Will a .30 carbine penetrate commie winter clothing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The .30 Cal. 110 grain bullet, with very poor sectional density, sheds velocity quickly and is not a great penetrator.

Close range would be ok, but it's no great man-stopper, that's for sure.

Longer range.......problems.
 
I've never shot a man,and I've never shot anything bigger than a jackrabbit with a carbine.

But I will ask a make a point

The Carbine is a .30 cal 110 gr bullet at 2000 ish fps.

The 7,63 x39 is a 123 gr 30 cal bullet at 2300/2400 fps.

Clearly the 7.62x39 is a step up from the 30 carbine.No argument.

But its just not THAT big of a step. 13 gr of lead and lets say 350 fps.

Some claim (right or wrong,I'm talking about the complaint factor)that the 7.62x 39 is superior to the 5.56 on the battlefield,yet we hear the 30 carbine round is brushed off and ignored by the enemy,won't even shoot through his coat..

I suggest a 30 carbine at 50 yds is not significantly different from a 7.62x39 at 200 yds.
 
I wonder how many cases involved a groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine fighting Chicom hordes at 2AM in 10 degrees and the wind howling.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30_Carbine
A postwar U.S. Army evaluation reported on the weapon's cold-weather shortcomings, and noted complaints of failure to stop heavily clothed North Korean and Chinese troops at close range after multiple hits.[8] An assessment of this rumour that the M1 carbine has difficulty penetrating a heavily clothed target produced a result contrary to the rumour during testing at close range during warm conditions.[9] The carbine was again issued to some U.S. troops in Vietnam, particularly reconnaissance units (LRRP) and advisors as a substitute standard weapon.
Click to expand...

8. S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry and Weapons in Korea 1950–51, 1st Report ORO-R-13 of 27 October 1951, Project Doughboy [Restricted], Operations Research Office (ORO), U.S. Army (1951)
8-11.jpg


9. "The Box O' Truth #8 - The Rags O' Truth".
http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-8-the-rags-o-truth/
 
Last edited:
I read an American Heritage article that questioned S.L.A. Marshall's methodology and accuracy.

There was an indication that Marshall was looking for evidence to support a preexisting bias.

My guess is a lot of soldiers missed, but thought they'd made a hit.
 
I like the carbine. Kind of a carry over from my father who loved it.

He carried the carbine in Burma during WWII w/41st Inf Div. He said it was far superior to the Garand, not because it was more powerful but because it was lighter, shorter and carried more rounds.

Add to that the farthest you could see was often no more then 25 yards. Being shorter it was easier to move through the thick jungle.

Having fought in the Jungles of Vietnam I could see his point. He also carried the Carbine in Korea, but he switch from the Army to the Air Force in '47 do I don't really know how much shooting he did in Korea.

He did tell me he brought down a water buffalo with one shot from his Carbine. Not to be outdone I did the same thing with my M16A1 in Vietnam.

As too the accuracy of the Carbine, I will concede that its not a long range rifle but at the distances you find in the Jungle, its quite accurate.

I've shot the Carbine (my CMP Underwood) in CMP Carbine matches which are fired at 100 yards. I've shot some good scores and seen good and better scores fired using surplus GI Ball. Its more then accurate enough for the distance one wound encounter in the jungles. But the target used in the CMP Carbine matches are quite a bit smaller then the 19 X 40 inch E Target used in the military.

I've never been to Korea, don't know much about it. But I have shot my Carbine at the USPSA targets out to 250 yards and had no problem keeping the rounds in the C Zone. I will admit I can do better with the M16a2 at distance.

I'm convinced most of those "failure to penetrate and stop" stories are actually "failure to hit and stop" and a case of blaming he equipment on poor shooting.

The Velocity of 110 gr 30 cal. Carbine bullet at 250 yards is about 1088 fps, or 289 Ft Lbs of energy.

According to test the Army conducted it takes 60 ft lbs of energy to produce a disabling wound (Hatcher's Notebook".

I'm no expert by a long shot but I do know 289 is more then 60, and I've shot enough carbine ammo out of my 1944 Underwood to know that I wouldn't have any problems keeping the bullets in a 19X40 inch target at 250 yards.

