AK-47 vs. M-1 Carbine

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigG said:
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, but do know a simple paper comparison of the two rounds does not tell the whole story. :uhoh:
Click to expand...

we have established that the cartrige needs a softpoint to be a better stopper. it isnt apples and oranges. a projectile moving x fast and y heavy is comparable because what gun its fired from is irrelevent. after speed and weight the only issue is shape of projectile and materials it consists of.

your wwII buddies were either shooting out of the intended range of the cartrige, or were missing the enemy. it is proven that the cartrige itself is not what is lacking. see here..... http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

note that the 45acp penetrated far less than the 30 carbine. and the 45 was told to be exelent stopping power in wwII. these are not paper tests as you say, these are tests of what cartriges really do. these guys do this for the fun of it and are not being paid to lie about what works best. these are facts.

the 30 carbine hits like a high power pistol. it is not meant to be compared to a rifle round. ive said it before and i say again, the m1 carbine was a early attempt to do what the modern mp5 does. fire a pistol cartrige from a short rifle size weapon. no one tries to use a mp5 at extended distances. no one blames the 9mm for not killing a enemy at 400 yards.

the m1 carbine was not intended to be accurate at extended distances. the 3 carbine cartrige was not intended to be much of a stopper beyond 2 or 3 hundred yards. but, that said, your friends were either shooting beyond the accuracy and effective range of the m1 carbine and are to blame fot its shortcommings, or they were in close quarters(like the thread is about) and were missing. either way, its human nature to blame the equipment when its user error.

some more examples of proof that the 30 carbine cartrige is not to blame.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot19.htm

see how the ball 30 carbine went thru 7 jugs of water? see how a armor piercing 30-06 out of a 03a3 went thru 7 jugs? granted it isnt fair to compare the cartriges, but do you see my point?
 
BigG said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. From my point of view, the question isn't whether the .30 carbine round is "better than" or even "as good as" the 7.62x39, or 5.56, or anything else. It's whether the .30 carbine round is "good enough" for home defense.

In my view, it is. While true "rifle" cartridges of either the full power or assault rifle variety certainly offer better "stopping power" or "fight ending ability" or whatever you want to call it, so does a 20mm cannon round. The 20mm isn't very practical for home defense, however.

I think we would all concede that the .357 magnum and .45ACP rounds are pretty good man stoppers at home defense range, even when fired out of pistols. They aren't as good as the 7.62x39, perhaps, but they're better than .32ACP or .38 special. More importantly, if you accept the constraints of a pistol round, they're pretty darn good, and "good enough" for most home defense purposes.

Similarly, the 9x19 (9 mm parabellum) round is generally considered barely adequate as a manstopper at close range, and is certainly much better when fired out of a carbine like the MP5. 9x19 carbines are often the weapon of choice by SWAT and special forces in CQB scenarios.

The .30 carbine round out an M1 carbine is certainly at least as capable than the 9x19 out of a similar firearm, and much more potent than pistol rounds fired out of pistols. If the 9x19/MP5 combo is "good enough" for SWAT, therefore, the .30 carbine/M1 carbine should be more than good enough.
 
the 30 carbine hits like a high power pistol. it is not meant to be compared to a rifle round.
Click to expand...

That's weird. It's in a rifle.

The bottom line is that the .30 Carbine offers performance that counts as high powered in a pistol. But it is in a rifle and it is only fair to compare it to other rifles, some of which are no bigger and only slightly heavier dimensionally but offer far more punch, especially at longer ranges. How many people do you know would vulunatirly go to war with a .357 Magnum knowing they would have to face off against rifles and submachine guns? People talk about hunting. How many people do you think would choose a .357 Magnum handgun over a .30-30 rifle and be better off for it? Somehow I think that putting pistol performance in a rifle sounds wrong when you can have a rifle for marginally more weight.
 
That's weird. It's in a rifle.

It's a carbine.
Let's keep this in perspective: we arn't talking about hunting, and we arn't talking about military engagements. We arn't worried about heavily bundled up North Koreans or Red Chinese.
We are talking about home defense.
Would I choose a .357 as a home defense weapon ?
Absolutely
Would I feel adequately armed with a .30 Carbine FOR HOME DEFENSE ?
Heck yes.
BUT, as a personal preference it wouldn't be my first choice: but that is only because I DO have a choice. It would work fine and I would be comfortable with it.
 
MTMilitiaman said:
That's weird. It's in a rifle.

