Why ".30" carbine???
- Thread starter bamaranger
- Start date
- Status
HorseSoldier
New member
CMP website has an article about carbine accuracy where the writer did some experimental testing with different vintage ammo, and 50's vintage carbine ammo at 200 meters had POI anywhere from 4-10" lower than the handloaded reference ammo he used as a control (which replicated the WW2 load), though he didn't chrono it. (As a side note, Vietnam era ammo was also hitting 2-6" low.)
Another thing he mentions is that USGI carbine ammo is extremely inaccurate, whichever era it's from. His handloaded control ammo holds inside 4 MOA or so at 200, but even the full power WW2 vintage USGI stuff groups anywhere from 2-3 times that. If guys in Korea were trying to engage at 2-300 with 8-12 MOA ammo that was hitting up to 10" low, it's seems extremely likely that the "frozen clothes stop bullets" and other complaints about terminal ballistics probably reflected misses more than actual observed performance.
I stopped using the Magtech load because I experienced primers falling out on a few rounds...I discovered it because one ended up in the bolt lug notch, giving me the only jam I have had. Then, I looked at the empty cases on the ground and found three more with empty primer pockets.
All I use now is Prvi and Remington.
GI ammo inaccurate? My first carbine was a Plainfield bought around 1980. At the time, there was plenty of GI surplus Lake City spam cans around...about $75 a can, as I recall. That ammo was quite accurate at 100yds. I really wish some importer would find a warehouse full of that stuff and sell it.
I am convinced from my reading that the issues in Korea are not overstated, nor are the result of soldiers firing their carbines at extended range.
One book in particular, "Last stand of fox company", discusses the carbine and it's failure at length.
The engagement discussed in the book mostly took place at extreme close range. There were multiple failure of the carbine to stop the north Koreans...to the point that the soldiers even did post-mortems on some of the dead. They found that many north Koreans were wearing homemade woven armor under their coats, and many bound their extremities to limit bleeding. That, and the heavy padded coats soaked with sweat and then frozen. Plus, the ammo was mostly Pacific war surplus that spent years in hot ship holds and warehouses.
The result, in that battle, was word being passed "Men with carbines, aim for the head". A fantastic book, maybe the best I have read on Korea.
All I use now is Prvi and Remington.
GI ammo inaccurate? My first carbine was a Plainfield bought around 1980. At the time, there was plenty of GI surplus Lake City spam cans around...about $75 a can, as I recall. That ammo was quite accurate at 100yds. I really wish some importer would find a warehouse full of that stuff and sell it.
I am convinced from my reading that the issues in Korea are not overstated, nor are the result of soldiers firing their carbines at extended range.
One book in particular, "Last stand of fox company", discusses the carbine and it's failure at length.
The engagement discussed in the book mostly took place at extreme close range. There were multiple failure of the carbine to stop the north Koreans...to the point that the soldiers even did post-mortems on some of the dead. They found that many north Koreans were wearing homemade woven armor under their coats, and many bound their extremities to limit bleeding. That, and the heavy padded coats soaked with sweat and then frozen. Plus, the ammo was mostly Pacific war surplus that spent years in hot ship holds and warehouses.
The result, in that battle, was word being passed "Men with carbines, aim for the head". A fantastic book, maybe the best I have read on Korea.
sc928porsche
New member
I loved the one my father carried in Korea. And I really love the blackhawk that I own that is chambered in that cartridge.
AMD6547 said
"...Really, it is the combination of the weapon and the round which makes a winner...the carbine itself handles like few other weapons. It is so light, and it's gas system and action has such light recoil. The shape of the stock makes it point like a finger. At 100yds, I can easily put 15rds into a group the size of a grapefruit without trying hard. The sights are superior for the CQB role the weapon was designed for.It really is a triumph of American ingenuity and doctrine...the entire system...the weapon, the round, the way the ammo was packaged in spam cans on strip clips and bandos...."
Very well said.
"...Really, it is the combination of the weapon and the round which makes a winner...the carbine itself handles like few other weapons. It is so light, and it's gas system and action has such light recoil. The shape of the stock makes it point like a finger. At 100yds, I can easily put 15rds into a group the size of a grapefruit without trying hard. The sights are superior for the CQB role the weapon was designed for.It really is a triumph of American ingenuity and doctrine...the entire system...the weapon, the round, the way the ammo was packaged in spam cans on strip clips and bandos...."
Very well said.
lefteyedom
New member
At the Mississippi deer camp where I hunted in the late 1970, a 30 carbine was kept loaded by the door. It had kill killed scores of deer that would "appear" around the camp early in the morning and late evening.
The right tool for the job always works best.
The right tool for the job always works best.
Hmm -- why .30 Carbine? Why not something more like a "real" assault rifle round? Why not something like a more traditional pistol round?
