Carbine defn., 223 vs 30, IDPA & survival

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TamThompson

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
474
Location
Texas Hill Country
Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm thinking I'd like to have some sort of intermediate rifle in my defensive/survival arsenal, and that it might be fun to compete in the 3-gun matches (pistol, shotgun, carbine.)

Um...what, exactly, is the definition of a carbine rifle? Is it a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine?

If I want a carbine for defense/survival and for 3-gun matches, and I want it to have plentiful and reasonably inexpensive ammo (and I may start reloading), what should I look at? A .30 carbine, a .223? This carbine should also be capable of hunting deer, and I'd need to be able to take it apart and clean it. I'm not all that confident about getting parts and assembling one--would rather get one used, for now...

Thanks,
 
A carbine is a short rifle; it can be bolt, lever, semi-auto, etc.

The .30 carbine is a fun gun, but not very powerful or accurate compared to a short AR-15 type in .223 (5.56mm). IMHO, the .30 carbine is not powerful enough for deer, and the .223 is marginal, though there are those who use it and like it for deer hunting.

Today, 5.56mm is easier to get and cheaper than .30 carbine.

But a short barrel is usually not conducive to match accuracy, so you will have to do a tradeoff somewhere in your list of requirements.

Jim
 
Er,

Quote:

A carbine is a short rifle; it can be bolt, lever, semi-auto, etc.

The .30 carbine is a fun gun, but not very powerful or accurate compared to a short AR-15 type in .223 (5.56mm). IMHO, the .30 carbine is not powerful enough for deer, and the .223 is marginal, though there are those who use it and like it for deer hunting.

Today, 5.56mm is easier to get and cheaper than .30 carbine.

But a short barrel is usually not conducive to match accuracy, so you will have to do a trade off somewhere in your list of requirements.

Jim

End Quote


Your words about the 223 for deer can be applied to the 30 Carbine. The big difference is that more states allow the 30 carbine to hunt deer than the 223.

Go figure.

By the way, the folks that like to murder Jello recommend the Remington 110 SP's by the way. According to them it should be a very effective load.

Actually with the latest fad of short barrel AR's , the 30 carbine is not that anemic looking.

I think this says more about the AR than the 30.

You are right about the cost of Ammo if you don't reload. But then the 30 Carbine is easier to reload if you do reload.

30 Carbine is lighter then a "fully" equipped AR even with the short barrel. And a lot cheaper.

The old knock on the 30 Carbine was that it didn't have the stopping power of the 30-06. Of course neither does the 223/5.56.

Get a nice 30 Carbine with the sling mounted two magazine pouch and you have 3 15 round magazines and a lot of proven history.

Fred
 
The old knock on the 30 Carbine was that it didn't have the stopping power of the 30-06. Of course neither does the 223/5.56.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the .30 carbine is closer to a hot hunting .357 load than 223/5.56. I think taking deer with it is reasonable though, provided you use to right ammo and keep the ranges short.
 
Thank y'all for the thoughtful info. Rifles I already have are a Glenfield .22 semi-auto (the old non-magazine kind) and a Browning Win .300 mag semi-auto.

Perhaps I need two new guns--a .30 carbine for matches, and a 30-.06 for a deer rifle. Is the 30-.06 closer to the Win .300 mag for stopping power, and do they make them magazine-fed?
 
You want something cheap to shoot that is accurate that you can deer hunt with. Get a .308. You can buy cheap bulk ammo and it is one of the best calibers by my view and also large enough to drop about anything.
 
MrAcheson,

Quote:

Yeah but the .30 carbine is closer to a hot hunting .357 load than 223/5.56. I think taking deer with it is reasonable though, provided you use to right ammo and keep the ranges short.

End Quote.

And you shoot long range with a 223/5.56? I think not, if you are a responsible hunter.

The 223/5.56 is at best, where legal a close in deer cartridge provided you use the right ammo, and keep the ranges short.

I actually think it is a tweener.

The 110 308 bullet is about half way between a 55-80 gr 22 and a 158 to 180 grain 35 cal.

By the way, for the record. My hunting rifle is a 308 Remington model 7.

My M1 garand and M1A are both 7.62 NATO/308. In fact of my military rifles, only my 1917 US Pattern Enfield and my 03-A3 shoot 30-06.

The 30-06 is very close to your 300 maggie.

Good luck. As you can see I would go with the 308 often known as the 30-06 short. The accuracy champ.

Fred
 
As an avid 3 gun shooter and match director. (you specified match shooting, so that is the perspective I come from) Between the .30 Carbine and the AR, get the AR. (note, I don't personally use either).

