AR platform in .30 Carbine

[agtman]

A 300 BLK AR makes more sense in general * * *

Agree for three reasons.

First, the bullet-weight range of the .300BLK runs, generally, from 110gns to 220gns, and covers both supersonic and subsonic applications - suppressed or unsuppressed.

The .30 Carbine, while historically important, is an outdated round that has few bullet-weight variations, hasn't been vetted suppressed, and was a notoriously poor "man-stopper" on the WW2 and Korean battlefields.

Thus, apart from its "fun-time" value for casual range plinking, this cartridge has little practical use today given other options.

Second, while factory ammo for the .300 is still pricey compared to 5.56mm/.223 and 7.62/.308, two market-based influences are forcing .300 ammo prices down: (1) .300BLK ARs (complete guns), AR uppers, bolt guns, and barrels (both for re-barreling a 5.56mm AR or a .223 bolt gun) are selling extremely well, which in turn has created consumer demand for economical ammo to feed these guns - because not everyone reloads; (2) price competition in factory ammo is increasing because more and more ammo-makers are producing one or more flavors (i.e., bullet-weights) of .300BLK ammo, including particularized hunting ammo and bulk practice fodder, such as Fiocchi's 150gn FMJ-BT load.

Third, whether you're talking about new factory ammo or your own handloads, the components for making .300BLK ammo are relatively inexpensive: it's a small primer, 5.56/.223 case necked up to accept .308 bullets - and a wide range of them at that.

In other words, the component brass, bullets and primers are all cost-efficient precisely because they're so plentiful.

So, ... while it's always fun when Gramps entertains the grandkids over his morning oatmeal with war stories about how many "Commie gooks" he put down with his trusty M2 .30 carbine, chambering it in an AR today just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[bullzeye8]

While I really like the .30 carbine round and my m1 carbine I would not get an AR in that caliber. If I wanted the weight and size of an AR you might as well get the better cartridges available for it. I think one of main advantages of the m1 carbine and .30 carbine is the light weight and compact size of the platform. I would like to see a more modern rifle chambered in .30 carbine but I would want it to be in similar size and weight of the m1 carbine but with accuracy, reliability, and various other minor improvements.

 

[Poper]

I just got an Inland for $700

I just sold mine for over $1k.No oiler, no sling and pretty beat up, too.

 

[Pilot]

Pilot .. my error in overlooking your comment about commercial copies. Guess I don't read too well at 11:00PM.
The new Inlands go for $1000? IMHO that is a really good price for the gun, assuming it's made right. Yes I know some ARs are now cheaper.....
as far as WW2 carbines I have seen some go for about that amount or even a little more. I hope the people selling them are selling ones in extraordinarily good condition.
My Inland was little-used. The barrel was marked 2-44 which means it saw maybe 1 year in WW2, and as I said my father brought it back from Korea, so that's maybe 3 years. But my father never used it so it sat in a closet from maybe 1954 through 1994. I had a gunsmith do a minor adjustment on the rear sight and he offered to buy it, saying he'd never seen one with the action in such pristine condition (!). But it was my father's, now it's mine....it is the LAST gun I'd sell.

No worries mate! There are a few new companies making commercial M1 Carbines, plus the ones from Auto Ordnance which have a spotty rep. I got lucky, and got a USGI for a decent price, but they continue to climb.

That all being said, if I were to want a .30 Caliber AR-15 it would be in 300 BLK, not .30 Carbine.

 

[Devonai]

... and was a notoriously poor "man-stopper" on the WW2 and Korean battlefields.

Aside from a lot of anecdotal evidence, the biggest problem was soldiers trying to use the carbine as a replacement for the M1 rifle. Scoring a center mass hit at typical combat distances is obviously going to have vastly different results with a .30-06 versus .30 Carbine. When used as intended, as a supplement or replacement for the 1911, the carbine performed just fine.

As to the original question, I'd say let the market decide the viability of an AR platform, except I'm not the guy fronting the R&D and 1st production run.

 

[Normandy]

I'm an M1 carbine collector, and am quite enamored by the little rifle. So, the .30 carbine round is very familiar to me. Just looking at the ballistics alone, at 150 yards, it's about equal to a standard .357 magnum at the muzzle.

In the wastelands of North Korea, shooting the carbine at an enemy 300 yards out was a waste of time and ammo. That's the Garand's job. But inside of 100 yards? I've seen over 200 deer put into my dad's freezer, one-shot-one-kill with bi-metal bullets out of an M1 carbine. It's definitely a deer stopper.

Whether or not it should be built into the AR platform, I think it's just a matter of time. They are already making ARs in 9mm, for pete sake.

BTW--Ruger made a large run of Blackhawks in .30 carbine. Most of the ones you find in gun shops have been fired 6 rounds or less. Quite loud.

 

[mavracer]

and was a notoriously poor "man-stopper" on the WW2 and Korean battlefields.

When standing next to a guy shooting a Garand a M1 Carbine isn't impressive on 250-300 yard targets whether it's steel or flesh, but then again I've shot my Garand beside my 5.56 and a 7.62X39 and neither of them are any more impressive comparitively.

A 300 BLK AR makes more sense in general

And that's why you aren't gonna see a manufacture delve into a 30 Carbine AR, The Blackout is better all around and is ideal in the AR platform.

You have to wonder why people provide information on M1 carbines when the OP specifically asks about an AR15. That makes no sense at all.

Of course he didn't ask about 300 blackout or 7.62X39 either but apparently that makes sense

 

[kBob]

So given the number of outfits that make AR15 lowers and uppers, I have to wonder how hard it would be to build a shortened receiver .30 carbine AR sort of the AR-10s in reverse.

