Now I really kinda doubt that .30 carbine failed to punch through N. Korean clothing

[FirstFreedom]

since 110 ball ammo penetrates equally as well as steel-core AP .30-'06! At least through water. Both went through 7 gallons of water, farther than the other rounds tested:


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm

Yeah, I know, clothing and flesh may be different, but I find it impossible to believe that a round that goes through the same amount of water jugs as a .30-'06 penetrator round would fail to go through even very very thick clothing. It may not be the best man-stopper out there, but the ball ammo in .30 carbine does not lack penetration through soft targets.

You gotta love the box of truth - he just keeps shooting stuff and adding pages. I predict his site will grow and grow until it becomes an iconic staple of gun lore.

[JR47]

I don't believe that the M1 Carbine failed to penetrate N. Korean winter quilted clothing, with or without ice. The winter clothing, with 1/4-1/2" of water ice was, in fact, tested at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in the 1950s. They had received numerous complaints about the ineffectiveness of that round on N. Korean soldiers, and were testing to see what, if any, effect the clothing had on the round. What they found was a marked decrease in the penetration in then-current mediums caused by the above-mentioned clothing. This became especially marked as ranges increased, typically beyond 100-150 yards.

It was also noted, from the same fronts, that the N. Korean soldiers seemed "drugged". The final decision was, that the .30 M1 Carbine Ball round was performing "adequately", given the range limitations of the round, and the intoxicated state of the targets.

When faced with line upon line of charging, shouting, men, the US soldiers opened fire at them as soon as they thought that they could score hits. In the heat of battle, with your comrades firing in earnest with M1 Garands, BARS, and Model 1919 MGs, it would only be natural for the Carbine equipped soldier to fire alongside them. With what was essentially a pistol cartridge, even in a long-barrelled carbine, the terminal effect at extended, for the cartridge, ranges would have been less than satisfactory.

As far as the box-o-truth goes, at 20', the .30 M1 Carbine Ball penetrated 6+ gallons of water. That means what? It penetrated 6+ gallons of water. Period. I'd like to point out that trying to translate gallon jug penetration with anything else, be it clothing, wood, steel, duct seal, pig carcases, or ballistic gelatin, at 100 to 150 yards, or to anyother distance except 20', isn't possible.

If these tests provided anything but good reading, they'd be used by the Army Wound Ballistics Lab, in lieu of expensive, and troublesome, calibrated ballistics gelatin. In these tests, the 110 gr. M1 Carbine slug proved as good as the 173 gr. AP .30-06. Would you like to bet your life on that? The .30-06 round was capable of armor penetration at 200 yds., and routinely tested for such as part of QC. The Carbine Ball wasn't rated for any armor penetration, at 1950 fps, it's normal velocity. The soldiers on the battlefront weren't complaining that the .30-06 didn't work, just that the the M1 Carbine didn't. The survivors of the battles could probably be counted upon to provide a "real-life" opinion that exceeds seven gallons of water, and two rounds fired from 20' away, wouldn't you think?

[FirstFreedom]

Well, the first thing you said was your conclusion or opinion that:

I don't believe that the M1 Carbine failed to penetrate N. Korean winter quilted clothing, with or without ice.

And you based it presumably on a variety of sources, one of which was the government's own ballistics tests at Aberdeen.

I arrived at the same conclusion with a knowledge of common sense, general ballistics, the box of truth tests, and a lifetime of exeriences.

Of course water is not flesh and clothing. But at some point, penetration through a fairly dense medium such as water becomes so overwhelming that it's impossible to believe that the round didn't penetrate heavy clothing and the bodies behind them, whether at 20' or 100 yards. After all that round is still going 1500-1550 fps at 100 yards, so how much less than 7 water jugs could that possibly represent less than 1950 fps? Not much. Point is, my conclusion, which happens to be identical to yours, is based upon facts quite solid and persuasive, even if not expensive ballistic gelatin with bone fragments. The reports of poor performance, at ranges for which the rifle was intended, MUST have been due to, either the lack of hydrostatic shock effect vs. .30 cal RIFLE rounds, OR lack of expansion, in combination with them being 'drugged', NOT simply lack of penetration, as is still bandied about as truth on gun boards and such.

