Ineffective .30 Carbines in Korea?

[JFrame]

I've seen men in Vietnam, barely over 100 pounds in weight, and wearing just a thin shirt, absorb two and three 5.56 rounds, and just flinch at each hit. Should we, then , have wrapped our M16 rifles around trees? Of course, that was when the danged things would fire that many rounds without a jam.

Korea generally had longer distances involved in the "failures" to stop. Add into that the fact that many times the Koreans used human wave attacks, as well. As the wall of screaming humanity surged towards our soldiers, most of them simply aimed at anything moving towards them. Part of the failure to stop may well have been from shooting at unknown distances with the M1 Carbine. They may well have missed the target, or hit peripherally, neither of which will be effective.

I'm guessing that blaming the cartridge was easier than blaming the marksmanship of the shooter.

The NY detective was Jim Cirillo.

I recall reading that Jim Cirillo of the NY Stake-Out Squad preferred the M-1 carbine of all weapons available to him at the time, up to and including the 12-gauge shotgun.

That's what I recall reading...I'll gladly be corrected in this regard, if it is otherwise.

.

 

[leadcounsel]

I can see how a few Soldiers - some shooting the M1 Garand and others shooting the M1 Carbine, would observe different performance. Private Jones seems to be able to hit his targets at 300 yards and they drop with the M1 Garand, yet the Koreans that Private Smith "hits" with the Carbine aren't going down... The Garand is going to fire quite flat at 300-500 yards. The Carbine not so much.

Observations are a funny thing sometimes. Call it illusions, "I know I hit him" factor, distance and bullet drop, range, perception, etc.

Just like all the alleged people in conflicts with 5.56 holes in them who allegedly continued to fight, I don't buy it.

My caveat is that some of these Koreans, Vietnamese, or other 3rd world fighters *may* have been high on speed, kat, or other pain diffusing drugs that allowed them to continue to fight in spite of serious wounds. That's no slight against the ballistic performance of the weapon, as any small arms would have had the same effect.

The .30 carbine is no less effective than a pistol round, and probably more effective, to which we can all agree, and we all know that pistol rounds aren't deterred by frozen winter jackets.

 

[Ian]

Claiming an ineffective round sounds a lot better than admitting that you missed the guy. I'm sure there were some folks who fought through hits, as Vern says, but I suspect the majority of Korean War stories are actually the result of insufficient marksmanship rather than any problem with the cartridge.

 

[Tommygunn]

The Korean war ineffectivenes is a myth as has been said, and was proved so back DURING the war.
One CO upon hearing such reports about the .30 carbine round's supposed inability to penetrate those quilted overcoats the Norht Koreans wore took his men out to a battlefield where it was known the dead were shot with carbines (this during winter). The dead soldiers were all wearing those quilted coats and bullet holes were found both as entry wounds and as exit wounds.
The carbine round penetrated the clothing twice. And of course that also includes one human body in the process.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've seen men in Vietnam, barely over 100 pounds in weight, and wearing just a thin shirt, absorb two and three 5.56 rounds, and just flinch at each hit. Should we, then , have wrapped our M16 rifles around trees?

That would have been a good idea -- but in US units, we didn't have the ARVN to bum an M1.

I'm guessing that blaming the cartridge was easier than blaming the marksmanship of the shooter.

I killed the man in question with a .357 and examined his body -- he had been hit repeatedly.

 

[Float Pilot]

My dad was a grunt in the Pacific during WWII and later in Korea. He was a 145 pound teenager (victim of the 1930s depression) in the Pacific and he loved the M-1 carbine due the size and weight. He also related that the engagement ranges were very short.

Later during Korea, when he was heavier, more experienced and older he noted that the M2 carbine was inadequate for most of the ridge-line and hill top fighting in Korea due to its limited range and troubles with cold temp functioning. By that time he was a senior NCO and he liked the idea of common ammunition for the entire unit.

He also mentioned that the Chinese human wave attacks were different in that the Chinese troops could not withdraw when lightly wounded. They would have been killed by their own political officers.

He said that several captured Chi-Coms said that they were also hoping to find food , blankets and some sort of heat source in the American positions. So they were determined to continue forward when wounded. His opinion was that the only useful weapon for most of Korea was multiple belt fed machine-guns with interlocking fire. With Garands and BARS protecting the MGs.

He further remarked that they always used A.P. ammo in their Garands and machine guns because it would penetrate frozen ground and ice. He said that the US positions would often be surrounded by the frozen bodies of Chi-com troops and that the next wave of attacking chi-coms would use the bodies as protective sand-bags when crawling forward. This may have been where the rumor started about frozen clothing. Many a city boy would not understand that the dead body was also a frozen barricade.

