30 carbine: dead round?
- Thread starter briandg
- Start date
- Status
I can't remember where I read the article, but the author said that the 5.56 x 45 had trouble with barriers, where the .30 Carbine soft points worked (penetrated) well. Not surprising. Ultra velocity isn't always the answer. At times 110 grains at 1990-2000 fps beats 55 grains at 2500-2600 fps.
Go figure.
Go figure.
This is not necessarily true. Even IF the .30 carbine was "better" than the .223/5.56 (which is a separate argument), it might not be used by police and counter terrorism forces.
There is no bureaucratic organization I know of that will spend its money to buy "the best" when "second best" or "fully good enough" can be had for FREE, or at reduced cost through govt. support.
In other words, these groups, by and large, use the AR and 5.56mm because #1, they work, and #2, they get them cheap /free. If the govt handed out and supported M1 Carbines, they would use M1 Carbines.
The .30 Carbine M1 is still in production today. Not the top of the popular sales charts, agreed, but it is still in production.
Small point of order, here.. the M4 was not available during the 60s or 70s when Cirillo was doing his work. Other AR versions were, but not the M4.
The NYPD stake out squad experience clearly shows how well the .30 carbine and soft points work, at across the room ranges. I believe another popular gun on the Stake Out Squad was the short barrel 12ga.
Take a good look at what the .30 carbine round actually is. Leaving aside (for the moment) the differences between .30 and .35 caliber, the .30 carbine, fired from a carbine, gives you a couple hundred fps more than the same weight bullet (110gr) fired from a long barrel (8") .357 Magnum revolver.
SO, yes, it is going to be effective. Particularly with soft points.
Stories of the .30 carbine being ineffective generally come from military use, where longer ranges, GI ball ammo and barrier penetration are involved. Oh, and the other thing involved was GIs.
GIs who "knew" they hit, and when the enemy didn't drop instantly concluded the .30 carbine "failed". These stories take on a life of their own, myth becomes legend, legend becomes "accepted fact", etc.
Absolutely. Most of the time combat ranges were short (jungle, etc) and well within the carbine's effective range. HOWEVER, they also understood what the carbine wouldn't do, and compensated for that with heavier weapons.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
Agree to pretty much every point here, but I do believe if 30 carbine was be all end all it would be seeing much wider use, military and police forces all around the world have developed small arms to suit their needs and none have decided 30 carbine fit the bill.
In the 1980s when the British SAS had the Iranian embassy siege, they didn't use M2 carbines with suppressors, they used MP5s. I'd imagine if the SAS had demand a 30 carbine round they would have got one.
30 carbine and the M1 carbine go together like peas and carrots, it fulfilled it's requirement in WW2 an Korea and did it's job well. It is a great piece of history, that is still a great small to medium game and plinking round.
But it is not the be all end all wonder intermediate cartridge that some folk are saying it is. If it was, after WW2 it would've seen much wider use in other firearms, the 7.92x33 was initially used it the FN FAL, the 7.62x39 was developed shortly after, 9mm took of like a house on fire and 7.62x54R is amazingly still widely used today.
Not if you are in Alabama. Here are our requirements for rifle and pistol deer cartridges.
So a 9 mm carbine or pistol would legal as long as you weren't using ball ammo. And my .380 Ruger LCP with my hollow point ammo is also a legal deer gun.
Notice I said "legal", not adequate.
There is a minimum .40 caliber rule for muzzleloaders.
Also a spear is a legal deer hunting weapon in Alabama.
attn Bamaranger
and anyone else interested..
Did some research looking to respond to these points made earlier,
As a result of post WW I research, the Army felt the need for a light rifle in the hands of most 1911 users for the next war. In 1938 the request for a Light Rifle Program was denied, there was no funding available. IN 1939 it was "discussed" but there was still no money for the Light Rifle Program.
In Oct 1940, after the Nazi Blitzkrieg through Europe, suddenly there was money for the Light Rifle Program. The Army was interested in a modified .32SLR case, and contacted Winchester for their expertise. There is a Oct 40 dated but unsigned and unnumbered .30 cal case drawing, which is what became the .30 Carbine round. It is unclear if it was the Army or Winchester who made it, but both saw it, and its in the records.
