Let's stop bad-mouthing the .30 Carbine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone who thinks the .30 carbine isn't effective, is wrong...

If you've seen the video of this event like I have, you would see it is unfortunately very effective...

•DEPUTY KYLE DINKHELLER
Laurens County Sheriffs Department, Georgia, USA


Deputy Dinkheller was killed on 12 January 1998. He made a traffic stop on a speeding vehicle, the driver of which emerged and immediately shot him with a .30 carbine, some rounds striking areas not protected by the officer's body armour and he died at the scene. The deputy returned fire and wounded the driver in the stomach, The shooter was captured after a search. He was a militia/survivalist member and his home was surrounded by a series of tunnels and trenches, which helped him initially avoid the helicopter FLIR. Kyle Dinkeller was 22 years of age and is survived by his wife Angela and their 22 month old daughter. At the time of Kyle's death, Angela was expecting a son
 
"The truth about the Carbine is that it was issued to replace the 1911 which was quickly recognized by the military to be the most inaccurate handgun in the world, and in its original form is still recognized as such by the rest of the world."

Funny how some of the most BS "conventional wisdom/everyone knows this" just never dies.

Ok, Winwun. You've contributed toward spreading a mistruth. Now let me set it straight.

The Colt .45 is actually well thought of for its accuracy, even in military circles. And this was also the case nearly 100 years ago when it was adopted.

The military simply would not have stood for an inaccurate handgun.

During the handgun trials that led up to the adoption of the 1911, the firearms accuracy was a significant consideration. Not much use in having a gun that won't hit the target.

I've also had the pleasure of firing more than my fair share of military-production 1911s that are still in their military issued state.

Are they the most accurate handguns I've ever fired? No.

But they're certainly not the most inaccurate, either. I've fired many that have been MUCH worse.

If, then, the gun isn't the problem, then what was, and why did it lead to the creation of this rumor?

It was how the military trained, or in fact didn't train, its people. Throughout the 1930s military handgun training consisted of an allocation of fewer than 50 rounds per year.

Contrary to popular belief, not every American (in fact few Americans) are born with the innate ability to pick up a handgun and immediately start sniping targets at 300 meters.

Developing proficiency with a handgun, ANY handgun, takes time, effort, and ammunition, and the military rarely was inclined to give any of those up.

The carbine was adopted to replace the handgun in the hands of rear echelon troops primarily for that reason. A man with little firearms training is going to be able to hit more often, and at longer distances, with a carbine than he is with a handgun.

Quite frankly, that idea has a LOT of merit. It only took the United States military what, about 75 years to really catch on to it after the Europeans started issuing carbines to REMFs?
 
It's strange that the AR-15 was, for all intents and purposes, born of the need to replace worn 30 Carbines. The Air Force had no intention of replacing them with the M-14 which was nearly twice as heavy.

To carry Mike's comments a step further, the M-16 is a CARBINE by any definition. The fact that they actually produce a sub-compact model called the M-4 carbine is beyond me. A 20" barrel firing a short round from a compact action (Trigger directly behind magazine) is a short rifle... shorter than many 'carbines' produced before or after it. The only problems with the M-16 revolve around its politicized adoption and the inflexibility of Army Ordnance and Robert "Body Count" McNamarra to improve the weapon and develop it into what it could have become. Remember that the M-1 Garand started production with a markedly different gas system than it entered WW-II with... I digress.

The AR-15 was not intended to fill the role that the Carbine filled, but it was revolutionary in the same way. It's ammunition was designed with a fresh design conception. The 30 Caliber Carbine ammunition was designed to be fired from a short-barreled light rifle and fall in energy directly between teh 45 ACP and the full-power 30-06 rounds. The 5.56x45 was designed to be fired from a lightweight rifle and allow controllable full-auto fire yet still effectively engage targets at combat ranges.
 
To say that the 1911 was accurate "when you learned how to shoot it" begs the question.

The fact is, for whatever reason, lack of training, small hands, "city boys" or whatever, when the "rubber met the road" the piece proved woefully inadequate.

Revisionist history, or the way some would like it to be, or someone's personal preference notwithstanding, the gun didn't perform adequately to the extent that a whole new gun was designed to replace it.