Take maybe an inch off the upper and lower and the bolt carrier, reduce the chamber area of the barrel to what it is on an M-1 carbine. 16 inch barrel with bird cage flash suppressor and split washer for easy removal for suppressor crowd. M-4 style butt stock. Deciding what to do with magazines might be difficult though since we are making a new lower anyway make it take regular M-1 carbine mags. Keep the trigger mech the same and the recoils spring tube the same for parts ability.

How much would it weigh and how handy would it be?

-kBob

 

[jmorris]

So given the number of outfits that make AR15 lowers and uppers, I have to wonder how hard it would be to build

That would be quite a bit more expensive than converting what is already cheap. The video I posted in #22 is one working with a regular AR15 lower, bolt and carrier, just a different upper and mags.

If your in a business you want to make what sells, so you can make a bunch of them. One offs are only for folks that want to drop a lot of money.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

...a notoriously poor "man-stopper" on the WW2 and Korean battlefields...

With full metal jacket bullets required by Hague Conventions for warfare .30 carbine shootings are supposed to show the same effect as standard round nose lead .38 Special revolver bullets. With commercial softnosed bullet designed for hunting or self-defense .30 carbine shootings are supposed to show the same effect as the hollowpoint .357 magnum revolver bullets.

The Winchester reccommended load, which I believe duplicates their factory 110 gr soft nose hollow point hunting ammo, generates 1980 feet per second velocity (957 ft/lbs energy) which is the original design spec or reference ammo. I usually see .30 Carbine commercial listed at 1950 fps and 929 ft/lbs.

CMP says military issue carbine bullets were not as consistent as commercial carbine bullets and groups twice as large as commercial hunting ammo were common with military .30 carbine ammos tested. I suspect the idea was to have a cone of fire against the target not individual well-aimed shots. Plus most lots were loaded fast enough to work the action but not to full reference load levels.

CMP quote: "1950's USGI ammo= (4-6-8-10" lower impact [at 200 yards] than reference ammo because Korean War ammo seems to be loaded very slowly. Remember the stories about failure to penetrate enemy clothing. Poor accuracy as with the World War II ammo.)

My rule of thumb is: standard .30-30 170gr ammo is loaded about twice as powerful as the .30 Carbine; standard .30-06 150gr ammo is loaded about three times more powerful than the .30 Carbine.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Where were we?

Back to opening post: someone well trained and familiar with the AR platform may want a .30 Carbine version for reasons having nothing to do with superior cartridges out there. He may want to use it indoors where the ear-splitting crack of the .223 can be loud if not deafening. He may have access to loads of .30 Carbine ammo for practice.

 

[kBob]

It seems odd to me that the M-1 carbine has such a poor rating in war stories, yet Marshall and Sanow found FMJ to be a 90 percent one shot stopper with full penetration in people.

I do plan to look at the new Hornady self defense loads, they ain't FMJs.


-kBob

 

[rondog]

I have to wonder about necking-up .223 brass to take 110gr .30 carbine bullets, anybody ever done that? Kind of a "wildcat", I'd guess. Not the .300 Blackout though.

 

[mavracer]

I have to wonder about necking-up .223 brass to take 110gr .30 carbine bullets, anybody ever done that? Kind of a "wildcat", I'd guess. Not the .300 Blackout though.

7.62X40 Wilson Tactical
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x40_WT

 

[jmorris]

I have to wonder about necking-up .223 brass to take 110gr .30 carbine bullets, anybody ever done that? Kind of a "wildcat", I'd guess. Not the .300 Blackout though.

Did it with 357 and 9MM bullets. 300blk on left .223 on right.

 

[kBob]

jmorris,

That looks rather nice to my way of thinking. I am guessing you are getting something between .357 magnum rifle loads and say a Handi-rifle in .357 Maxim?

What are the heaviest and lightest bullets you have used? Will it cycle with subsonic loads with say a 190grain LRN?

Any magazine issues?

I for one want to know more!

-kBob

 

[kBob]

Anyone remember The Olde Sarge? Back in the 1980s they were one of the first kit sales folks and they offered barreled uppers in their own and other's wild cats. I seem to recall they had a 6, 6.5, and 7 mm at various times. I seem to recall they were one of the first outfits to offer that funky off center conversion front pin thing to let the SP1 guys change to non-Colt civilian style front take down pins.

Back on .30 Carbine Ar15 Ideas......I wonder if the carbine mags might work in an adaptor to hold them forward in the mag well and lock them in with a thumb lever (think M-14) on the two back mag dimples and the side one on .30 rounders?

I wonder if you could build an adaptor that would drop in from the top of the lower that would hold the mags back to the rear of the mag well and use a window in the magazine like the AR mags have for retention? Would the rear ward placement allow rounds being fed to whollow about and not feed properly? Could the back of the carbine mags modified for this use have a cutout on the back to allow operation of the bolt stop?

The dedicated Pistol caliber lower shown up stream would indicate that un modified carbine mags could be made to work, though again it may be necessary to have a cut out on the magazine back for the bolt stop OR modify the bolt stop so it does not lock back on an empty mag, but is available for manual use?


Hopefully that will be my worst run on sentence of the week.

-kBob

 

[jmorris]

jmorris,

That looks rather nice to my way of thinking. I am guessing you are getting something between .357 magnum rifle loads and say a Handi-rifle in .357 Maxim?

What are the heaviest and lightest bullets you have used? Will it cycle with subsonic loads with say a 190grain LRN?

Any magazine issues?

I for one want to know more!

-kBob

They are just dummy rounds. I do have a 9mm barrel that I intend to modify and test it out someday.

A longer version of this.
http://www.ar15barrels.com/prod/357rm.shtml

 

[ol' scratch]

Why not just get an M1 carbine? They are loads of fun.

 

[Swing]

Excel Arms makes something like that:



Olympic did at one point.