The first test trial competition for the new Light Rifle began in Feb 41, with firing tests concluding in May 41. The guns submitted for the tests were designs from Springfield Armory (one from Garand, one from Simpson), Savage, H&R (Reising) Woodhull, Colt pat firearms (a Val Browning design) Auto Ordnance, Bendix (a Hyde design), White, and two designs from Murphy & Dr Kohler.
Several of the guns were rejected because they were too heavy, the remainder fired 50,000 rounds between them.
The second test done Aug-Sept 41 used 2 Turner designs, Auto Ord, Hyde, H&R, Garand, and Winchester. Another 50,000 rounds were fired.
OCM ITEM #17278 dated 30 Sept 41 officially recommended the Winchester.
Winchester notified 1 Oct 41 that their rifle will be Carbine M1 cal .30. .30 carbine ammo specs are finalized 30 Oct 41.
Winchester begins production in early 42, followed by Inland, and later others.
The first official deliveries of M1 carbines begin in Sept 42.
and anyone else interested..
Did some research looking to respond to these points made earlier,
As a result of post WW I research, the Army felt the need for a light rifle in the hands of most 1911 users for the next war. In 1938 the request for a Light Rifle Program was denied, there was no funding available. IN 1939 it was "discussed" but there was still no money for the Light Rifle Program.
In Oct 1940, after the Nazi Blitzkrieg through Europe, suddenly there was money for the Light Rifle Program. The Army was interested in a modified .32SLR case, and contacted Winchester for their expertise. There is a Oct 40 dated but unsigned and unnumbered .30 cal case drawing, which is what became the .30 Carbine round. It is unclear if it was the Army or Winchester who made it, but both saw it, and its in the records.
The first test trial competition for the new Light Rifle began in Feb 41, with firing tests concluding in May 41. The guns submitted for the tests were designs from Springfield Armory (one from Garand, one from Simpson), Savage, H&R (Reising) Woodhull, Colt pat firearms (a Val Browning design) Auto Ordnance, Bendix (a Hyde design), White, and two designs from Murphy & Dr Kohler.
Several of the guns were rejected because they were too heavy, the remainder fired 50,000 rounds between them.
The second test done Aug-Sept 41 used 2 Turner designs, Auto Ord, Hyde, H&R, Garand, and Winchester. Another 50,000 rounds were fired.
OCM ITEM #17278 dated 30 Sept 41 officially recommended the Winchester.
Winchester notified 1 Oct 41 that their rifle will be Carbine M1 cal .30. .30 carbine ammo specs are finalized 30 Oct 41.
Winchester begins production in early 42, followed by Inland, and later others.
The first official deliveries of M1 carbines begin in Sept 42.
bamaranger
New member
got it
Hello 44AMP. For clarities sake, I'll mention that those quotes are from Konrad Schreir, and not simply me, in case anybody came late to our discussion. And yes, the Pederson HAD to be .30, to adapt to the Springfield. But it may indicate an Army "bent" to the caliber in its next and later choice for WWII Light Rifle, the .32SLR, tweaked to .30.
Thank you for your further research into the .30 carbine cartridge. It certainly does appear that anticipated hostilites pushed the Light Rifle, and its .30 Carbine cartridge, into existance. From your notes it seems the carbine and cartridge went from concept to approved in near exactly a year. With initial test firing/field trials in FOUR months. That seems very quick indeed.
I'm not certain that all entries involved the .30 Carbine Cartridge. The Colt/Val Browning protype, was, I believe, .45acp, a sort of 1911 stretched into a carbine. And I think there was a 9mm in the mix too, but uncertain.
If indeed the .32 SLR/.30 aspect was an Army concept ( the cartridge) it still seems unusual to me, given history of the Pederson device,and the poor showing of the .38 revolver earlier in Army history.
In any event, we ended up with the .30 M1 and its cartridge, and the rest, as they say, is history. Best wishes to you.
Bama
Hello 44AMP. For clarities sake, I'll mention that those quotes are from Konrad Schreir, and not simply me, in case anybody came late to our discussion. And yes, the Pederson HAD to be .30, to adapt to the Springfield. But it may indicate an Army "bent" to the caliber in its next and later choice for WWII Light Rifle, the .32SLR, tweaked to .30.
