Is 30 Carbine the Round of the Future?
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
- Status
Let me guess, you have a grandpa/father/uncle, who told you how he once emptied an entire magazine into an attacking German/Jap/Korean/VC, and he just kept coming. It took a buddy with his Garand/M14/M16 and a single shot to finally stop the attack.
Or is it going to be the 30 Carbine bouncing off of frozen clothes story?
Do you also believe that a 357 Magnum is 'worthless'?
After all the M1 Carbine produces the same ballistics at 100 as does 357 at the muzzle.
Especially since 357 Magnum is often touted as the best, most effective man-stoppers ever made.
Oh wait, Ill bet its time for the "oh but its underpowered for its size"......(pre-eyeroll).
The utterly 'worthless' M1 Carbine
Well said
From my experience the M1 Carbine is one of the best HD and urban weapons ever made. Compact, lightweight, fast, and 'Magnum' ballistics stretched out to reasonable urban distances. At HD distances it actually can perform better than many 'modern' cartridges like 5.56, just look at how effective its been both in close range combat as well as for LEO work (e.g. Jim Cirillo).
My dad carried one as a Navy Seabee landing in North Africa. Great historic rifle that was made to replace the 1911. It did not. *I have one and still do I got from my dad who got the never used Inland for $16.00 thru a NRA program in 1966.
IMHO it is a historic rifle only. But still would kill. Not a modern firearm. Neat assed construction however. Sorry.
IMHO it is a historic rifle only. But still would kill. Not a modern firearm. Neat assed construction however. Sorry.
Having a passing interesting in terminal ballistics I've come to what I consider an astounding conclusion: all bullets are deadly.
There is no "more lethal" or "less lethal" bullet. There are just impacts on the target that killed, and impacts on the target that didn't kill. It isn't even a question of lethality of the bullet, it is a question of accuracy. Did the shooter put the bullet in a place to achieve the intended effect?
http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal2.htm
A 30 Carbine with a soft point bullet leaves a wound much like a 357 Magnum in ballistic mediums. I have no doubt that if sufficiently shot with either I would die.
The question about how quickly I would die is also up for debate. The AR-15 is a proven manstopper, except if you listen to all the stories about how it would take five or six shots to put down an underfed middle eastern terrorist. Lots of stories out there how the 9x19 was designed to wound Europeans but the mighty 45 ACP was a sure one shot killer. They are just stories.
There is a reason, even with high power rifles and soft point expanding bullets that ethical hunters need to know how to track a blood trail. Death will come, but how quickly is always a question.
In a combat situation I'd rather have an M1 carbine than a 1911. More ammo, more accurate. Beyond that I'd rather have an M4 or M16.
But all of them will kill just fine.
Jimro
There is no "more lethal" or "less lethal" bullet. There are just impacts on the target that killed, and impacts on the target that didn't kill. It isn't even a question of lethality of the bullet, it is a question of accuracy. Did the shooter put the bullet in a place to achieve the intended effect?
http://www.frfrogspad.com/terminal2.htm
A 30 Carbine with a soft point bullet leaves a wound much like a 357 Magnum in ballistic mediums. I have no doubt that if sufficiently shot with either I would die.
The question about how quickly I would die is also up for debate. The AR-15 is a proven manstopper, except if you listen to all the stories about how it would take five or six shots to put down an underfed middle eastern terrorist. Lots of stories out there how the 9x19 was designed to wound Europeans but the mighty 45 ACP was a sure one shot killer. They are just stories.
There is a reason, even with high power rifles and soft point expanding bullets that ethical hunters need to know how to track a blood trail. Death will come, but how quickly is always a question.
In a combat situation I'd rather have an M1 carbine than a 1911. More ammo, more accurate. Beyond that I'd rather have an M4 or M16.
But all of them will kill just fine.
Jimro
101combatvet
New member
I had to chuckle when I read the title. GI's have been complaining about the .30 caliber since WW2. I have an IBM M1, but is is probably the last item I would consider.
30 Carbine is a fun little rifle (M-1 Carbine) but I've read of the bullets not penetrating heavy clothing. I think John George (Shots Fired in Anger) and Roscoe C. Blunt's (Foot Soldier: A Combat Infantry's War in Europe) both mention it in their memoirs. Blunt loved the carbine if he had to go on patrol but in a firefight he wanted the Garand.
In defense of the penetration of winter clothing: http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-36-frozen-clothing-and-the-box-o-truth/
Both the 30 Carbine and 45 ACP showed completely adequate penetration against thick frozen cloth.
The most common source for the myth of lack of penetration is the thoroughly discredited works of SLA Marshal, where we got so many other "everybody knows" bits of falsehoods such as most people won't fire on enemy human beings, and volume of fire is a better predictor of winning an engagement than accuracy.
It is quite amazing the amount of doctrinal changes that have been made over the years based on his faulty "research."
Jimro
Both the 30 Carbine and 45 ACP showed completely adequate penetration against thick frozen cloth.
The most common source for the myth of lack of penetration is the thoroughly discredited works of SLA Marshal, where we got so many other "everybody knows" bits of falsehoods such as most people won't fire on enemy human beings, and volume of fire is a better predictor of winning an engagement than accuracy.
It is quite amazing the amount of doctrinal changes that have been made over the years based on his faulty "research."
Jimro
Yes, because it was light, held more ammo. and was semi auto (later full auto with he M2).
Given the choice between a 10lb 8 shot long range rifle or a 6lb 15 shot (later 30) short range one, which would you pick for the majority of what you will be doing?
Jungle, house to house, if you aren't the sniper type the carbine makes good sense, PROVIDED you are backed up by heavier weapons at need.
I have always wanted a USGI M1 Carbine, and acquired one about six months ago, an Inland made in 1943. It is a very impressive weapon if one considers what its intended use was/is. I would be very comfortable using it for home defense. It has good capacity, and the ammo good for short ranges, and even out to 100 yards or more. Yes, I think .300 BLK is a better round but so what. I'll get one of those too at some point, but for now I scored a neat little battle rifle that can put good rounds down range accurately.
Pathfinder45
New member
And so, perhaps, a WWII American platoon or whatever, may actually have been better off tactically with a mixture of weapons that included the carbine, than if everyman was armed with the same M1 Garand? Maybe the Garand and the carbine were both more effective together than either one would have been as a stand-alone weapon system. Probably still could use a couple of BAR's, ...... Hand grenades, anyone? .... I hope somebody brought a bazooka; those tanks are killing us. How 'bout a flame thrower for those infernal bunkers? 
Pathfinder45
New member
That makes a very compelling itch that's hard not to scratch! Is that one new?
- Status