PCC, Why Not .30 Carbine?

[Deaf Smith]

Personally I find the .30 Carbine THE carbine caliber and way ahead of "pistol" cal. rifles.

And I wish the made a 16 inch barrel M1 Carbine with a short "bantam" stock.

Deaf

 

[mavracer]

So I hereby submit that an AR Manufacturer test the waters and see if there is a demand for a .30 Carbine caliber AR PCC.

First it's been done and second what advantage would it have over a 300 BO?
I love my M1 Carbine but it's a package deal, my AR PCC is a 300 BO and while I know it's not really a pistol caliber it is very close to the ballistics of a 357 out of a carbine with much better down range power.

 

[Merle1]

Several flaws in your basic premise, amprecon:

1. If a carbine is made in .30 Carbine, it is by definition NOT a pistol caliber carbine, because it is in a carbine caliber.

2. Winchester, Marlin, Henry, and all the repros of them, have been making .357 Mag. pistol caliber carbines for many years. They all made them in .44 Mag., and .45 LC, also pistol calibers. Ruger even made a semi-auto in .44 Magnum.

3. Not so much a heresy, but you must consider the rifle and round that inspired the M1 Carbine, the .351 Winchester Self-Loader, wasn't very popular either. A commercial flop, it was foisted off on the LE community, even then it mostly went to prison guards.

Most people buying any new carbine in .30 Carbine (that isn't an M1 Carbine repro) would be buying it for the nostalgia of the round, and there just isn't the market for it, as slow sales of the Magal have demonstrated.

As for why the .30 Carbine isn't offered in the AR platform, there have been several reasons already given. The Magal is a well designed weapon, and it still didn't catch on. I personally would like to see an AK version of the Bizon chambered in .30 Carbine, but it probably isn't going to happen either.

Actually it was the 32 Self Loader that inspired the 30 Carbine. The 35 SL was contemporary with it, but was considered under powered as a deer cartridge so the 351 SL came about.

 

[kBob]

In the way back I handled an Olympic AR 30C at a Shotshow I believe Atlanta Man that was a while ago.

When I asked why the guy tolds me it was an attempt at the Israeli Police market. I was a bit interested as I had a pile of ammo and magazines and at that point no carbine, but carbines were at that time much cheaper.

Now I doubt this would be the case.

Some sort of Upper with mag adaptor might be interesting, but a dedicated lower would be very limited.

-kBob

 

[amprecon]

Like someone above said, if you already have a pistol in a caliber it's fun to have a rifle that can shoot the same cartridges. I just bought a 9mm ar for that reason.

That is the conclusion I am coming to, the .30 carbine is....unique. For its size the AK or AR isn't that much heavier or bulkier and in more powerful calibers. You are just getting much more versatility from an AK or AR than the .30 carbine, especially AR's chambered in alternative calibers such as 6.5G or 6.8spc.
I've been eyeballing PSA's AR9 that uses Glock mags, same as my pistols, I just try to justify spending the money when my bases are already covered.
I'm sure the girls of the family would enjoy shooting them as would I.
As I see it, at this point, if I want something in .30 carbine....buy an M1 Carbine.

 

[lemaymiami]

Self defense in urban or suburban areas is most likely to be at pistol ranges or a bit farther (but not much). At least that was my experience on the street down here in south Florida for a career in police work. Yes, there are always those armed with something in the AR or AK family -but those come with a serious downside in areas where there are likely to be citizens in close proximity wherever you are... Yes, the 30 carbine has the same problem - but much less if you're disciplined and not into "spray and pray". Most of the fools that use military style weapons on the street aren't exactly well trained or skilled...

My choice, after a shotgun for home defense was a 30 carbine - for the exact same reasons it was originally designed for... I'm pretty confident that it will perform properly (particularly with soft points) in the less than the 100 meters distance that any need will likely occur. Unlike my days as a cop my only use of a firearm will be immediate defense or to allow me to withdraw from trouble (the much, much better course of action if available...). Along with ballistic performance (30 carbine more effective at less than 100 meters than any pistol round I've ever handled) comes other considerations - your ability to move and maneuver, how quickly you can engage more than one target if needed, etc... I've always thought that pistols were what you used when you didn't have something better - but that's just me...

I considered pistol caliber carbines but their slower reloading ability, and similar considerations made them a bit less attractive than a 30 carbine. The clincher for me was simply that the 30 carbine was simply more interesting than other choices. The one I chose was a less expensive older commercial carbine (a Plainfield). I'd have liked a war baby but ones in good serviceable condition were nearly twice what I paid for the Plainfield...

As far as new weapons manufactured in using the 30 carbine round.... they would be around if the market supported them. The marketplace is pretty unforgiving for those that make mistakes with money attached. Argue all you want about which caliber works better or is more useful but the marketplace rules (now if only the folks who run our country would remember that principle....).