Thank you for your further research into the .30 carbine cartridge. It certainly does appear that anticipated hostilites pushed the Light Rifle, and its .30 Carbine cartridge, into existance. From your notes it seems the carbine and cartridge went from concept to approved in near exactly a year. With initial test firing/field trials in FOUR months. That seems very quick indeed.
I'm not certain that all entries involved the .30 Carbine Cartridge. The Colt/Val Browning protype, was, I believe, .45acp, a sort of 1911 stretched into a carbine. And I think there was a 9mm in the mix too, but uncertain.
If indeed the .32 SLR/.30 aspect was an Army concept ( the cartridge) it still seems unusual to me, given history of the Pederson device,and the poor showing of the .38 revolver earlier in Army history.
In any event, we ended up with the .30 M1 and its cartridge, and the rest, as they say, is history. Best wishes to you.
Bama
Is there something common in the production of barrels or bullets between the horse calibers to use Jimro's terminology and subsequent light rifle cartridges? Because Germany stuck with 8mm for the Sturmgewehr and the Soviets stuck with 7.62 for the SKS and AK47. There must have been some common machinery involved.
there are a number of other interesting facts I found out were included in the Light Rifle Project. One was that "use of existing production capabilities was to be encouraged..."
Absolutely, some of the same machinery is common to any barrel making. For the M1 carbine, there is no difference in the barrel specs (bore size) between the .30 carbine and the .30-06, other than the twist rate of the rifling. The same tools bore the barrel and cut the rifling, Twist rate is a setting on the cutting tool, not a different tool. This is probably the main reason the Germans stayed with 8mm and the Soviets with 7.62 for their intermediate power rounds.
Some of the designs submitted for testing were not in the "right" (.30carbine) caliber, and were immediately rejected because of that. You are right, Bamaranger, about the .45 (essentially a 1911 with a buttstock, longer barrel and 15 rnd mag). Also there were two different 9mms. Again, not suitable.
A couple more of the guns were knocked out of the tests because they didn't make weight. The requirement was for a rifle (with sling) that went 5.5lbs.
The remaining 6 or 7 from the initial 12 submitted designs were the ones that got test fired. The testing included firing at different angles, a dust&dirt test, a 5,000 rnd endurance run, and other things. ALL the guns tested, passed.
I admit the quotes from Konrad Schrier might give a different impression in context, I haven't read the full article Bamaranger quoted from, but I rather doubt a significantly different meaning would be found even in full context.
In my opinion, based on the quotes provided, in this instance, Mr Schrier appears to be talking out of his butt.
It is not at all uncommon, even for noted authors with stacks of awards, to occasionally present their opinions as facts. No reflection on Bamaranger at all, indeed, it is usually only the presentation of these statements, and further research into the facts that lets us see what is, and isn't verifiable fact.
Most of the info I got came from "WAR BABY" by Larry Ruth, Vol I, II, & III. Other books were also used.
Some other interesting points to consider, first, about the idea of "unusual considering the Army's past experience with..."
The Army is composed of both its institutional memory, AND individuals with their own ideas and agendas. Experiences from combat in 1918 become part of the institutional memory, but the attitudes and decisions of those in authority can change over time, as different people hold those positions. In the 20+ years since the end of WW I, there were a lot of personnel changes, and, I would expect, some attitude changes, as well.
Second point, about studies and conclusions. Different people can look at the results of studies, and draw much different conclusions.
Post WW I, the Army studied German Aid station records, and found very few cases of wounds from bayonets or pistols. This apparently lead some people to conclude something better than the pistol was needed, or would be useful for many of what were currently pistol armed troops. This eventually became the Light Rifle Program.
My friend and I both had a slightly different take on the information that there were very few cases of bayonet or pistol wounds in the aid station records. Our take on that was that there were very few of these cases in the records, simply because the people bayonetted or pistol shot (usually multiple torso wounds at very close/contact range) simply died before reaching an aid station!
I'm sure the same conclusion occurred to Army people at the time. I think we were fortunate that events evolved to give us the .30 M1 Carbine, no matter what the initial impetus for the idea was, it became a very useful and much used weapon, filling a previously empty niche in our combat capabilities.
