The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 20, 2025, 08:48 AM   #1
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 775
45ACP Pistol vs 30 Carbine M1

So, was the M1 Carbine as effective a weapon as the 1911A1 in close range combat.

We can, if you want include 1911A1/M1 Carbine shoot ability to the discussion.

45 cal 230 @ 850 vs 30 cal 110 @ 1900, I think it’s a toss up, maybe.
Pumpkin is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 10:15 AM   #2
jreidthompson
Junior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2018
Posts: 9
My guess is the m1 would allow more combatants to put more rounds on target than than the 1911 and so would be more effective. I know I'd rather have the rifle than the pistol.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
jreidthompson is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 11:15 AM   #3
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,790
If you mean ability to get hits.. i think the answer is absolutely. A light recoiling SHOULDER fired weapon is much easier to hit with than a (relatively) heavy recoiling HANDGUN.

Most US mil dont get much training with a handgun.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 11:46 AM   #4
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,636
effectiveness

The .30 carbine cartridge has considerably more range and I suspect penetrating power against moderate barricades than the .45 acp. The GI soldier as a rule will shoot the carbine better (I think we all shoot any shoulder weapon better). The carbine armed soldier will likely carry more ammo than a soldier armed with a .45 acp handgun. I suspect the average M1 carbine has mechanically more accuracy than a 1911 handgun at any range.

All this adds up to the .30 carbine being a far better WEAPON than the .45 acp handgun for combat. Comparing JUST the cartridges I think the .30 carbine is superior as well, certainly past 100 yds.

All that said, the Thompson stoked with the .45 acp was as effective as any other subgun in the war, and more than some others. I suspect the Thompson was not as popular as Hollywood would have us believe however. The subgun armed soldier suffered from loss of range and penetration power when compared to the soldier with a full power rifle. Plus the dang things were heavy, as heavy, or heavier than the M1 RIFLE. The SMG was sort of a niche weapon. In urban and jungle fighting it would seem desirable, in the woodlots and fields of Europe, not so appropriate.

I've posted previously that I had the opportunity to train a lot of Bureau of Prison personnel with handgun and surprisingly the M1 carbine. Everybody shot the carbine better.
Interestingly, I finished a read just recently in a small autobiography written by a local WWII vet. He was part of a LMG
bamaranger is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 01:45 PM   #5
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 775
bamaranger, you bring up a good point.

Let’s include the Thompson and the M2.

Did the .30 110gr bullet tumble much after contact? I would agree with the penetration being greater.
Pumpkin is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 04:32 PM   #6
rc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,914
It seems there is some wiggle room in this conversation. The 30 carbine is meant to increase the effective range of the person armed with it over the 45 ACP. At close range, the 45 may have a slight advantage in actual stopping power if you believe the LaGarde Tests. When they did the test 30 carbine wasn't invented, but they did test 30 luger. While slower with a bit lighter projectile, it tended to poke holes in things but not stop them from functioning as fast as the slower 45 slugs. Does the 30 carbine up close have enough extra shock from the extra speed to make up the difference??? Not sure but there are reports wounds from the Italian 6.5 was easier to patch up than the 8mm or 30-06 wounds and we know 5.56 tends to poke tiny holes in things with less stopping power than the bigger rounds.
rc is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 05:26 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,086
Quote:
So, was the M1 Carbine as effective a weapon as the 1911A1 in close range combat.
Quote:
Let’s include the Thompson and the M2.
Also include the M3 and M3A1 too!

I have spoken with a lot of WWII, Korean, and Viet Nam combat vets, and their opinions vary widely, along with their personal experiences.

Some will expound widely on the effectiveness of a certain weapon/cartridge over others, often because it saved their personal butt.

Others take a more pragmatic approach, and rate "effectiveness" based on their personal observations, sometimes rating different weapons and rounds the same, because "I shot the guy, and he fell down".

Some points to consider,...
First, yes a long gun is easier to use and use accurately than a handgun. Don't know if it is still the number in use, but in earlier times, the handgun was considered 3x more difficult to master than the long gun.

Next point is, training. The US military never put the effort into training needed to make troops good pistol shots. We simply couldn't, and many of those I've spoken with never got more than one day's instruction, including range time. A lot of the guys we sent into combat, especially in the later years of the war, got very little training, and had to "learn on the job". Sometimes, that lead to disasterous results.

The .45 Pistol is a combat weapon, but its not an offensive weapon by intent, though some individuals have used it with good results that way.

Officers and others not intended to be "front line shooters" got pistols. Some got SMGs. The carbine was created to give the "non shooters" something they could use more effectively for their own defense than the pistol.

War is always a learning curve, and it turned out the carbine was a very useful combat weapon. By the time we invaded Europe, you find a lot, possibly the bulk of our infantry squads having a mixture of weapons, M1 Rifles, M1 Carbines, SMGs, and the 1911A1, supported by BARs and Browning .30s and .50s where possible.

Not all, by any means, but often. There were some units that fought the entire war armed with 1903 Springfields.