An M-1 carbine will fit into a police 870 shotgun patrol car rack. I carried one for awhile and stopped after I shot a couple very large rabid dogs. The dogs ran off spraying blood all over. Very embarrassing.

 

[javjacob]

I've seen men in Vietnam, barely over 100 pounds in weight, and wearing just a thin shirt, absorb two and three 5.56 rounds, and just flinch at each hit. Should we, then , have wrapped our M16 rifles around trees? Of course, that was when the danged things would fire that many rounds without a jam. QUOTE

NAILED IT!!^^^ I would take a 30 carbine over a 5.56 anyday

 

[Slamfire]

I used to work with a Vietnam Infantry Officer (Junior), and his Dad is a Veteran of both WW2 and Korea. Dad was in Korea just as the Chinese came pouring out of the Chosen Reservoir. Dad was in charge of a Company and was mentioned in some book, as his unit held against the human wave attacks.

I asked Junior about the effectiveness of the 30 carbine, and he asked his Dad. Dad’s reply was “they were hopped up, hell they were all hopped up”. I assume that meant the Chinese were either drunk, drugged, or just non responsive to normal hits. I suspect all three are true as the Chinese were highly motivated, fatalistic, and brave, Soldiers.

You should not discount courage and determination in any human being. A guy who is willing to die, just to take you out, is going to push through the pain. Fackler stated that blood loss is a guaranteed stopping mechanism (paraphrased!) but the longer it takes someone to bleed out, the longer they will be around. I recall a sea story from a Vietnam Veteran. He saw a Vietnamese charge an M60 machine gun, the Vietnamese was armed with a bamboo spear and wore home made bamboo armor. He managed to spear to death the gunner before keeling over. A boss of mine remembered seeing a Japanese Officer beating on a tank, with his sword, screaming like a banshee, all the while chunks of him were coming off, due to the Officer being in the line of fire of a Browning 50 cal. Obviously the 50 cal won, but not instantaneously.

While the carbine was loved for its light weight, it was never intended to be a full service battle rifle.

 

[TestPilot]

The NY detective was Jim Cirillo.

Cirillo liked the M1 Carbine for its performance, not so much about limited penetration as some mentioned. He even liked it better than shotguns and submachineguns.

I would too. For a close quarters weapon, it would do okay. Not the best choice, considering that there are lot better options now, but it was great for his time.

 

[Casefull]

The .30 carbine is no less effective than a pistol round, and probably more effective, to which we can all agree, and we all know that pistol rounds aren't deterred by frozen winter jackets

The preceding statement indicates that you in fact know very little. Pistols suck at stopping human attackers that are shooting at you. The problem with you and a lot of internet experts is your lack of real world experience. Try hunting big game with your 30 carbine and various pistols. Then imagine that that animal is armed and trying to kill you. Considerr a 30 carbine in cold winter weather (velocity reduced just from temperature), someone shooting at 100 yds, heavy clothing wet and frozen on the outer layers, bullet hits a metal object carried by the soldier, soldier body is at an angle to the path of the bullet, etc, etc. The low velocity of the round will not cause much tissue damage when it does penetrate.

 

[bainter1212]

I can see how a few Soldiers - some shooting the M1 Garand and others shooting the M1 Carbine, would observe different performance. Private Jones seems to be able to hit his targets at 300 yards and they drop with the M1 Garand, yet the Koreans that Private Smith "hits" with the Carbine aren't going down... The Garand is going to fire quite flat at 300-500 yards. The Carbine not so much.

Observations are a funny thing sometimes. Call it illusions, "I know I hit him" factor, distance and bullet drop, range, perception, etc.

Just like all the alleged people in conflicts with 5.56 holes in them who allegedly continued to fight, I don't buy it.

My caveat is that some of these Koreans, Vietnamese, or other 3rd world fighters *may* have been high on speed, kat, or other pain diffusing drugs that allowed them to continue to fight in spite of serious wounds. That's no slight against the ballistic performance of the weapon, as any small arms would have had the same effect.

The .30 carbine is no less effective than a pistol round, and probably more effective, to which we can all agree, and we all know that pistol rounds aren't deterred by frozen winter jackets.

My grandfather was a radioman in Korea and carried an M2 carbine. He survived several "human wave" attacks. During one such attack, he fired his carbine on full auto until the barrel warped. Apparently there were plenty extra, 'cause he wrapped that one around a tree and grabbed another.

