M1 Carbine w/Softpoints vs. AR with your Favorite Ammo

[d2wing]

Momentum is not a measurement of the destructive force of a bullet. Momentum is the ability of an object to remain in motion or remain stationary unless acted upon by an outside force. it is not a ballistic measurement. Bullets do not push over critters. Death occurs by destruction of tissue that sutains life like the heart, lungs, brain or blood loss. The selection of proper bullet and weapon is pretty important. I don't see anyone suggesting the .223 for bear.

 

[mavracer]

Momentum is the ability of an object to remain in motion or remain stationary unless acted upon by an outside force.

Object=bullet outside force=tissue

I don't see anyone suggesting the .223 for bear.

You're saying energy=a bullets ability to do damage, a .223 has more energy than standard pressure 45/70 therefore by your standard a .223 would be the better bear round.

 

[d2wing]

I go by terms used by ballistic engineers. The formula is different. The discussion is about the .30 carbine bs the 5.56/223. In my opinion there is no question that the AR round is superior all around especially since I like to have my range options. But I have learned that the WW 2 and Korea stories do not mean it is useless. It is better than I thought and might make a good kid's rifle or handy carry rifle for some. I use my .357 when tracking deer in brush you have to crrawl through but the carbine would work now that it is legal. Learn new stuff all the time.
I did watch an old Army training video that showed it making a hole in a German helmet at 50 yards. That was cool. AR does it at what 5-600 yards but still cool.

 

[JShirley]

Both .223 and .30 Carbine are powerful enough for in-home defense. The big challenges are shot placement and bullet selection, since most traditional .30 Carbine loads will overpenetrate a human body at close range.

 

[d2wing]

No mavracer a 30-06 is better for bear than either. Standard terminal ballistic science, bigger and faster is better. Slow is for pistols. A slow rifle makes no sense unless you have a crush on either Grizzly Adams or Dale Evans. I always liked Dale and 30/30's myself.

 

[mavracer]

No mavracer a 30-06 is better for bear than either.

And you'd need to use 110gr bullets right, they have the most energy.

A slow rifle makes no sense unless you have a crush on either Grizzly Adams

Or you have an understanding of how energy and momentum relate to external ballistics.

 

[d2wing]

Terminal ballistics is a known science. Ballistic engineers know what they are talking about. I will listen to them , not you and not Internet quackery. And I advise others to do the same. External ballistics is not the subject and displaying your ignorance and childish remarks are fine with me. It just shows who you are.

 

[mavracer]

Ballistic engineers know what they are talking about.

Just who are these ballistic engineers that you are siting please site sources.

 

[d2wing]

. Hornaday has a nice article on their Web site.

 

[kBob]

d2wing,

Be nice. This is the High Road after all.

IWBS? You might be interested to know that Dr. Fackler's bedside home defense gun was a nice GI M-1 Carbine loaded with those teenie tiny old hollow pointed soft points.( think that was the Winchester load but may have been the Remington, in the way back that was all there was and one made a soft point and the other put a very small hollow point in much the same SP bullet) He also had an high speed Xray of the temp cavity in an actual cadaver chest of that round and it looked quite good enough....dispite "wasting" energy on a full body penetration.

This is something like a religious argument. The .30 carbine folks will not convince the .223 folks and vice versa.

Let us all chill.......

-kBob

 

[mavracer]

The .30 carbine folks will not convince the .223 folks and vice versa.

It's really hard to even have a conversation about the two when folks don't understand the relationship between energy and momentum and how the two affect a bullets performance in tissue.

 

[d2wing]

That is in part because the formula used by bullet companies and educated ballistic scientists is energy which is a different formula than momentum and means something a little different, but I give up on explaining it to you.
There is a scientific paper with references that discusses Facklers findings but you wouldn't want to read it anyway. So it is a free country and you make your own calls.

 

[mavracer]

Your naïve argument body slammed in three easy steps
1: search "Martin Fackler Ballistics"

2: go to the second result

3: read first page

MacPherson has included an outline of the contents of his book's chapters in the introduction, as well as providing an excellent summary at the end of each chapter. He exposes and corrects common fallacies -- such as the presumption that kinetic energy determines bullet effect. In that section we find:
• Newton's laws of motion describe forces and momentum transfer, not energy relationships • Damage is done by stress (force), not energy.
• Stresses cause damage only if they strain body tissues above their elastic limits. Most expanding handgun bullets simply waste the kinetic energy used in producing the small temporary cavities they cause.

The rest of the review can be seen here

 

[d2wing]

Facklers work is know to be flawed and biased. There are papers that prove that.

