AK-47 vs. M-1 Carbine

[MrAcheson]

The Ak is cheaper, more powerful, and has higher magazine capacity.

The M1 is lighter, far more handy, and has better sights.

As always it depends on how you weight these variables. If you are small and require something little and light, then M1. If money is an object, then certainly AK.

I have an M1 for shooting fun, but for home defense/CQB it's all about the shotgun.

 

[deadly50bmg]

Holy Chite

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.

So your seriously saying that "Clothes" stopped a .30 caliber centerfire round?

 

[rustymaggot]

So your seriously saying that "Clothes" stopped a .30 caliber centerfire round?

hes just plain wrong. check out my other posts on this here in the thread. one person had the idea that -30 deg weather made the rounds less powerful, but if thats the case then all the ammo would have been less powerful. also possible that a fat coat and a skinny enemy could look like he got hit solid but only nicked him.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have heard a few stories that when the .30 carbine failed to
stop Communist soldiers in their winter uniform coats, the
disgusted carbine user traded off his carbine for a .45 Thompson.
But I have not heard one where the .45 Thompson was actually
used against winter dressed enemy troops. Has anyone followed
up on these stories?

Also, if the -30 degree weather adversely affected the .30 carbine
penetration, it would adversely affect the .30-06 in the Garand rifle,
but the .30-06 has about three times the kinetic energy of the carbine
round to start with.

 

[MCgunner]

ok, 30 carbine is not a weak pistol round. it has twice the energy of +p 9mm. its closer to being equal to 357 than anything else. AND, 30 CARBINE HAS ENERGY EQUAL TO SOME LOADS OF 44 MAGNUM! there are softpoints available for it and those have better penetration than 9mm. ball has 20 cm MORE penetration than softpoints! and.......... its semi accurate to 300 yards! even out of carbine id like to see how 9mm fairs at 300 yards.

im sorry, but your just plain wrong. i wish you guys would actually look at the info about somthing before you say its somthing its not. people suffer from a term called "primacy" i might be spelling that wrong, but what it is is the trend to believe whatever youve been told first, regardless of how wrong you are proven to be later. whatever people are led to believe first, sticks with them. so all these veterans of the korean war say 30 carbine isnt worth poop and regardless of the proof later you guys still badmouth it. thats herd behavior, man. look at the info available and forget what youve been told. 30 carbine is unpopular, but its not weak.

a m1 carbine was a early attempt to do the same thing a mp5 does. fire a pistol round out of a short rifle.

Good points on energy levels, but a 110 grain FMJ doesn't thrill me. Okay, call it a strong pistol round of small caliber.

Anyway, I wouldn't, say, hunt deer with 30 carbine and I have with an SKS, though there are better calibers. For self defense in .30 carbine, I'd look for hollowpoint loads and make sure they feed okay. But, I'd rather carry a pistol. A carbine don't fit my IWB too well.

I've always wanted a .30 carbine cause the lieutenant on "Combat" carried one and I didn't miss an episode of that show when I was a kid. I remember naggin' the step dad for a .22 that looked like a .30 carbine, think Iver Johnson made it. I never got it, though.

.30 carbine is rather useless to me, would just be another plinker, so I've never bought one. I can plink with the SKS cheaper.

 

[444]

" its semi accurate to 300 yards! even out of carbine id like to see how 9mm fairs at 300 yards. "

Here in Las Vegas we have a monthly, vintage semi-auto military rifle match held on the third Saturday of each month at Desert Sportsmans. I shot the match a few months ago using my .30 Carbine (I bought if from a guy on this board although I can't recall who: he was way up in the Northeast somewhere, Maine ?). Anyway, on one stage we had a steel plate, approx. 1 foot wide by two feet tall at 385 yards as one target and two more tagets at 200 and 300 yards. You simply rotated through the targets, one shot each starting with the far target. This meant that you shot at the far plate...4 times ? I set my rear sight for the far target and used Kentucky windage on the closer ones. I was able to hit the far target at 385 yards ever time, but at 200 I had to hold so far under the target due to the cartridges rainbow trajectory I missed it all but once.
I have shot at that far plate with a 9mm carbine with an 11.5" barrel. With a 50 yard zero, I was holding somewhere around six feet to lob rounds in the same zip code as that plate. I never shot the 9mm carbine at a known 300 yards, but it would be a lot easier than 385. At 300, the cartridge is out of gas and is falling hard, the drop would be far less than it would be at 385.
I have also shot that match with an SKS and it was far flatter shooting than either of those others. First round hits were FAR easier.