I don't think that the designers even thought about the "assault rifle" concept, the idea was to provide a carbine type weapon that was a better solution for non-line troops than a handgun. It was never meant to be a front line infantry battle weapon. It was meant to be an improved pistol. And it was an improved pistol, performance-wise, it had similar performance compared to what you'd get from a similar sized .357 Mag carbine.
I'm sure that they considered conventional pistol rounds, like 9mm and .45 ACP., and found them lacking at longer (greater than 100 yards) ranges. I'd expect that they'd have looked at rounds like the .357 Mag and found them adequate, but larger and perhaps less than efficient regarding certain strategic metals. I mean, why do it with a 160 gr .357 bullet when one can do it just as well with a 110 gr .308 bullet? And have more rounds in the magazine with a flatter trajectory? Yeah, a .357 Mag modified for autoloader purposes would have had more short range oomph, but it would have paled at ranges much over 100 yards. And the .30 Carbine worked well both under 100 yards and still adequately well out past that, out to 200 yards or so.
In general, I feel that for the designed purposes, the M1 Carbine was a decent weapon. And as long as the ranges weren't longer than around 200 yards, it was just fine. It was when the ranges were longer than that -- longer than "glorified pistol round" ranges that it had problems.
The trouble with the round was that it was pressed into roles that it was never intended to fill. It was never intended to be a battle rifle round. It was never intended to be effective at ranges over around 200 yards. At ranges of 100 yards or less, it worked just fine. It was ok for ranges up to 200 yards. It pretty much ran out of gas past that.
I don't think that the designers even thought about the "assault rifle" concept, the idea was to provide a carbine type weapon that was a better solution for non-line troops than a handgun. It was never meant to be a front line infantry battle weapon. It was meant to be an improved pistol. And it was an improved pistol, performance-wise, it had similar performance compared to what you'd get from a similar sized .357 Mag carbine.
I'm sure that they considered conventional pistol rounds, like 9mm and .45 ACP., and found them lacking at longer (greater than 100 yards) ranges. I'd expect that they'd have looked at rounds like the .357 Mag and found them adequate, but larger and perhaps less than efficient regarding certain strategic metals. I mean, why do it with a 160 gr .357 bullet when one can do it just as well with a 110 gr .308 bullet? And have more rounds in the magazine with a flatter trajectory? Yeah, a .357 Mag modified for autoloader purposes would have had more short range oomph, but it would have paled at ranges much over 100 yards. And the .30 Carbine worked well both under 100 yards and still adequately well out past that, out to 200 yards or so.
In general, I feel that for the designed purposes, the M1 Carbine was a decent weapon. And as long as the ranges weren't longer than around 200 yards, it was just fine. It was when the ranges were longer than that -- longer than "glorified pistol round" ranges that it had problems.
The trouble with the round was that it was pressed into roles that it was never intended to fill. It was never intended to be a battle rifle round. It was never intended to be effective at ranges over around 200 yards. At ranges of 100 yards or less, it worked just fine. It was ok for ranges up to 200 yards. It pretty much ran out of gas past that.
Last edited:
While I don't think its the greatest manhunting cartridge there ever was by any stretch, I'm definitely inclined to think all the guff about .30 being totally inadequate is mostly bull. A 30 caliber round with just short of a 1000 ft lbs at the muzzle, blunt nose or not, will not bounce off heavy clothing at typical combat ranges. I don't think the people who come up with these ridiculous anecdotes are lying, I think they're "misremembering" and not forgetting mitigating details that really explain what happened.
Roger that.
Again, let's compare, uh, apples to pears. Let's compare .357 Mag carbines to .30 Carbine carbines. Similar performance at the muzzle, albeit different bullet weights and different muzzle velocities. The thing is, you'll get similar results out to around 100 yards with either one of them -- quite good. Thick clothing or not. Out past 100 yards, both of them start bleeding velocity/energy due to their blunt nosed profiles. The .30 round has a bit longer range due to it's higher velocity, but other than that they both drop off fairly fast due to the shape of the bullet and the crappy BC.
How many anecdotes of sub-par .30 Carbine results are because the soldiers using them are trying to engage targets out past their intended effective range? Not just because the bullet itself drops like a rock, but because the velocity drops like a rock as well? The BC of the bullet just isn't conducive to longer effective ranges. Again -- it drops like a rock. It is a round nosed, short for caliber bullet. It drops off pretty quickly. It is ok for short (less than about 200 yards) range, but past that it just doesn't have the oomph necessary to be an effective battle weapon.
And how many soldiers that tried to engage longer range targets with less than stellar results did so when they were issued M1 Carbines in the Korean conflict after using much more capable M1 Garand rifles in WWII? What sort of difference in expectations were there? Yeah, we know that soldiers used M1 Carbines in WWII. But how many of them used them in jungle environments, at short ranges, in WWII with good results, and then used them at long ranges in Korea with marginal to poor results -- thick padded clothing or not?