The .223 is going to give you cheaper practice ammo, and the AR dominates 3 gun competition for a reason. They are accurate, relatively reliable, and very controllable. Magazines are cheap and plentiful, and there are piles of aftermarket parts out there for customization. The AR also has more/better options for mounting optics should you choose to go that route. Competition pouches for AR mags are available, but your options are much more limited with a .30 carbine.

Also some matches will require you to shoot out past 200, or in some cases 300 yards. (400 is the farthest I'm aware of any major match shooting regular 3 gun style and not precision rifle). The .223 will probably serve you a whole lot better than the .30 carbine when you start getting out there.
 
And you shoot long range with a 223/5.56? I think not, if you are a responsible hunter.
Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. I would feel comfortable shooting it at longer ranges than .30 carbine, but its the "-er" that matters. I'd want to keep them both fairly short. I haven't seen any production pistols chambered for .223, I can't say the same for .30 carbine.
 
For the record though, I'm the oddball shooting a FAL or a Vepr K. :)
 
Get a Saiga. They're very inexpensive, well made, very accurate (except for the 7.62x39), reliable and fun. Hmmm...did I leave anything out? Like maybe the fact that they're super reliable and accurate?
 
MrAcheson,

Quote:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I would feel comfortable shooting it at longer ranges than .30 carbine, but its the "-er" that matters. I'd want to keep them both fairly short. I haven't seen any production pistols chambered for .223, I can't say the same for .30 carbine.

End Quote.

Show me where I put any words in your mouth? Don't personalize non personal statements or arguments just because you apparently disagree..

Disagreeing is allowed without accusing anyone of anything except disagreeing.

My point is the 223 is not cutting it over 100-150 yards effectively today in the combat. Exactly what I found 35 years ago in combat. My experience with the 30 Carbine was to a smaller extent in combat at the same time, I did carry a M2 carbine in Viet Nam from time to time. But frankly have observed it in the hunting fields. I didn't use it for hunting but a close friend did. At that time I was usually using my 30-30. Today I use a 308 most often.

Under 100 yards it is very effective on deer/human size soft targets. Over 100 effectiveness falls off quickly. Now insert 30 carbine/223 and both are appropriate.

Actually there have been several production pistols for the 223/5.56 Not very practical. The 30 Carbine does make a better pistol round. Made by Ruger and Automag while they existed.

By the way the 223 is a superb small varmint round, much better than the 30 Carbine and for small varmints, does have that ranging capabilities required. I was partial to the 220 Swift and the 222Mag which is almost identical to the 223 ballistics. today I use 223 for varmints.

It is not unusuall for the higher intensity 'pistol' like cartridges to overlap or emulate the marginal (as to 'stopping' ability) center fire cartridges as to effectiveness. That is what is happening here.

Just the facts 'mam' (Sgt Friday Dragnet)

Good luck.

Fred
 
An AK in 7.62x39 will serve for plinking, 3-gun, defense and deer hunting. They are ver simple and reliable, and accurate enough.
 
The old knock on the 30 Carbine was that it didn't have the stopping power of the 30-06. Of course neither does the 223/5.56.
END

Inside a 100 yards its arguably as effective as the 3006. The 30 carbine is not at any range. Its simple a pistol round that happened to be chambered in a carbine first. It was meant to replace the 1911A1 pistol not any longgun.
Pat
 
Show me where I put any words in your mouth? Don't personalize non personal statements or arguments just because you apparently disagree..
Click to expand...

Chieftain, you were pretty close here:

And you shoot long range with a 223/5.56? I think not, if you are a responsible hunter.
Click to expand...

You followed up a quote from me with that statement. I did not say or imply that .223 was a long range hunting round. It is not. It is clearly an intermediate round. I simply said that .30 carbine was acceptable if ranges were kept short and nothing more. Implying anything else about my statement is putting words in my mouth.
 
I agree with the statement to get a decent AK to start. Ammunition for the AK rifles in 7.62x39 is very inexpensive, a good beginners rifle interms of simplicity and reliability, accuracy will be good for what you want to use it for (Some rifles have accuracy on par with the AR's depending on the brand, but cost increases.), one can hunt with it, compete with it (There are postings and techniques on how to run an AK and utilize the safety and perform quick reloads for todays combat and competitions.), and just have fun with it. If one gets into the competitions, they can upgraed to an AR if they so wish. The money spent on an AK and lots of ammunition will equal an AR and no ammunition. Food for thought.
I use an AK over my AR's right now when I have the chance and when it's allowed. I think the cartridge and system have lots of merit.
 