And you're mixing apples & oranges. The .30 carbine is not SUPPOSED to punch through helmets and such at 200+ yards. It's supposed to go through clothing & bodies at that range and under. And it did. And it does. Not saying .30 carbine ball ammo OR even .30 carb. expanding ammo are a good man-stoppers necessarily, and certainly they are not as good as a rifle round, but this round (ball ammo) did NOT fail to stop a charging enemy BECAUSE the bullet is stopped cold in their heavy clothing or just under the skin, before reaching vitals. It's some other reason.

And lots of those 'real-life' opinions are second-hand or third-hand, even if they are from soldiers. A lot of hearsay gets passed down from soldiers/sailors/marines on the front to other support troops, and a lot can get lost in translation. I'd rather rely phyics than second-hand 'eye-witness' accounts. If a trooper that was THERE on in the s**t said "it didn't drop 'em in their tracks like the Garand did", I'd believe them in a heartbeat. I'd just fail to believe it's because the bullet didn't zip through their COM. It did; it just didn't do enough tissue damage.

[Pointer]

"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance...

Baffle 'em with bull****"...

EDIT

Forgive me... I meant no harm with my baffle 'em remark...

I do have a problem with long-winded threads and post that could say the same thing with fewer words piled on...

See Impact of Reason - Post entry # 11

Again, I'm sorry if I set a poor example...

[FirstFreedom]

I supposed if you're not of high enough intellect to understand perfectly-formed, yet complex sentences above a third grade level, I can see how you might very well be 'baffled', as you apparently are.

[DanM2000]

To quote a Korean War vet friend: "I don't like the carbine because you have to aim too much."

[JR47]

First Freedom, it's been my experience that repeatable, and scientific, tests have the most significance in the real world. The use of pseudo-science, such as shooting into gallon jugs of water from 20' away, cannot be extrapolated into the results of the same test at 100 yards, or more. If for no other reason than any graph needs at least two points to establish a curve.

My comparison related to the fact that, and I stated it quite clearly, according to the Box-o-truth, there was no significant difference between the penetration of the M1 Carbine Ball round, and the M2 AP Ball ammo for the Garand. The Garand ammo will penetrate a steel helmet at 200 yards, while the Carbine Ball won't. The inability of the more powerful round, with higher weight and velocity, to penetrate any further, simply shows that there are other variables at play here. Otherwise, you'd have to surmise that there was zero difference between the two in penetration.

As for the soldiers stories, I try to limit my belief to those who were actually "in the sh*&". If a man tells me that he was issued a carbine, usually an M2, and that the Koreans were falling to the M1 Garand, but requiring multiple hits from his carbine, I'm listening. The N. Koreans, and later the Chinese, weren't bulletproof, even to the M1/M2 Carbines, yet any number of decorated veterans have told me that the Carbine was better suited to warm-weather fighting. This included men who fought in both WWII and Korea.

http://www.winchester.com/ will give you the values for the 110 gr. FMJ. At 100 yards, it produces under 625 ft. lbs. of energy. This is a loss of just over one third from the muzzle. That's a considerable amount of energy lost in the first hundred yards, at 200 yards, it's just about the equal of most 9mm +P loads.

At 100 yards the 147 gr. FMJ from the same company is rated at 2,548 ft/lbs. of energy. At 200 yards, it's still 2,171 ft/lbs.

It seems a bit unusual that a heavier bullet, going much faster, is equal to a 110 gr. Bullet at a much reduced velocity as far as penetration goes. And that's what the Box-o-truth "proved". Right?

It amuses me, though, just to picture Carbine rounds bouncing off of Frankenstein like N. Koreans!!! Not happening at any reasonable range.

[Rebar]

I think it entirely possible a bad batch of old ammo, and a lot of myth-making since, is to blame.

[Ruger4570]

Everybody keeps loosing the point. The 30 Carbine was to replace a pistol, not the M1 or BAR or anything else other than the 1911 Colt 45. So, in fairness, compare those 2 and not every other battle weapon out there. The Carbine will NEVER equal the M1, so why do we still argue the point endlessly, but it does surpass the 45ACP it was supposed to replace or at least augment.

[TPAW]

FirstFreedom

since 110 ball ammo penetrates equally as well as steel-core AP .30-'06! At least through water. Both went through 7 gallons of water, farther than the other rounds tested:
Yeah, I know, clothing and flesh may be different, but I find it impossible to believe that a round that goes through the same amount of water jugs as a .30-'06 penetrator round would fail to go through even very very thick clothing. It may not be the best man-stopper out there, but the ball ammo in .30 carbine does not lack penetration through soft targets.

