30 carbine: dead round?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The .30 carbine was a modestly bad round at the time it was created, combined with one fabulous idea: building individual soldiers' rifles with detachable box magazines.

Move forward 75 years, and the round is comparatively far worse and everything has a box magazine. Which leaves the M1 carbine a footnote of dubious utility.
 
Notice: Llama Bob 'discussed' (disgust?) the M1 carbine and its cartridge and did NOT run any personal attacks at any person that had posted their opinion here. I respect that.

I like this forum because personal attacks don't happen that much and the mods squash them when they do occur.

Says Dale stating the obvious and now climbing off his soap box.
 
Jack O'Conner wrote: Whether they're still in use is unknown to me.
Click to expand...

Blue Sky import Carbines... 1990-1991. They were from S. Korea. I have one.

Llama Bob wrote: The .30 carbine was a modestly bad round at the time it was created, combined with one fabulous idea: building individual soldiers' rifles with detachable box magazines.
Click to expand...

No it was meant to replace a 1911 or 38 Special. and give the soldier a fair chance at scoring a hit at limited distances. It might have made a smaller hole but it delivered more energy at ANY distance compared to any hand gun that was standard issue. It had a detachable box magazine which increased its efficacy. Was it put into roles it was NEVER intended to be used for??? Heck yes.
 
CaptO,
That certainly clears up your thoughts on the camp 9. I could have sworn the OP was talking about the death of the 30 carbine? What is the connection?:confused:
 
It requires less training to become proficient with the .30 Carbine and with a 30 round M2 magazine it is easier to shoot and better for civilians to maneuver in a household situation than the M4.
Click to expand...

Total lengths of the following guns:

M1 Carbine: 35.6"

M4 Carbine: 33" (Stock Extended)
29.75" (Stock Retracted)

Now I assume the OP isn't talking about the real M4, but instead an M4 style AR-15. With that, add 2" (to account for the 16.5" bbl on most AR-15 carbines) and you still get a gun that is about 1/2" shorter than your M1 Carbine, and with the stock retracted, it's a good 3" shorter than that.

Also, .223 has negligible recoil that is easy to handle for almost anyone, including children. The M1 carbine also has low recoil. But with the increased ballistic advantage of .223 but with less over pentration risk with proper 55 grain ammo, and with great ergonomics, the argument than an M1 carbine handles any better than an AR-15 carbine falls flat.

Sorry, might seem like nitpicking, but more maneuverability and ease in shooting is not a benefit of the M1 carbine compared to an AR-15 carbine.
 
The M4 is heavier. (Not much, but it is heavier). This make packing the M1 in either it's "paratrooper" or "pistol" configuration (with a GI canvas sling and a 2 magazine pouch) easier and even concealable. (A "London Fog" trench coat works well for this purpose).
 
Last edited:
it's dead to me. I bought an IBM manufactured import marked years ago when they were returning to these shores and being sold at gun shows for $100.00 a pop. Ammo was abundant and affordable, but that changed. An opportunity came along to sell out at an attractive price so I did.

It was replaced with an AK and from a purely practical standpoint, IMO, my AK beats the 30 carbine on every point EXCEPT weight. I have no regrets but I will admit that I also liked the looks of the 30 carbine better, but I'm an old school guy.
 
depends

Depends on your definition of "dead".

We will continue to have the ammo, or at least I hope we will, along with all our other calibers, short of political catastrophy. They're are enough M1 carbines, surplus, import and repro, as well as the smattering of hanguns, to sustain production. And I note that their is a "new" manufacturer of carbines, to compete with the Kahr, so that makes two.

But you will not see any other firearms, aside from the repros and maybe Rugers revolver (do they even still make the B-hawk in .30?) in the Carbine cartridge. The 7.62x39, the .223, the .300 Blk, the rampant AR and the previous glut of AK clones, pretty much can do what the Carbine does, and more, without a lot of compromise, the weight issue being the most noteable.

Historically, the .30 Carbine cartridge, seemed to surface out of nowhere. The .351 Win and the thumping .401 already existed and were improvements over the previous weaker SLR cartridges, noteably the .32 SLR. We've debated it before, but why the .30 Carbine surfaced ahead of these existing rounds still seems odd to me. It did, and there it is, but....I still don't get it.

I've shot a lot of the .30 M1 Carbine, once, upon a time. I'll spare the fine points, but I enjoyed it greatly, and have always wanted one. But at four figures for a repro, it's likely not gonna happen.
 
Yes, Bamaranger:

The Ruger Blackhawk is still being made in .30 Carbine. and there are three companies manufacturing .30 Carbines to this very day. As Marion Morrison said in the motion picture "Big Jake".

"Dead? Not hardly!" :rolleyes: :D
 
Historically, the .30 Carbine cartridge, seemed to surface out of nowhere. The .351 Win and the thumping .401 already existed and were improvements over the previous weaker SLR cartridges, noteably the .32 SLR. We've debated it before, but why the .30 Carbine surfaced ahead of these existing rounds still seems odd to me. It did, and there it is, but....I still don't get it.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you don't get it? The place where the .30 carbine surfaced, and the reason it came out ahead of the SLR, .351 and .401 rounds is a little thing called WW II.

It was created for the military, .30 cal so existing rifling machinery could be used (so the story goes). There are many books about the carbine, even a movie "Carbine Williams" starring Jimmy Stewart. (ok, an OLD movie...)
 
The .30 Carbine was well thought-out. It was the Armed Forces' first detachable magazine fed rifle. It wasn't meant to be used as a full-power field rifle for troops, but a short range carbine for rear echelon troops as a self-defense, limited-range rifle. In this capacity, it excelled.

The M2 Version made a better mid-range submachine gun than the Thompson, because it would kill effectively while remaining controllable. The only two subguns that even came close were the M3A1 (commonly called the "Grease Gun") and the Harrington and Richardson Reising Model 55.