The Carbine was certainly more "effective" than the 1911A1 overall, because it had more range, more power, and was easier to hit with than the pistol.

On the other hand, within its limits, the pistol is very effective, and there are situations where even the small size and weight of the carbine (compared to a full size infantry rifle) is still too much.

There's no free lunch.

one fellow I worked with for several years loved the carbine and hated the Garand. Mostly because he never had to shoot anyone, with either one. He was a telephone lineman in Korea, carried the carbine in the summer, and was ok with that, but hated it when they took away his carbine and made him carry a Garand in the winter!

Was the carbine more effective than the 1911A1 for personal defense? Probably, and most likely because being a long arm it was easier to hit with, and it held 15 shots. On that basis, the .45 cal SMG was also more effective, than the pistol. Easier to hit with, held more shots, and was full auto.

Advantage to the pistol is its something you can have ON you, all the time, (or in your sleeping bag, or at the latrine), advantage to the long gun, all the rest of the time...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 09:05 PM   #8
GHOL
Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 2024
Posts: 21
.30 carbine gets a bad rep as underpowered, but it could have been pretty good with some more powder.
GHOL is offline  
Old January 20, 2025, 11:05 PM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,086
Quote:
.30 carbine gets a bad rep as underpowered, but it could have been pretty good with some more powder.
I doubt it.

First point, you'd need a bigger case in order to get enough powder in it to make a significant improvement, and second, even if you did, ignorant people would still compare it to the .30-06, and find it wanting.

In civilian terms, the .30 carbine is slightly less powerful than a Marlin 1894 carbine in .357 magnum. If you wouldn't do it with that, you shouldn't try it with a .30 carbine.

The .30 carbine is classed as an intermediate power round, using the definition developed during WWII, more powerful than the standard pistol round, and less powerful than the standard infantry rifle round.

In that, we were actually ahead of Germany.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 12:26 AM   #10
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 22,175
John George (Shots Fired in Anger, served at Guadalcanal and Merill's Marauders) liked the 30 carbine but he'd headshoot the Japanese.
Another guy who was good with his carbine was Audie Murphy.

A light carbine is easier for most people to handle than a handgun. It's steadier has lighter recoil.

I wish I got a 22 Spitfire barrel when they were around. Same magazine, extractor & ejector and no changes other than the barrel.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 02:07 PM   #11
10-96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Tx Panhandle Territory
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
I wish I got a 22 Spitfire barrel
Wasn't that the same ctg as the 5.7 Johnson round that (I think) Israel came up with? I wish I would have jumped on that train too!
__________________
Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day)

I suspect a thing or two... because I've seen a thing or two.
10-96 is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 03:48 PM   #12
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,636
vets & Audie

Not sure what happened on my previous post, it got cut off.......

Anyhow, this local autobiographer was part of an LMG team in Europe. He states he was armed solely with a pistol when he arrived late in Europe. As an ammo bearer, he states he claimed he carried a .30 cal can in each hand and the pistol on his belt. He further stated he fired the pistol once in combat, a full magazine, at a bell tower considerable distance (200yd?) away from which they were taking fire until they got the LMG set up. I would have traded that pistol PDQ for a pickup carbine at first opportunity. His accounts are interesting, for there are lots of interesting incidents of poor soldiering by himself and his team....big contrast to crack outfits like the Airborne.

Audie Murphy liked the carbine, though he used other weapons situationally. In his book, he describes shooting enemy soldiers w/ multiple rounds from the carbine, which certainly solved any stopping power issues. Murphy was small stature, the carbine would have been more manageable for sure. He was also apparently a dang good shot.

Tumbling? All bullets go unstable at some point. The carbine was twisted 1:20 which is a little slow by .30 cal measure, but plenty adequate to stabilize the short 110 gr ball bullet. I've never read any discussion regards the carbine bullet being particularly unstable. Conversely, I've read it was a good penetrator and stable. Same discussion mentioned that the carbine really needed an expanding bullet for civilian/LE work because of that. Sorry no sources for that recollection. BOP used FMJ/ball in their carbines regardless.

I really like the war baby, and should have bought one when the Blue Sky imports were so common and reasonably affordable. Whether it would have run or not is another issue.
bamaranger is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 09:06 PM   #13
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,926
The 30 Carbine was best used inside 50 yards and against smaller soldiers wearing light summer clothes. It was much more popular and effective in the Pacific than Europe because of this.

Keep in mind that only 10% of US soldiers in the European theater were actually on the front lines fighting. 90% were in support positions behind the front lines keeping the supplies moving, trucks fueled and in repair, cooking food, and treating the wounded among other things.

But front lines can and sometimes did rapidly change catching these soldiers on or behind the front lines. The 30 Carbine was an ideal weapon for them. It was a much better option than a 45 handgun by every metric. It was cheaper to manufacture, easier to shoot accurately, held more rounds and was more effective.

