANDING, NO SUPPORT at 100, just how much better is it? As you may have surmised, I like the M1 carbine, andfind it handier and FASTER on target than an AR at real combat distances. And that makes fore something.
The M1 Garand is very accurate at 100 yards, but the M1 Carbine is also accurate. The M1 Thompson, maybe not so accurate.
The sights on the M1 Carbine are probably its Achilles heel. The original flip sight could not be dialed in very close. The later adjustable sights were better in that respect.
Out to 100-125 yards, from my experience, I believe a carbine could go toe-to toe with a stock, basic AR M4 style rifle. An uprated AR would be more accurate though.
I do not know what aftermarket accessories are available to put optics on a carbine but I am sure there is something.
fatcat4620
Member
I would say no, but I think you will have a hard time finding people who would pick the M1 given the choice.
kBob
Member
First the OP was comparing M-4 series guns with Carbines, not 20 inch barrel guns.
There are a lot of folk that hate carbines and a lot that hate any flavor of AR.
Also he put a 150 yard range limit on the arguement.
A lot of factors come into the problem. Are we talking "real" M4s of factory make with 14.5 inch barrels and real never been shot but stored in cosmolene since rebuild M-1 Carbines or are we talking 16 inch barreled build it your self AR kit gun verses worn out CMP italian return Carbine?
DUring a three day Carbine class I took I set asside my usual 5.56mm for a couple of excercises and used a couple of other guns. The ranges were all 75 yards and under for that bit. I got quite a few looks from the cops agents and service folks all shooting AR platforms when I showed up with a carbine. My times did not go down and I still got hits where I wanted them and after a run or two those AR snobs got interested in the old gun. There was already one student (an older lady realator that was keeping up with the operators,BTW) using an early Mini -14 so my runs with a Ranch rifle rifle even with a folder on it did not atract as much attention.
The carbine killed paper targets as well as the ARs. Now a couple of the federal types were using 10.5 inch ARs. Power wise and effects wise I do not think the carbine would have given up much to those if at all. Honestly based on some photos Dr.Martin Fackler showed me and some face to face discussions with him I would think a carbine loaded with "hunting ammo" might actually out perform the 10.5 inch guns in creating wounds in flesh inside 150 yards.
Not sure about the extra 4 inches of barrel on an M-4 or the extra six on the "civilian" AR making much more difference. I do "feel" that a 16 inch or greater length AR in .223/5.56 with hunting ammo might edge out a carbine for wound power at those ranges and then out perform a carbine by a good bit beyound 150.
There are no new made reliable carbines though based on the reports of folks that have bought the new made guns.
So it depends on THE M-1 carbine in question rather than A generic gun.
My first centerfire rifle was an M-1 carbine and I shot it alot. Five years later when Uncle Sugar gave me an XM-16E1 I thought about my carbine a lot. On patrols in the dark before Night vision devices got smaller than needing a suit case to store them in I thought about my carbine a lot. But when a target popped up at 200, 250, or 300 on the KD course I was glad to have a full sized AR rather than my carbine (though honestly I would rather have had an M-14 there).
I think some folks have hit on some good points. The ARs have it all over the Carbines for ease of hanging accessories off of them, including optional sighting systems. If we go beyond 150 then the ARs will kick butt over the carbines.
Inside a common house I do not think Joe Bad Guy will know the difference between being shot with a Carbine or a 16 inch or less AR. Though it might surprise some folks I think the Carbine MIGHT penitrate as much wall, ceiling, and refridgerator as a 16 inch AR and perhaps more.
I think that for Joe Home Owner the Choice is just that, a choice. I would not feel under armed with either. If both were on the night stand and evil called I would grab up which ever came to hand and not frett over which was "better"
Whatever blows your skirts up.
-kBob
There are a lot of folk that hate carbines and a lot that hate any flavor of AR.
Also he put a 150 yard range limit on the arguement.
A lot of factors come into the problem. Are we talking "real" M4s of factory make with 14.5 inch barrels and real never been shot but stored in cosmolene since rebuild M-1 Carbines or are we talking 16 inch barreled build it your self AR kit gun verses worn out CMP italian return Carbine?
DUring a three day Carbine class I took I set asside my usual 5.56mm for a couple of excercises and used a couple of other guns. The ranges were all 75 yards and under for that bit. I got quite a few looks from the cops agents and service folks all shooting AR platforms when I showed up with a carbine. My times did not go down and I still got hits where I wanted them and after a run or two those AR snobs got interested in the old gun. There was already one student (an older lady realator that was keeping up with the operators,BTW) using an early Mini -14 so my runs with a Ranch rifle rifle even with a folder on it did not atract as much attention.
The carbine killed paper targets as well as the ARs. Now a couple of the federal types were using 10.5 inch ARs. Power wise and effects wise I do not think the carbine would have given up much to those if at all. Honestly based on some photos Dr.Martin Fackler showed me and some face to face discussions with him I would think a carbine loaded with "hunting ammo" might actually out perform the 10.5 inch guns in creating wounds in flesh inside 150 yards.
Not sure about the extra 4 inches of barrel on an M-4 or the extra six on the "civilian" AR making much more difference. I do "feel" that a 16 inch or greater length AR in .223/5.56 with hunting ammo might edge out a carbine for wound power at those ranges and then out perform a carbine by a good bit beyound 150.
There are no new made reliable carbines though based on the reports of folks that have bought the new made guns.
So it depends on THE M-1 carbine in question rather than A generic gun.
My first centerfire rifle was an M-1 carbine and I shot it alot. Five years later when Uncle Sugar gave me an XM-16E1 I thought about my carbine a lot. On patrols in the dark before Night vision devices got smaller than needing a suit case to store them in I thought about my carbine a lot. But when a target popped up at 200, 250, or 300 on the KD course I was glad to have a full sized AR rather than my carbine (though honestly I would rather have had an M-14 there).
I think some folks have hit on some good points. The ARs have it all over the Carbines for ease of hanging accessories off of them, including optional sighting systems. If we go beyond 150 then the ARs will kick butt over the carbines.
Inside a common house I do not think Joe Bad Guy will know the difference between being shot with a Carbine or a 16 inch or less AR. Though it might surprise some folks I think the Carbine MIGHT penitrate as much wall, ceiling, and refridgerator as a 16 inch AR and perhaps more.
I think that for Joe Home Owner the Choice is just that, a choice. I would not feel under armed with either. If both were on the night stand and evil called I would grab up which ever came to hand and not frett over which was "better"
Whatever blows your skirts up.
-kBob
Having owned and used both, I think the M-1 carbine is a neet (cute) little gun. My choice would be and is a M-4 style AR though. For me it comes down to the availability of magazines and ammo for each. Unless you stockpile 30 carbine ammo, the 223/5.56 will be easier to find and purchase.
Just my view on it.
Jim
Just my view on it.
Jim
Heavier, slower bullets penetrate deeper than lighter, faster bullets.
It's a function of projectile weight and contact surface.
Not a great deal of difference in contact surface (28%), BIG difference in weight (100%+).
Inertia is a known element, and that's what we're dealing with on penetration.
Kinetic energy is a function of mass * velocity squared, BUT, penetration is a function of mass, bearing surface, and friction of the material it is in contact against (air, skin, muscle, wall board, plywood).
It's a function of projectile weight and contact surface.
Not a great deal of difference in contact surface (28%), BIG difference in weight (100%+).
Inertia is a known element, and that's what we're dealing with on penetration.
Kinetic energy is a function of mass * velocity squared, BUT, penetration is a function of mass, bearing surface, and friction of the material it is in contact against (air, skin, muscle, wall board, plywood).
- Status
Similar threads