Where did you see the .30 Cal. and 30.06 jugded as "equal" in penetration? I find that difficult to believe?
I did see one test on TV, but the 30.06 was not tested. What I didn't like about the test was that the shooter was only 10 or 15 yards, maybe even closer, from the water jugs and pine boards. Many of the Korean Vets that I spoke to who had M1 Carbines, never let the enemy get that close if they could help it. Most shots were 50, 75, and 100 yards. Some further.
I would like to see the test done again at those distances. I'm sure the .30 Cal. Carbine would not fair as well.
Now that I've looked at the photos you posted, I'm being generous. Looks like the shooter is 10 to 15 FEET from the water jugs. Not a good comparison to the Korean situation.

[Impact of Reason]

just keep this in mind before you try to use this site as evidence for some argument.

The Box O' Truth - Disclaimer


Some negative comments require me to make some clarifications regarding the Box O' Truth experiments.
I am not a high dollar laboratory. I use "poor-boy" test methods.
While I try to maintain some scientific soundness in my tests, they are certainly not "scientifically perfect".
To have "scientifically perfect" tests would involve many, many controls and repeatability issues. I have neither the time, money, nor inclination to do such tests.
I am shooting things, taking pictures, and recording what I see. I do this for both my enjoyment and entertainment and for my friends.
I am not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just having fun and recording what I observe.
I am not recommending any brand or caliber of ammo based upon my observations.
If you disagree with what I observe, fine with me. But this is my site.
It's fun to shoot stuff.
Do not try to copy these types of experiments yourself. If you are injured, it is your sole responsibility and I will not be held responsible for any damage or injuries.



i love this guy's tests. they are very interesting, but even he admits he is not trying to prove anything. just for fun.

[Pointer]

Impact of Reason

Sounds like you're having a lot of fun...

Thanks for your clarifications...

Looking forward to seeing more from you...

I especially like the hydro-shock damage to your wooden frame...

Gaaawlee!

That is impressive.

[duck911]

Old_painless is my HERO!


It's fun to shoot stuff!!

[Badge1025]

I own a Carbine that I love to shoot. I lover the versatility of the rifle and feel comfortable if I need to use it in a defensive role. As I do appreciate the input of this thread, I find many are judging this rifle and it's power has been compared in bias.
This rifle was intended for and was The worlds first PDW. Not as a replacement for the Garand or BAR. Of course we all know this, I just wanted to remind some.
In the Pacific theater, this weapon was well within it's capacity. As the enemy wore light clothing due to the tropic weather.
If I was in the harsh winter where my intended target would wear thick clothing, I believe it is possible the round may have limited effect.
But the way I feel, that is why you have a 15 or 30 round mag. If I had to, multiple hits or a head shot would and could stop the threat.
No doubt the Garand would or could do the job with one well placed hit.
In my profession, I carry a 9MM with Hydro-Shock HP's in a Sig226. We have had tremendous success with one shot kills.
We are also issued the Colt M4 Police Carbine. In my opinion, I would rather carry a tactical type Carbine with collapsible stock, like the Auto-Ordnance AOM-160 as my cruiser rifle. My fear with the M4 and it's .223 is over penetration and power in an urban environment.
I agree that in some cases, the power of the .223 would be preferred based on the events of the L.A. shoot out. But again, multiple hits/head shot should be the point of aim.
My fear is this...Based on several agency shootings when the M4 was used, there were a lot of rounds unaccounted for. The last thing I would want is for an innocent to be killed with a stray round two streets away.
It boils down to having the right weapon for the right job. At any rate if I could choose, I would prefer to carry the Carbine.
20+ years on the job in Florida. Tropical climate=no worries.

[briandg]

It was more an issue of lack of disabling power because of that slippery round nosed fmj bullet.

It wasn't a terribly good combat round to use against crazed cannon fodder like the NK army was.

[Head-Space]

Yeah, yeah -- Well my uncle served in Korea and tells the story about the guy who got shot accidentally with the 30 cal. M1 Carbine. Put a hole in his outdoor winter clothes, but didn't penetrate him.

Of course it's true! He heard it directly, in the barracks over a poker game. And then he passed it on to me and my cousin.

[chris in va]

January 4, 2006, 11:22 PM

Went back 4 years to find that post. Not bad.

