Opinion of .30 Carbine for deer hunting
- Thread starter Don357
- Start date
I think as most have said it is not by any means the first choice deer gun. Keep in mind depending on what state you hunt in you may have magazine ammo count limitations. I do not deer hunt with mine, but it is a fun close range coyote getter. I had to find a 5 round mag to stay legal.
I love playing with my .30 carbine, but hunting Ohio whitetails? Hell no!
I hunt deer exclusively with handgun, and a handgun that produces similar energy is not legal in Ohio. A .30 carbine energy about equals a .38 spl with a much more miserable selection of suitable hunting bullets. .30 carbines lame performance on humans in the Pacific during WWII is well documented.
Sure, if you are starving, its better than a good slingshot (slightly), but when you have more suitable arms at home, using the .30 carbine is unnecessarily cruel and inhumane.
I hunt deer exclusively with handgun, and a handgun that produces similar energy is not legal in Ohio. A .30 carbine energy about equals a .38 spl with a much more miserable selection of suitable hunting bullets. .30 carbines lame performance on humans in the Pacific during WWII is well documented.
Sure, if you are starving, its better than a good slingshot (slightly), but when you have more suitable arms at home, using the .30 carbine is unnecessarily cruel and inhumane.
ChasingWhitetail91
New member
Art nailed it.
Now we're being silly. In the South Pacific the Carbine gave a good account of itself. Most of the SP campaign was in the jungle where range was limited.
My father fought in the SP (Burma Campaign w/41st Inf. Div) and raved about the carbine. Seldom got shots past 100 yards. The short light weight (5 lbs or so) made an excellent jungle carbine. He also carried the Carbine in Korea. He loved it.
But lets set personal opinions aside.
According to the Army (per Hatcher's Notebook), the energy needed to produce a disabling wound is 60 ft lbs. The Carbine round (110 gr @ 2000 fps) develops that at 1000 yards.
In my state, for a pistol round to be legal for hunting it has to develop 500 ft. lbs. at 100 yards. Its gonna take a stretch of imagination to get a 357 to do that. No 38 spl will. However the 30 cal carbine develops 671 ft lbs at 500 yards. At 200 its 458 ft lbs, more then enough for a humane kill on deer size animals.
Using the common 158 gr 38 round @ 850 fps 223 ft lbs. @100 yards
in the 357 the same bullet @ 1350 fps is 465 ft.lbs at @ 100 yards.
The Carbine @ 200 yards delivers almost (458 ft lbs) the energy at 200 yards as the 357 does at 100.
Yet people say a revolver in 357 is ok for deer but a 30 cal. isn't????
Is it a long range round for prairie hunting? NO of course not. Is it enough for hunting from a tree stand at Bow distances? Of course it is.
I run the "Sight in Days" for our Club, where we open the range to anyone (mostly out of state hunters) to check their sights before hunting.
From what I've seen a large number of Hunter(sic) would be much better with a Carbine then their 300 Mag wiz bangs that produces "flinch and hope".
I use my Carbine in CMP Carbine matches, I haven't hunted with it, but after these post I'm going to next year.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
It's all about shot placement. Phil Sharpe, in the post-WW II update of his "Complete Guide To Handloading" has two vignettes.
He met a GI with a horrible facial scar. It seems that after the GI shot a German officer with his Carbine, apparently at close range, the officer managed to draw his Luger and return fire.
On a deer hunt with a group of US officers while in Germany, a small buck was jumped and they began shooting. The deer finally succumbed, but with almost sixty wounds before dying. GI ammo and a running deer.
So, care about shot placement, use of proper ammo, and good judgement about circumstance and distance.
He met a GI with a horrible facial scar. It seems that after the GI shot a German officer with his Carbine, apparently at close range, the officer managed to draw his Luger and return fire.
On a deer hunt with a group of US officers while in Germany, a small buck was jumped and they began shooting. The deer finally succumbed, but with almost sixty wounds before dying. GI ammo and a running deer.
So, care about shot placement, use of proper ammo, and good judgement about circumstance and distance.
A humane kill involves more then just the speed of a projectile. But how the projectile is made and how it reacts upon penetration.
I'm sure if the piece of piano wire in the example below hit a deer in the boiler room, the wire would have went clear through and the deer would have died as well. But would it have been as humane of death as say a bullet designed with adequate penetration as well as expansion for a quicker kill?
mythbustersresults.com/episode61
My point is, there are better bullets designed other then the FMJ or SP that are going to be a better hunting round. Giving adequate performance of expansion as well as penetration. If not, then why would we compare hunting with the M1 to even the less powerful, but still adequate .357 that does offer a bullet designed to expand for a quicker kill.
I would no sooner hunt with a FMJ out of an M1 as I would hunt with a FMJ out of a 30-06. Same as I would not hunt deer with my bow using field points which will penetrate completely through a deer leaving a small hole versus using a broadhead which creates a much larger wound channel creating way more blood loss resulting in a quicker death.