Dad didn't go ashore on D-Day but was sent over as a replacement later. According to my dad the 1911 and 45 were not particularly well liked. Given an option they would choose the Carbine every time.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 09:27 PM   #14
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,349
I suspect any of them,including the .30 carbine,are better with the right expanding bullet.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 21, 2025, 11:44 PM   #15
GHOL
Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 2024
Posts: 21
My main concern is the .30 Carbine's ability to stop an attacker. There's more to terminal ballistics than foot pounds of energy, isn't there?

I see and hear all the time how .30 Carbine really isn't an effective cartridge, even with JHP's.
GHOL is offline  
Old January 22, 2025, 12:41 PM   #16
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
I see and hear all the time how .30 Carbine really isn't an effective cartridge, even with JHP's
I think its a matter of perspective. When its compared to a M1 Garand in 30-06 its pretty weak. When compared to a pistol it is solidly in the 357mag class (110gn @ 1900fps). Thats nothing to sneeze at.

Is it a good open ground 200yard+ cartridge. Nope. As a short range PDW type weapon i think its fine.

Guys rely on 9mm PCC’s for home/self defense 9mm = 115gn @ ~1500fps from a 16” barrel….seems the 30carbine beats that by a little.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old January 22, 2025, 02:27 PM   #17
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 30,086
Quote:
When compared to a pistol it is solidly in the 357mag class (110gn @ 1900fps). Thats nothing to sneeze at.
No, its not something to sneeze atm but to be fair, you should compare rifle to rifle (carbine) and pistol to pistol.

Comparing top loads from both, in equal barrels, the .357 had advantages in every area, and as much as 10% or so in several.

First off, the .357 has wider, heavier bullets.
Second, the .357 has a pretty solid 200fps+ velocity advantage and with a heavier bullet! (125gr)

Not much of a consideration to the military, but one that ought to be taken into account by a private citizen choosing a self defense weapon.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 22, 2025, 02:41 PM   #18
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
but to be fair, you should compare rifle to rifle (carbine) and pistol to pistol.
Maybe check out the title of the thread…
Sharkbite is offline  
Old January 22, 2025, 07:09 PM   #19
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 775
Sharkbite,

Yes thank you, although I know we/I might have sniffed around the proverbial rabbit hole a few posts back.

Does anyone have any knowledge that the M1 was Not supposed to replace the 1911 in some instances? If so please share.

From what I have been reading the past few days the Carbine was very well liked, apparently also by the enemy at the start of the Vietnam conflict using abandoned French M1’s.
Pumpkin is offline  
Old January 22, 2025, 09:44 PM   #20
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,790
Pumpkin,

Not aimed at you. I was told by 44AMP it compare pistols to pistols.

I have stated before, i think the 30carbine was a GREAT little PDW for its time. Easier to shoot than the 1911, especially for semi-trained troops. Higher capacity. Low recoil. Better sights. Lighter ammo (more rounds for the same weight).

I think it has been surpassed by shorter barreled AR’s as a self-defense tool. But if a 30carbine is all i have…i wouldn't cry too loud about it.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old January 23, 2025, 09:16 AM   #21
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 997
"... Most US mil dont get much training with a handgun ... "

Most soldiers think that if a man is reduced to a handgun in a firefight, it's pretty much already over. At least, that's what I've heard.

"As a short range PDW type weapon i think its fine."

The carbine was for those who needed a PDW but needed something lightweight/not so cumbersome. Officers, for example, since they're already carrying other gear: maps, dispatches, etc. Radiomen, for another example. Efficacy of the caliber was not the primary consideration.
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old January 23, 2025, 09:52 AM   #22
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 14, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,539
The M1 Carbine was an amazingly successful, useful, and popular firearm.

It was never intended to be a front-line combat weapon with the exception of specialist troops like Paratroopers, but it quickly became amazingly popular with front line troops.

But it wasn't universally popular.

My great uncle was in the 82nd and saw significant combat with them through the war. He was originally issued an M1 Carbine but said it didn't take him long to find someone who wanted to trade his Garand for a Carbine. He would never say exactly why he traded the Carbine, but I can only assume that it was a case of the Carbine bullet failing to stop someone he was shooting at.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old January 23, 2025, 11:39 AM   #23
Shadow9mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 4,432
rifles beat handguns, thus 30 carbine wins.
__________________
I don't believe in "range fodder" that is why I reload.
Shadow9mm is offline  
Old January 23, 2025, 11:55 AM   #24
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,636
archives

Just lately I've been watching a lot of archival footage, shot late in the war, well into Germany. Lot of footage of surrenders, engineers, AA outfits around bridges and so on. Good bit of infantry laden armor passing through, some footage near front line as in Cologne.

The carbine is EVERYWHERE.
bamaranger is offline  
Old January 23, 2025, 12:03 PM   #25
Pumpkin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2020
Location: Seguin Texas
Posts: 775
If RUGER made a copy of one there would be some serious negotiations with the Boss happening
Pumpkin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2024 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06589 seconds with 10 queries