Absolutely, some of the same machinery is common to any barrel making. For the M1 carbine, there is no difference in the barrel specs (bore size) between the .30 carbine and the .30-06, other than the twist rate of the rifling. The same tools bore the barrel and cut the rifling, Twist rate is a setting on the cutting tool, not a different tool. This is probably the main reason the Germans stayed with 8mm and the Soviets with 7.62 for their intermediate power rounds.
Some of the designs submitted for testing were not in the "right" (.30carbine) caliber, and were immediately rejected because of that. You are right, Bamaranger, about the .45 (essentially a 1911 with a buttstock, longer barrel and 15 rnd mag). Also there were two different 9mms. Again, not suitable.
A couple more of the guns were knocked out of the tests because they didn't make weight. The requirement was for a rifle (with sling) that went 5.5lbs.
The remaining 6 or 7 from the initial 12 submitted designs were the ones that got test fired. The testing included firing at different angles, a dust&dirt test, a 5,000 rnd endurance run, and other things. ALL the guns tested, passed.
I admit the quotes from Konrad Schrier might give a different impression in context, I haven't read the full article Bamaranger quoted from, but I rather doubt a significantly different meaning would be found even in full context.
In my opinion, based on the quotes provided, in this instance, Mr Schrier appears to be talking out of his butt.
It is not at all uncommon, even for noted authors with stacks of awards, to occasionally present their opinions as facts. No reflection on Bamaranger at all, indeed, it is usually only the presentation of these statements, and further research into the facts that lets us see what is, and isn't verifiable fact.
Most of the info I got came from "WAR BABY" by Larry Ruth, Vol I, II, & III. Other books were also used.
Some other interesting points to consider, first, about the idea of "unusual considering the Army's past experience with..."
The Army is composed of both its institutional memory, AND individuals with their own ideas and agendas. Experiences from combat in 1918 become part of the institutional memory, but the attitudes and decisions of those in authority can change over time, as different people hold those positions. In the 20+ years since the end of WW I, there were a lot of personnel changes, and, I would expect, some attitude changes, as well.
Second point, about studies and conclusions. Different people can look at the results of studies, and draw much different conclusions.
Post WW I, the Army studied German Aid station records, and found very few cases of wounds from bayonets or pistols. This apparently lead some people to conclude something better than the pistol was needed, or would be useful for many of what were currently pistol armed troops. This eventually became the Light Rifle Program.
My friend and I both had a slightly different take on the information that there were very few cases of bayonet or pistol wounds in the aid station records. Our take on that was that there were very few of these cases in the records, simply because the people bayonetted or pistol shot (usually multiple torso wounds at very close/contact range) simply died before reaching an aid station!
I'm sure the same conclusion occurred to Army people at the time. I think we were fortunate that events evolved to give us the .30 M1 Carbine, no matter what the initial impetus for the idea was, it became a very useful and much used weapon, filling a previously empty niche in our combat capabilities.
Here's a cool concept for a 30 Carbine brought up to modern standards; the IMI Magal
Seems to be similar as far as its role to the VSS Vintorez (super compact rifle in a slow chambering) minus the integral suppression (though I'll bet 30 Carbine would shine there even more than Black Out for an SBR shooting subsonics). Unlike the VSS, the Magal is a much shorter departure from the larger AK, none of this VZ58-rip off striker, AR15-rip off bolt nonsense. And therefore much more practical if you think about it, for someone interested in a parts kit build or something, to experiment with
Imagine how much more pleasant (and probably not terribly less powerful at 10% less mass & 10% less velocity, still near 2000fps) this thing must be to shoot than a similar-length AK47 Krinkov, or similar-size but significantly less powerful 9mm Skorpion Evo (30% less velocity for same mass)?
TCB
Seems to be similar as far as its role to the VSS Vintorez (super compact rifle in a slow chambering) minus the integral suppression (though I'll bet 30 Carbine would shine there even more than Black Out for an SBR shooting subsonics). Unlike the VSS, the Magal is a much shorter departure from the larger AK, none of this VZ58-rip off striker, AR15-rip off bolt nonsense. And therefore much more practical if you think about it, for someone interested in a parts kit build or something, to experiment with
Imagine how much more pleasant (and probably not terribly less powerful at 10% less mass & 10% less velocity, still near 2000fps) this thing must be to shoot than a similar-length AK47 Krinkov, or similar-size but significantly less powerful 9mm Skorpion Evo (30% less velocity for same mass)?