[p99guy]

I've seen some even praise the 7.62x25 fired from a PPSH41(even whizzes through M1952 flak jackets!), while damning the .30USC,(won't shoot though a canvas /cotton jacket) lol....oh lets see, a 86gr round nose fmj .30 pushing hard to make 1,700fps Vs. a 110gr .30 starting out at 1980fps.hmmmm wait a minute.

never let math get in the way of a good story

[Come and take it.]

nothing wrong with the 30 carbine. Its shortcomings are simliar to the 223 in some respect. Both are intermediate cartridges and hardball doesnt bode well with them when expansion is needed. When you take the 14.5 barrel of the m4 and compare ballistics they are close enough to kiss each other in energy.

To say a 30 carbine is worthless is to say the 357 magnum is worthless as well. There are a lot of guys who have take 357 magnum lever actions and taken deer down very effectively.

I have a dvd on korea (i think) which included all the cartridges including 30 carbine. It demonstrated how the round could penetrate a steel helmet out to a certian range and penetrate the door of a 6 ton at a certian range. I will try and find similiar contemporary clips off of youtube to establish these claims if possible.

[TPAW]

I spoke to a few Korean War vets at my VFW and asked them about the carbine. The two that saw combat said that the round would penetrate, but not always did it take the enemy out of commission. A few shots were necessary unless a vital organ was hit.

[Mike Irwin]

North Korean M1 Zombie threads walk the earth...


"I've seen some even praise the 7.62x25 fired from a PPSH41(even whizzes through M1952 flak jackets!), while damning the .30USC,(won't shoot though a canvas /cotton jacket) lol....oh lets see, a 86gr round nose fmj .30 pushing hard to make 1,700fps Vs. a 110gr .30 starting out at 1980fps.hmmmm wait a minute."

The thing about the PPSh was that, with its high rate of fire and its fairly effective compensator, there were often multiple bullet strikes on the same target in very rapid succession.

It wasn't uncommon for a GI wounded by a 7.62x25 to have 4 or even 6 bullet tracks in him.

The 7.62 wasn't known for its great wounding potential. The Nazis during WW II tended to call the round the Russian Ice Pick for a reason. But they knew what the Americans found out -- multiple hits do a lot of damage.

[sc928porsche]

Ok, so they did equally well at......well lets just say 20 feet. That means at 20 feet they would both be terminal. So, yes the old 45 acp, the 30 carbine, and the 30-06 would be terminal at 20 feet. So, what happens out at 400 yards? If you are going to do a test, do a complete test!!!!!!!

Yes, my volkswagon is as fast as your ferrari (as long as there is a 25mph speed limit).

[briandg]

The carbine with expanding bullets, just like a .357, would have been pretty good.

[kraigwy]

My father was in the SP during WWII, he told me about shooting water buffalo with a 30 cal carbine. I've killed Water buffalo with a M16A1.

I never shot any North Koreans but I wouldn't think they are tougher then water buffalo, even with winter coats on.

[Deaf Smith]

To quote a Korean War vet friend: "I don't like the carbine because you have to aim too much."

I kind of like that! For you see there is some truth in it.

Lt. Col John George, in his book, "Shots Fired in Anger" he wrote about being in several firefights, one even when trapped by a batallion of Japanese in Burma (he was in the 5307th.)

Before the war he was a competitor in rifle shooting in the Illinoise State Guard , even shot at Camp Perry national matches in '38, and has a photo in the book with him, his rifle, and lots of trophies as well as at Camp Perry. He wrote that he felt the skills he learned at competition did most certinaly reflect in combat shooting, in one case he would 'call the shot' in that he would put his sight on a Japanese and fire, then think 'head shot', next Japanese 'chest shot', and did this while retreating toward the frontlines (they were cut off.) His rifle he used to get out of that? An M1 Carbine!

Well Lt. Col. George felt the M1 Carbine was an ace weapon. But remember, he was a very good shot and not alot of GIs were. That may explain the difference.

And C. Shore, who wrote a book, "With British Snipers to the Reich ", also told about finding a Winchester made M1 Carbine in a ditch and he made it his personal rifle (he was a sniper.) He marvaled at it's accuracy out to 200 yards. Even used the Carbine to take deer with FMJ. BUT, he was a very good shot!

And hey guys, I also have a Carbine. It is my favorate go-to rifle. And yes, I am a good shot!