 

[USSR]

444,

You would have had to hold 45" low to hit the 200 yard target with a 385 yard zero.

Don

 

[444]

About four feet.
But, it is all guess work. You can't set my carbine's rear sight for that range. It only goes up to 300, but my carbine shoots high for the sight settings: at 100 yards, it shoots bout 6" high. So, at that far target, it was pretty close with the 300 yard sight setting, but I had to hold at the top of the plate. Plus, this isn't pinpoint accuracy, you have two feet of elevation to play with (the height of the plate) and all that counts are hits, even on the edge.

 

[mr.trooper]

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.

Yea...If you listen to the actualy interviews of the guys who said that, you will notice they said that it "failed to penetrate their heavy winter cloathing at 400 yards or more".

The reason it would not penetrate is because they were using it at ranges EXCEEDING the intended ranges of the rifle. Check the BOT:RAGS. the 30 carbine doesn't have ANY problems penetrating heavy clothing at anything approaching reasonable ranges.

its amazing how baseless myths can persist for 50+ years.

For CQB, the M-1 Carbine is far better. Less recoil, faster follow-up shots, less noise...

 

[NineseveN]

For CQB, the M-1 Carbine is far better. Less recoil, faster follow-up shots, less noise...

You forgot "better sights".

 

[GW]

I vote AK
Better round, More reliable rifle

 

[Sandmann]

M1 weaknesses?

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

 

[rustymaggot]

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

my book lists velocity of 30 carbine at 1040fps at 300 yards. book is 2001 guns &ammo annual buyers guide.

 

[Sandmann]

Rusty Maggot,

How does this compare to a 5.56 out of a 14.5 inch tube at 300 meters? I bet its superior to the M-4's at the same range.

But a lot of people are complaining about the .30 Carbine's performance at "long range".

 

[Father Knows Best]

The main complaint with the M-1 carbine in this thread seems to be the "anemic" performance of its 110 grain bullet. Yet, the US SOF community had been using 9mm MP-5s for years before they were mandated by DoD to "standardize" to the 5.56 M-4. Nobody in the community was complaining about the MP-5s inability to kill bad guys in the CQB environment, unless they had to engage targets beyond a 100 meters or so.

So how is it that the M1 Carbine has such a poor "man-stopping" reputation, when the .30 Carbine round is superior in performance? Again, the range that was given in the opening question was CQB/HD range, NOT 300 meters; although I would not want to be shot by a .30 Carbine at 300 meters either.

Does anyone know if the .30 Carbine round has as much, if not more energy at 300 meters, than the 14.5" tubed 5.56 M-4 at 300 meters?

These are good points. I did some quick calculations of energy and momentum for the M1 carbine vs. the M4. I don't have time right now to throw in the MP5 and AK, but I'll try to add them later.

First, a caveat -- I subscribe to the general belief that "energy" is a poor predictor of "stopping power." A much better measure is a rounds momentum, calculated as mass x velocity.

I used a ballistics calculator, with data for the M193 5.56mm round fired out of an M4 (55 grain projectile with BC of .255, 2850 fps muzzle velocity), and with a .30 carbine load assuming Speer's 110 grain JHP (BC .136) loaded to 1,990 fps muzzle velocity.

What it showed is that the M4/M193 992 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, dropping to 863 ft-lbs at 50 meters (velocity of 2,659 fps) and 754 ft-lbs at 100 meters (2,485 fps). Note that the generally accepted minimum striking velocity for reliable fragmentation of the M193 round is 2,600 fps, meaning that you can't expect reliable fragmentation much beyond 50 meters.

The .30 carbine developed 967 ft-lbs at the muzzle, just 2.5% less than the M193/M4. It lost ground quickly, however, with 716 ft-lbs and 1,712 fps at 50 meters, and just 531 ft-lbs (1,474 fps) at 100 meters. The .30 carbine round had consistently higher momentum, however, which would tend to indicate stopping power at least equal to, if not better than, the M193/M4. At the muzzle, the .30 carbine round had a momentum of 31.3 lb-ft/sec. At 50 meters, it had 26.9 and at 100 it still retained 23.2 lb-ft/sec. By contrast, the M193/M4 had just 22.4 lb-ft/sec at the muzzle -- less than the .30 carbine retained at 100 meters. The M193/M4 did a better job at carrying its momentum downrange, with 20.9 lb-ft/sec at 50 meters and 19.5 lb-ft/sec at 100 meters. That means it lost just 13% from 0 to 100 meters, vs. a 26% momentum loss for the .30 carbine round over the same range. Since the .30 carbine started out with 40% greater momentum, however, it was still 19% greater at 100 meters despite the more rapid loss.