TCB
What is your definition of "dead round",and what are you trying to learn from your question?
Is there likely to be any significant launch of a new firearm ,military or commercial,in 30 Carbine? No,but aftermarket 30 M1 Carbines are still being produced.
There are a LOT of M1 Carbines out there,and they are useful and fun to shoot.
I'm sure the ammo manufacturers can sell lots of it.Maybe not so much of the $1 per round sort of ammo,but priced comparable to white box 9mm and 45,it will sell.
Its hard to separate the cartridge from the rifle.Its a pkg deal.For a self defense carbine to back up the handgun.I actually travel with one sometimes.And I do have AR's to choose from.No,I don't say the cartridge is "better".It will do.
As much have folks have argued over the effectiveness of the 7.62x39 vs the 5.56,
I do not understand how there is an earthshaking difference between the 123 gr 30 cal FMJ ball ammo of the 7.62x39 at 2300 fps and the 110 gr fmj 30 cal round of the Carbine at 2000 fps.
Yes,there is a difference,but it is a shade of grey.
Both poke holes. A 30 rd mag of 30 carbine is a lot more portable for a purely portable defense weapon.
As has been mentioned,soft points would help.
Folks are still buying and using 38 spls,44 spls,30-30,and 45-70.
Is there likely to be any significant launch of a new firearm ,military or commercial,in 30 Carbine? No,but aftermarket 30 M1 Carbines are still being produced.
There are a LOT of M1 Carbines out there,and they are useful and fun to shoot.
I'm sure the ammo manufacturers can sell lots of it.Maybe not so much of the $1 per round sort of ammo,but priced comparable to white box 9mm and 45,it will sell.
Its hard to separate the cartridge from the rifle.Its a pkg deal.For a self defense carbine to back up the handgun.I actually travel with one sometimes.And I do have AR's to choose from.No,I don't say the cartridge is "better".It will do.
As much have folks have argued over the effectiveness of the 7.62x39 vs the 5.56,
I do not understand how there is an earthshaking difference between the 123 gr 30 cal FMJ ball ammo of the 7.62x39 at 2300 fps and the 110 gr fmj 30 cal round of the Carbine at 2000 fps.
Yes,there is a difference,but it is a shade of grey.
Both poke holes. A 30 rd mag of 30 carbine is a lot more portable for a purely portable defense weapon.
As has been mentioned,soft points would help.
Folks are still buying and using 38 spls,44 spls,30-30,and 45-70.
Is it a 'dead' round for military uses? Likely, just like the 30-40 Kragg, 44-40, and 45 Colt are too. Is it dead for any purpose just because there isn't surplus ammo left? No, that's nonsense. I have and shoot M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M1As, AR15s, and Mini-14s, to name just a few of my collections. I handload for everything I shoot which includes 16 calibers; everything except 22lr.
Is the M1 Carbine a great weapon for HD? I think it is and even though I have both an AR carbine and Mini-14 in the 'superior' .223/5.56 rd, my M1 Carbine, loaded with 110grn Speer JSPs is my designated HD gun. Why? It's smaller, lighter, and more compact than either the AR or Mini. It shoots a 30cal bullet twice the weight at 2/3 the velocity using about 1/2 the powder of the 5.56. That means that the muzzle blast and flash is much less pronounced than the 5.56 rd which makes it a better indoor defensive weapon as it's less harsh on the shooter when fired but hits with just as much punch at HD ranges.
How so? Ballistically, the 55grn 5.56 at 3,000fps produces about 1,100ft/lbs of ME with a .223 caliber hole while the 110grn 30 Carbine at 2,101fps produces about 1,080ft/lbs of ME with a .308 caliber hole. No, the 30 Carbine doesn't have the long range performance of the 5.56 rd but for HD where we're talking a max of 25-35 feet, the performance of both is the same. With JSP bullets, both calibers are excellent for HD as they expand quickly to aide in keeping bullets contained in the home rather than in a neighbor's home.