The bottom line is that the .30 Carbine offers performance that counts as high powered in a pistol. But it is in a rifle and it is only fair to compare it to other rifles, some of which are no bigger and only slightly heavier dimensionally but offer far more punch, especially at longer ranges. How many people do you know would vulunatirly go to war with a .357 Magnum knowing they would have to face off against rifles and submachine guns? People talk about hunting. How many people do you think would choose a .357 Magnum handgun over a .30-30 rifle and be better off for it? Somehow I think that putting pistol performance in a rifle sounds wrong when you can have a rifle for marginally more weight.
Click to expand...

home defense isnt a war.

now your changing the issue. put the 357 in a reliable short rifle and sure, why not? do you look down on the tommy gun? because that was a proven killer in wwII. 357 has just as good of a punch and penetration as the 45acp.


you say 30-30 rifle, is that a lever action? bolt action? because in close quarters the semi auto would have a distinct advantage. is there a semi auto 30-30? if so what magazine size? advantage still falls to the m1 carbine.
 
It's nice that you bring up the Tommy Gun beings as how you make it sound as if the M1 Carbine was supposed to be a SMG. The Allies already had an SMG to provide automatic fire from a pistol cartridge. After the Tommy Gun, it was the M3 Grease Gun. These were submachine guns. There limits were accepted because they were never expected to engage at ranges significantly longer than the pistol. The M1 Carbine isn't a SMG. It was supposed to offer more range than the Thompson with less weight than the Garand. Do you really think they would have complicated logistics enough to offer two weapons in two seperate cartridges with little or no interchangeability between parts to do the same job? The M1 Carbine isn't comparible to the MP5 nearly as much as it is to the M4 carbine, AK-47, SIG 552, G36K or any other carbine. It isn't a submachine gun, it is a carbine, as clearly dictated by its name, meaning it is a short rifle or a shortened version of a rifle. Now if having pistol performance in a rifle is fine with you, fine. If planning for the average and accepting "good enough" does it for you, fine. But don't expect everyone to see the logic in it when you can carry another pound and a half and get an actual rifle cartridge with more power at every range. That is my stance--pistol cartridges for pistols and SMGs--rifle cartridges for rifles and carbines because, well, why use your handgun to fight yourself to a longarm that is only marganially more powerful than your handgun?

My reference to the .30-30 was comparing both the M1 Carbine and the AK to their ballistic rivals. The 7.62x39 offers roughly the same performance as the .30-30--not quite the same but close. The M1 Carbine is more comparible to the .357 Magnum revolver.
 
MTMilitiaman said:
The M1 Carbine isn't a SMG. It was supposed to offer more range than the Thompson with less weight than the Garand.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but not really. The M1 carbine was never intended to be an offensive weapon. It was intended to be a personal defense weapon for rear echelon troops. Pistols didn't work very well because the troops couldn't hit anything with them. The M1 carbine provided a lightweight weapon that your average soldier could actually hit with at the short ranges typical of defensive engagements.

And there is a full auto version of the M1 carbine, of course. It's the M2. They came along too late for WWII, but they were used extensively in Korea.

Finally, there are lots of other pistol caliber carbines, many of which are semiauto. The HK94, for example, is to the MP5 what the M1 carbine is to the M2. There are literally dozens of other examples. Even when departments use selector-equipped MP5's (as my brother's SWAT team does), they often use them in semi-auto mode.

But I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. So what if the M1 carbine isn't full auto? Neither are any of the other firearms that 99% would consider for home/personal defense. And as I pointed out, if full auto capability is important to you, there is always the M2.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The M1 carbine is a useful weapon. It doesn't do everything that lots of other weapons do, but it does some things better than any other. It was designed as a lightweight and easy-to-hit-with semi-auto firearm that is effective at short ranges (<150 meters). That sounds like a very good description of what most of us want in a home defense weapon. The M1 carbine is a reasonable compromise that combines positive attributes of both a rifle and a pistol combined with a cartridge that is more powerful than most pistol cartridges but less so than most rifle cartridges. If you feel the need for something more powerful, then by all means use something more powerful. If you feel that a carbine is too much, then use a pistol. But why deny that the M1 carbine can play a useful role?
 
I didn't care for that Box of Truth test. They didn't use a very thick bundle of fabric, and I would rather have seen it mounted up against the water jug. A mishmash of different fabrics would have been good also. In other tests, FMJ pistol rounds penetrated just fine against other materials.

I think what others said about the probable source of that myth are probably right. The only guess I could make would be if the bullet would deflect in the fabric, but I don't know.
 
The problem I have with the box of truth is that it was immediately adopted by the internet crowd as being the absolute last word on ballistics. Even if it contradicts what all the recognized experts in the field agree upon: on occasion.
The author of the website cautions against this, but the internet warriors didn't listen: as long as it supports their arguments.
This isn't to discount what this guy did: it was very interesting and informative. But it is an informal test conducted in a guy's backyard. Keep things in perspective.
 