 

[Carl N. Brown]

And I wish they made a 16 inch barrel M1 Carbine with a short "bantam" stock.

Getting a factory to make one might be a problem. All the commercial makers are marketing toward military collector/nostalgia. A big market appears to be military match shooters where "as-issued" originals or replicas are required.

I would consider having a used commercial carbine in good working condition gunsmithed to make a compact carbine. It would be great to use in and out of a house or vehicle. (But don't ever mention "butchering" an original!)

This gets back to the issue there is not that much interest in new .30 Carbine caliber firearms as weapons, although when I compare .30 carbine SNHP to .357 from a revolver or 7.62x25 from a pistol, I have more confidence in it than in them.

 

[JShirley]

When I tested it years ago, the .30 Carbine with soft points was horribly over-penetrative. Like, 25" of water, another 14" of wood, and then, so deep in the mud I couldn't find the bullets.

 

[Llama Bob]

I have yet to see a single rational argument put forth for any carbine in a caliber less than 5.56 for anti-personnel purposes.

For plinking purposes it's hard to justify more than .22LR in a gun that's probably got a 50 yard practical range.

Of course that doesn't mean someone won't buy it. People buy all sorts of things that make no sense to me.

 

[amd6547]

"50 yard practical range" does not describe the M1 carbine.

 

[Elkins45]

Where can you buy 100 rounds of new production 30 carbine for anywhere near the cost of the same amount of 9mm? I think ammo cost/availability is the biggest strike against the idea.

 

[Ascot500]

I find some of these comments interesting:

'I have yet to see a single rational argument put forth for any carbine in a caliber less than 5.56 for anti-personnel purposes.'

'First it's been done and second what advantage would it have over a 300 BO'

'If I want a pistol-caliber carbine, I want it in a pistol caliber. The .30 Carbine isn't a pistol caliber'

I wonder
Am I the only one left who shoots - because it's fun?

 

[Merle1]

I find some of these comments interesting:

'I have yet to see a single rational argument put forth for any carbine in a caliber less than 5.56 for anti-personnel purposes.'

'First it's been done and second what advantage would it have over a 300 BO'

'If I want a pistol-caliber carbine, I want it in a pistol caliber. The .30 Carbine isn't a pistol caliber'

I wonder
Am I the only one left who shoots - because it's fun?

No!!!

But some must have the latest & greatest new toy. :banghead:

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have yet to see a single rational argument put forth for any carbine in a caliber less than 5.56 for anti-personnel purposes.

How about the blast of such as the 5.56 deafening or stunning the shooter inside a house or apartment. .30 Carbine and such as 9mm have far less blast.

 

[tarosean]

I wonder
Am I the only one left who shoots - because it's fun?

That talk will get you killed on the streets......








/sarcasm.

Yes I own a 9mm PCC that was bought specifically for fun, with the + side of saving money each shot.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Looking solely at PCC pistol caliber carbine from a SD/HD self or home defense stand point, the .30 Carbine is not a bad choice.

I have shot at military matches using my .30 Carbine, 7.62x39 Yugo M70AB2, 7.62x54R Mosin 91/30, .45 TM1 Thompson (semi-auto as a participant) and my son's 5.56mm M4gery, with other shooters next to me using 5.56 ARs, .30-06M1 Garand or '03 Springfield, .30 Carbine, etc.

I think I could keep more of my hearing in an indoor defensive situation with my .30 M1 Carbine than with a 5.56/.223 AR.

.223/5.56mm has a distinctive crack that penetrates even good hearing protection. A .30 Carbine PCC would leave me with more of my hearing intact, and being able to hear is a tactical advantage and force multiplier. Actuallly the .45 ACP TM1 with a 16.5" barrel is easier on the ears, but it is heavier and clumsier than the Carbine.

 

[Llama Bob]

Am I the only one left who shoots - because it's fun?

Plenty of people shoot for fun. If I'm shooting for fun, the 5.56 is the same price or cheaper, more accurate, and has more range so I can do more things more accurately, cheaper and thus have more fun. The .30 carbine is deficient in the fun department too. It's a historical oddity that is no longer particularly good at any application.

 

[ugaarguy]

At least that was my experience on the street down here in south Florida for a career in police work. Yes, there are always those armed with something in the AR or AK family -but those come with a serious downside in areas where there are likely to be citizens in close proximity wherever you are... Yes, the 30 carbine has the same problem - but much less if you're disciplined and not into "spray and pray". Most of the fools that use military style weapons on the street aren't exactly well trained or skilled...

Lemay, it's not 1970 anymore. The community has done tests: .223/5.56 soft points at rifle velocity have less penetration than common pistol JHPs after passing through drywall. In fact, those .223/5.56 SPs are amongst the lowest of all suitable self defense rounds in post drywall penetration.

