AR/M4 v M1 Carbine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the real question isn't the difference in terminal effect. Both cartridges work "just fine" at those distances.

I think the FAR greater issue is the ergonomic question. I've shot both styles of rifle in "practical" scenario practice and competition.

The more ergonomic AR design is far and away easier to manipulate at speed and these days is incredibly more flexible in how it can be set up to help you make accurate hits fast.

That's really what matters, after all. How quickly can you engage the threat? I shot an M1 Carbine in a match just last month. Had a ball! But the stock configuration and sights were a clear drawback for those uses. It is set up as a miniaturized version of an old-school hunting or service/target rifle, designed for relatively slow, precise, long-range firing, not as a fast-handling, heads-up carbine with a bright, clear sighting system for fastest target engagement.

That being said, it COULD be retrofit into such a thing, but most M-4 type rifles these days come set up to be that right off the bat -- and a modified carbine would still be at a (albeit slight) disadvantage.
 
It depends solely on the intended purpose. While both will accomplish many of the same tasks within that range, nobody who ever shot a critter with the .223 would argue that the .30M1 is "just as good". Paper and tin cans are one thing, flesh is another matter entirely.
 
Ok, I suppose. Actually, I'm not entirely sure which one you're calling out as better on the critters. Personally, I think that while the mechanics are different the .223 will do every bit as good a job as the .30 Carbine on most things in the appropriate size/mass range.
 
Like you can say in just about every thread posing an ambiguous question, "it depends". I really do not understand why so many threads are so ambiguous like this as to purpose. Sometimes it makes little difference but usually, everything hangs on that detail. If you're shooting cans, no difference. If you're hunting varmints, the .30Carbine will do a good job but at 150yds it's running out of steam. With a 100yd zero, it'll be 5" low at 150yds where it's running 1200fps but drop another foot on its way to 200yds. While the .223 is just getting started. There will really be little difference in its effect from the muzzle to 150yds. That includes potential defensive purposes, given the right bullet.

Not to mention the difference in potential accuracy. Not a big deal shooting silhouettes, big difference shooting rodents.

I love mid-range varmint cartridges and one major reason for choosing them is decreased blast and noise. There is no doubting the difference in blast between a .223 and a smaller cartridge like the .22Hornet-class of cartridges and the .30Carbine. But those rifles are typically going to be much more accurate than your average M1 Carbine and shoot flat out to 200yds or more and that adds to their merit.

Like I said though, it depends. None of that may matter to the individual in question.
 
Lot's of replies here. Lots of theories. Lots of facts. Lots of opinions.

I am going to presume that you (the OP) meant what you asked. Answer? No. Inside 150 yards, there is not going to be any practical difference between an M4 style AR carbine and an M1 carbine for the vast majority of HD and "around the ranch" type of scenarios...with stock sights.

The AR picks up it's advantage when you go with the enormous variety of optics that make it very easy to acquire a target. Over 150 yards there is great advantage then.

Your question was "practical difference". In other areas, like "practicality of ownership over time", the nod goes again to the AR platforms because .223/5.56 is so cheap and available. I went looking for .30 carbine ammo one time when I had my nephew and my dad's carbine and we couldn't find any. Shot his model 40 lemon-squeezer instead...you can always find .38...and 5.56.

Now for practicality of carrying...I'm giving the nod back to the old M1 Carbine. It's the size and weight of a smaller .22 lr with way more bang. It's light, handy, sleak, not a lot of apendages...not even a pistol grip. It'd be a great little gun to carry on horseback or on a motorcyle into the desert or whatever. One of the problems in this area with AR platforms is that they are so tall...especially with optics. And then people hang all kinds of tactical stuff off of them and all of a sudden the thing weighs 9 pounds.

So, at the end of the day, it's a wash for HD and general purpose ranch use...where a 22lr doesn't fit the bill.
 
Inside 150 yards, there is not going to be any practical difference between an M4 style AR carbine and an M1 carbine for the vast majority of HD and "around the ranch" type of scenarios...with stock sights.
Click to expand...

One quibble I'd have with that is that the low elevation (close to the bore axis) of the M1 Carbine sights makes it less amenable to close/fast heads-up type use than the AR, even with stock sights. Having to get DOWN on the sights makes fast engagement and transitions a bit slower than a more erect head position the AR gives you. A function of the progress of the ergonomics and 'human engineering' that went into the Stoner design.