He says he would tape two mags together, one topsy-turvy, so as to change mags quick. I asked him about the effectiveness of the .30 carbine round and he says it was "good enough". He said that the enemy getting too close scared the crap outta everybody so he just fired and fired. He didn't have time during these attacks to make studied observations. He also said they would all hang as many grenades as possible off of their persons because these were what you wanted when too many Chinese got too close.
As to the above comment, my grandfather also says that opium was a big problem in Korea. The Chinese were issued it ("in little black baggies") and the U.S. troops often took it off of the dead. NCOs often told their troops to "empty their pockets" so as to confiscate whatever opium was found.

My grandfather is still alive and kicking and spry as a spring tom turkey. He turns 85 on the 7th of this month. I will get him in touch with anyone who wishes to ask him a question about his use of the M2. Although fair warning - the old gentleman tends to ramble on and on about unrelated subjects.

 

[Nom de Forum]

There is nothing mythical about failures to stop with the M1 Carbine. The documentation is solid. My father experienced it more than once in the Pacific in WWII, and as a result became insparable from an "03 Springfield. Failures with the 9mm are also well documented. This does not suggest that they are not useful for civilian uses with expanding bullets, nor that they have not frequently been effective in military use.

What documentation is "solid"? No offense to you or your father, but anything that begins with "my father experienced it" is hearsay and not documentation. I started this thread because I believe the stories of .30 Carbine ineffectiveness to be wildly exaggerated and am hoping someone has a source of written documentation from the U.S. military that can withstand some analytical scrutiny.

 

[Nom de Forum]

My dad was a platoon leader at Okinawa and his unit was positioned around a quad 50 mount that they were using to repel banzai charges, when during a charge as he was walking up and down the line checking on his guys, a Jap officer took a bead on my dad and came at him with his sword up in the air. My dad shot him in the torso 4 to 5 times with a carbine but he kept coming. My Dad 's buddy a Cajun guy name Luc took the officer down with a blast from a Mod 12 trench gun . Those M1 shots were probably fatal but not a man stopper. My Uncle in the European theater had similar results. By the way I have the sword!

That's a good story, just like many others I have heard about the .30 Carbine, but it is not documentation that can withstand analytical scrutiny.

 

[dogrunner]

I own an M/2..........had the thing for over 45 years, I have also played with and fired a Tokarev. I'd take that carbine any day compared to the latter. In point of fact, I would rather be armed with a selective fire .30 carbine than any submachine gun ever made! The ergonomics alone make the carbine a far faster piece to put into action. Too, one cannot dispute the increased range afforded by that caliber as opposed to any 9 or .45 round.

Far as the cartridge itself......sure there's a lot better out there........the 5.56 is certainly no slouch and it's first iteration with that 1/14" twist was from all reports a far better killer than the later faster versions that just punched holes rather than tumbling (I was present at the arctic testing and I can state first hand that the 14 twist rate was a pitiful proposition on a 100 meter target at 40 below!)......The bottom line is that there IS no perfect gun/cartridge combo....the Garand (went thu basic w/one) has certainly earned it's stripes but it was and is far from the epitome of battlefield perfection.......try running at a jog for nearly twenty miles packin' one....I have!

Truly, you didn't have much a choice and you danced with what you brung!!

Fella I worked with for years was a Marine in K and because he was such a big man got stuck with a BAR........stated he hated that "jammin' SOB"...direct quote, having fooled with that package I sorta just dismissed his comments as the usual bitching that all soldiers do....they are not happy if they do not! He used to tell those stories while pricking pieces of schrapnel from his thighs with a pocket knife, stating that for once that gun worked thru a 20 round mag when he crawled up to the pit a chinaman was tossing grenades from!

 

[eastbank]

my uncle was in the 11th airborne and went in the phillipines in a higgens boat(most did not jump) with a m1 carbine and after several small fire fights in the streets of manila, picked up a m1 garand and left the carbine with a jeep driver. he said he just shot the m1 garand better and like the better penatration the 3006 gave threw the cover the japanese were sometimes hiding behind. the fire fight he most remembered was when 20 japanese soldiers charged him and 7 other GI,s out of a alley at about 60 yards and they killed them all, and said they didn,t stop fireing untill not one of them was alive. he also said that some of the japanese in the rear of the charge were hit several times by bullets going thru the first one and hitting them as their bodies were near where the charge began. eastbank.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The Korean war ineffectivenes is a myth as has been said, and was proved so back DURING the war.
One CO upon hearing such reports about the .30 carbine round's supposed inability to penetrate those quilted overcoats the Norht Koreans wore took his men out to a battlefield where it was known the dead were shot with carbines (this during winter). The dead soldiers were all wearing those quilted coats and bullet holes were found both as entry wounds and as exit wounds.
The carbine round penetrated the clothing twice. And of course that also includes one human body in the process.

