AK-47 vs. M-1 Carbine
- Thread starter Sandmann
- Start date
- Status
The AK without question! Tha M-1 carbine with it's little 30 cal round had some serious penetration problems when used by the military in Korea, it would not always go through the heavy winter clothes used by the enemy. That would be enough reason for me.
HankB
Member
The M1 Carbine, with original FMJ ammo, is not a reliable fight stopper. With expanding ammo, it ought to be pretty good, but there's not enough data around, and not all carbines will reliably feed JHP rounds.
I've never heard of the AK's 7.62x39 round being described as "inadequate" for its intended purpose (close combat, not long distance sniping) and most AKs will be reliable with expanding ammo.
Note that many states outlaw the .30 Carbine round - even with expanding ammo - for deer hunting.
Though I'm not particularly fond of the AK's manual safety, given a choice between the two, I vote for the AK.
I've never heard of the AK's 7.62x39 round being described as "inadequate" for its intended purpose (close combat, not long distance sniping) and most AKs will be reliable with expanding ammo.
Note that many states outlaw the .30 Carbine round - even with expanding ammo - for deer hunting.
Though I'm not particularly fond of the AK's manual safety, given a choice between the two, I vote for the AK.
Father Knows Best
Member
If I didn't have to worry about the reactions from the media, prosecutors and a jury, I'd pick the AK. Since that's not the world we live in, I'll take the M1 carbine. It might not be quite as effective as the AK, but it's a lot "friendlier" in the aftermath.
The Real Hawkeye
member
That's a close call. The M1 is a lot handier, but it is not always as completely reliable and rugged as the AK. They can be picky about magazines, which the AK is not. M1s are also a bit harder to maintain. If lightweight is your first priority, the M1 would be the pick. If not, then the AK.
As for the rounds, the M1 is unfairly criticized. The reason for reported failures to stop charges in Korea was almost certainly due to bullet placement. Because of the bulky quilted winter clothes worn by the communists, what might have seemed like a direct hit to the torso could easily have been a superficial grazing or a clean miss. No way any conceivable amount of quilting in winter clothing is going to significantly interfere with a 110 grain .30 caliber FMJ bullet traveling at well over a thousand feet per second all the way out to its intended practical range of 300 yards. Come on, now. At 300 yards, it's traveling as fast as a 9mm at point blank range, and that's with a far superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density.
As for the rounds, the M1 is unfairly criticized. The reason for reported failures to stop charges in Korea was almost certainly due to bullet placement. Because of the bulky quilted winter clothes worn by the communists, what might have seemed like a direct hit to the torso could easily have been a superficial grazing or a clean miss. No way any conceivable amount of quilting in winter clothing is going to significantly interfere with a 110 grain .30 caliber FMJ bullet traveling at well over a thousand feet per second all the way out to its intended practical range of 300 yards. Come on, now. At 300 yards, it's traveling as fast as a 9mm at point blank range, and that's with a far superior ballistic coefficient and sectional density.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Even assuming you're talking about civilian AK lookalikes rather than actual selective-fire AK's, I'd still say the AK wins hands down. The M1 carbine is lighter, slightly handier, and has a more ergonomic safety. The AK safety and mag release have the ergonomics of a Klingon warship, but the AK fires an arguably more effective cartridge, uses more robust magazines, and (to me) has a more ergonomic firing position--I dislike straight stocks like that of the standard M1.
I also personally like the aesthetics of the AK better, but they're both neat guns.
I also personally like the aesthetics of the AK better, but they're both neat guns.
My opinion is that if all militaries carried 50 BMG rifiles, you could still find someone who would complain about stopping power and the round's effectiveness.
I would go for the AK for power, capacity, and reliability. You can get AK's with folding stocks that are pretty small and handy. Using 5.45 ammo might help with weight if that is a problem. I will say that you can get enforcer type carbine guns that are pretty handy as well.
Of course, everyone has their own opinion about what makes a gun handy and easy to use. Each to his own.
I would go for the AK for power, capacity, and reliability. You can get AK's with folding stocks that are pretty small and handy. Using 5.45 ammo might help with weight if that is a problem. I will say that you can get enforcer type carbine guns that are pretty handy as well.