Of course, the AR trades off for a bit of bore-axis misalignment which can cause some hangups if you aren't used to it.
 
Sam1911 said:
I think the real question isn't the difference in terminal effect. Both cartridges work "just fine" at those distances.

I think the FAR greater issue is the ergonomic question. I've shot both styles of rifle in "practical" scenario practice and competition.

The more ergonomic AR design is far and away easier to manipulate at speed and these days is incredibly more flexible in how it can be set up to help you make accurate hits fast.

That's really what matters, after all. How quickly can you engage the threat? I shot an M1 Carbine in a match just last month. Had a ball! But the stock configuration and sights were a clear drawback for those uses. It is set up as a miniaturized version of an old-school hunting or service/target rifle, designed for relatively slow, precise, long-range firing, not as a fast-handling, heads-up carbine with a bright, clear sighting system for fastest target engagement.

That being said, it COULD be retrofit into such a thing, but most M-4 type rifles these days come set up to be that right off the bat -- and a modified carbine would still be at a (albeit slight) disadvantage.
Click to expand...

Notice that waaay back in the very beginning of this thread I asked what sites/optics would be used. Nobody seems to have answered that question. Possibly (?) because they don't want to have the discussion begin and end with "AR > M1 Carbine" when they do answer that question. :)
 
FYI, with an Ultimak scout mount, you can mount a red dot on an M1 Carbine, and if you use a low mount, it will sit barely higher than the factory sights.

30CarbAimpoint2.jpg

The Carbine has a bit of a weight advantage, but you can get real close to it with an AR using a light weight pencil barrel setup. Of course you can lighten the Carbine even further with a synthetic stock.

Personally I prefer the AR for that role, mostly because of the fact that it puts a lot more ft./lbs. of energy on target, and because the light little bullets tend to fragment well at close range. Also, at least in the context of home defense, the very weak barrier penetration of the AR is an advantage. Ergonomics are another plus. Although I don't anticipate having to reload in a typical home defense situation, there are other sub 150 yard scenarios where you might need to. The AR can also be relied upon to penetrate just about any soft body armor... the same can't be said for .30 carbine.
 
These last two post made me go Hmmmm.

I have yet to have a battery go dead or H3 give out on my iron sights........

As to head position on the two guns look again. The straight line of the AR but stock made it necessary to put the carrying handle or some such on the AR. The more "traditional" stock of the carbine has its cheek weld point below the line of the bore so all is interms of getting your eye lined up with the sights same=same GI

Also if one is in close one may want to be using Qiuck Kill ( or for bb gunners and trap shooters Quick Skill) and the sights are just one of those things on the periferery of thought. When I had that XM-16 E1 at tax payer expense we did both dry fire and live fire drills with tape over both the front and rear sights to prevent us from using them. They expected hits on type e kneeling man targets at 25 yards VERY quickly and the sights may as well not have existed. It was actually part of annual qualification. As qualification corses started loosing things like night firing with iron sights in the dark and under flares and gas mask firing and Jungle lane type stuff, well the Military decided the time spent on stuff like Quick Kill might be better spent on Human Relations and Equal Opertunity classes and COmmunity Awareness Issues. Because it isn't taught these days does not mean it does not work and it works as well with a pistol griped straight line recoil gun as with a crooked wood legged old bit of iron.

-kBob
 
kBob said:
These last two post made me go Hmmmm.

I have yet to have a battery go dead or H3 give out on my iron sights........

As to head position on the two guns look again. The straight line of the AR but stock made it necessary to put the carrying handle or some such on the AR. The more "traditional" stock of the carbine has its cheek weld point below the line of the bore so all is interms of getting your eye lined up with the sights same=same GI

Also if one is in close one may want to be using Qiuck Kill ( or for bb gunners and trap shooters Quick Skill) and the sights are just one of those things on the periferery of thought. When I had that XM-16 E1 at tax payer expense we did both dry fire and live fire drills with tape over both the front and rear sights to prevent us from using them. They expected hits on type e kneeling man targets at 25 yards VERY quickly and the sights may as well not have existed. It was actually part of annual qualification. As qualification corses started loosing things like night firing with iron sights in the dark and under flares and gas mask firing and Jungle lane type stuff, well the Military decided the time spent on stuff like Quick Kill might be better spent on Human Relations and Equal Opertunity classes and COmmunity Awareness Issues. Because it isn't taught these days does not mean it does not work and it works as well with a pistol griped straight line recoil gun as with a crooked wood legged old bit of iron.