If talking about WWII era rifles, If I was humping and in the field for extended periods of time I would feel under-gunned with the carbine. If I didn't have to hump, and could easily get resupplied, I'd probably favor the Garand.
 
Are we maybe forgetting the carbine's role?

It was a weapon to replace the sidearm and act as a stop gap weapon for truck drivers and REMF's. It was so handy and cool to use that a lot of GI's tried to use it in a role for which it was not intended. Maybe with predictable results?
 
I spent some time searching yesterday, but I could not find the article or link... But I remember some dude did a test on 30 carbine ammo and found that at low temperatures (below 0) there was a pretty dramatic drop in velocity. I recall 300 fps drop. Again this is my memory of what I read.

Any one remember this?
 
But I remember some dude did a test on 30 carbine ammo and found that at low temperatures (below 0) there was a pretty dramatic drop in velocity. I recall 300 fps drop
Click to expand...

That may or may not be true. The AMU teaches that each 15 degree change in temp changes the impact 1 MOA.

Lets assume you sight the rifle when its 60 and shoot it at -10. That's a 70 degree change or 4.66 MOA.

I put the numbers in a BC program changing the vel from 2000 fps to 1700 fps and got a 4.1 inch difference (not moa but inch) change in impact at 250 yards, between the two temps.

The energy is still above what the Army says is needed to create a disabling wound.

You will find the velocity change with any round. What we cant determine, besides the out side temp, the temp of the powder and chamber of the rifle.

That is almost impossible to measure.

To give you an example. Go to the range and law 5 rounds in the son, and five rounds in the shade. Shoot each and see the difference. Be careful not to let the round set in the chamber as it will heat up the round (powder) making your test invalid.
 
The Frozen Chosin was fought in temperatures closer to minus 40.
Frankly, I'm fairly surprised to see the willingness of some to disregard the word of the men who were there, and to attribute the failures of the carbine to poor shooting ability.
While there were American servicemen in Korea who were barely trained, there were also many veterans of WWII with plenty of experience.
When the men of Fox company finally left their position, they policed up the weaponry. It was said that they left behind the carbines.
 
It's not necessarily a lack of skill, but the carbine is not capable of the accuracy that the Garand is, especial at distance. This could easily lead to a situation where a troop who had fought with a Garand in WWII is confident that he hit a man because he was accustomed to getting easy hits at, say 250 yards.

ETA: In regards to the issue of the veracity of soldier accounts, those of us who have served know that soldiers sometimes exaggerate or are simply wrong. I have had many soldiers insist to me that 5.56mm tumbles on the way to the target and an ODA SFC insisted to me that a M249 SAW fires from a closed bolt.
 
Last edited:
Those of us who have served and have Seen The Elephant draw on our experiences when we read of others. I did my fighting in steaming jungles, not at 0200 in freezing cold with the wind howling, but I know what sleep deprivation feels like, or when you've been issued or picked up a weapon you have never gotten to zero, and perhaps you didn't do that well in Basic Training-I can still clearly see my BCT CO chewing out a man in my squad because he fired 31-minimum score was 30-in Record Fire-"I had a cold, sir."
The pre-Korea Army wasn't particularly well trained, you had a lot of replacements who had been through Basic-and that was it, too much soft occupation duty in Japan had really dulled the fighting edge. Dropping a water buffalo with one round from an M-16 ? W.D.M. Bell hunted elephants with a 7MM Mauser and Charlie Askins and Jim Cirillo stopped plenty of bad guys with a 38 Special. Special people can do extraordinary things with ordinary equipment, ordinary people with special equipment...as we have said, it's the shooter, not the firearm.
 
amd6547 wrote: Frankly, I'm fairly surprised to see the willingness of some to disregard the word of the men who were there, and to attribute the failures of the carbine to poor shooting ability.
Click to expand...

I have been in -35 ambient outside and overnight. I don't know what the adjusted wind chill was but I can tell you that is miserable cold. Now put a soldier in that in leather sided and soled boots with two pairs of GI issue wool socks, wearing improper GI issue clothing (that was a common problem for our troops BTW) wearing ineffective jackets and poor or no gloves for days on end with little to no sleep and see if they can shoot straight. If you can wear their clothes and after being in -40 with 20-30 mph winds for 8 hours and shoot a dinner plate or better group at 100 yards with a Garand you are a better man than I am. Mind you that you can be rested and not under fire and I'll bet paychecks that you can't do it.

