M1 Garand vs. M1 Carbine

[telomerase]

It's simple physics. Therefore, any round that is carrying 600 ft-lbs of energy and fails to penetrate a target at all must transfer all 600 ft-lbs to the target. That is more than enough energy to knock a bowling pin over!

Energy doesn't knock things over. You could shoot a bowling pin with 600 ft-lbs of energy from a laser beam and just burn a hole though it without moving it at all.

Momentum knocks things over, but doesn't necessarily hurt them. Thus the superiority of the M1 carbine round over a thrown rock with the same momentum

 

[DMK]

If your saying that the CPO had a M1 Garand. And a boar did not go down from 8 rds of 30-06. But 2 rds of .45 stoped it

I'm saying it took a whole clip from the Garand and a bunch of 45ACP (maybe the whole mag, who knows) to stop him. Of course, it was all FMJ since that was all they had.

My point being, the Garand isn't the hammer of Thor either when loaded with military ball ammo. At least not to a really big and angry pig.

Now given the choice, I wouldn't load a Garand with ball ammo to hunt boar and I wouldn't load a carbine with ball to defend my home either. A carbine loaded with good HP or SP ammo is a very effective defensive weapon. Of course, so is a Garand loaded with TAP.

 

[Dienekes]

The carbine is one of those "better than no gun at all" pieces. It has some virtues, but they are mostly those of general handiness. It is almost the flip side of a Garand. I remember the $20 DCM carbines--and even then had little desire for one. (even in those days I could come up with $20 if I really wanted to.)

Carried one many hours and miles in the service but for what I did with it a red Ryder BB gun would have served equally well. Shot the M2 version full auto a few times which made impressive sounds but hit little. Reliability was a sometime thing. Read up on the ORO report from Korea--they were cordially hated by the troops.

Picked one up in the 80s to fool with and did everything I could to get some accuracy out of it to include glass bedding (tricky!). It shot poorly in my hands and did no better in the hands of a master class high power shooter, so I dumped it.

It still remained cute and handy, but not enough to warrant further effort. OTOH the CAR-15 I had has always run rings around it. So I still have "handy" but "cute" it is not.

IMHO they make a nice show and tell item, toy, and wall hanger, but that's all.

As someone said, the Garand is a big old 454 V-8. The carbine is a Vega.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I think the people who don't like the carbine tend to forget that it was a replacement for a handgun, and was intended to be used in that role, not in the role of a battle rifle. To compare the M1 Carbine to the M1 Garand, and scoff at the carbine, only shows a lack of understanding of the niche the carbine was to fill. Personally, if I had the choice between being armed with a 7 round 1911 or a 15 round M1 Carbine, I would take the carbine.

A rifle chambered in 22LR is a poor choice for deer hunting, but a good choice for squirrels. You need to match the gun to the job, and not try to do things with it that were not intended.

 

[Magwa45]

I'd take a Marlin 1894C in .357 Mag over a M1 Carbine anyday. That .30 cal. carbine round is very weak.

 

[molonlabe]

Reading US Infantry Weapons in Combat: Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea, Jack Walentine writes re: Korea, "You hear stories about the Chinese being shot with carbines in their winter clothing and they just brushed it off. I have shot Chinese in all their winter gear with an M2 carbine, and those rounds had gone completely through them, in the front and out the back. I know because I had to search them for maps and documents after I shot them. At 100 to 150 yards that sucker was bad news. I thought it was a lot more powerful than that Russian submachine gun."

I fisked this off the smallest minority's website. I always thought this story was bull given the ballistics. A 110jhp probably would expand and deposit all it's energy.

 

[JonP]

I fisked this off the smallest minoraty's website. I always thought this story was bull given the ballistics. A 110jhp probably would expand and deposit all it's energy.

But the rounds wouldn't be JHP, which are outlawed by the Geneva Convention. They'd be ball (FMJ), which could easily go through.

 

[molonlabe]

Yup, I know that.

 

[USSR]

...JHP, which are outlawed by the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention does not outlaw hollowpoint bullets, it's the Hague Convention which outlaws bullets "designed to expand". Also, IMHO, the M1 Carbine is a fine weapon when used within the parameters for which it was designed.

Don

 

[molonlabe]

Just a point I was making about using the M1 for defense. The Hague does not apply at my house.