-kBob
Click to expand...
Just to let you know I was taught a lot of this while in he Army from 2002-2006.

As far as effectiveness of both rounds I would give the nod to the 5.56 at any range. I have personally seen what good self defense 223 will do and it's dramatic.
 
iwould take the m1 carbine loaded with softpoints. i dont like ar type rifles never cared for a plastic stocked gun
 
I like and own both.
The comments claiming that the AR is "more ergonomic" don't hold true for me, nor does the comment that it is somehow harder to use the M1 carbine fast and close.
While both weapons point well for me, the M1 is a cut above just about any long arm. It feels lively
 
If you put shooters of equal skill on a clock with each weapon, I'm pretty sure the M4 would show an edge during most manipulation drills, including an edge on first round fired times starting from a low ready with the safety on. The edge I'm talking about is pretty tiny, but something meaningful if someone is interested in the M1 carbine for defense or competition purposes.
 
Not sure I agree with that.
The stock of the M1 carbine is made like a sporting stock. It shoulders quickly and points fast. Typically, the carbine is lighter in weight. The (open) sights are similar, with a wide aperture. The safety on the carbine flicks off with a finger tip and the same finger moves back to the trigger in one movement.
The stock and pistol grip of the AR series improves full auto performance, but not rapidity of shouldering.
 
I've been running some tests this year putting modern configured guns, and the M1 Carbine as well, through their paces on the competition range. My results indicate a disadvantage to the handling of the more traditional design.

Of course, my primary goal was to compare the different long guns to the same tasks performed with a handgun (house clearing, speed drills, cover drills, moving targets and so forth) -- where the rifles did not show well. But I have it on good authority that they could/should.
 
Not sure I agree with that.
The stock of the M1 carbine is made like a sporting stock. It shoulders quickly and points fast. Typically, the carbine is lighter in weight. The (open) sights are similar, with a wide aperture. The safety on the carbine flicks off with a finger tip and the same finger moves back to the trigger in one movement.
The stock and pistol grip of the AR series improves full auto performance, but not rapidity of shouldering.
Click to expand...


I agree. I think when it comes down to a question like this, a lot of people, esp those who are newer to the shooting sports, will tend to side with the "newer" gun / gadget, etc as being automatically "better". While in some cases this is true, more so for electronics, it is not necessarily true. Esp when there is no real advance in technology between the two designs. They are two different styles of rifles, to be sure. But keep in mind that the AR was developed in the 50s, only 15 some odd years after the creation of the Winchester M1 carbine.
Both are shoulder fired weapons firing smokeless powdered self contained cartridge ammunition and are box magazine fed.

Why do I think that the M1 carbine is the better weapon within 150 yards?

Well, for one it's lighter and shorter than the M4 carbine. It has a shorter length of pull, and the traditional rifle stock makes it quick handling and a faster pointer.

The peep sights on it are also real fast to pick up and get on target, and coupled with the fast pointing and handling characteristics of the m1, target acquisition is real fast and easy.

for it's light weight, it recoils even less than the M4 carbine (already a light recoiling rifle) which aid in follow up shots and controlability. It is also not nearly as loud and damaging to your ears as .223 if it had to be fired indoors or in a confined space.

When loaded with soft points (fmj are no slouch either, believe me), it is an excellent stopper. As effective, if not more so, than .223. indeed, .223 is not legal to deer hunt in many areas, where as I don't know of an area that allows rifles for deer hunting that restricts .30 carbine. One well known SWAT member claimed it had better best stopping power out of any fun he'd used or seen in action in over 60 gunfights.

The .30 caliber round will penetrate cover and barriers much better than the .223 round.


The main drawback of the m1 carbine is the round itself being that the .30 carbine bullet drops significantly after 150 yards.
 