I'm sure if the piece of piano wire in the example below hit a deer in the boiler room, the wire would have went clear through and the deer would have died as well. But would it have been as humane of death as say a bullet designed with adequate penetration as well as expansion for a quicker kill?
mythbustersresults.com/episode61
My point is, there are better bullets designed other then the FMJ or SP that are going to be a better hunting round. Giving adequate performance of expansion as well as penetration. If not, then why would we compare hunting with the M1 to even the less powerful, but still adequate .357 that does offer a bullet designed to expand for a quicker kill.
I would no sooner hunt with a FMJ out of an M1 as I would hunt with a FMJ out of a 30-06. Same as I would not hunt deer with my bow using field points which will penetrate completely through a deer leaving a small hole versus using a broadhead which creates a much larger wound channel creating way more blood loss resulting in a quicker death.
Last edited:
There are many (many) accounts from the European and Pacific theaters in WWII about the M1 carbine's lack of "stopping power". Accounts like an enemy taking several hits from a carbine before falling. Enemy soldiers being hit and not even flinching. On the other hand, Audie Murphy said he preferred the M1 carbine to "hunt Germans". I saw my father kill a large doe with a Universal M1 carbine with FMJ ammo. Deer made it about twenty yards before she died. Bullet went through her liver and made a hole half the size of my fist. Any bullet can be lethal, even a FMJ .30 carbine round. But there are so many better choices out there.
kraigwy,
I will disagree with your numbers. A 158gr XTP leaves my 6" Ruger at just under 1600 fps. A 110gr bullet from my 6" Ruger will equal or exceed.30 carbine velocities with the same bullet weight. While .357 is minimal and marginal for deer, it would be foolish to use a 110gr RN bullet for them. While I also dispute your energy levels at 100 or 200 yards for the same reason, I wouldn't shoot at deer at that range with either.
I keep hearing that "shot placement is everything" and I dispute that assertion as well. Shot placement is 50%. Shot placement means nothing unless the bullet penetrates far enough, and performs its job on the way. The amount of damage a bullet does to vital organs in a perfectly placed shot can be the difference between a deer dying quickly 20 yards away to be recovered, and dying 1/2 mile and several minutes later, never to be found.
I will disagree with your numbers. A 158gr XTP leaves my 6" Ruger at just under 1600 fps. A 110gr bullet from my 6" Ruger will equal or exceed.30 carbine velocities with the same bullet weight. While .357 is minimal and marginal for deer, it would be foolish to use a 110gr RN bullet for them. While I also dispute your energy levels at 100 or 200 yards for the same reason, I wouldn't shoot at deer at that range with either.
I keep hearing that "shot placement is everything" and I dispute that assertion as well. Shot placement is 50%. Shot placement means nothing unless the bullet penetrates far enough, and performs its job on the way. The amount of damage a bullet does to vital organs in a perfectly placed shot can be the difference between a deer dying quickly 20 yards away to be recovered, and dying 1/2 mile and several minutes later, never to be found.
Having killed a couple of deer with a .30 caliber carbine when I was a teenager I would rate it as one of the worst deer rounds that is legal in most places. I also had the added experience of trailing not just the two deer I killed with it but a few that my cousins killed with it as well. There are few, maybe no, other center fire rifle cartridges out there with a .22 or bigger caliber bullet that I would pass over to choose the .30 caliber carbine. It sucks that bad.
I have never killed a deer with a .357 mag so perhaps it's no better but at least it starts out as a bigger caliber which should make a little bigger hole. And there is a much wider selection of bullets for the .357. The deer I shot with a carbine had a .30 caliber hole in and a .30 caliber hole out. It just didn't produce enough velocity to expand the lead tip bullets we were using back then. That being the case almost all bleeding was internal so blood trails sucked and were hard to follow. This was important because due to it's complete lack of knock down power all deer we shot with it ran and ran and ran. We had to get the dogs to find some of them.
If it was all I had to feed my family then I'd use it and limit my shots to pistol distances. In fact despite my typical dislike of them I'd probably take close range head shots with a .30 caliber carbine if forced to use one again.
Any of the other calibers the original poster listed are 10 to 20 times a better deer cartridge.
I have never killed a deer with a .357 mag so perhaps it's no better but at least it starts out as a bigger caliber which should make a little bigger hole. And there is a much wider selection of bullets for the .357. The deer I shot with a carbine had a .30 caliber hole in and a .30 caliber hole out. It just didn't produce enough velocity to expand the lead tip bullets we were using back then. That being the case almost all bleeding was internal so blood trails sucked and were hard to follow. This was important because due to it's complete lack of knock down power all deer we shot with it ran and ran and ran. We had to get the dogs to find some of them.
If it was all I had to feed my family then I'd use it and limit my shots to pistol distances. In fact despite my typical dislike of them I'd probably take close range head shots with a .30 caliber carbine if forced to use one again.
Any of the other calibers the original poster listed are 10 to 20 times a better deer cartridge.
Gunplummer
New member
I had a Universal years back. They are a civilian market production gun. It had feed issues a lot, even with really good magazines. Actually, they were known for that. I would make sure you have a good feeding one before going hunting with it. Otherwise, why not? I have killed a lot of deer that were already wounded and found a lot more already dead. I do most of my hunting in PA where semi-autos are not legal to hunt with, so I would venture to guess that none were shot with a .30 carbine. I am thinking 30-30 as the deer wound and lose rifle of all time. I may be wrong. Let us know how you make out.
