Will a .30 carbine penetrate commie winter clothing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andrew Wiggin

New member
Testing the rumor that North Korean soldiers' clothing could stop .30 carbine bullets. Winter clothing and Level IIA body armor is placed at 75 yards and backed by clay to simulate a soldier's body. It is then shot with a .30 carbine rifle to determine whether the clothing could actually stop .30 carbine.

Link to video of test
 
LOL. No kidding? :o

The point is that if even real body armor doesn't stop the round, it is very unlikely that any arrangement of clothing would.
 
Based upon personal experience, carbine rounds did penetrate clothing.
.45ACP from pistol was a 50/50 proposition. Same round from greasegun worked fine.
However, in the grand scheme of things, M1, BAR, Ma Deuce, Mortars, grenades, and flame throwers were a better solution to the problem.
Most of my time was with a BAR
 
There is several accounts giving in interviews by WW 2 Vets that talk about 1 shot kills with the little .30 . I have never heard from anyone that was actualy in Korea that said it would'nt penetrate the Winter clothing but remember some times the battles were fought at great distance wich could be a factor . No doubt that it is a efective round and studys have shown that the 110 gr bullet will expend most of its energy on target rather than zipping through .
 
Honestly, what person in 2015 still believes in these insane myths.

You gotta be a backwoods living, no internet having, never left the property for 30 years kind of person, wearing the same dirty overalls for 30 years with no shirt on, for you to believe in such non sense.
 
From reading "Last Stand of Fox Company", I believe there were issues. Those boys fought a very close range battle, and there were enough carbine failures that they even did field post mortums on dead Chinese soldiers in the wire.
They found some of the soldiers did wear what was described as home made woven vests under their thick padded uniforms. They also were found with drugs and alcohol.
My own view is that there was an issue with the ammo. A lot of the ammo in Korea was WWII vintage and may have spent years in hot ship holds and warehouses in Japan. That, and the bitter, bitter cold...40 degrees below zero.

In any case, back to Fox Company, word was passed down the line..."Men with carbines, aim for the head..."

I myself am a fan of the 30 carbine, being lucky enough to have bought one from CMP when they had them. I wouldn't hesitate to count on my Inland to take care of business out to 150yds.
 
We have a first run universal built with mostly plainfield and inland parts and its a slick shooter. Took a big (for AR standards) north ark buck with it and it DRT with old federal SP ammo. Its a fine brush gun and capable of almost all game where I hunt; minus bear, wouldn't feel safe.
 
Worked with a gent who'd served in the Army in the 50s. He was in Korea, but think by the time he gone through training and etc., he was sent to Korea shortly after the truce happened.

Anyway, one day we are eating lunch, swapping army stories and he comments about the carbine in Korea. Lots of guys wanted to carry the carbine instead of the Garand. Lighter to carry, more rounds in its magazine, capable of full auto and etc. Then they found out the carbine round had a problem with winter clothing enemy wore, just wasn't an effective round and all the carbine guys wanted to switch back to a Garand. His story, not mine.

LOL, nothing connected with this thread, but also he also told story of after Korea, he'll end up in West Germany. His unit in very rural area and they patrolled the border of West and East Germany. Russians had built and manned guard towers on their side of the border. One day he is with two guys patrolling the border in a jeep that had a 50 cal mounted on it. Gunner on it was a WWII vet, who'd never gone back home. Russian in one guard tower fired a burst of automatic fire just in front of their jeep and they slammed on the brakes. WWII vet, said the appropriate words and immediately responded with the 50 cal, chopping off two of the supports for 20' plus guard tower. It was quite a sight, watching the tower topple over and the two or three Russians in it falling out on the way down....they never had a problem getting shot at again. Then there was the day a Honest John missle unit assigned to their area accidentally fired one of them during a training exercise. Missile landed in nearby town, almost hitting its city hall. Fortunately, it did not detonate, but sure were some miffed Germans to deal with.
 
Think about it a bit: Relatively low-performance round. Figure that at any distance of a hundred yards or more and thick winter clothing in below-zero temperatures? Penetrate, yeah, but not much damage except in the heart or spine.

I stood guard duty at Inchon, Christmas Eve of 1954. 17 below zero, 20 mph wind, knee-deep snow. M-2 Carbine. If I'd had to try and shoot some slicky-boy? As bad as I was shivering I likely couldn't have hit a bull in the butt with a bass fiddle.
 
Interesting test.

Not sure if a canvas facing and 3 layers of denim with polypropaline (Modern synthetic) is equal to the heavy quilted overcoats worn by the Chinese...

And I don't think freezing the clothes is going to accurately reproduce combat at -20 F. For one thing, the shooter, gun and ammo are at shirtsleeve temp.

Also, I'm a bit less than impressed that the shooter couldn't hit the vest near the center. I for one, would only post a result that didn't show my crappy shooting. :D

GI have a strong tendency to shoot at the enemy when they see them. Personally, I think most of the "myth" about the carbine failing is a combination of some actual fails at longer ranges and the active imagination of the generations retelling the story since.