When I can, I'll run the numbers for the 7.62x39 out of an AK, and for the 9mm out of an MP5 or similar carbine. In the meantime, my conclusion is that the M1 carbine is at least equal to the M4 at "CQB" ranges. In addition, it may actually have a significant advantage at the 50-100 meter range, because the M193 bullet by that time is moving too slowly to fragment reliably. The M1 carbine's .30 caliber JHP, however, should still have enough velocity (1500-1700 fps) at those ranges to expand reliably.

 

[briang2ad]

Myths and legends

1) The m1 Carbine can penetrate THICK clothing. People who say they hit 'em and it didn't penetrate simply didn't hit'em.

2) The Carbine was meant for pistol+ ranges. It is much easier to shoot more accurately than a pistol. 45 MV is 850, 357 1200, Carbine 1900 - it IS flatter shooting than pistols in general, and has enough energy to be effective at 100-150M. Beyond that, the AK is clearly the winner - but that is a battle rifle.

3) While designed for support troops who had to carry all day and shoot little, it was used by line troops. My Dad had occassion to carry one as a squad leader in WW2.

In a house, or CQB scenario, it may be a bit more effective because it has ENOUGH energy, and is a bit easier to negotiate tight spaces. But, for general purposes, I'd take the AK.

 

[rustymaggot]

These are good points. I did some quick calculations of energy and momentum for the M1 carbine vs. the M4. I don't have time right now to throw in the MP5 and AK, but I'll try to add them later.

First, a caveat -- I subscribe to the general belief that "energy" is a poor predictor of "stopping power." A much better measure is a rounds momentum, calculated as mass x velocity.

I used a ballistics calculator, with data for the M193 5.56mm round fired out of an M4 (55 grain projectile with BC of .255, 2850 fps muzzle velocity), and with a .30 carbine load assuming Speer's 110 grain JHP (BC .136) loaded to 1,990 fps muzzle velocity.

What it showed is that the M4/M193 992 ft-lbs of energy at the muzzle, dropping to 863 ft-lbs at 50 meters (velocity of 2,659 fps) and 754 ft-lbs at 100 meters (2,485 fps). Note that the generally accepted minimum striking velocity for reliable fragmentation of the M193 round is 2,600 fps, meaning that you can't expect reliable fragmentation much beyond 50 meters.

The .30 carbine developed 967 ft-lbs at the muzzle, just 2.5% less than the M193/M4. It lost ground quickly, however, with 716 ft-lbs and 1,712 fps at 50 meters, and just 531 ft-lbs (1,474 fps) at 100 meters. The .30 carbine round had consistently higher momentum, however, which would tend to indicate stopping power at least equal to, if not better than, the M193/M4. At the muzzle, the .30 carbine round had a momentum of 31.3 lb-ft/sec. At 50 meters, it had 26.9 and at 100 it still retained 23.2 lb-ft/sec. By contrast, the M193/M4 had just 22.4 lb-ft/sec at the muzzle -- less than the .30 carbine retained at 100 meters. The M193/M4 did a better job at carrying its momentum downrange, with 20.9 lb-ft/sec at 50 meters and 19.5 lb-ft/sec at 100 meters. That means it lost just 13% from 0 to 100 meters, vs. a 26% momentum loss for the .30 carbine round over the same range. Since the .30 carbine started out with 40% greater momentum, however, it was still 19% greater at 100 meters despite the more rapid loss.

When I can, I'll run the numbers for the 7.62x39 out of an AK, and for the 9mm out of an MP5 or similar carbine. In the meantime, my conclusion is that the M1 carbine is at least equal to the M4 at "CQB" ranges. In addition, it may actually have a significant advantage at the 50-100 meter range, because the M193 bullet by that time is moving too slowly to fragment reliably. The M1 carbine's .30 caliber JHP, however, should still have enough velocity (1500-1700 fps) at those ranges to expand reliably.

30 carbine lists at 1540fps at 100 yards. it loses momentum quickly at long range. if the bullet was a spitzer(is that the correct term for a pointed bullet?) and had a boat tail like the .223 i would suspect a flatter trajectory as well as less loss of speed.

 

[Father Knows Best]

30 carbine lists at 1540fps at 100 yards. it loses momentum quickly at long range. if the bullet was a spitzer(is that the correct term for a pointed bullet?) and had a boat tail like the .223 i would suspect a flatter trajectory as well as less loss of speed.