Father Knows Best said:
But I'm not really sure what your point is, anyway. So what if the M1 carbine isn't full auto? Neither are any of the other firearms that 99% would consider for home/personal defense. And as I pointed out, if full auto capability is important to you, there is always the M2.
Click to expand...

You're the one stuck on automatic fire capabilities. I only brought that up once and it was in reference to the Thompson. If you continue to read things into people's responses, don't be surprised if you miss the point.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The M1 carbine is a useful weapon. It doesn't do everything that lots of other weapons do, but it does some things better than any other. It was designed as a lightweight and easy-to-hit-with semi-auto firearm that is effective at short ranges (<150 meters). That sounds like a very good description of what most of us want in a home defense weapon. The M1 carbine is a reasonable compromise that combines positive attributes of both a rifle and a pistol combined with a cartridge that is more powerful than most pistol cartridges but less so than most rifle cartridges. If you feel the need for something more powerful, then by all means use something more powerful. If you feel that a carbine is too much, then use a pistol. But why deny that the M1 carbine can play a useful role?
Click to expand...

I am not denying that the M1 Carbine may be useful, may be fun, or may be adequate for most scenerios of home defense. My entire point, however, is that there may be better options for those willing to accept a small weight gain for a substancial increase in power.
 
M-1 vs. AK-47

The AK-47 I would carry. The .30cal carbine was a rifle for supply troops [back of the line] doctors medics mechanics. Did you all know it was built and designed by a prisoner here in the states in prision, I forget his name but after the war he got a presidental pardon.

Kent
 
MechAG94 - I have done some informal tests with different guns and shooting through things and into a "hidden" target. If anything, I think it would make the wound even nastier if the bullet tumbled before it hit. I have seen bullets only punch a hole on an exposed but tear extremely wicked holes when they were shot through something first.
An uncle who fought in Korea told me that the M-2 would climb right up in the air on you when fired in FA. I think that is where alot of the complaints about the carbine come from.
Still, I would rather have an AK. Ammo is still cheaper for them and they are still more powerful.
 
Sandmann said:
What is your opinion on which rifle is superior for self defense/CQB purposes, the AK-47 or the M-1 Carbine? Why?
Click to expand...

For CQB? Definitely a handgun. If I'm fighting for my life at contact distance I want a weapon I can effectively use one-handed.

I think an AK is the better fighting rifle of the two. I still think M1 carbines are cool, but they weren't designed to serve as primary combat weapons. The purpose of the carbine was to arm vehicle crews and non-infantry units with a compact weapon. The FN p90 was designed to serve a similar role and seems subject to the same type of criticism.The fact that the carbine was widely used in Korea and WW2 was due mainly to swapping and poor logistics, "fog of war".
The M1 carbine is still a great gun and a skilled shooter could overcome its limitations.
 
Father Knows Best said:
From my point of view, the question isn't whether the .30 carbine round is "better than" or even "as good as" the 7.62x39, or 5.56, or anything else. It's whether the .30 carbine round is "good enough" for home defense.
Click to expand...

That was my point, also. I said in my first post I would choose the 30 US Carbine for home defense in preference to the AK47 which, IIRC, I said had all the ergonomics of a stick of firewood. The 30 Carbine (real GI) is a fine weapon within its limitations. It was not a great front line weapon but is good for the homeowner. The AK47 is also a good little weapon but for carrying around with you it is not very handy, with its protuberances, etc. That was my point.
 
Some of you should do some reading on the actual reasons why the M2 Carbine and not the M1 got a bad rep in Korea. Had very little to do with the caliber and "not putting down the enemy with one round in their winter clothing" and more to do with a complete lack of fire dicipline due to it's full auto nature, light weight/difficulty to control at full auto, and lack of reliabililty at full auto. The weaon wasn't really designed for full auto fire and while they had a WWII version that was full auto it was deemed unreliable and therefore abandoned. The General who drafted the letter in Korea constantly refers to the fact that the weapon offers no firepower advantage at full auto because the shooter wastes his ammo quickly and doesn't hit anything. He was comparing it against the Garand. In his letter, which I've read, he makes multiple references to converting the Carbine back to semi auto and coming up with another SMG or fire superiority weapon. Note that in WWII we had the Thompson (another weapon who the soldiers who actually used it said only worked at short range).

The militarys requirements for spray and pray were much different then (coming off the 8 round Garand) and I suspect that the first issue M16 which were only full auto suffered the same criticisms in Viet Nam against the more accurate and much harder hitting M14. Now all our M16 based weapons are semi auto/3 round burst - probably to address some of the generals concerns.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either rifle - but I'd take the Carbine since I'm a WWII geek.
 
