what else uses the 30 carbine round

[M2 Carbine]

Now this is when the Carbine is fun.
a friend shooting one of mine.

Click on picture.

 

[mac66]

"First, a mini-14 in this caliber would be neat and also I wish H&R chambered the Handi Rifle in this round. That would be a cool platform for all the surplus ammo and there would be no reason to ever lose a single piece of brass."

Personally, I don't see the point of that. .30 carbine ammo is expensive and underpowered compared to 5.56 ammo and other .30 cal ammo. A Mini 14 or 30 in 7.62x39 beats a .30 carbine in every way possible. As much as I like my WWII era carbine it is an obsolete round IMO.

 

[barnetmill]

sharps dressed man: you should read more history:
I didn't say it was identical, I said it inspired the .30 Carbine round and concept.
__________________

Winchester made a semiauto rifle that fired a straight wall cartridge quite similar to the M1 carbine round, but with a heavier bullet. it was for the 05 winchester SL rifle. the ballistics were: 165 gr (11 g) 1,392 ft/s (424 m/s) substitute a 110 grain bullet and you will be close to 30 us carbine ballistics. Some americans have had a fascination with straight wall .32 cal rounds for many years. Army wanted it in 30 and not .32.

In October 1940. an Army Ordnance circular suggested development of a light rifle using a .30 caliber cartridge similar to the "Winchester Self-loading Cartridge, Caliber .32" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_Winchester_Self-Loading

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Funny just how lethal some "obsolete" rounds can be, in the hands of a good shot.

 

[444]

Lethal ?

Yeah, it is.
So is an air rifle.

There are many others far more suitable for any job you might want to call upon therm to perform.

But again, the cartridge and the various firearms chambered for it are fun: but that's about it.

 

[M2 Carbine]

The Carbine round's power can be closely compared to a .357 Magnum.

110 grain bullet doing about 2,000 FPS.

Add a JSP bullet and the Carbine is very lethal.
Bullet expands well.
Penetrates gelatin about 17 inches.

Yeah, I'd say that's lethal.



.

 

[FROGO207]

Obviously the ones complaining have never been shot so do not know just how lethal even the .22 short could be. I have taken whitetail with a 30 CARB 110 JSP at good distances. It will work as well as a 30-30 in brush country for what I need. The one asking for a single shot version IIRC a 30-06 to 30 Carbine chamber adapter was available in the past.

 

[444]

The .30 Carbine is comparable to a .357 HANDGUN when using a 110 grain bullet in both. However, the .357 allows the use of much heavier bullets. When fired out of a .357 Carbine, the .357 easily surpasses the .30 Carbine (also fired out of a carbine).

I haven't looked at loading data recently. I haven't tried to load any hot loads for anything for several years. However, back when I was into this sort of thing, on the Alliant website, they listed a load for the .357 using Blue Dot powder that fired a 110 grain bullet at around 1900 fps out of a .357 handgun. I loaded them, I chronoed them: and they did everything they said they would do. I used this load for awhile to shoot jackrabbits and it was pretty dramatic. Again, this was a load published by a major powder manufacturer on their website: this was NOT just something I dreamed up and loaded. I am assuming that this load passed through their ballistics testing lab as well as their legal department.

So, lets think about this: if I was going to use a .357 for hunting medium sized game or for self defense, I would NOT choose to use a 110 grain bullet. There are better bullets available in the .357: heavier bullets. Especially if I was using my .357 carbine (Marlin lever action). I can push 158 grain bullets at similar velocities as to what I get out of a handgun with 110 grain bullets.

My point is this: first of all, saying a particular cartridge is lethal isn't much of a data point. Neither is saying that you killed a deer with it. Of course it is lethal. And, many, many deer have been killed with much less then the .30 Carbine. When you look at the ballistics of various cartridges, the .30 Carbine is lacking. Now this doesn't mean it is bad. It doesn't mean it won't kill things. It doesn't mean that it couldn't be a viable military cartridge. It doesn't take away the fun factor, or the history involved in the cartridge. It is just looking at it from a modern prosepctive and what else is out there to compare it to. Chambering a Mini 14 or an SKS or something in .30 Carbine would be a significant downgrade. The .30-30 fires a significantly heavier bullet at higher velocity.
Back in the day when military surplus ammo was cheap and readily available, the .30 Carbine round had a lot to offer. TODAY, there are much better cartridges available that are chambered in similar size/weight platforms.
Today, I don't really see the point other than enjoying a really neat, historical carbine that gave it, it's name.