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
I was drafted in January, 1954. Wound up in Korea on occupation duty in an ack-ack outfit. Issued an M-2 carbine. Seemed like I was the only guy in the battalion who thought shooting for fun was fun. I'd "liberate" a 600-round canister from the arms shack and go down to the beach at Inchon and harass sea shells and sea gulls.
No idea how old was the ammo. No problem in hitting stuff.
What we were told--and from what I'd read--was that the carbine was intended for guys like me on an M-16 halftrack or in an M-19 tank, or truck drivers and near-front clerk-types. Better than a pistol, handier than the Garand.
I have my father's "bring back" from D-Day and on. Fun shooter...
No idea how old was the ammo. No problem in hitting stuff.
What we were told--and from what I'd read--was that the carbine was intended for guys like me on an M-16 halftrack or in an M-19 tank, or truck drivers and near-front clerk-types. Better than a pistol, handier than the Garand.
I have my father's "bring back" from D-Day and on. Fun shooter...
There were a lot more carbines used in the Pacific with the Marines than most realize. Below is a manual they used... 243 pages, detailing who, what, when, where and how during an island invasion.
Amphibious Operations, Staff Officers' Manual, USMC, Nov 1944
It can be downloaded here.
http://67.118.51.201/bol/bookdisplay.cfm?booknum=13024&fback=1
Beginning in Chapter 1, page 10 they list 17996 weapons for the 17465 troops in a Marine Division with the detailed listing as follows:
.30 M1 Carbine, 10,953
.30 M1 (Garand), 5,436
.30 BAR, 853
.45 submachine gun, 49
.45 pistol, 399
12 ga. shotgun, 306
My father was a Corpsman guard in the 4th Division, 25 Regiment on Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. He was issued a Garand but preferred the carbine after the initial assault. He loved the 15 round magazines and the ability to have them mounted on the butt stock and sling.
Amphibious Operations, Staff Officers' Manual, USMC, Nov 1944
It can be downloaded here.
http://67.118.51.201/bol/bookdisplay.cfm?booknum=13024&fback=1
Beginning in Chapter 1, page 10 they list 17996 weapons for the 17465 troops in a Marine Division with the detailed listing as follows:
.30 M1 Carbine, 10,953
.30 M1 (Garand), 5,436
.30 BAR, 853
.45 submachine gun, 49
.45 pistol, 399
12 ga. shotgun, 306
My father was a Corpsman guard in the 4th Division, 25 Regiment on Kwajalein, Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. He was issued a Garand but preferred the carbine after the initial assault. He loved the 15 round magazines and the ability to have them mounted on the butt stock and sling.
Correct. I'm not denying or contradicting that. The thing is, most of the engagements in the Pacific, in WWII, were up close and personal. Less than 100 yards. In many cases, much closer than 100 yards. At those ranges, the M1 Carbine worked just fine. It was a matter of the terrain and the vegetation. When the ranges were short, the carbine was just fine. It was only when they tried to make the carbine do the job of a longer range battle rifle that there were problems.
That said, I find it odd -- somewhat disturbing, for that matter -- that there were that many more carbines issued in a Marine division than there were battle rifles. It just doesn't seem right. Not when one of the fundamental principles of the U.S. Marines is that everyone is, at their core, an infantryman. I'd have expected the reverse, 2 times the battle rifles as opposed to the number of carbines in a Marine division.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
Considering that there were over 6 million carbines made during World War II they were used in large quantities EVERYWHERE.
That Marine TOE is interesting, though, as it shows that by that time the Carbine had moved from being considered a weapon for support troops and specialized units (like the airborne) to being a front line combat weapon.
That Marine TOE is interesting, though, as it shows that by that time the Carbine had moved from being considered a weapon for support troops and specialized units (like the airborne) to being a front line combat weapon.
CorditeTonight
Inactive
The US Marine TO&E form 44 and 45 did have Garands out numbered by Carbines. At first that may seem odd until you look at all of the weapons employed by a Marine Division in an amphibious assault. Compared to the European Theater the Marines leaned heavily on crew served or "special" assault weapons. Due to the use of Flamethrowers, dogs, demolitions, 37mm AT Guns and so on they had a higher level of Carbines issued as defensive weapons.
The Marines generally liked the Carbine and when there were complaints they were typically about penetration. Considering the incredible skill of the Japanese in building fortified positions and their fanatical defensive mind set penetration would be important. If you watch enough footage from the Pacific you will see how evil the Carbine was close up. Great little rifle!
The Marines generally liked the Carbine and when there were complaints they were typically about penetration. Considering the incredible skill of the Japanese in building fortified positions and their fanatical defensive mind set penetration would be important. If you watch enough footage from the Pacific you will see how evil the Carbine was close up. Great little rifle!
