45ACP Pistol vs 30 Carbine M1

[Pumpkin]

What other changes would you like to make on the M1 to fit your arguments?

This started out as a 1911A1 vs M1 Carbine question, I think we may have drifted off course a little.

[Mike Irwin]

"Well, you are going to have to find room for .220+“ of cartridge length in the gun. "

OK, couple of responses to that.

First, as I noted above, powder technology had advanced dramatically in the 30+ years since the .351 had been developed. It possible that a speculative .351 cartridge could have been shortened and still meet the ballistics that I described using as then modern IMR powders.

Also, the entire premise of my thesis is that the Carbine would have been developed around a .351 cartridge, not shoehorned into the .30 caliber carbine framework after the fact. A bespoke .351-based carbine, which would have been developed to accommodate whatever cartridge length was required.

I'll repeat that so we're clear... My premise is that a .351 chambered carbine would have been developed as a .351 carbine from the ground up, NOT shoehorned into the as-manufactured .30 caliber framework.

So, as I note above, such a carbine likely would have had a longer action and would have been heavier.

But again, speculation on my part.



"I don't have the specs, but I think the converted carbine with the heavier barrel went a pound (Or maybe more) heavier than the original .30 M1 carbines."

Which is about what I estimate would have the case in a bespoke .351-chambered carbine.

"While happy to get "the best", what the Military actively sought and demanded was "good enough", not "the best". Good enough to perform the mission. Good enough to match the enemy and defeat them, and, within budget."

Uhm... yeah... nowhere am I saying that that is NOT the case.

Nowhere have I said that a .351 chambered carbine would "be the best!"

No. In my estimation, it would have been better and would have met the goal post of replacing the M1911 for secondary troops. Which is exactly what the military wanted.

Would a .351 carbine have been good enough to perform the mission? Good enough to match the enemy and defeat them? Within budget?

Yes, yes, and yes.

I'm not really sure if you're arguing that a .351 based carbine wouldn't have met any of those goal posts? At least I hope you're not.


"Would a GI want to sacrifice X number of rounds on their person to a larger dia. caliber of unknown advantage?"

The same could be said of giving GIs the choice between the M1 Garand and a speculatively developed .351 carbine.

Why would a GI want to sacrifice X number of .351 rounds for a lesser number of .30-06 rounds?

We can also look at your question in a slightly different way...

Would a GI want to sacrifice the known power of the .30-06 for an unknown, unproven, .30 popgun and its equally tiny cartridge of unknown advantage?

Asking either of those questions is, really, not the way to do it.

Why?

Because GIs aren't polled as to exactly what they want. They're told "This is what you're getting. Go kill the enemy!" Or, in the case of those armed with the M1 carbine, "go drive that truck, go fire that cannon, or go cook breakfast for the front line troops."

And to be honest, despite America's reputation as the must gun centric culture on the face of the earth, it really does fall short. Most recruits coming into the military during WW II (or any other war in US history) had very little to virtually NO experience with firearms of any stripe.

Teddy Roosevelt noted that fact when he, as president, created the Director of Civilian Marksmanship to hopefully instill greater firearms familiarity with US recruits in future national emergencies (it didn't).

[Mike Irwin]

OK, just for grins and giggles I did some speculative ballistics on a .351 carbine round.

The trajectory for a .30 carbine round using a 110 gr rn bullet with a BC of .166, velocity of 1,990 fps.

100 yard zero

Drop at 200 yards -- -12.9
300 yards -- -48.8
400 yards -- -117.1


Here's where a lot of speculation comes in on a .351 carbine cartridge.

Had to look at .357 diameter bullets because no one is making round nose .351 caliber bullets. I found a Sierra 150-gr. RN bullet with a BC of .177. That sounds about right to me.

So, 100 yard zero, velocity of 2,100 fps

Drop at 200 yards -- -11
300 yards -- -41.5
400 yards -- -100.6

So, realistically, VERY similar.

But here's the rub...

