Thoughts on .30 Carbine and .223/5.56x45

[SharpsDressedMan]

Only hits count. Figure out what you will use it for, at what distances, etc, then see if you can borrow or find the two types to use, and determine which one feels better to you, handles better, or if one is just better for the purpose. At combat distances out to 150 yards (which most veterans of combat will tell you comprises 90-95% of practical use), being shot with either one will ruin your day.

 

[LaEscopeta]

DISCLAIMER: My humble opinion, based on numbers and very little shooting experience

If you are going with a low mass high velocity projectile, you better have high velocity. As I understand it the .223/5.56mm round was developed with a 20” barrel in mind. As stated in the original post out of a 16” barrel the 5.56 and 30 Carbine produced similar numbers. But out of a 20” barrel the 5.56mm is going to have around 3,000 feet per second and 1,200 foot-pounds. Depending of bullet construction the 5.56 is going to produce more penetration, bigger cavities or both. Not sure what a 30 Carbine does out of a 20” barrel but I don’t think it is going to get 20% more energy like a 5.56 does. (Do they even make 20” barrels for M1 Carbines?)

 

[MichaelK]

There's more to "real targets" than just paper or steel. How about water soaked newspaper? Or a watermelon? Or a groundhog? Even a few water-filled milk jugs will tell you a little something about performance. No, it isn't state of the art ballistic gelatin, but it will be better than evaluating performance from your armchair.

 

[Tommygunn]

(Do they even make 20” barrels for M1 Carbines?)

The standard M-1 Carbine has an 18" barrel. I have seen plenty of replacement barrels advertise one place or another and they were all 18" in length.
I don't see .30 Carbine getting much more out of a theoretical 20" barrel than the standard, really.
The 5.56mm. is a flatter shooting round as is generally better overall (it certainly seems more available in stores!) than .30 Carbine.
In the early Vietnam years soldiers having used both .30 Carbine & 5.56mm. said they seemed pretty equal in effectiveness despite the 5.56mm. higher energy.
However, that was then, this is now and the AR seems way more practical than .30 Carbine as long guns.

 

[USSR]

The standard M-1 Carbine has an 18" barrel.

Nope! The standard USGI M1 Carbine has a 16.5" barrel, just long enough to make them legal for us civilians.

Don

 

[Shear_stress]

Nope! The standard USGI M1 Carbine has a 16.5" barrel, just long enough to make them legal for us civilians.

The M1 carbine has an 18" barrel.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/m1carbine/specifications.asp

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I just measured my US GI Carbine (made by IBM in 1943, with original issue barrel) by the standard ATF procedure: drop a cleaning rod down the muzzle til it contacts the closed breech face, mark it and measure. Barrel length was 17 7/8ths inches, typical for a nominal 18" barrel.

 

[Tommygunn]

As it happens I measured the length of my '44 Inland carbine before I made the above post just to double-check my memory. I didn't use the method Carl N. Brown used but Carl's method is -- as he said -- the ATF method. So 17 and 7/8ths inches it is: it works for me.

 

[C-grunt]

DISCLAIMER: My humble opinion, based on numbers and very little shooting experience

If you are going with a low mass high velocity projectile, you better have high velocity. As I understand it the .223/5.56mm round was developed with a 20” barrel in mind. As stated in the original post out of a 16” barrel the 5.56 and 30 Carbine produced similar numbers. But out of a 20” barrel the 5.56mm is going to have around 3,000 feet per second and 1,200 foot-pounds. Depending of bullet construction the 5.56 is going to produce more penetration, bigger cavities or both. Not sure what a 30 Carbine does out of a 20” barrel but I don’t think it is going to get 20% more energy like a 5.56 does. (Do they even make 20” barrels for M1 Carbines?)

Full powered 55grn 5.56/.223 out of a 16 inch barrel should have no problem reaching 3000 FPS. My patrol rifle is a 16 inch Bushmaster and my dept chrono'd over 3k FPS out of these rifle with our duty issue 55grn Federal Tactical rounds.

The .30 Carbine is a great little carbine and can be very lethal. But compared to a modern defensive type 5.56, its pretty far behind.

But good shot placement makes the extra lethality a mute point anyways.

 

[Gordon]

Up to 50 yards I'd say toss up with SP ammo. The 5.56 fragment 55 ball just fine, the 110 FMJ .30 carb won't. Over about 50 yards the .223 pulls away so that at 200 yards even with a short barreled 5.56 it is no contest.
I never, in 50+ years use have found a .30 carbine that could be as reliable in combat conditions as a good well sorted out AR . The carbine mag is the weak point, 30 rounders are pretty iffy and 15 rounders , all though much better still aren't a MagPul.
I keep an Inland in my motorhome, but when the flag goes up give me something M4 ish and I am 64 YO !
Uh I do not feel short by my AK s! Under 200 yards I think they hit harder than either and have better reliablity. The accuracy is compareable to an M1 Carbine too with much better reliability with robust feeding.

 

[ulflyer]

For those folks who say the 30 cal carbine round doesn't have much punch or range;
good think Audey Murphy didn't know that!

 

[C-grunt]

I dont think anyone said the .30 carbine lacks punch or range. What some of us have said is comparing it to a good 5.56, the .30 comes up short on punch and range.

A fragmenting 5.56 does a lot of damage that a slow (for a rifle round) expanding .30 caliber bullet cant match. Thats not saying the .30 carbine is bad.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Bullet doesn't really matter much. My only concern with .30 carbine would be the cost, I think you could get more trigger time with a more modern and popular cartridge.

 

[Balrog]

It is a whole lot easier to put a red dot sight on an AR than it is to put one on an M1 Carbine. It is also easier to find good quality inexpensive magazine for an AR.

These factors, along with the ability of the 5.56 round to be more accurate past 100 yds, makes me favor the AR for defense/offense.

The M1 Carbines are more fun for general plinking though. Everyone needs one. I would not feel poorly armed with one, but would prefer the AR.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ok gang...

How many of you are gonna fight off 30 ninjas? Or get in firefights with Taliban's? Or storm a trench line?

Well while I have ARs, an AK, and other gizmos I really do like the M1 Carbine Yes I have two of them, one for practice, the Kahr, the other the real-deal gun, a GI National Postal Meter made M1 Carbine. And ballisticly it does a good job out to ranges I’m likely to need any rifle.

Now I don't run around with a 'tactical' vest or things like that then if the balloon goes up I'm pretty sure my carry pistol, a Glock 26, and maybe the M1 Carbine with a few choice 15 round mags will be what decides my fate. And out to about 150 yards the Carbine does fine, real fine.

Yea I could have the AK lying around, or the ARs, but the M1 Carbine does fine, and it stays out of the way better than most rifles plus needs little maintenance.

Deaf