The Marines liked the Reising, because both it, and the M3A1, had a controllable rate of fire. The "downside" to the Reising, is that it had to be kept fastidiously clean. They worked, but were maintenance-intensive. It is for this reason the Reising served much better in the hands of more State Police Arsenals.

Back to the M2. It could shoot at a higher rate of fire, but with the lower recoil of the .30 Carbine cartridge, could readily be held on target with 3 to 5 round bursts. This enhanced the M2's efficacy and efficiency. It stopped mass personnel attacks with consummate aplomb. After the Second World War, the M2 Continued its yeoman service in Korea, and even into the first years of the Vietnam War.

This kind of service speaks volumes.
 
My late step father had the choice of 45 pistol, m1 carbine, and Thompson. He carried the m1 carbine because it was easier to carry than the tommy and carrying a 45 pistol made you a sniper target. He was awarded the silver star while commanding a tank battalion in the battle of the bulge.
 
While the BAR, and I suppose the Pedersen device would technically qualify as detachable magazine fed rifles, they weren't "general issue" weapons like the M1 carbine.

The M2 Version made a better mid-range submachine gun than the Thompson, because it would kill effectively while remaining controllable.
Click to expand...

Better mid-range weapon because of the power and trajectory of the round, yes. No argument there.

The "uncontrollable" Tommy gun is both fact and fiction. The oft repeated (and performed) muzzle climb of the Tommygun is NOT due to the gun itself, or its cartridge or firing rate. It is due to the shooters.

During full auto fire, the recoil essentially "cancels out" the weight of the gun. The "uncontrollable muzzle climb (to the right, or to the left, depending on who is telling the story) is a result of the gun becoming essentially weightless during firing, and the shooter's mind and arms still holding up a 11lb gun.

It takes more time and effort to train shooters to recognize and compensate for this than the military was ever willing (or able?) to provide. Hence, the "uncontrollable" muzzle climb is a real thing, because so few Tommgun users ever had the chance to learn otherwise.

Back to the M2. It could shoot at a higher rate of fire, but with the lower recoil of the .30 Carbine cartridge, could readily be held on target with 3 to 5 round bursts. This enhanced the M2's efficacy and efficiency. It stopped mass personnel attacks with consummate aplomb.
Click to expand...

"Consummate aplomb" might be overstating things a bit, no weapon operates alone, and while the carbine certainly fully deserves its share of credit, it was (and still is) the combination of weapons and our soldier's skill, and will, that won the battles.
 
.44 AMP

You are right. Extensive training is essential for the proper use of the Thompson Submachinegun. I have watched men shooting both the M3A1 and H&R Reising. Both appear easier to control and shoot accurately.

"Burning off" 3 round bursts of military ball with an M2 is far easier when you "lean into" the recoil slightly. While the weight of the Thompson mitigates it's recoil a bit, the skill required takes a bit more discipline than any of the others.

I can say this because I watched the Gunblast video covering the Inland M1 Carbine. They brought along a "Paratrooper" version of their product in the M2 version. The owner of the company and Jeff Quinn both fired the M2 and controlled the piece easily, emptying 30 round magazines into a "pie plate" sized area of a tee-shirt with little difficulty.
 
My wife does not like any recoil, handgun or otherwise. When I handed her my A.O. carbine with a little six power scope and she started knocking the center out of the bull at 100 yards, that was all it took! She says "That's MY gun!" Hey, if it can someone to go shooting with you, what's not to like.;)
 
Rightside:

I have one piece of advice for you: Buy another M1 Carbine. I'll have to wait until next year to buy mine. When I do, it will be a "permanent" member of my arsenal.

It is superior to any pistol self loading pistol cartridge (for which I have a self loading cartridge).

The .30 Carbine is more powerful that either the 9mm Parabellum/Luger or the .45 ACP in a self loading carbine. The lighter bullet shoots than either of the pistol cartridges. This puts the .30 Carbine in a unique position a "middle ground" between rifle and pistol cartridges. (A "twilight zone" if you will). Not a great rifle round but better than any pistol round. :cool:

Rod Serling will be around to narrate this thread in just a minute! :p
 
.30 carbine: dead round?
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Intended to fill a perceived niche in the U.S. military's battery of combat weapons in the '40s and '50s, it did so with only marginal competence even when viewed in its best light.

Today, in a 5.56mm world, the .30 carbine is little more than an interesting relic. Sure, it makes for collectible fun and can provide teachable moments to the "youngens" about military history and the Greatest Generation, but that's about it.

There's also nothing wrong with just owning an M1 carbine for range plinking or coyote sniping, but for about anything else both the cartridge and its weapon are way overrated.
 
Last edited:
If it's dead, why are three companies manufacturing new rifles for it? It is a "niche" cartridge for certain, but not dead.
 
seriously

Yes, I've seen the movie, know a bit about WWII, and have read some books. here is what one article says about the .30 carbine ctg. Written by noted author and historian Konrad F. Schreir Jr, and titled "History of the M1 Carbine" , here are his comments regards the cartridge. I will take them out of their respective paragraphs for brevity:

-"The reasons for the choice of caliber are a complete mystery."
-"The .30 Carbine cartridge was suggested by Mr. Edwin Pugsley of Winchester, but why he suggested it, or why the Army adopted it is very puzzling in light of previous US Army knowledge and experience."
-"The .30 Carbine cartridge was adopted without any developmental testing to speak of, and this is very unusual in the US Army."
-"Then, perhaps, a .35 or .40 cal carbine might have been adopted instead of the .30,and the biggest single deficiency in the carbine--it's ammunitions's ineffectiveness-would have been avoided.

Apparently Schreier didn't get it either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top