My ballistics calculator showed 1,474 fps at 100 meters, which is pretty close to the 1,540 at 100 yards you reference. The difference probably has to do with bullet choice. I ran the calculator based on Speer's hollow point 110 grain, because I would assume that would be a better projectile for defensive use than military ball. Of course, the JHP almost certainly has a lower ballistic coefficient than ball, so it will lose velocity and momentum more rapidly.

You are correct in your main point, though, which is that the 5.56 has a flatter trajectory, and loses speed (and therefore momentum) much more slowly. Thus, at some point, the 5.56 will almost certainly overtake the .30 carbine round in terms of its effectiveness. I haven't carried the calculations out far enough to see where that point is, but since the question we're debating is the .30 carbine's effectiveness at close range, it doesn't matter for this discussion.

My point is just that the .30 carbine is plenty effective at ranges of 100 meters of less. It's certainly at least as effective as the 5.56/.223 and the .357 magnum when loaded with a decent projectile. While it may be substantially inferior to the 5.56, 7.62x39 and others at ranges somewhat beyond 100 meters, that doesn't matter if your only concern is personal/home defense and CQB scenarios.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I find it ironic that both the cartridges in question, the 7.62x39 and the .30 Carbine, are often plagued with a lack of modernized, high-performance ammunition. They are then expected to compare favorably to people's pet cartridges using the latest in bullet technology. There is a real absence of modern .311 caliber projectiles. I have wanted to see some loads for the 7.62x39 using something along the lines of a 125 gr Nosler Ballistic Tip. This would work well in rifles chambered for the cartridge with true .308 bores but I wonder how it would do out of the many surplus SKS rifles and the plethora of AK clones that it would more than likely be used in. Similarly, I would like to know if anyone has ever tried something along the lines of the 110 gr Hornady V-max in the M1 Carbine. The Speer JHP listed previously has a BC of .136 while the Hornady bullet has a BC of .290. This should provide good expansion and terminal performance at close range, maintain velocity and momentum better at longer ranges, straighten the trajectory out a little, and provide the carbine with a modern bullet designed to perform accurately and reliably. Since the M1 Carbine feeds from a box style magazine, I can see no reason why the more efficent spitzer projectile wouldn't work well, provided it could be seated within the cartridge's maximum OAL.

 

[LeonCarr]

IME the .30 Carbine is easy on the shoulder, easy to reload for, and just plain fun to shoot .

Do a search (google or whatever you like) on Jim Cirillo, a former member of the NYPD Stakeout Squad and legendary police gunfighter, and see what his favorite rifle was when he was on the stakeout squad. It was the M1 Carbine, loaded with JSPs. He knows a little about gunfights .

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[Father Knows Best]

I find it ironic that both the cartridges in question, the 7.62x39 and the .30 Carbine, are often plagued with a lack of modernized, high-performance ammunition. They are then expected to compare favorably to people's pet cartridges using the latest in bullet technology. There is a real absence of modern .311 caliber projectiles.

I agree, and I tried to convince Hornady that they should fill that gap. I had several email exchanges with Hornady pointing out that lots of people own AK's, SKS's and Mini-30's and like to use them for defensive purposes. I argued that Hornady could sell a fair amount of its TAP FPD line in 7.62x39. Hornady told me "nope" in no uncertain terms. They claim there is no market for "premium" 7.62x39. They say they've tried, and can't make money on it. They even told me that they tried selling premium .311 bullets for those of us who roll our own, they just gather dust on distributors' shelves.

It's a pity. I'd love to keep a mag or two of TAP 7.62x39 handy for my AK.

 

[BigG]

Bullistics Tables -

Energy figures never killed or wounded anybody. Enough people I know and trust used the 30 carbine to fight foes and questioned its fight ending ability for me to accept their testimony. Anecdotal, yes. But no more anecdotal than taking a paper table and extrapolating to "real world" performance. Life ain't like that, folks; it's messy and unpredictable.

 

[rustymaggot]

Energy figures never killed or wounded anybody. Enough people I know and trust used the 30 carbine to fight foes and questioned its fight ending ability for me to accept their testimony. Anecdotal, yes. But no more anecdotal than taking a paper table and extrapolating to "real world" performance. Life ain't like that, folks; it's messy and unpredictable.

do these same people claim that the 357 magnum is a ineffective round?

 

[jobu07]

Eh, I've seen a whitetail put down by an M1 carbine. I've also seen them put down by a variety of AK's. And these weren't Texas deer.

 

[BigG]

Rusty Maggot, you are comparing apples and oranges. The people I know are WWII vets who used the carbine on the front lines. I don't know if any of them know about 357 magnum on live bodies. I do know a simple paper comparison of the two rounds does not tell the whole story.