I knew a man who well was there and he had the permanent nerve damage from frostbite as a reminder every day until his death.
 
Wow lotsa steely eyed gents in here. a while ago, 30 years or so, some friends and I were drinking a few beers in a secluded spot on the Snake river. I had a 1911-A1 and a friend had a M-1 carbine and a couple of cinder blocks. The .45 busted the block and the carbine exploded its block. I read a book by a Marine in WWII Pacific who loved the carbine...Wish I could find a copy and read it again. The difference in group size between Russian steel case and my reloads is about half, but still not brag worthy. Lon Nol's troops had a lot of carbines and we know how well that worked out. I feel safe while on patrol for ground squirrels armed with my carbine but get a much larger body count with just about any other rifle I own. Just sayin.
 
When I was in Korea I carried a Carbine on occasion, usually a Thompson, always a 1911. Never felt under gunned with any of them. What is the point of this thread? The chances of a commie in winter clothing commiting a home invasion against your .30 Carbine are a bit remote.:D
 
I'm fairly surprised to see the willingness of some to disregard the word of the men who were there, and to attribute the failures of the carbine to poor shooting ability.
Click to expand...

The failure of the Carbine, and every other US Military firearm can be for the most part attributed to poor shooting on the part of the American Soldier. I've said that many times and I will continue to preach it.

I don't believe it is the fault of the individual soldier but the fault of the system. The military just does not put inference on marksmanship, it never has and since the Civil War the results have been well documented.

I could flood this site with proof, and attempts by others to correct the problem.

The present wars (Afghan and Iraq) have brought this to light mainly because of the presence of reporters on the battle field.

The Army tried to correct the problem with the Designated Marksman Program in which they train soldiers to shoot, and put them in the rifle squad.

We say the need for the SDM was needed because the M16/M4s just don't have the ability to engage targets at distance.

I call BS on that. To prove my point the M16/M4s are being used as the weapons in the SDM programs as we speak. Yes I said the M4, the short barreled version of the M16. With the military's 77 gr ammo it is capable of engaging targets up to 800 yards. Its being done in the AMY and NGMTU SDM courses as we speak.

Most units qualify twice a year. Normally a one day affair. And that's poor training at that. That's easy to prove. Take a group of soldiers to the range after their twice yearly training, put them on the firing like with shooters who just completed the CMP's Small Arms Firing School (a one day course) and you'll see the difference is Night and Day.

The Army is big on PT, normally several hours a week, often daily. Physical conditioning is extremely important, but so is the ability to shoot. I contend that if the military dedicated 10% of their PT time to marksmanship you would see a vast improvement in both our soldiers and their weapons.

But regardless whether is Korea with the Carbine, Vietnam with the M16A1, Iraq with the M4, soldiers on the whole cant shoot for poop.

There are exceptions of course.

Compare the first Golf war to the 2nd gold war. #1 was shock and all, no real need for the rifleman. There we needed MPs to handle the hundreds of thousands of people who couldn't wait to surrendered after the bombing campaign.

GW #2 was a whole new ball came, you need riflemen to engage enemy hiding among civilians. We had to create a whole new system of snipers and SDM instead of AF Bombing to protect the civilian population.

OK I'm off track, we're talking about the Korean war and the M1 Carbine. Back on topic. This is a quote from post war after action reports:

In peace time training we've gone in for too much damn falderal. We've put too much stress on information and not enough stress on rifle marksmanship..................These kids of mine have all the guts in the world and I can count on them to fight but when they started out they couldn't shoot, they didn't know their weapons..........
Click to expand...

It goes on but you get the jest.
 
I believe the army should train more than twice a year in rifle marksmanship. Its simply you hit 24+ and youre good to go. It doesnt take much to do it, and doing it only twice a year doesnt much hone your skills. Sometimes poor shooters just keep getting lucky.

Something i dont understand is the ability to qualify with an acog on the same tables as ironsight or cco. Doesnt make sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top