If the military was so smart, would they have designed a new gun when all they had to do was give "proper instruction" ?

When I was in the military service, the "20 and out" syndrome hadn't caught on, and consequently, there were plenty of OLD guys still around, guys who had used the piece from the Philipines to France, and their stories were fun to hear, and I never once heard anyone say that the 1911 was an acceptable piece.

Dependable ? You bet ! "It fired every time, and missed every time" was the quote from a Tech Sergeant with WW-1 time under his belt.

On defense of the piece, it spawned an industry that has stood the shooting world in good stead. The amount of money spent "accurizing" the .45 is incalculable, and the applications of the cartridge have contributed to the industry in the introduction of innumerable quality guns.

Likely, never in the history of shooting has so much good came from such a bad beginning.

The same can be said of the carbine. Look at the copies and "knock-offs" of the little M-1.
 
When I was in the military service, the "20 and out" syndrome hadn't caught on, and consequently, there were plenty of OLD guys still around, guys who had used the piece from the Philipines to France, and their stories were fun to hear, and I never once heard anyone say that the 1911 was an acceptable piece.
Click to expand...

Funny, nobody I have ever talked to or heard from used the 1911 in combat. It's not an offensive weapon, it's a defensive weapon. When one pulls out the venerable Browning, one has already expended all other ammo, grenades, and forms of defense available and is preparing to 'take somebody with them.' It shoots every time and HITS EVERY TIME when somebody is trained properly to use one. Also when somebody isn't a WIMP or CITY BOY who learned how to handle a spoon instead of a shovel and how to operate a car, not a tractor. Me, I can hit bowling pins all day at defensive ranges with the issue 1911. Has there been some strange shift in the universe that has caused the same gun to somehow grow accuracy? I'm talking about surplus guns here, not modern CNC made masterpieces of accuracy.

I don't know where your information is coming from or if you are just trying to be contrary here. The 1911 was a dependable, accurate, and reliable arm that served its limited role admirably.
 
Winwun, getting the equipment has always been a higher priority than actually training with the equipment. Only in the last 15 years or so have we actually tried to marry suitable amounts of training dollars with equipment density. (think ammo allocations or money to do manuver training)

As for the 1911 or any other type of firearm (or a rock for that matter), no training or poor training will make the best stuff worthless.

In my time in the Army, I had perhaps 75 1911A1s in my hands at one time or another and observed at least that many being fired. Despite the last ones being purchased in 1945 and the extensive use and abuse, I can only remember one being so worn that the user couldn't qualify.

Not sure what ax you have to grind, but experiance beats hearsay 99.9% of the time.
 
Lone_Gunman, I think he means in comparison to an expanding bullet.

winwun, I'm another who blames the lack of training for the "woeful inadequacy" of a 1911. My uncle, my father and I have all done a lot of shooting with box-stock 1911s and 1911A1s, going back to 1912 vintage production critters. My uncle killed several deer with his, while sitting on the motorcyle he used in working his cattle. My father's shooting wasn't shabby.

The 1912 vintage 1911 I used in my first "combat pistol" training course, with original "sights" :), still was good enough for me to achieve eight-second "El Presidentes" with GI hardball.

Training.

Art
 
Mike Irwin: re your statement that the US military took 75 years to do what the Europeans had done with the adoption of the carbine. Must disagree. Traditionally the carbine was a shorter version of the infantry rifle and was meant for specialty troops such as cavalry and artillery. The US did do this with the carbine versions of the trapdoor springfields and the Krag. The US was unique with the adoption of a single barrel length rifle in 1903 and was shortly copied by the Brits with the SMLE(1907). The Germans did the same in WW2 with the K98. The 30 cal. carbine was and is a unique weapon, a light weight, short, low power rifle ( a personal defense weapon using modern termanology)for REMFs. I suspect that in other armies the task was done with SMGs.
 
Winwun,

You're missing the point.

By your definition, NO handgun is of suitable functionality for a military arm.

Your buddy the Tech Sgt....

Ever think to ask him how far he was shooting?

Was he up close and personal with his target when he fired, or was he popping off across No Man's Land, expecting to be blessed by the accuracy gods?