Of course, everyone has their own opinion about what makes a gun handy and easy to use. Each to his own.
Good question.
Let's start with the cartridge. The .30 Carbine is a very poor round; especially when fired out of a carbine. IMO, if you are going to carry something as big as a carbine, have something that fires a serious carbine/rifle cartridge. Using perfectly safe, industry standard pressures, you can handload a 110 grain bullet in a .357 HANDGUN to greater velocity than the 110 grain .30 Carbine military ball load. And, most respected authorities don't consider a 110 grain load to be a good defensive load out of the .357 handgun: what does that say about the 110 FMJ out of a carbine ? The 7.62x39 is nothing to write home about in a rifle cartridge either, but it is far superior to the .30 Carbine. Both have a rainbow trajectory. Past 100 yards, you have to be reasonably close with your range estimation. Winner: AK
Sights: the carbine has better sights. The carbine has a longer sight radius. The carbine uses a rear peep sight. The carbine has windage adjustment on the rear sight that doesn't take any tools to adjust. Score one for the carbine.
Ergonomics:
Safety. I don't like either one. On the carbine, I can manipulate the safety without releasing my firing grip on the gun, so I give the carbine the nod on safeties.
Mag release. The carbine mag release is as good as any ever made. Can be manipulated without breaking your firing grip on the weapon and is located on the correct side of the receiver. BIG winner for the carbine.
Bolt charging handle. Both operate the same way and both are on the wrong side of the gun. Both require you to break your firing grip on the weapon to manipulate. Tie.
Reliability. I don't know. Reputation would say the AK and I have no reason to doubt it. This one goes to the AK.
General feel/handling. When handy, cool, best loved, emotion filled, quick handling guns are mentioned, the US .30 Carbine is always mentioned. This definitely scores one for the Carbine.
So, we have five for the Carbine, we have two for the AK, with one tie.
Knowing all that, I would go for the AK every time.
The .30 Carbine cartridge is totally inadequate and no matter how sweet the actual gun itself is, I can't get past the fact that the cartridge is a POS. If both guns fired the same cartridge, or if the carbine fired an even better cartridge, this would be a no-brainer. But that isn't the case.
Let's start with the cartridge. The .30 Carbine is a very poor round; especially when fired out of a carbine. IMO, if you are going to carry something as big as a carbine, have something that fires a serious carbine/rifle cartridge. Using perfectly safe, industry standard pressures, you can handload a 110 grain bullet in a .357 HANDGUN to greater velocity than the 110 grain .30 Carbine military ball load. And, most respected authorities don't consider a 110 grain load to be a good defensive load out of the .357 handgun: what does that say about the 110 FMJ out of a carbine ? The 7.62x39 is nothing to write home about in a rifle cartridge either, but it is far superior to the .30 Carbine. Both have a rainbow trajectory. Past 100 yards, you have to be reasonably close with your range estimation. Winner: AK
Sights: the carbine has better sights. The carbine has a longer sight radius. The carbine uses a rear peep sight. The carbine has windage adjustment on the rear sight that doesn't take any tools to adjust. Score one for the carbine.
Ergonomics:
Safety. I don't like either one. On the carbine, I can manipulate the safety without releasing my firing grip on the gun, so I give the carbine the nod on safeties.
Mag release. The carbine mag release is as good as any ever made. Can be manipulated without breaking your firing grip on the weapon and is located on the correct side of the receiver. BIG winner for the carbine.
Bolt charging handle. Both operate the same way and both are on the wrong side of the gun. Both require you to break your firing grip on the weapon to manipulate. Tie.
Reliability. I don't know. Reputation would say the AK and I have no reason to doubt it. This one goes to the AK.
General feel/handling. When handy, cool, best loved, emotion filled, quick handling guns are mentioned, the US .30 Carbine is always mentioned. This definitely scores one for the Carbine.
So, we have five for the Carbine, we have two for the AK, with one tie.
Knowing all that, I would go for the AK every time.