At all distances, a .351 based on the specs I listed above retains higher velocity and up to double the energy, especially at longer ranges.

Even if you cut the velocity back to 1800 fps at the muzzle the drop at 400 yards is 130 inches but you're still getting more energy at all ranges.

And, as I've speculated, I really don't think the velocity would have been that low.


Again, naval gazing. But fun to think about.

[Mike Irwin]

"This started out as a 1911A1 vs M1 Carbine question, I think we may have drifted off course a little."


Yes, yes we have. And I've done that.

So I'll circle back and reiterate my answer to your original question.

I think the M1 carbine was a more effective weapon at close combat ranges (sub 50 yards).

Easier to get hits with, easier to get multiple hits with, double the number of rounds in a magazine, and if things get to touching ranges, the M1 carbine is a better club.

And you can put a pig sticker on the end of it, allowing you to do some pokey pokey (at least in Korea, very few M1 carbines with bayonet lugs reached troops in World War II).

[Pumpkin]

Not to be an argumentative bugger but I think the comment made about recruit’s with no to very little exposure to guns is the cement in the success of selecting the Carbine.

I learned to shoot at a fairly young age and because of my dad’s patience and close monitoring of what and where I shot I never developed a flinch then or in later years, that I know of.

As far as the new recruits learning to shoot and I’m guessing under much more pressure than my experience, the “nice qualities” of the Carbine might have been very helpful to their not developing a flinch.

I am pretty sure we agree that a hit with a 30 would be better than a miss or near miss with a 35.
I personally think the .351 would hit with much more authority than the 30C. If I had the choice for either going hog hunting, it would definitely be the 351.

[rc]

I'm sure there were several reasons to favor a .308 bore vs a .351 bore. The first is that barrels of that internal diameter were in mass production and economy of scale probably played a part in the selection rather than use an existing cartridge with odd bore diameter. Also, if you "aint got boolits" you have a club and the smaller cartridge allow for a lighter load out and greater magazine capacity in the same footprint. 45 Rounds of 30 carbine is probably a more effective load out for a truck driver than 21 rounds of 45ACP. I'm sure the mechanism can be lighter also with 30 carbine than 351 making for an easy to carry gun unlike the blowback Thompson in 45 that is very heavy for what you get with a rainbow trajectory. The 30-06 by all measures is more effective than the 5.56 but carrying the same amount of weight a GI runs out of "boolits" faster.

[Jim Watson]

Maybe we should be comparing the Carbine to the submachineguns most other armies of the period used, instead of to infantry rifles.

[Mike Irwin]

"Not to be an argumentative bugger but I think the comment made about recruit’s with no to very little exposure to guns is the cement in the success of selecting the Carbine."

It is, and I agree with you on that.

It proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was easier to teach someone to shoot a should-fired weapon effectively than a handgun, especially a hard recoiling handgun like the M1911.

But the same was true of the M1 Garand or the Thompson, but those took more time to teach someone to use effectively.

The carbine more than fulfilled the role that the military envisioned for it, and then some.

As noted above, it was never intended to become a front-line combat weapon except in limited and specific cases, but it quickly proved its worth as a front-line combat weapon.

It became an integral part of military unit's fire and maneuver doctrine and overall greatly increased the unit's weight of fire.

The M1 carbine may not have been the perfect weapon, but it was an invaluable weapon in ways that no one ever really saw when it was adopted.

[Mike Irwin]

"The first is that barrels of that internal diameter were in mass production."

That doesn't really work because you're not producing M1 carbine barrels on the same machinery that's producing M1 Garand barrels.




"I'm sure there were several reasons to favor a .308 bore vs a .351 bore."

Personally, I think the most likely reason is a simple one...

Military inability to think of a "rifle" as anything other than being .308 bore.

It's what drove the adoption of the 7.62x51 despite VERY clear indications that a full-bore battle rifle cartridge was a concept that was on its way out.

Came close to dropping back to the .276 Pedersen in the 1920s/1930s except for the one thing that drives virtually ALL decisions... money.