I started with an AK and bought several different kinds. I was impressed with the reliability but they were about as accurate as a musket. The sights sucked. The safety sucks, It is obvious this weapon was made for peasants with little to no training who spray rather than aim. As far as the cartridge goes, the 223 is a better stopper and is safer to use in an urban setting.
Pat
 
Advice here... Don't go with the AK. Yes the ammo is inexpensive. Yes they are fairly reliable. Yes they are halfass accurate. Yes they would kill a deer. But... If you compare the AK to the .223... .223 ammo is not much more. I just bought 1000 rounds of 7.62x39 ammo (AK) for $97.00. .223 ammo for 1000 rounds is about the same price maybe about $10.00 more. And while on that subject .308 ammo is about the same price as .223 ammo. Also, a bolt .223 would be much more reliable and far more accurate than the AK and has enough knockdown power to take a deer. As far as grouping with an AK i'm unsure, my neighbor has one but i've never cared to group it at 100. Although I have an SKS and I sighted in a ruger 77 chambered in 7.62x39 and they both hold 2.5-3" groups at 100. Neither of my .223's get above a .5" group and even the cheap handi rifle .223's shoot about an inch group.

But my opinion still stands. For the things you are wanting. Cheap ammo, reliability, hunting, and competition shooting. Get the .308. The .308 has cheap ammo and is reliable, has a larger weight bullet than both the others, and is used a lot in competition shooting even up to 1000 yards. In fact the .308 is a preffered round for snipers.
 
Correia
How do you think the controls (mag release, and saftey) work out with an AK in three gun competition ?
I realize that with practice, anything is usable, but do you think you would be giving any thing up ?
 
I'll second (or is it third?) the FAL carbine recommendation. I use one for 3-gun, hunting, and just playing in general. It's reliable, ergonomically friendly, and shoots a REAL cartridge that you can use for more than just punching paper or varmints.

IMNSHO, the best compromise in an "all around" gun.
 
Put your belts on guys, because here comes some thread veer.

444, to be honest the AK has many disadvantages for use in 3 gun. That is why amongst the serious competitors the AR is by far the dominate gun. I shoot a Vepr or a FAL because ARs don't suit me. (doesn't mean I don't know how to use them though).

AK mag changes are slower by nature, but with lots of practice a sub 1 second mag change can be performed. (not from an empty chamber, having to manipulate the bolt will add at least another .5 on there). I'm talking lots of practice though. I shoot with my support hand holding the magazine like it is a vertical fore grip. As soon as I want to reload I hit the release with my thumb, pivot the gun forward, and let go of the mag as I reach for the new one. The rock and lock doesn't slow you down to much if you have practiced exactly where to put that new mag. Plus it is always fun to watch guys slam AR magazines in, only to have them fall out and hit them in the foot right after. :p (practice guys!)

The lack of bolt hold open kills you if you run compleatly dry. Try not to do that. :)

I can manipulate an AK safety with my trigger finger, so it is a draw for me. Most folks this is going to be much slower as it will require them to remove their hand from a firing grip, or use their support hand and reach around the gun.

AK sights suck. If you are shooting limited (iron sights) then the AR sights are going to be better for any sort of precision work. However the AK sights are faster at closer ranges. Good work can be done with practice with either, and accurate hits can be made out to 30 yards or so just by using the front sight assembly as an aim point. If you shoot with optics then it is a moot point, however the AR is much easier to mount optics on. I shoot irons mostly so I installed some Krebs AR style sights on my Vepr.

The AR has far better recoil characteristics. Recoil is straight back and mild, the AK has kind of a floppy/bouncy feel. I'm one of the better AK shooters that I'm aware of and even then I can conistently reduce my split times when I shoot an AR. The difference really isnt' that great unless you are really into hitting targets multiple times and fast. I doubt most people would really even notice unless they were being timed.

So why do I use the slower, more un-ergonomic weapon? :p I just like it better, and it is kind of fun to be the guy shooting something different. I can get practice ammo for around $80 a case. I really like shooting an FAL in 3 gun, however ammo costs about twice as much so I don't get the trigger time that I really like. Heck, I don't get the trigger time that I like with the cheap ammo either.

So even with lots of practice the edge is going to go to the AR for flat out high speed competition.

Of course like anything else, your mileage may vary. I'm currently building a pump shotgun race gun, (like I said, I like being different) and after that I think I'm going to build an AK based race gun. 5.45 Vepr, heavy duty muzzle brake, EO Tech holographic sight, slicked up everything. That should be fun.

All I need is $ of course. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
.30 Carbine for SHTF/Survival?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Texian Pistolero
T
Snowdog
  • Locked
Interior building materials penetration: 5.56 vs .30 Carbine
Replies
12
Views
2K
MichaelK
M
T
  • Locked
.30 Carbine=Too Weak...A Myth?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
7K
bbgun
B
M
  • Locked
.30 Carbine better than 5.56
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
lencac
L
L
  • Locked
5.56/.223 vs .357 Magnum Carbine?
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
21K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top