30 carbine: dead round?

[rightside]

My wife does not like any recoil, handgun or otherwise. When I handed her my A.O. carbine with a little six power scope and she started knocking the center out of the bull at 100 yards, that was all it took! She says "That's MY gun!" Hey, if it can someone to go shooting with you, what's not to like.

[CaptainO]

I have one piece of advice for you: Buy another M1 Carbine. I'll have to wait until next year to buy mine. When I do, it will be a "permanent" member of my arsenal.

It is superior to any pistol self loading pistol cartridge (for which I have a self loading cartridge).

The .30 Carbine is more powerful that either the 9mm Parabellum/Luger or the .45 ACP in a self loading carbine. The lighter bullet shoots than either of the pistol cartridges. This puts the .30 Carbine in a unique position a "middle ground" between rifle and pistol cartridges. (A "twilight zone" if you will). Not a great rifle round but better than any pistol round.

Rod Serling will be around to narrate this thread in just a minute!

[agtman]

.30 carbine: dead round?

Pretty much.

Intended to fill a perceived niche in the U.S. military's battery of combat weapons in the '40s and '50s, it did so with only marginal competence even when viewed in its best light.

Today, in a 5.56mm world, the .30 carbine is little more than an interesting relic. Sure, it makes for collectible fun and can provide teachable moments to the "youngens" about military history and the Greatest Generation, but that's about it.

There's also nothing wrong with just owning an M1 carbine for range plinking or coyote sniping, but for about anything else both the cartridge and its weapon are way overrated.

[CaptainO]

If it's dead, why are three companies manufacturing new rifles for it? It is a "niche" cartridge for certain, but not dead.

[bamaranger]

Yes, I've seen the movie, know a bit about WWII, and have read some books. here is what one article says about the .30 carbine ctg. Written by noted author and historian Konrad F. Schreir Jr, and titled "History of the M1 Carbine" , here are his comments regards the cartridge. I will take them out of their respective paragraphs for brevity:

-"The reasons for the choice of caliber are a complete mystery."
-"The .30 Carbine cartridge was suggested by Mr. Edwin Pugsley of Winchester, but why he suggested it, or why the Army adopted it is very puzzling in light of previous US Army knowledge and experience."
-"The .30 Carbine cartridge was adopted without any developmental testing to speak of, and this is very unusual in the US Army."
-"Then, perhaps, a .35 or .40 cal carbine might have been adopted instead of the .30,and the biggest single deficiency in the carbine--it's ammunitions's ineffectiveness-would have been avoided.

Apparently Schreier didn't get it either.

[kcub]

Once you shoot one you understand why it lasted way longer than it should have.

[mavracer]

-"Then, perhaps, a .35 or .40 cal carbine might have been adopted instead of the .30,and the biggest single deficiency in the carbine--it's ammunitions's ineffectiveness-would have been avoided.

Of course the whole inneffectiveness of the ammo has been debated over and over, from my point of view it was extremely effective for it's intended purpose and so effective in fact it got put into rolls that it was never intended for, again IMHO most of the storys of it's lack of power were from guys standing next to a guy with a Garand.

[44 AMP]

Apparently Schreier didn't get it either.

Apparently not.

I have a good friend with a much more extensive reference library than I have, I expect to be seeing him this weekend and will do some research. Will be interesting to see what some other "noted authors and historians" have said, in reference to the 4 points you listed.

Thank you for taking the points out of context for brevity, and I hope we can avoid errors in understanding, because of that.

My personal response to those points, (going strictly from memory, and my understanding of what he said) is.

The first two, where he uses "complete mystery" and "very puzzling" indicate the author's opinion, about facts he apparently does not have.

Commonly "known" history is often somewhat at odds with verifiable actual history, so I'll be doing some research for actual verifiable facts.

Legend has it that the caliber choice was either a military requirement, or was Winchester idea, accepted by the military. I'll see if I can find any proof, either way.

#2 and #3, commenting on "puzzling in light of previous US Army knowledge and experience" and "adopted without any developmental testing to speak of, and this is very unusual in the US Army", can, I think be explained by the fact that there was a war on, and the Army, being under just a bit of pressure, departed from their usual peacetime practices for procuring arms.

Again, I shall look for verifiable references.

#4, commenting again on the caliber, " the biggest single deficiency in the carbine--it's ammunitions's ineffectiveness" is arguable, depending on two main points, #1 what the carbine's "single biggest deficiency" actually is, and #2 what definition of "ineffectiveness" should properly be applied to the ammunition.

Both the effectiveness, and lack of same from .30 carbine ammo are legendary. Legend is often an embellishment of the actual fact both ways.

[bamaranger]

I look forward to any info you may gain in your research. If you believe a PM is appropriate so we do not side track the thread, by all means, use that route. Seems like I batted this topic around a bit last year at some point.