A handgun is a very specific type of weapon, designed to be used as the court of last resort. If you're pulling your handgun, you've likely exhausted your other options and are in some trouble.

But, all of this is still at great odds with your original statement, that the GUN was inaccurate. You've given a number of examples of where people armed with a handgun failed to hit their targets.

But was this the gun's fault, or was this the shooter's fault?

Given what I know about the 1911 and its design, I'm going to say it was the shooter's fault, not as you claim the fault of the weapons system.
 
I'm going to get crucified for this, but I have always thought the .45 Carbine would be a better close-quarters personal-defense arm than the .30 Carbine that was produced.

Why wan't the Carbine chambered for .45 rounds? the .45 was good enough for a Thompson, and GIs used plenty of those. Why not chamber the Carbine for .45 so logistically you would only have to handle 2 rounds (.30-06 and .45) rather than 3 rounds?

I never understood this. Call me a fool.:banghead:
 
Jimbo: Call you a fool ? I think not. Very insightful. Very good point.

As for the rest of the arguments, I must have been in a different army than some of the others. The 1911's that passed through my hands RATTLED ! Are pistols supposed to rattle ?

Perhaps the 1949 - 1952 military suffered a lack of proper barrel bushings.

That the piece has so many apologists substantiates my original thesis. You don't see anyone apologizing for a truly quality piece, nor do you see millions of dollars spent "accurizing" that which is already a tack driver.

Wimp, City Boy, Small Hands, Untrained, etc. It seems that the fall-back defence of "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" is still alive and well.

In case there is any doubt of my feelings on the subject, if someone dumped a truck load of the 1911's in my yard, I would first gleefully unload them on the world of people who seem to like them. (Hey, knock yourself out) If that was impossible, then I would have the dumper prosecuted for littering.
 
jimbo, that's a darn good question. I suspect there was probably some requirement for a 300y range.

Lone, when you get the impact velocity over 2300 fps, lots more stuff happens. Bones tend to shatter and there is some cavitation, IIRC. That being said, FMJ is not the way to go to stop someone. If you don't hit bones, you tend to just punch holes. IMHO, the stopping power of .308/.30-06 FMJ is a bit over-rated. I assissted in culling some deer with a .308 and 168 MatchKings. Not a very effective bullet compared to a decent SP.
 
jimbo, seems i remember hearing that it was because we had a whoole lot of barrel making machinery around for building .30 cal rifle barrels tho the garand had 1:10 rifling and the carbine 1:20.
 
winwun, it takes a lot of years of wear for a 1911 to rattle. Just cause proper maintenance wasn't done doesn't mean the design or manufacture is bad. For that matter, as long as the barrel bushing and link pin are within spec, it just plain doesn't matter at all if the slide rattles. If the barrel is properly locked to the slide, it's locked to the sights, and that's all that matters.

You don't change oil and filter in a Rolls Royce, it'll eventually start rattling. Thing is, a 1911 will still function with its rattle...

Art
 
Look, ya gotta remember the time element wrt the Garand and the M1 Carbine. These were the first serious semi-auto offerings to the US military. And, in the 1930s, there wasn't a lot of procurement money--plus we weren't seriously thinking about war itsownself.

So, the Garand was selected as the main battle rifle, even though mass production didn't begin until around the time WW II actually started. The Carbine was selected for other roles, and it was far easier to train guys in its use than in the use of a pistol. And, it met the criteria as short and handy and adequately powerful to some 100 yards or so. Pistols were primarily a weapon of the Military Police.

Of the American population of the 1930s, very few people knew much about shooting pistols, particularly compared to the numbers who were pretty good with a rifle. You just didn't need a handgun for self defense as much as you do today.

Word meanings change with time. The "Carbine" length gun of the 1800s isn't the same as today's "Carbine" length gun. So what? The deal is, ya gotta think about relative length of barrel compared to "standard"--and even "standard" changes.

:), Art
 
Wimp, City Boy, Small Hands, Untrained, etc. It seems that the fall-back defence of "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" is still alive and well.
Click to expand...