The .30 Carbine cartridge is totally inadequate and no matter how sweet the actual gun itself is, I can't get past the fact that the cartridge is a POS. If both guns fired the same cartridge, or if the carbine fired an even better cartridge, this would be a no-brainer. But that isn't the case.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Ok, you are making all kinds of mistakes here in your comparisons. First of all, the reason a 110 grain round out of a .357 goes faster out of the same barrel length is that fatter bullets require less powder to drive them faster. That said, you cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. Thirdly, the reason a 110 grain .357 bullet doesn't penetrate as deep as a 110 grain .30, assuming the same velocity, is due to inferior sectional density, which is why the authorities you've read don't consider the 110 grain .357 a good pick for self defense.444 said:
"the reason a 110 grain round out of a .357 goes faster out of the same barrel length is that fatter bullets require less powder to drive them faster. "
I am not talking about the same barrel length. I am talking about a handgun barrel length vs. a standard USGI carbine barrel. And, if you check the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition, you will see that a 110 grain .357 bullet requires 18.4 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 2006 fps, while a 110 grain .30 Carbine bullet uses 12.6 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 1893 fps. Both are max loads for that powder.
"That said, you cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. "
False. According to Cartridges of the World, 9th edition, page 51, the USGI ball load uses a 110 grain FMJ bullet at 1900 fps. If you will now turn to page 101 of the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition you will see that a Speer 110 grain JHP over 18.4 grains of Accurate #9 powder will give you 2006 fps out of a 8" .357 mag handgun barrel. I have actually used this load out of my own guns over my own chronograph and averaged 1990 fps out of my 6 1/2" Ruger Blackhawk. Note again that this load is out of the powder manufacturer's own manual that I am sure was approved by their legal staff prior to publishing and sales to the public. Their website used to list this load at 2100 fps.
"Thirdly, the reason a 110 grain .357 bullet doesn't penetrate as deep as a 110 grain .30, assuming the same velocity, is due to inferior sectional density, which is why the authorities you've read don't consider the 110 grain .357 a good pick for self defense."
That very well may be. I am not going to argue that point. But to me, this doesn't add much to the argument. The point is that as a carbine cartridge, the .30 Carbine is a very poor performer. Let's say you are right with this final argument. The .30 Carbine has better penetration than the lightest bullet normally found in a .357 handgun. Does that make it good ?
I am not talking about the same barrel length. I am talking about a handgun barrel length vs. a standard USGI carbine barrel. And, if you check the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition, you will see that a 110 grain .357 bullet requires 18.4 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 2006 fps, while a 110 grain .30 Carbine bullet uses 12.6 grains of AA#9 powder to get to 1893 fps. Both are max loads for that powder.
"That said, you cannot make a 110 grain .357 bullet out of a handgun go faster than a 110 grain .30 caliber bullet out of an M1. "
False. According to Cartridges of the World, 9th edition, page 51, the USGI ball load uses a 110 grain FMJ bullet at 1900 fps. If you will now turn to page 101 of the Accurate Smokeless Powder loading manual, second edition you will see that a Speer 110 grain JHP over 18.4 grains of Accurate #9 powder will give you 2006 fps out of a 8" .357 mag handgun barrel. I have actually used this load out of my own guns over my own chronograph and averaged 1990 fps out of my 6 1/2" Ruger Blackhawk. Note again that this load is out of the powder manufacturer's own manual that I am sure was approved by their legal staff prior to publishing and sales to the public. Their website used to list this load at 2100 fps.
"Thirdly, the reason a 110 grain .357 bullet doesn't penetrate as deep as a 110 grain .30, assuming the same velocity, is due to inferior sectional density, which is why the authorities you've read don't consider the 110 grain .357 a good pick for self defense."
That very well may be. I am not going to argue that point. But to me, this doesn't add much to the argument. The point is that as a carbine cartridge, the .30 Carbine is a very poor performer. Let's say you are right with this final argument. The .30 Carbine has better penetration than the lightest bullet normally found in a .357 handgun. Does that make it good ?
The Real Hawkeye
member
Well, I will accept what you say here as correct (though I am somewhat surprised by it), but it really goes to prove my point that it is easier to drive a fatter bullet faster than a slimmer bullet due to greater surface area having force exerted against it by expanding gasses. I just didn't think that this factor was capable of making up for such a great barrel length difference as between your typical carbine and your typical handgun, and you have to also admit that an eight inch barrel is far from standard on handguns. My point was that because a .357 caliber bullet of X weight can be driven to X velocity does not necessarily mean that a .30 caliber bullet of the same weight can be. That said, any gains in velocity due to a fatter bullet are lost in terminal effect due to SD, assuming the weight of the bullets are the same.