Cartridge and SHTF situations aside... from a collector shooter standpoint if someone was standing there with an M1 Carbine in one hand and a Semi Auto Ak inthe other and they were going to give me one, but only one of them for free... I'd take the Carbine hands down. :) My best choice of rifle in a real SHTF situation would be neither of the two, athough if it was a choice of only those two... I suppose I might get a slight edge to the AK if for no other reason than even here in the US the ammo is more readily available....

As for which I would rather own and collect, the Carbine... :)
 
One more comment. I think these weapons were designed with different criteria and therefore aren't a fair comparison. The M1 had weight, size, cartridge, and capacity requirements placed on it by ordinance that were very specific (it was, as has been stated, designed to replace the combat ineffective .45 pistol (not enough firepower/capacity and too difficult to use effectively in combat was the major beef with the 1911 from WWI) for support/rear troops).

The German's effectiveness at overrunning rear support and artillery troops during their Blitzkrieg heyday of early WWII really jump started the Carbine program.

As far as I know the AK was designed to be a front line assault/battle type weapon and has been beyond effective in that mission.

Jeff
 
+1 What Ares said.

As for the Box of Truth. I like the tests and they are good information, but you have to pay attention to their set up, their test method, and how they measure things. You have to take it and any other testing with a grain of salt.

One good bit of information was in showing how much pistol rounds penetrate normal drywall. Rifle rounds as well. It really shows that you need to be very careful how you shoot in home defense and where. I am in a townhome and I could easily put bullets through my neighbors homes. I suggested to the guy that he should put a water jug in front of the drywall to simulate shooting through a bad guy, but he has not added that to his tests yet. :)
 
Paradiddle said:
Some of you should do some reading on the actual reasons why the M2 Carbine and not the M1 got a bad rep in Korea. Had very little to do with the caliber and "not putting down the enemy with one round in their winter clothing" and more to do with a complete lack of fire dicipline due to it's full auto nature, light weight/difficulty to control at full auto, and lack of reliabililty at full auto. The weaon wasn't really designed for full auto fire and while they had a WWII version that was full auto it was deemed unreliable and therefore abandoned. The General who drafted the letter in Korea constantly refers to the fact that the weapon offers no firepower advantage at full auto because the shooter wastes his ammo quickly and doesn't hit anything. He was comparing it against the Garand. In his letter, which I've read, he makes multiple references to converting the Carbine back to semi auto and coming up with another SMG or fire superiority weapon. Note that in WWII we had the Thompson (another weapon who the soldiers who actually used it said only worked at short range).

The militarys requirements for spray and pray were much different then (coming off the 8 round Garand) and I suspect that the first issue M16 which were only full auto suffered the same criticisms in Viet Nam against the more accurate and much harder hitting M14. Now all our M16 based weapons are semi auto/3 round burst - probably to address some of the generals concerns.

I wouldn't want to get shot with either rifle - but I'd take the Carbine since I'm a WWII geek.
Click to expand...


I think I mentioned this on page two, didn't help. There's just no helping some folks. :p
 
NineseveN said:
I think I mentioned this on page two, didn't help. There's just no helping some folks. :p
Click to expand...

My fault for not being able to read all this and restating it! :D
 
I would use my M1 Carbine for HD in my present location. If I lived in Somalia, Croatia or Northern Burma I would use the AK 47. The answer is situational not mechanical.
The M1 is by far more handy and convenient. It is much easier to handle for ALL family members. My petite wife can easily handle and reload the M1 Carbine not so with the Kalashnikov.
There is a guy who did professional gelatin tests on the 30 M1 with modern ammo. He said it got 16" of penetration and expanded to .57 - .64 inches. This was Rem and Win 110 gr expanding bullets. He posts on Tactical Forums under the name Doc GKR. A smart person would do a search in that forum.
If you are interested in the 30 M1 please e mail Cor Bon about the production of the 30 M1 DPX. This would help M1 Carbine owners a lot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
  • Poll
M-4 or AK 47 for Home Defense
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Replies
182
Views
8K
Firepower!
F
S
  • Locked
AK-47 vs AK-74... the future of 5.45... and the KING of assault rifles
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
Evil Monkey
E
G
  • Locked
AK 47 vs Mini 14
Replies
10
Views
2K
MechAg94
M
F
  • Locked
Super cross between AK-47 and AR15: SR-47
Replies
10
Views
2K
Forseti
F
nwilliams
  • Locked
AK-47 Question....
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
nwilliams
nwilliams
Back
Top