Further, just last year MSG Scott Satterlee of the 1st Special Forces Group explained why civilians are better shooters than the military, and why the military needed to adopt civilian training methods. Ref - https://warisboring.com/top-army-marksman-explains-why-gun-nuts-shoot-better-469f8dfd917f#.cia133p4i

Finally, in my current and recent experience on this forum I've observed that old men like you have an irrational bias toward the M1 Carbine and against AR type rifles. That bias is based on nostalgia rather than facts. However, they refuse to accept that their bias is irrational, and instead falsely accuse owners of AR type rifles as being negligent "fools" who are "into spray and spray." They also consider AR type rifles as military style, but somehow, in their twisted logic, exclude M1 carbines -- even those which are actual military surplus -- from that category.

 

[d2wing]

It seems that most people that want a pistol caliber would rather have one that they can shoot in a lever action and a pistol. Also most shooters prefer more power in a rifle or carbine like a AK or AR. I just don't think there is enough market to justify a new design.
Nearly everybody that wants it, wants it in the carbine. Except maybe the OP.

 

[Goosey]

They also consider AR type rifles as military style, but somehow, in their twisted logic, exclude M1 carbines -- even those which are actual military surplus -- from that category.

That brings to mind an old quote on the M1 Carbine:


"It served its purpose as a military weapon—but it is not a hunting weapon.

At this writing the army does not intend to release any carbines for civilian sale—and this is an excellent idea. Let it stay military.

[...]

It may be a long time before civilians have an opportunity to play with these guns."

 

[benEzra]

How about the blast of such as the 5.56 deafening or stunning the shooter inside a house or apartment. .30 Carbine and such as 9mm have far less blast.

.223 out of a 16"-20" barrel is comparable to a 4" 9mm or an 18.5" 12-gauge in terms of peak dBA and is far less loud/blasty than a typical .357 revolver. A 9mm carbine (and to a lesser extent, .30 Carbine) will be less loud than .223, but a .223 is not unreasonably loud compared to other common HD firearms.

 

[jmorris]

Bullet selection is the problem with the 30 carbine. The rim is the problem with 357/44 as semiautos.

I did expand a .223 to take a 9mm and 357 bullet once but don't know how either would work once fire formed.



300 blk, 357, .223

 

[Deaf Smith]

.223 out of a 16"-20" barrel is comparable to a 4" 9mm or an 18.5" 12-gauge in terms of peak dBA and is far less loud/blasty than a typical .357 revolver. A 9mm carbine (and to a lesser extent, .30 Carbine) will be less loud than .223, but a .223 is not unreasonably loud compared to other common HD firearms.

Strange...

Military jet aircraft take-off from aircraft carrier with afterburner at 50 ft 130 db!
http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm

12 Gauge Shotgun Blast 165dB
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

Well some sources show the 5.56 at 160-170 dB... no A LOT of sources show a much higher dB level.
http://www.silencertalk.com/results.htm

So think about it. If a jet takeoff is less than a 5.56mm then think about inside a room.

Deaf

 

[Browning]

Why not the .30 carbine?

Probably because pistol caliber carbines are about a few different things.

• For many PCC purchasers (Ruger PC-9, Beretta Storm, Wilson Combat AR9 and the KelTec using Glock mags) they buy it because of their magazine/caliber compatibility with their main pistol.

• Lesser cost of pistol ammo for the purpose of training with a carbine.

• It's easier to hit with a carbine. Especially under stress.

Ballistically the .30 carbine is pretty awesome, especially as a pistol cartridge. However the main carbine that's associated with it is the one that introduced the cartridge and there are no pistols that use M1 Carbine Mags. Even if there was the grip would be monstrous.

That I'm aware of there are only two handguns that are chambered in the .30 carbine, there was that semi auto pistol by AMT pistol put out a long time ago (80's) and that Ruger single action revolver.

So why not?

No mag compatibility with any pistol out there. Just wouldn't work.

 

[Merle1]

Why not the .30 carbine?

Probably because pistol caliber carbines are about a few different things.

• For many PCC purchasers (Ruger PC-9, Beretta Storm, Wilson Combat AR9 and the KelTec using Glock mags) they buy it because of their magazine/caliber compatibility with their main pistol.

• Lesser cost of pistol ammo for the purpose of training with a carbine.

• It's easier to hit with a carbine. Especially under stress.

Ballistically the .30 carbine is pretty awesome, especially as a pistol cartridge. However the main carbine that's associated with it is the one that introduced the cartridge and there are no pistols that use M1 Carbine Mags. Even if there was the grip would be monstrous.

That I'm aware of there are only two handguns that are chambered in the .30 carbine, there was that semi auto pistol by AMT pistol put out a long time ago (80's) and that Ruger single action revolver.

So why not?

No mag compatibility with any pistol out there. Just wouldn't work.

FWIW, T/C also chambered the Contender for it.