 

[Wedge]

Looking at Hodgdon's website and an energy calculator I get this data:

.30 Carbine
.308 caliber, FMJ
110gr. bullet
15gr H110
2106fps
1083 lb-ft energy

.357 mag (rifle)
.358 caliber
158gr. bullet, XTP
16.7gr H110
1757fps
1082 lb-ft energy

The .357 mag will have higher momentum (39 vs. 33) and a higher taylor KO (14 vs. 10). Shooting at bowling pins, the .357 mag will have the advantage due to the higher momentum. I would say that the two appear to be relatively evenly matched and would come down to bullet design/composition (in this case a FMJ vs. XTP) and the XTP is going to be the superior stopper.

 

[DF357]

I'm always amazed by the person who says that the .30 carbine is such a puny round and then says that the .357mag is an excellent man stopper!

 

[USSR]

You aren't gonna kill anything bigger or badder with one as opposed to the other. Both the .357 Mag and .30 Carbine will do the job within their range limitations (inside of 150 yards).

Don

 

[Fosbery]

After the North Africa campaign, the British SAS were given free reign over what weaponry they could use - they could pick from any weapons available, including captured German weaponry. They chose the M1 carbine as their main rifle* (and the MP40 as their SMG incidentally). Says it all really.

*Though they did continue using Enfields on some operations for logistical reasons.

 

[SKSgunnut101]

Does anyone if the CMP have any paratrooper (folding stock) carbines?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

We had a dead pine tree fell across the trail at
my uncles. We were ATVing. No one had brought
a chainsaw, but I had my M1A1 carbine back at
the camp so we fetched it.

The log was about a foot in diameter. I fired .30 carbine
FMJ and stitched a seam in the log, bullet holes spaced
about an inch or two apart. All shots went straight through.
We tied a tow strap to the other end and the log broke
at the seam and we then moved it off the trail. Now,
a dead pine log does not behave like a bowling pin,
which has a tough plastic shell, hard wood and which can
move with the impact, thus reducing penetration.

Still, M1 carbine generates about 900 ft/lbs of muzzle energy
compared to about THREE TIMES that for the .30-06 (about
2700 ft/lbs) and twice that for the lowly .30-30 (1860 ft/lbs).
The M1 carbine was a replacement for the pistol and the
submachinegun for Rear Echelon Maintenance Faculty REMF.

That said, in New Guinea and the Phgillipines in WWII, my
dad relied on the BAR and M1 Garand, and had no use for
either the M1 carbine or the Thompson. He would rather
have extra grenades than carry a pistol.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

.30 M1 Carbine as chainsaw.

M1 Carbine bullet performance in ballistic gel.
Coyotes or other vermin I might encounter are going to
be constructed more like Ballistic jel than like bowling pins.
Top scale is inches, bottom scale is centimeters.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

It is unlikely the CMP will have M1A1 folding stocks.
When original M1A1 carbines went into arsenal for
overhaul, M1A1 stocks were replaced with either M1
or M2 stocks as available. That is why the M1A1 is
so desireable: the rarity of finding one.

The M1A1 is just an Inland made carbine M1 with the
M1A1 folding stock. Inland made M1 and M1A1 carbines
mised within the same serial number range, and the stock
was not numbered to the receiver.

 

[brlau]

I'll be another one of many in the line for a carbine of my own when the CMP releases them. I had thought about the Garand too, after taking a few shots from one at a shooting fair a while back. But I like the carbine's features: the light weight, relatively cheaper to feed, lower recoil, and disassembly and care looked to be easy from the instructions I've found on the net. From what I've read about them, which include the opinions of Dr. Roberts, there's nothing wrong with the carbine provided you feed it with good ammunition and you know it's limitations.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Steak or Lobster--

Have both!

The 15rd twin mag pouch for the carbine will hold two Garand clips/cardboards as well (love the things).


I'm for the Garand through and through--but the carbine fills a niche.
If I hadn't already purchased a Ruger Mini-14 years ago I would probably desire one a lot more. For my purposes 'the minimal', largly does the work of a carbine.
Pretty similar profile and handling characteristics--not a 'copy' by any means
and Ruger ain't getting any more of my money owing to their politics.

When CMP offers however, I'm gonna jump. The chance WILL NOT come again -- watch out. They're getting them out now before they are de-barred from doing so.