Real scientists like Norman Hutchinson and Robert Kent long ago published real scientific documents that proved the effectiveness of smaller faster rounds for military use and lead to the development of the 5.56 NATO.
Test have born them out. The military has many experts whose job is to research and test. I sure trust them over Internet wonders.
You can follow quacks if you want. There is abosolutely no point in discussing anything with you. You will not even bother to look it up.
Really, Facklers endorses his buddy, neither of whom are professional ballistic experts but write papers as a sideline. Quackery at it's finest.
I thought it was hilarious when Facklers say that it never occurred to him to do experiments. Some scientist. Lol. I feel bad for people when they quote those guys.

 

[Theohazard]

Army tests

science and studies

I go by terms used by ballistic engineers.

Terminal ballistics is a known science. Ballistic engineers know what they are talking about.

the formula used by bullet companies and educated ballistic scientists

There is a scientific paper with references that discusses Facklers findings

There are papers that prove that.

Real scientists like Norman Hutchinson and Robert Kent long ago published real scientific documents

Test have born them out.

D2wing, you keep using terms like "science", "studies", "ballistics engineers", "formula", "scientific paper", and you keep mentioning "tests", but I haven't once seen you cite a single source for any of these references. This isn't how scientific arguments work: If you make a claim and mention references, you need to provide evidence for those claims and sources for those references.

Now, I'm not claiming you're wrong, I'm simply annoyed that someone would base their argument on so many outside references without once providing a single link to any of those references.

 

[d2wing]

Sorry but I haven't figured out how to link to the courses and classes I have taken and the textbooks I have read in the Army, by the NRA, by the University of Minnesota and the DNR to be a certified instructor for those organization's. And the many articles and books I have read. Along with 50 years as a hunter experience with all types of firearms and a certified expert with some and also certified to teach hunting classes. To say nothing of the training and certifications in the Army and my experience in Vietnam in Combat.
I don't have much faith in the spread stupidity net.
I did mention Hornady again they have a nice little article and you can google the men I mentioned. What they wrote and did studies on was once a military secret but google them and you will find out why all the major Armies of the world use something like the 5.56 NATO.
I am afraid most of the blogs and article on the Internet are by amateurs and crackpots but if you search you can find some truths. One of the AR sites has some good links. If I run across any I will attempt to link them.
But really the best information is from accredited organization's in real classrooms with real textbooks. I have not seen real accredited Ballistic Scientists post online because their info is not given away. If it is free on the Internet by someone not trained in science it is worth what you pay. Nothing.

 

[mavracer]

you can google the men I mentioned. What they wrote and did studies on was once a military secret but google them and you will find out why all the major Armies of the world use something like the 5.56 NATO.

I did and Robert Kent died 3 years before the .223 was designed
Internet quackery lol when you can't support your argument with facts just resort to ad hominem.

 

[amd6547]

"...I did watch an old Army training video that showed it making a hole in a German helmet at 50 yards. That was cool. AR does it at what 5-600 yards but still cool..."-d2wing

Not sure which video you saw, but I went back and watched a WWII film which depicted a 1911 denting a German helmet at 50yds, while the M1 carbine was shown ventilating both sides at 100yds.

I own a carbine because of its history. It really is a triumph of America industry. Conceived, designed, and adapted in months...production sourced to companies with zero experience in small arms, millions made in just a couple years...So many, production was stopped because we had so many more than needed. Iconic in photos ranging from Normandy to Mt suribachi to Hue to Watts. Favorite of Audie Murphy and Jim Cirillo.
A great American carbine just as useful as it ever was, specifically designed not to replace a rifle, but to replace a pistol.

 

[M1key]

Watermelon test. Definitive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5u-EsgHGo4

M

 

[d2wing]

I take it you did not read his papers. I said his work lead to the development of the 5.56 NATO. It was probably 20 years or so before the round was developed. But I am done here.

 

[d2wing]

Amd, yeah I was wrong, I looked again and you were right.

 

[amd6547]

Really not sure why you act so juvenile d2wing. I've owned an M1Garand in the past, and my Dad, who got a government paid chance to demonstrate the Garand to the Germans in a little place called Falaise, told me the difference between the carbine and Garand a long time ago.

Here is the video. Very entertaining.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EuSOecA864o

 

[d2wing]

Amd I did not remember it correctly.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Well, time waits for no one. In a few years we will have another military cartridge. Will the 5.56 be as popular in 70 years as the 30 carbine? Will it get slammed as a useless cartridge just like the 30 carbine. My guess is it will. But one thing for sure, the M4/M16 won't be sold as surplus to civilians. It will meet the same fate as the M14.

I have a 6 digit Inland built in 43. It went to war and came home. That's all I need to know.

 

[X-Rap]

I have a 6 digit Inland built in 43. It went to war and came home. That's all I need to know.

So that makes it a magical killing machine rather than what was 75 years ago state of the art and now a usable utilitarian tool?
Do these relics speak late at night of there many exploits overseas?
Nostalgia is fascinating and I do my share of enjoying it but in these gun discussions it borders on mental illness at times.