The advantage of the M1 Carbine is it's compactness (lack of a bulky receiver), light weight, and for many of us married folks, it's more convential look and compact feel to our wives who may have to use it is what wins the day. For instance, my wife has fired all 3 of my ARs and doesn't like the bulky nature of them. She's also fired my Mini-14 and likes it's slim lines fine but it weights 1½ lbs more than the M1 Carbine and it's 5.56 rd is significantly louder with more muzzle blast. My wife shoots and tolerates my other rifles, even my M1A and M1 Garand, but she loves the M1 Carbine and more importantly, feels very comfortable operating and firing it.
With an M2 mag catch installed (3 minute job) the M1 Carbine is very reliable even with a 30rd magazine; the same capacity as the AR. So, while it might have seen it's last days in GI Joe's hands but for civilian use and just plain fun plinking, the M1 Carbine is a fine choice. And, if you handload, like the .223/5.56, it's economical to handload for.
Is the M1 Carbine a great weapon for HD? I think it is and even though I have both an AR carbine and Mini-14 in the 'superior' .223/5.56 rd, my M1 Carbine, loaded with 110grn Speer JSPs is my designated HD gun. Why? It's smaller, lighter, and more compact than either the AR or Mini. It shoots a 30cal bullet twice the weight at 2/3 the velocity using about 1/2 the powder of the 5.56. That means that the muzzle blast and flash is much less pronounced than the 5.56 rd which makes it a better indoor defensive weapon as it's less harsh on the shooter when fired but hits with just as much punch at HD ranges.
How so? Ballistically, the 55grn 5.56 at 3,000fps produces about 1,100ft/lbs of ME with a .223 caliber hole while the 110grn 30 Carbine at 2,101fps produces about 1,080ft/lbs of ME with a .308 caliber hole. No, the 30 Carbine doesn't have the long range performance of the 5.56 rd but for HD where we're talking a max of 25-35 feet, the performance of both is the same. With JSP bullets, both calibers are excellent for HD as they expand quickly to aide in keeping bullets contained in the home rather than in a neighbor's home.
The advantage of the M1 Carbine is it's compactness (lack of a bulky receiver), light weight, and for many of us married folks, it's more convential look and compact feel to our wives who may have to use it is what wins the day. For instance, my wife has fired all 3 of my ARs and doesn't like the bulky nature of them. She's also fired my Mini-14 and likes it's slim lines fine but it weights 1½ lbs more than the M1 Carbine and it's 5.56 rd is significantly louder with more muzzle blast. My wife shoots and tolerates my other rifles, even my M1A and M1 Garand, but she loves the M1 Carbine and more importantly, feels very comfortable operating and firing it.
With an M2 mag catch installed (3 minute job) the M1 Carbine is very reliable even with a 30rd magazine; the same capacity as the AR. So, while it might have seen it's last days in GI Joe's hands but for civilian use and just plain fun plinking, the M1 Carbine is a fine choice. And, if you handload, like the .223/5.56, it's economical to handload for.
Thank you, Steve.
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Eloquently stated and logically framed.
The 5.56 x 45 is a good cartridge, but I find that the .30 Carbine better meets my needs without carrying the "black rifle" stigma. The Left churned out the "Saturday Night Special" nonsense back in the 1960's and early 1970's. During the 1990's were treated to the ineffectual and completely illogical "Assault Weapons Ban". (You can't "legislate" criminality out of existence).
If either the Hildebeast or Bernie Sandblast secure the highest office in the land, God only knows what we'll be in for (But we can offer an "educated guess").
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Eloquently stated and logically framed.
The 5.56 x 45 is a good cartridge, but I find that the .30 Carbine better meets my needs without carrying the "black rifle" stigma. The Left churned out the "Saturday Night Special" nonsense back in the 1960's and early 1970's. During the 1990's were treated to the ineffectual and completely illogical "Assault Weapons Ban". (You can't "legislate" criminality out of existence).
If either the Hildebeast or Bernie Sandblast secure the highest office in the land, God only knows what we'll be in for (But we can offer an "educated guess").
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Looks like another five-page thread that needs some sleep. 
- Status