Say you shoot the guy with a carbine at 200yds, and he doesn't go down. FAIL. A moment later, the BAR gunner drops him. MUST have been the carbine fail.

ALSO, consider how the reports of the carbine bullet not reliably penetrating the winter clothes (particularly at longer ranges) has turned in to the carbine bullet NEVER penetrating the clothes at any distance, even point blank.

The .30 carbine is close (but not identical) to the .357 Magnum. Personally I give the .357 the edge in power. Now, is it surprising that a light (110gr) .30 cal pistol bullet isn't as good penetrator a penetrator as a .30-06?
 
You are absolutely correct that my clothing analog isn't exactly the same as what a North Korean soldier wore. I can't afford to buy a genuine North Korean uniform, especially just to shoot holes in. I'd be happy to repeat the test if you're willing to ship me a uniform to shoot up. In fact, to get the best possible reproduction of long range .30 carbine ballistics, you could send me a Blackhawk chambered in .30 carbine and I'll have my friend load some starting charge hand loads. :D

Although the rifle wasn't really properly zeroed, this is actually pretty representative of typical accuracy from an M1 carbine. I've seen the shooter in the video shoot 1.5-2 MOA groups with several different rifles so I know he can, it's just that the M1 (or M2) carbine just isn't all that accurate. That's actually the reason we placed the target where we did. It starts getting hard to hit the target reliably further out and that speaks to the real origins of this myth. Bullets aren't going to be bouncing off clothing at any normal range but GIs will swear up and down they got that guy. Now, I know that any one of you can hit a dime with your grand pappy's M1 carbine at 800m but for mortal men, 200 yards or so is about the limit to hit an E-type silhouette 9 out of 10 times.
 
The old M1 carbine was not known far & wide for accuracy. Nor was the G.I. ball it was feed. The weather conditions did not help the rifleman's marksmanship. I've read reports, that the Korean War was a low point for U.S. Military's ability to "kill". The guys would forget to take the safety off! Shoot the ground right in front of their foxhole, or shoot 20' above the heads of the on coming commies.

Easier to blame weapon than the man...
 
Sadly, I am in no position to fund testing, but my wife has a good feeling she can pick some winners when the track opens this spring. :rolleyes:

And don't worry about the shooting, its just that myself and my buddies would have kept doing "takes" until one of us wacked it somewhere near the middle, and that would be the one we put in the video. :D

But my real point is, that other than for fun, there's no real point to these mythbuster tests. Especially when you are trying to disprove something.

We have plenty of documented evidence about pistols sometimes not getting through heavy winter clothes at close range. Sometimes. And being stopped by belt buckles, books in the pocket, etc. Its rare, but it DOES happen.

A .30 carbine bullet, out past 100yds in extreme cold when ammo is at its weakest, is, essentially the same as a pistol bullet at closer range, so I don't find it unreasonable that it could do what a pistol bullet does.

You can't really prove it didn't happen, all you can prove is that you (or I) couldn't make it happen. Still its fun to try things and see some things for yourself.

Did you see the mythbusters one where they tried to bust the " sniper shot through the scope myth" ?

They couldn't do it.

Carlos Hathcock did it, and its a verifiable fact.
 
Yes, it sure is fun. The point I was trying to make, bad spring and all, is that even though it might be possible for clothing to stop a bullet at some distance, it isn't possible at distances at which a person could reasonably expect to actually hit. I believe the myth is based on 80% misses and 20% lackluster terminal effect.

Clothing, buckles, Bibles, and Zippo lighters don't stop bullets unless the bullet was fired from extreme range or hit something else first.

ETA: and thanks for watching and discussing with me. Talking about gun stuff is almost as fun as shooting stuff.
 
I don't see how anyone could claim any kind of a valid test without using the same type of clothing the Chinese wore. As far as shooting an enemy soldier at 300 yards with a carbine, it is pretty darned hard to even see a man at 300 yards if he is dressed in a uniform that blends at all into the background. If he was standing still on the skyline, I could probably hit him from a rest. But on a bitter cold day, with a high wind and bullets flying, and firing standing, I probably couldn't hit the guy at much over 50 feet.

Jim
 
recently

We kicked this around recently, and of course, it's still great fun now.

I'll add that I also read recently a scribe criticizing the carbine over its cartridge as a whole, that the .30/110 at 1800 fps was really a pistol cartridge, or words to that effect. Intended to replace a pistol, I'll agree. But the .30 pistol cartridges of the day, the .30 Tok/Mauser/Luger all come up about 600 fps slower than the carbine, and the carbine ctg is way ahead of the 7mm Nambu the the Nagant revolver by nearly 1000 fps, all with relatively equivalent bullet weights. Seemed like poor comparison to me.

I cannot quote a source, but am quite certain I have read of the carbine not functioning well in the exteme cold of Korea. The Garand and BAR were thought to run much better, due to the larger, higher pressure '06 ctg. For what its worth, I've read the the 20mm in the P38 :Lightning did not cycle as quickly as normal in the extreme cold over Europe, 'for first few rounds. The Allison V-12's didn't like it either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top