Winwun, I was one of the shooters that learned on the basic 1911A1 as issued by Uncle Sugar. I learned it under the auspices of my father in the 1960s. He and I were often regaled by well meaning individuals with tales of the unshootability of old slabsides and that it couldn't keep its rounds on a #10 washtub at 50 yards. Despite all this difficulty and woe, I could keep decent groups with the old girl and they have continually improved to this day.

When I qualified in basic, about 80% or more of my peers had obviously never held gun one in their hands let alone a 45 ACP. City boys, yes. Some were mama's boys, too. It was hard enough to get them to qualify on the RIFLE range, let alone on the pistol range. I think Uncle Sam gave us 40 shots apiece on the Rifle Range before turning us loose as riflemen.

:what:
 
The .30 Carbine is superior.

no way that ammo out of a handgun beats the carbine round out of the carbine.
Click to expand...

These quotes belie the lack of understanding of terminal ballistics. You can look at paper all you want, but that will not tell you much. The defining parameters of a good SD bullet are in it’s terminal ballistics, not in paper ballistics.

BTW, the carbine was designed in the post 1939 Nazi blitzkrieg era. The new tactic demonstrated that deep penetration quickly endangered support troops. According to Larry Ruth and Scott Duff “Such elements as ammunition carriers, machine gunners, mortar crews and headquarters personnel would be well served by a light rifle of semiautomatic or full automatic fireâ€. Military planner saw the need to arm rear echelon troops with something a bit more “effective†than just the 1911. The design parameters went out on June 15, 1940.

All in all, the M1 Carbine is a fun gun but not among my top choices for SD.
 
You can look at paper [bullistics] all you want, but that will not tell you much.
Click to expand...

Good advice, but something folks continue to ignore... :banghead:

Numbers are not the performance, like the map is not the territory, like the weather report is not the weather. :banghead:
 
Why wan't the Carbine chambered for .45 rounds? the .45 was good enough for a Thompson, and GIs used plenty of those. Why not chamber the Carbine for .45 so logistically you would only have to handle 2 rounds (.30-06 and .45) rather than 3 rounds?
Click to expand...
There already were carbines chambered for the 45. Remember the Reising, Thompson, and Grease Gun? All were, ahem, excellent SUBMACHINE GUNS!!! They also weighed much more. The reason that the Carbine wasn't chambered for the 45 was becasue we already had a submachine gun, silly, why make one that's semi-automatic!!! Besides, you try and shoot an M-1 carbine with 45 ammo and it might well destroy the gun. They COULD have made a decent Carbine that weighed a little more than the Carbine and was reliable and they DID. That's what the Reising was supposed to be. It was unreliable as all getup, but they made some and issued them too.
 
Big G, my range experience was quite a bit different, and also, I suspect, quite a bit more enjoyable than yours.

When we went to the KD (known distance) ranges, we were given the first half of the day to "practice" and "familiarize" ourselves with the weapon being fired and the ammo was unlimited and so was the instruction and coaching from the cadre that continually patrolled behind the FL and observed the target spotting.

The second half of the day was firing "for record". Now that I think on it, the "unlimited" practice could have contributed to the poor showing with the 1911. Even a healthy, strapping 17 year old is going to feel some tingling for a while after popping the .45 for half a day. If we had waited untill the next day we might have done better. I dunno.

I also remember the carbine and M-1 rifle at 500 yards. It seemed that the bull on the 500 yard target was proportionately larger at 500 than it was at 300. Whatever, we were laced so tightly into the sling, that someone could have picked us up by the end of the barrel and shaken us without the shooter coming loose from the rifle.

The 4 days at the range twice a year was likely the most enjoyable part of my military career. To get to shoot "all we wanted to" was a real hoot for most of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

amprecon
  • Locked
PCC, Why Not .30 Carbine?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
CoalTrain49
CoalTrain49
T
  • Locked
.30 Carbine=Too Weak...A Myth?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
7K
bbgun
B
I
  • Locked
SKS rds.' power compared to M-1 Carbine.
Replies
10
Views
2K
Purgatory
P
N
  • Locked
Why should we own M1 Carbines?
2 3 4 5
Replies
105
Views
6K
lencac
L
Dave Markowitz
  • Locked
Magtech .30 Carbine JSPs at Midway
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dave Markowitz
Dave Markowitz
Back
Top