Last edited:
As noted above the Carbine was Audie Murphy's favorite WWII weapon. But when you read his book To Hell and Back he also mentions he drills the enemy between the eyes. He liked the Carbine because it was short and light and he could get it on the enemy faster.
The lever action .30-30 has similar quick handling but has a more powerful cartridge.
The lever action .30-30 has similar quick handling but has a more powerful cartridge.
The .30 Carbine was designed to be a replacement arm for the 1911A1 pistol, in the hands of service and support troops. Training someone to be able to actually make hits with the pistol at beyond point blank range is often a lengthy and time consuming matter. With a war on, troops that were NOT intended to be combat troops, yet still needing a weapon, were well served with a light carbine that they could make hits with out to 100yds or so when needed.
The Carbine quickly found favor with the combat troops, because it was light, held a lot of rounds (15) and was powerful enough to be useful in combat. Note that useful is not the same as efficient or highly effective.
As far as the .30 carbine round's ballistics "overshadowing" the .357 Mag, I don't know what ballistic tables you are looking at, but I'd love to see them, because the .30 carbine does NOT overshadow the .357 in any effective way.
Compare them both out of a carbine and the .357 gets as much, or more velocity, with heavier bullets, and is capable of shooting much heavier bullets than the carbine. Also, .357 bullets are much better shaped and suited to hunting than .30 carbine bullets.
The .30 Carbine round comes close to the .357, but only close, and in the game fields, at the speeds these two are capable of, bullet weight and construction are very significant and in that, the .357 has a clear edge.
.357 and .30 carbine are easy to compare with reloading data since they both perform best with the same powder. (H110)
Hogdon's published website reloading data shows
.357 110gr from a pistol at 2078fps
.357 110gr from a carbine at 2398fps
.30 C 110gr from a carbine at 2106 fps
The Hogdon data does not mention test barrel length, but seems to re-enforce my own data claims.
Ruger used to make a .30 carbine SA revolver. I have load data for them as well. .30 with 110gr at 1590fps.
Hogdon's published website reloading data shows
.357 110gr from a pistol at 2078fps
.357 110gr from a carbine at 2398fps
.30 C 110gr from a carbine at 2106 fps
The Hogdon data does not mention test barrel length, but seems to re-enforce my own data claims.
Ruger used to make a .30 carbine SA revolver. I have load data for them as well. .30 with 110gr at 1590fps.
Using Berger's BC Program
6 in barrel Model 27, 158 gn Jacketed bullet, 1350 FPS
30 Cal Carbine, USGI Underwood, 110 Gr RN @ 2000 fps
_____________________________________________________________
I used "Shooter" on my phone for the last post. There is a bit of difference.
There is also a bit difference using the 357 (same bullet) in my Marlin.
_________________________________________________________________
Again: Is the 30 cal carbine the best for deer size animals? NO, I prefer my 257 Roberts, but at hand gun range it looses nothing to the 357 Revolver.
I don't hunt with pistols either.
6 in barrel Model 27, 158 gn Jacketed bullet, 1350 FPS
_______________________________________________________________
30 Cal Carbine, USGI Underwood, 110 Gr RN @ 2000 fps
_____________________________________________________________
I used "Shooter" on my phone for the last post. There is a bit of difference.
There is also a bit difference using the 357 (same bullet) in my Marlin.
_________________________________________________________________
Again: Is the 30 cal carbine the best for deer size animals? NO, I prefer my 257 Roberts, but at hand gun range it looses nothing to the 357 Revolver.
I don't hunt with pistols either.
buck460XVR
New member
My dad was a radioman in the 4th Marine Division during WWII. He earned the "expert" rifle marksmanship badge in basic and was originally issued a 1911 because of the 90# radio he carried on his back. Before his first beach landing, he was reissued the M-1 carbine. On the big ship gettin' ready to get on a LCVP for the first time at Saipan, a veteran of previous assaults advised him to drop the carbine first chance he got and take a Garand from the first fallen Marine he saw. So he did....... and again on Tinian and again on Iwo. Each time, before the landing, he was reissued a Carbine and he time he ditched it once he hit the beach. In the '60s when I fist started to hunt, the carbines were $79 a piece, your choice outta a barrel at the sporting goods section of Sears or Montgomery Ward. My dad would never let me get one, because of how ineffective he thought they were. Dunno if he ever witnessed this or it was just ship talk. During those same years anytime you heard more than 5 shots in rapid fire during deer season, you knew it was a M-1 Carbine. The only thing else than held more than 5 was the 30-30 and .32 levers, and they sounded different. Along with the notoriety for inaccuracy was the fact that the only available ammo at that time was FMJ...not really a good deer hunting round. This is where the talk of deer shot 12-15 times before they went down came into play.
Nowadays with better ammo it makes for more viable deer gun than it used to be, but it is still marginal IMHO. While I have always wanted one, even once I got old enough to buy my own, I never did, just outta respect for my old man. He was a fan of the 1911 tho.......