The Pederson Device, was also .30, so maybe the Army specified the caliber, I dunno either. I'm beginning to believe that the Army knew near exactly what it wanted in a "Light Rifle" to supercede the handgun, but did not give any major thought to cartridge. They knew what kind of "launcher" they wanted, but were short in the "missle" they should launch from it. Which seems like a bit of reverse engineering to me. Which is the source of my pondering the .30 cartridge selection, when Winchester had considerable experience with other, more powerful SLR cartridges. A M1 carbine designed around .351/.401 SLR, with a steel cored or redesigned FMJ lighter bullet, would likely exceed 2000 fps easlily,and would have given the carbine more punch.

Perhaps for expediencies sake, as you suggest, due to the oncoming hostilities, ( as near as I can tell, the Winchester "carbine" was adopted prior Dec'41) .30 was indeed chosen almost by default.

[44 AMP]

The Pederson Device, was also .30, so maybe the Army specified the caliber, I dunno either.

I can answer this one without even looking it up. No "maybe" was involved. The Pedersen device was made to fit specially modified M1903 Springfield rifles, cal .30-06. .30 cal wasn't "a choice" for the Pedersen device, it was the ONLY possible choice.

[CaptainO]

Since the .30 Carbine was adopted by Army Ordnance on September 30, 1941, It was in the war with both the Army and the Marines from the early days of WW2.

Many are surprised at precisely how efficient at it's intended ranges. (In civilian and police settings), it is even more effective with soft point ammunition.

Jim Cirillo attested to the cartridge's efficacy after 20 gunfights with the Carbine. (Read his book "Tales of the Stake Out Squad" and discover this for yourself).

Plainly put, it is a "man-hunting" carbine.

Enough said.

[44 AMP]

It was in the war with both the Army and the Marines from the early days of WW2.

Technically correct, but the reality was somewhat different. It takes time to manufacture rifles in quantities great enough to equip units, let alone entire armies. Like the M1 Garand, there were some in the inventory before the start of the war, but there were not enough to "go around" and indeed, some units ended WW II with the same 1903 variant bolt guns they had when the war started.

The Marines who landed on Guadalcanal in Aug 42 fought that entire campaign with Springfields, Garands only showing up in small numbers, until Army units arrived with them.

Like wise the Carbine. as production ramped up, more and more got to the troops, but it was still over a year before significant numbers were in the hands of the troops. Priority of allocation meant that some combat units didn't see the carbine until much later than that.

One interesting fact I ran across (and research is continuing), is that during the war we built around 2.5 million Garands, and over 6 million carbines!

[kcub]

Was it that the army had priority over the marines or that the European theatre had priority over the Pacific theatre?

[CaptainO]

It took a while to "ramp up" production through 1942-1945. Inland produced a great number of those during WW2, the rest produced by the remaining 8 manufacturers.

[44 AMP]

Was it that the army had priority over the marines or that the European theatre had priority over the Pacific theatre?

There was a clear, and official policy of "Europe first". Nazi Germany was considered to be the bigger threat, and had to be dealt with, first.

Ironically, we actually went on the offensive, on the ground, in the Pacific, months before we did in Europe / Africa.

[CaptainO]

The M1 Carbine garnered a great deal of praise in the Pacific Theatre when in the hands of the Army, Navy and the U.S. Marines. They worked then, and they work today. The judicious use of 110 grain JSP or the 110 grain Hornady FTX ammunition are extremely effective! Firing these from an 18" barrel kill deer efficiently at ranges up to 100 yards. No problems here.

People call the .30 Carbine "obsolete" because they have been brainwashed into believing that "if it isn't as powerful as what the military is currently using, it isn't effective". When I was in Broadcast School (during the late 1970's) we learned a phrase that is appropriate in this case... "The public is an idiot". In this case, I wholeheartedly agree.

American ammunition manufacturers had to quickly reformulate the 5.56 x 45 ammunition to reduce it's penetration. (The military was using FMJ that overpenetrated in both civilian and Police settings). A simple JSP makes the .30 Carbine the logical choice in urban settings. The 5.56 x 45 is "overkill". If the AR15/M16 hadn't been "given" to Police Departments, the .30 Carbine would have continued to have served, and served well.

"If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

[raimius]

When was the 5.56 redesigned to reduce penetration? I'm pretty sure one of the key requirements was penetrating a steel helmet at several hundred yards...

[CaptainO]

The police really need to penetrate steel helmets, right? Grow up, fella. this isn't a "military" application, is it? Unless you are looking forward to a 'police state' right? .

The civilian/police lads are called "hunting loads" and "hollow points".

[trg42wraglefragle]

There seems to be too major camps here.
One being that 30 carbine is obsolete and useless.
The other being that it's a magic round punching above it's weight.

The reality is, it is a niche round, built in a niche rifle and service a niche purpose. All of which it does perfectly.
Outside of a M1 carbine there is no reason to get one, but who cares.
The M1 carbine has a awesome history, is short and light and is useable for small/medium game and plinking keeping within the 30 carbines limits.

[CaptainO]

Absolutely. Not everyone needs a "hyper.22" which is precisely what a 5.56 x 45 is. The reason that the .30 Carbine is "better" for HD/PD, is that,

a) The .30 carbine is lighter than the AR15 (about 1 pound) and,

b) has a lower recoil than the AR. (I'll grant you, it's not a great deal less, but when you're waking up in the wee small hours of the a.m. to confront someone, I'll take every advantage I can)!

c) the AR is excellent over 100 yards, but how many HD/PD rounds are fired at more than 30 feet? Really?