I love to have discussions like this, about guns. Actually discussing the pros and cons, specifications, performance numbers etc is FAR more interesting to me than reading someone's post who says: I got one and I love mine.
So, I know I am beating a dead horse as well as getting on some people's nerves. In the past, I have gotten in these discussions about the .30 Carbine and a number of people got seriously bent out of shape about it. It seems to be a sacred cow.
"you have to also admit that an eight inch barrel is far from standard on handguns."
Ok, I will admit that. I also said that I have fired that load over my own chronograph using my own 6.5" Blackhawk and still got a velocity that was greater than that of the .30 Carbine USGI ball load. But the point isn't to compare the .357 handgun to the .30 Carbine. It is to point out that you are carrying something that is bigger/longer/heavier than a handgun, yet it fires a cartridge that is SIMILAR to a .357 handgun. I haven't been into the whole defensive handgun debates for a couple years, but the last stats I saw, showed the .357 handgun as being the top or one of the top one shot stoppers. But, I want a carbine that is FAR more potent than any handgun round. I have seen quite a few real people shot with handguns in person, up close and personal. I have seen a few people shot with 7.62x39 carbines under the same conditions. The difference was huge. Dramatic. No comparison.
So, I know I am beating a dead horse as well as getting on some people's nerves. In the past, I have gotten in these discussions about the .30 Carbine and a number of people got seriously bent out of shape about it. It seems to be a sacred cow.
"you have to also admit that an eight inch barrel is far from standard on handguns."
Ok, I will admit that. I also said that I have fired that load over my own chronograph using my own 6.5" Blackhawk and still got a velocity that was greater than that of the .30 Carbine USGI ball load. But the point isn't to compare the .357 handgun to the .30 Carbine. It is to point out that you are carrying something that is bigger/longer/heavier than a handgun, yet it fires a cartridge that is SIMILAR to a .357 handgun. I haven't been into the whole defensive handgun debates for a couple years, but the last stats I saw, showed the .357 handgun as being the top or one of the top one shot stoppers. But, I want a carbine that is FAR more potent than any handgun round. I have seen quite a few real people shot with handguns in person, up close and personal. I have seen a few people shot with 7.62x39 carbines under the same conditions. The difference was huge. Dramatic. No comparison.
molonlabe
Member
I'm not so sure of that. 30 FMJ from PMC clocks about 2000fps. My own 110gr JHP with ww296 also clock at 2000fps. This is nothing to sniff at and should be quite lethal. I doubt you could push a .357 that fast but maybe you could out of a carbine.
For HD. I would feel safe with the carbine.
". 30 FMJ from PMC clocks about 2000fps": This isn't military ball.
" My own 110gr JHP with ww296 also clock at 2000fps.": And this isn't military ball.
"I doubt you could push a .357 that fast but maybe you could out of a carbine."
So, not to get aggressive here, but when I said that I averaged 1990 out of my Blackhawk, did you think I was making it up ? No, I think you read my first post and got excited and had to post without reading the rest of the thread.
I guess people get excited and defend the .30 Carbine the way I defend my own sacred cow, the 5.56 NATO.
Please don't be a hater: I own a USGI .30 Carbine. I own a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 Carbine. I handload for the .30 Carbine. I am negotiating a deal with a guy across the street to buy another USGI carbine. I love the carbine. It is one of the most fun guns you can own. Hell, I had a carbine replica BB gun as a kid. But when we are talking about effective combat tools, I just didn't drink the Kool Aid. By the same token, I don't really like the AK at all. I now own three of them, but as a sporting arm, the .30 USGI Carbine has it all over the AK. As a military/personal defense weapon, the opposite is true In My Opinion. YMMV.
Can you tell that I am off today and just wasted the whole morning drinking coffee and surfing the internet ?
" My own 110gr JHP with ww296 also clock at 2000fps.": And this isn't military ball.
"I doubt you could push a .357 that fast but maybe you could out of a carbine."
So, not to get aggressive here, but when I said that I averaged 1990 out of my Blackhawk, did you think I was making it up ? No, I think you read my first post and got excited and had to post without reading the rest of the thread.