Do you recall where you came upon this information? It certainly is believable a commander would do this.

 

[Tommygunn]

Do you recall where you came upon this information? It certainly is believable a commander would this.

I tried to find out which of my books had this accounting, but unfortunatly the couple of "easy" places I thought might have it didn't.
I'll try to look for it and if I find it I'll come back and post ... if the thread gets old & locked I'll PM you.
The .30 Carbine round suffered in comparison to the M-1 Garand's .30-'06 round. If you compare those two rounds, however, you don't have to be a ballistics expert to guess which round is more powerful.
The .30 Carbine round, however, has been observed by many experts to have more penetrative power than it's "by-the-book" ballistics numbers would suggest.

 

[Airborne Falcon]

I read this article on it a while back.

www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-36-frozen-clothing-and-the-box-o-truth/

Now that test isn't exactly scientific, but I think it proves that a 30 carbine wouldn't have any problems penetrating a frozen winter coat.

EDIT: Darn it, Lewis beat me to it.

But dangit ... they should have used frozen cloth!

Everyone knows those little pointy heads were wearing layers of frozen clothes.

And the 30 carbine rounds were frozen ...

And it was mainly the Chinese, not the North Koreans, who refused to die when shot in their frozen clothes with frozen ammo.

[emoji106]

 

[orionengnr]

The .30 Carbine round is, in effect, a glorified pistol round. Go through your handloading books and make up your own mind.

No surprise that it is a marginally effective rifle round.

Of course, it is far more pleasant to carry than an M1 Garand or M14. But when someone is shooting back....which would you rather have? I think this question has been asked and answered, many times over.

I won't get into the 5.56 debate.

 

[wlewisiii]

When I started in the army as a 19E, I liked my M1911A1.

When I was a 19D I'd have rather had an M1 Carbine than an M-16A1.

When I was a 11B, I'd have rather had an FAL than an M-16A1.

Rather depends on your POV, now doesn't it?

 

[USSR]

While the carbine was loved for its light weight, it was never intended to be a full service battle rifle.

+1. And I will simply add that the rear sight adjustment out to 300 yards is wildly optimistic.

Don

 

[skoro]

Having served with a number of vets of the Korean conflict during my military days many moons ago, I'd heard the stories. Everyone thought the same thing: it's BS. Likely someone shot at a figure in heavy bulky clothing and they didn't go down because the bullet passed through the clothing w/o striking the occupant inside it.

As always, shot placement trumps all else.

 

[garyhan]

By itself, my father's experience is insignificant. I merely cited it because it is so typical of reports of the carbine's failure to stop. The post Korea reports were old hat since the army was already aware of the situation by 1943 (many problems with the carbines of airborne troops at Salerno, in addition to increasing reports from the Pacific) . That the carbine was not entirely successful as a primary battle weapon was the impetus for experimentation with the so-called Tanker Garand. Certainly many soldiers and marines were well served by their carbines, just as many police officers in the good old days were well served by the standard velocity .38 spec
158 gr round nose. Both are less than entirely satisfactory combat rounds. For home defense, I suspect that expanding bullets make the .30 carbine quite effective. Incidentally, I have owned and loved M1 Carbines since I was 14. Recognizing a firearms shortcomings is not a blanket condemnation.

gary

 

[Float Pilot]

When I was in Korea the ground was not all torn up by aerial bombs and artillery strikes.
But it was obvious that the steep up and down nature of the terrain would make range guess-ta-mation very difficult. But in general it is a long range game in that area.

The 110 grain round nose Carbine bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1950 fps on a good day in hot weather. ( less at 20 below zero)
Since the bullet only has a B.C. of 0.145 to 0.154, that means that at 300 yards it is like getting shot with a 32 auto pistol.

When the rest of your unit opens fire at 300-400 yards with Garands and BARs, you would be either temped or expected to join-in by spraying the target area with your carbine. The results would be quite non-spectacular.

Now inside a trench-line, bunker or building.... Well then an M-2 would be quite useful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2-iBv5Z3sY


Training film from 1945
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqJ5YCszIH0

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The basic problem with the M1 and M2 carbine is that it was a replacement for the M1911 pistol that was then used as a substitute for the M1 rifle and criticized when it couldn't do what the Garand could. The lesson, as always: use the right tool for the job. A pistol-caliber carbine is a poor substitute for a real rifle.