Is the AR in a house that "wonderful"? I don't think so.

[trg42wraglefragle]

Absolutely. Not everyone needs a "hyper.22" which is precisely what a 5.56 x 45 is. The reason that the .30 Carbine is "better" for HD/PD, is that,

a) The .30 carbine is lighter than the AR15 (about 1 pound) and,

b) has a lower recoil than the AR. (I'll grant you, it's not a great deal less, but when you're waking up in the wee small hours of the a.m. to confront someone, I'll take every advantage I can)!

c) the AR is excellent over 100 yards, but how many HD/PD rounds are fired at more than 30 feet? Really?

Is the AR in a house that "wonderful"? I don't think so.

If a confrontation is happening 30 feet away, I doubt the difference in recoil is going to make any difference, or 1 pound of weight for that matter.
An AR is also shorter than a M1 carbine if it is in a M4 configuration.
Most importantly using light jacketed 55gr or less .224 bullets, there will be less risk of over penetration or if you miss your target, the bullet killing someone in the next room/house.

If 30 carbine was better than 223/5.56 then the police and counter terrorism/special forces would use it, which they do not.

[CaptainO]

The Police use the .30 Carbine until they decided to go "ultra-military" with the M4.

Strange, why did Jim Cirillo, the "sage of the gunfight" and the New York "Stake Out Squad" prefer the M1 Carbine, establishing a 20 shootout, 20 kills record with the M1 Carbine in urban settings? Read his book, then come tell me this modern-day cross between Wyatt Earp and a Texas Ranger was "foolish" enough to use such an "inadequate" cartridge/rifle combination? He was one of the most celebrated police "shottists" of all time.

His preferred setup? An M1 Carbine with a feeding ramp smoothed and beveled to feed (and shoot) the Winchester 110 grain Hollow Soft Point. This, coupled with his 4" barreled Smith & Wesson Model 10, killed more holdup men than you could shake a stick at! How can you argue with that?

Accuracy, not "spray and pray" worked for Detective Cirillo. The M4 was available, but he didn't use it. Why? His accurate shot placement won our over "volume of fire" every time! Today's police obviously don't have either the training or mental "sang froid" to place their shots accurately.

The police don't train for rifle marksmanship any longer. It seems that they need to cut loose with a three round burst in order to be effective.

That, in and of itself, should tell us something.

[kcub]

The 30 carbine is largely out of fashion. All the more modern ammo with expanding bullets came long after it's heyday. If gun companies updated it and came up with a spifty new design like the ps90 or a bullpup it could be as short as short gets. I doubt the best 30 carbine loads could out perform the best 223/5.56 loads but I bet they could out perform the 5.7 which has become it's de facto replacement.

[trg42wraglefragle]

The 30 carbine is largely out of fashion. All the more modern ammo with expanding bullets came long after it's heyday. If gun companies updated it and came up with a spifty new design like the ps90 or a bullpup it could be as short as short gets. I doubt the best 30 carbine loads could out perform the best 223/5.56 loads but I bet they could out perform the 5.7 which has become it's de facto replacement.

Problem is the magazine capacity would suffer, trajectory would suffer, penetration would suffer and over penetration could become a problem.

30 carbine worked great in the M1, and was perfect for the role it was designed for. If gun manufactures had seen a market to keep it in production, all these ideas would exist all exist today.
9mm was the de facto replacement, 5.7x28 and 4.6x30 are pretty new kids on the block.

[CaptainO]

Unfortunately, today's shooters act as if they are women trying out a new fashion. If it isn't "in vogue" they are horrified! It's as if they must have the "latest and greatest" cell phones. "Nothing outperforms my new 5.7mm 'Zapp' cartridge with a furshlugginer suppressor". What nonsense! By the way, Jim Cirillo was using the 110 grain Winchester Hollow Soft Points while working with the NYPD "Stake Out Squad" as early as 1966. It has been working "on the streets" for 50 years, so it isn't a "Johnny-come-lately" load. He killed more than 10 men this way. (Hint, hint).

I can kill you just as quickly at 100 yards with an M1 as I can with an M4. (And I don't have to carry 100 rounds of 5.56 x 45 ammunition if four belt pouches to do it either). Dead is dead. Modern shooters change their armament as readily as the FBI changes it's underwear. The Feds went from a 158 grain LSWCHP+p from 3" barrel, to a 10mm "lite" from a 5" barrel, to a .40 S&W with the same weight bullet as the 10mm with a 4" barrel then back to the 9mm (with a 4" barrel).

Today, the "trendy" shooters are doing the same thing, because "The Feds must have it figured out, thus they have it right"! (Everyone else has to follow the "trend" or they are completely clueless)!

Phineas T Barnum was right... "There's a sucker born every minute"!

Eh, it keeps the gunzine writers and gun manufacturers employed, cranking out all that additional hardware.