I guess people get excited and defend the .30 Carbine the way I defend my own sacred cow, the 5.56 NATO.
Please don't be a hater: I own a USGI .30 Carbine. I own a Ruger Blackhawk in .30 Carbine. I handload for the .30 Carbine. I am negotiating a deal with a guy across the street to buy another USGI carbine. I love the carbine. It is one of the most fun guns you can own. Hell, I had a carbine replica BB gun as a kid. But when we are talking about effective combat tools, I just didn't drink the Kool Aid. By the same token, I don't really like the AK at all. I now own three of them, but as a sporting arm, the .30 USGI Carbine has it all over the AK. As a military/personal defense weapon, the opposite is true In My Opinion. YMMV.
Can you tell that I am off today and just wasted the whole morning drinking coffee and surfing the internet ?
molonlabe
Member
Yup, missed that. I would believe that since the Rugar is a hefty gun. I pushed a 200gr .44 at a rate most people would cringe out of a Dan Wesson when I was shooting silhouette.
I'll add one more thing. I wasn't alive then but I think the .30 probably accounted for a lot of enemy killed in WW2. But it ain't a 30-06. Our WWII vets are passing wish they could chime in.
I'll add one more thing. I wasn't alive then but I think the .30 probably accounted for a lot of enemy killed in WW2. But it ain't a 30-06. Our WWII vets are passing wish they could chime in.
Father Knows Best
Member
444 said:
Dude, you're my hero.
Seriously, I voted for the M1 carbine. It's not because I think it is a superior weapon when compared to the AK. It isn't. For my own personal defense, however, it is certainly "good enough." By that, I mean it is plenty lethal when used with a moderate amount of skill. I don't expect to ever have to shoot through cover, or fend off waves of chinese wearing arctic gear, and I don't consider the ability to defeat body armor to be a realistic requirement for a personal defensive weapon. If the people coming for me are wearing body armor, I've got a lot bigger concerns than whether I be shooting .30 carbine vs. 7.62x39.
So bottom line -- the M1 carbine is compact, handy, lightweight, reliable, and "lethal enough" for a home defense weapon. It's certainly more lethal than the vast majority of handgun options. While the AK has certain advantages over the M1 carbine, in this context (personal/home defense) they are more than outweighed by the evil image of the AK and the nasty PR problems that could lead to.
I love my AK (an Arsenal SA M-7S with Kobra optics). But I'll grab my USGI M1 carbine first if I am ever in need of a long arm to defend my home against common criminals.
rustymaggot
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 838
m1 carbine is gonna be a bit quieter to use for hd than a ak. anything i can do to not go def protecting myself is a step in the right direction. ak can have a folding stock, m1 carbine has em available too. i dont know what the length of a folded ak is but my m1 carbine would be 26 or 27 inches long if i still owned a folding pistol grip stock for it. so the argument that the carbine is shorter and easier to maneuver in kinda bunk. unless we are talking about the m1 carbine enforcer, those were real short. the m1 carbine has very low recoil, lower than a ak. ive done 1 inch groups with my scoped m1 carbine at 50 yards, thats accurate enough for close quarters. 30 round mags common for both. m1 carbine mags are smaller and fit in pockets easier.
the m1 carbine is a good gun. i would pick it over a ak but i admit that this is because i am very very familiar with my m1 carbine. if i had a ak to play around with and compare, then i might go with ak. 7.62x39 is a better cartrige, i admit, but the 30 carbine isnt trash like some people say it is either. this now leads me to...................................THE RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
people badmouth the .30 carbine cartrige and quote how it didnt make it thru the coats of the enemy in the korean war. thats a load of bull. no one calls the .357 useless and the 30 carbine is approx the same. the chart im looking at is in the 2001 guns&ammo buyers guide. lists 30 carbine as 110 grain moving at 1990fps and 965 foot-lbs energy at muzzle, the highest energy rating i see listed for .357 is 834 foot lbs from a 150 grain moving 1542fps. theres no way the 30 carbine penetrates less than the .357 magnum, and 357 is praised by all. so why the bad rep? seriously, why?
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm
" Rumors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War.
Let's see what happens.