Dave Anderson
New member
The information provided by Powermwt I found very interesting.
A friend, now deceased, was a lieutenant (soon promoted to captain) in the Marine Corps and fought on several of the Pacific islands mentioned. The islands are volcanic and full of caves. Much of his service involved leading Marine squads in clearing these caves.
As with most combat veterans he seldom talked of his experiences, but it happened one evening (he was in his 80s at the time) we were having a quiet drink and for whatever reason he started to talk, and I knew enough to shut up and listen.
Sometimes grenades and satchel charges were used but if the cave was big they'd have to go in. If there was fighting, and there often was, it was at very close range under cramped conditions.
Actually conditions were much like those often faced by current police SWAT teams; very close range, confined spaces, not much cover or concealment once the decision was made to go in.
He was issued a Thompson but after he saw what the fighting was like he wrote home and had his police duty shotgun, a personally owned, short-barreled Reminton 11, shipped over. Against regulations of course but there was some slack cut for those on the cutting edge. (Should add, in those island battles pretty much every Marine was on the cutting edge.)
He liked the shotgun as he was very familiar with it plus he felt there was less danger from ricochets in those rocky caves.
One can easily appreciate how, under such conditions, a carbine would be preferred over a Garand.
A friend, now deceased, was a lieutenant (soon promoted to captain) in the Marine Corps and fought on several of the Pacific islands mentioned. The islands are volcanic and full of caves. Much of his service involved leading Marine squads in clearing these caves.
As with most combat veterans he seldom talked of his experiences, but it happened one evening (he was in his 80s at the time) we were having a quiet drink and for whatever reason he started to talk, and I knew enough to shut up and listen.
Sometimes grenades and satchel charges were used but if the cave was big they'd have to go in. If there was fighting, and there often was, it was at very close range under cramped conditions.
Actually conditions were much like those often faced by current police SWAT teams; very close range, confined spaces, not much cover or concealment once the decision was made to go in.
He was issued a Thompson but after he saw what the fighting was like he wrote home and had his police duty shotgun, a personally owned, short-barreled Reminton 11, shipped over. Against regulations of course but there was some slack cut for those on the cutting edge. (Should add, in those island battles pretty much every Marine was on the cutting edge.)
He liked the shotgun as he was very familiar with it plus he felt there was less danger from ricochets in those rocky caves.
One can easily appreciate how, under such conditions, a carbine would be preferred over a Garand.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
New member
That's a TO&E from '44, after a couple years of hard and nasty fighting had knocked most of the arm chair fantasies about how combat was just like shooting paper targets across mowed and manicured lawns out of everyone's minds. For the ranges where real combat was happening, and the nature of the fighting (especially in the Pacific), the M1 carbine was a better weapon than the M1 Garand. Being handed a carbine didn't make anyone less of a Marine or the USMC less committed to the idea that all Marines were combatants, just meant their chain of command was actually thinking and adapting to reality on the ground.
A few years ago, my great uncle and I talked about his time in Korea. He was in the retreat from Chosin Reservoir. He had an M2, the select fire version of the M1. He liked it because it weighed a lot less than a Garand, but he wasn't really happy with its accuracy. I think that he'd agree with the poster who talked about the poor accuracy of GI ammo, and here's why:
He believed that every Chinese soldier that he hit went down. The problem was hitting them. Between the awful weather, the general chaos of the situation and quality of the ammo, getting a shot on target wasn't always easy. A fair amount of the fighting was close range - a hundred feet or less at times. The Marines had to react quickly, so there wasn't always time to shoulder the weapon, get a good sight picture and squeeze off a round. They'd point and shoot. The idea, then, that the round wasn't penetrating may have come from the fact that if somebody points a rifle at you from a hundred feet away and shoots, you're going to flinch - somebody just shot at you! So, how do you tell a miss from a hit that doesn't penetrate? I'm not sure that you can.
Anyway, my Uncle Jim told me that if he got the gun on target and the bullet hit, the target went down.
He also said that there were an awful lot of the M2s that just didn't work well in the extreme cold.
He believed that every Chinese soldier that he hit went down. The problem was hitting them. Between the awful weather, the general chaos of the situation and quality of the ammo, getting a shot on target wasn't always easy. A fair amount of the fighting was close range - a hundred feet or less at times. The Marines had to react quickly, so there wasn't always time to shoulder the weapon, get a good sight picture and squeeze off a round. They'd point and shoot. The idea, then, that the round wasn't penetrating may have come from the fact that if somebody points a rifle at you from a hundred feet away and shoots, you're going to flinch - somebody just shot at you! So, how do you tell a miss from a hit that doesn't penetrate? I'm not sure that you can.
Anyway, my Uncle Jim told me that if he got the gun on target and the bullet hit, the target went down.
He also said that there were an awful lot of the M2s that just didn't work well in the extreme cold.
- Status