Last edited:
I can give you a personal experience I had with both many years ago. Back in 1968 and 1969 I was a Marine Corps Platoon Commander and then Company Commander. I had both a 45 and an M16. I normally just carried the 45 when out on patrol or Operations with my Platoon. Ocassionally when I would go out on a squad size patrol or ambush I always carried my M16 because with 8 or 10 men the extra rifle might make a difference. Anyway several months before I rotated home I got a recaptured M2 (full auto selector) Carbine off a dead enemy soldier. I kept it while there to mostly play with. I would shoot it off the side of the hill. The sights were off quite a bit because it shot way low. Fairly recently I read where the M1 Carbines were made with high front sights and were intended to be ground down for finally sighting in with the rear adjustable sight, but at the time I didn't know that. Anyway on several occassions I thought about carrying it on patrols, but never did, for several reasons. I thought it would be a bad example to carry what I considered to be an antiquated and inferior weapon to the M16. I certainly would not have allowed anybody in my platoon to carry it instead of there M16. If I felt the need to carry a rifle, then the M16 was the superior weapon. My personnal feelings were that the M1 Carbine round was closer to a pistol round than the M16 round.The M16 just felt like a real rifle and the M1 Carbine, not so much. Admittingly, those are just personal feelings and not based on any actual tests.
 
Very interesting personal experience, barney. By that same token, I have heard of many similar stories, though with the soldiers dumping the M16 for the M1 carbine or M14.

I always get a chuckle when people call the .30 carbine "under powered", or, a "pistol round" as it only has about one hundred ft/lbs of energy difference between it and the 5.56 from an M4 while being a much better penetrator on objects, big game, and man.

So I guess when people are throwing around terms like "power" and "pistol vs rifle", it's all perspective.

.44 mag and .500 S&W are also "pistol" cartridges. The only "rifle" like advantage that the 5.56 has over the .30 carbine is in regards to range, which in this instance (under 150 yards) is moot.
 
I would say no, but I think you will have a hard time finding people who would pick the M1 given the choice.
Click to expand...

Probably not so much. 100 yards and under I would positively pick the M-1 carbine. 100-150 yards I would most likely still pick the M-1 carbine (because I'm more comfortable/familiar with it as compared to AR style). Beyond 150, I would definitely pick any AR style shooting 5.56/.223 or even .308.
 
Another thought...

AR15 vs M1 Carbine
Click to expand...

Or you could split the features of both and get a 5.56mm Mini-14. It's just as nimble as the M1 Carbine but fires the superior round.
 
soldiers dumping the M16 for the M1 carbine or M14.

I wasn't there early on, and can only speak from my personal experience, but in 1968 the Marine Grunt didn't have a choice as to the weapon he was issued and carried. In my Company, and I really don't know whether it was Corps wide or not, but a rifle squad had one person with an M14 and the rest with M16's. Not more than one M14 and no M1 Carbines, AK47's, SKS's, or anything else except also one Blooper per squad and also one starlight scope mounted on an M16 per squad. There was no dumping your M16 for another weapon of choice. In my platoon the issue never came up, but if it had I would have stopped it immediately. Everyone wore their helmet and carried the weapon they were supposed to. Just the way it was.
Early on, I really don't know, but I don't think the M1 Carbine was all that prevelent in the line company, if at all. When M16's were first issued and they had the problems with them, I still don't think it was a personal option to dump it for the M14, the Marine Corps just doesn't operate that way.
 
I'd have to say I'd be in the M1 camp. I handload so no real ammo issues for me. I find the ergos superior on a traditional rifle and in the OP's situation I'd be using iron sights and they're about equal for me on both.

The big thing for me is the M-16A1's I had to deal with during my time in the Army. I don't think I'll ever be able to trust one of those things as far as I could throw it outside of a nice sunny day on the range. Yeah, I hear they're better now than in the early '80's when I was on active duty, but they were crap rifles then and I don't ever intend to get another and find out that they're still as bad as ever. About the only thing good I can think to say for the M16 is that at least the weren't as bad as the M-60's or M-3 submachine guns we had.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
M1 Carbine magazines
Replies
7
Views
628
HorseSoldier
H
SSN Vet
  • Locked
M1 Carbine question....
Replies
2
Views
379
U.S.SFC_RET
U
Mr_Flintstone
  • Locked
A serious question about an AR vs M1 Carbine for defense.
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
fpgt72
F
jski
  • Locked
Universal M1 Carbine design v. GI Carbine design?
Replies
14
Views
1K
jski
jski
L
  • Locked
Colt UMAREX AR-15 type M4 Carbine M4 A3 .22 lr
Replies
1
Views
321
SilentScream
S
Back
Top