The bullet, a military Ball, went through the entire box set-up, blew up the water jug, and flattened itself out against the solid concrete block, knocking out a big chunk of cement."............
read the site and tell me the 30 carbine is trash. knocks chunk out of cement after it goes thru cloth equal to a winter jacket, and then gallon of water and 3 inches of pine boards. hey, im sorry, but i just have to look down on anyone who calls the 30 carbine useless.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm
next example, the 30 carbine went thru 7 gallons of water, 30-06 armor piercing round did 7 gallons as well. gee, i guess the carbine isnt as useless as it was thought to be.
the m1 carbine is a good gun. i would pick it over a ak but i admit that this is because i am very very familiar with my m1 carbine. if i had a ak to play around with and compare, then i might go with ak. 7.62x39 is a better cartrige, i admit, but the 30 carbine isnt trash like some people say it is either. this now leads me to...................................THE RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
people badmouth the .30 carbine cartrige and quote how it didnt make it thru the coats of the enemy in the korean war. thats a load of bull. no one calls the .357 useless and the 30 carbine is approx the same. the chart im looking at is in the 2001 guns&ammo buyers guide. lists 30 carbine as 110 grain moving at 1990fps and 965 foot-lbs energy at muzzle, the highest energy rating i see listed for .357 is 834 foot lbs from a 150 grain moving 1542fps. theres no way the 30 carbine penetrates less than the .357 magnum, and 357 is praised by all. so why the bad rep? seriously, why?
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm
" Rumors had it that the .30 Carbine had problems penetrating the thick clothing of the North Koreans during the Korean War.
Let's see what happens.
The bullet, a military Ball, went through the entire box set-up, blew up the water jug, and flattened itself out against the solid concrete block, knocking out a big chunk of cement."............
read the site and tell me the 30 carbine is trash. knocks chunk out of cement after it goes thru cloth equal to a winter jacket, and then gallon of water and 3 inches of pine boards. hey, im sorry, but i just have to look down on anyone who calls the 30 carbine useless.
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm
next example, the 30 carbine went thru 7 gallons of water, 30-06 armor piercing round did 7 gallons as well. gee, i guess the carbine isnt as useless as it was thought to be.
molonlabe
Member
I'd say just rumors not facts.
Rumors said the NVA could chamber and fire our round in their AK but we couldn’t chamber and fire theirs.
That was repeated to me by a grunt years later and he asked me if that was true.
MICHAEL T
Member
I vote for M-1 any day.
Carl N. Brown
Member
The M1 carbine Winchester 110 gr. Softnose hollowpoint shows
a wound channel like the .357 125 gr. hollowpoint in standard
ballistic gel.
If the 30 carbine M1 won't stop a home invader in a North Korean
winter coat, I won't worry because few of the crack heads or
Oxycontine shooters around here don't wear North Korean winter
coats when they break in residences.
The AK47 is a better outdoors battle rifle than the .30 Carbine M1,
but the .30 Carbine softnose is less likely to over-penetrate and
the gun is easier to handle (about three pound lighter) indoors.
a wound channel like the .357 125 gr. hollowpoint in standard
ballistic gel.
If the 30 carbine M1 won't stop a home invader in a North Korean
winter coat, I won't worry because few of the crack heads or
Oxycontine shooters around here don't wear North Korean winter
coats when they break in residences.
The AK47 is a better outdoors battle rifle than the .30 Carbine M1,
but the .30 Carbine softnose is less likely to over-penetrate and
the gun is easier to handle (about three pound lighter) indoors.
I might chime in because I own an Iver Johnson M1 Carbine (well the father has it)....There was reports about the M1 Carbine not being able to penetrate the winter clothes of the Koreans because of the COLD TEMPERATURE. The very low temperature (-25-30) during some of the battles affected the power of the round thus reducing the velocity of the round. If the .30 carbine was fired in normal operating temperature...it will dam for sure penetrate a wool-knit korean military outfit. Please do a search on this. The .30 carbine is a fun to fire round and not to expensive....rant off!
rustymaggot
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 838
Ermac said:
id like to see stats on that if available. maybe a chart of other cartriges performance in extreme cold. thanks for the new perspective, i hadnt thought about reduced power from the cold.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