 

[Tommygunn]

The .30 Carbine is comparable to a .357 HANDGUN when using a 110 grain bullet in both. However, the .357 allows the use of much heavier bullets. When fired out of a .357 Carbine, the .357 easily surpasses the .30 Carbine (also fired out of a carbine).

I haven't looked at loading data recently. I haven't tried to load any hot loads for anything for several years. However, back when I was into this sort of thing, on the Alliant website, they listed a load for the .357 using Blue Dot powder that fired a 110 grain bullet at around 1900 fps out of a .357 handgun. I loaded them, I chronoed them: and they did everything they said they would do. I used this load for awhile to shoot jackrabbits and it was pretty dramatic. Again, this was a load published by a major powder manufacturer on their website: this was NOT just something I dreamed up and loaded. I am assuming that this load passed through their ballistics testing lab as well as their legal department.

So, lets think about this: if I was going to use a .357 for hunting medium sized game or for self defense, I would NOT choose to use a 110 grain bullet. There are better bullets available in the .357: heavier bullets. Especially if I was using my .357 carbine (Marlin lever action). I can push 158 grain bullets at similar velocities as to what I get out of a handgun with 110 grain bullets.

My point is this: first of all, saying a particular cartridge is lethal isn't much of a data point. Neither is saying that you killed a deer with it. Of course it is lethal. And, many, many deer have been killed with much less then the .30 Carbine. When you look at the ballistics of various cartridges, the .30 Carbine is lacking. Now this doesn't mean it is bad. It doesn't mean it won't kill things. It doesn't mean that it couldn't be a viable military cartridge. It doesn't take away the fun factor, or the history involved in the cartridge. It is just looking at it from a modern prosepctive and what else is out there to compare it to. Chambering a Mini 14 or an SKS or something in .30 Carbine would be a significant downgrade. The .30-30 fires a significantly heavier bullet at higher velocity.
Back in the day when military surplus ammo was cheap and readily available, the .30 Carbine round had a lot to offer. TODAY, there are much better cartridges available that are chambered in similar size/weight platforms. Today, I don't really see the point other than enjoying a really neat, historical carbine that gave it, it's name.

444, a good review. I'd only like to point out that even when the .30 carbine round was developed there were plenty of other "big bore" or high power cartridge that made the .30 car. seem ... lacking. Especially the .30-'06, which fed the Garand and due to both the rifle and carbine having the same designation, M-1, often drew unfair comparisons.
We all know -- or ought to recall -- the carbine was developed initially to arm "rear echelon" soldiers; the cooks, the supply depot people, drivers, and such, who might not pick up pistolry very well but could easily use a small light rifle.
That it wound up in front-line use is a testament to its handiness and that it was liked for close in combat and street-sweeping.
I too enjoy the carbine for its history.
But like others here I find 5.56mm. and .308 more useful & easier to find in the modern environment.

 

[Uncle Mike]

The .30 Carbine is comparable to a .357 HANDGUN when using a 110 grain bullet in both. However, the .357 allows the use of much heavier bullets. When fired out of a .357 Carbine, the .357 easily surpasses the .30 Carbine (also fired out of a carbine).

No kidding, but IF both use the same WEIGHT bullet....at the SAME velocity...same barrel length...your kidding right?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

If a guy like Audie Murphy could make a carbine work for him, and staked his life on it, I'm going to have to figure a good man with a carbine can do great things. For all those that dislike the carbine, if you actually speak from personal experience, then speak up. If not, then cite some REAL examples of cartridge failure. My dad dumped the carbine in WWII and picked up a Garand, carrying it for the duration of his mortarman duties in the South Pacific. He claimed he couldn't "hit the broadside of a barn" with the carbine. I was always suspicious of his reasoning, as every carbine I ever fired would probably hit a grapefruit at 100 yards if you took the time to aim properly. He simply felt the Garand was more of a man's weapon, and I'm sure peer pressure also entered into it. Murphy was obviously a good shot, and capable of making more hits from a 15 shot magazine than an 8 shot magazine. Not all infantrymen operate that way, but some do.

 

[Hacker15E]

Ahhh, yes....here we go. Every discussion of .30C has to end up going this direction.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Did you ever consider that this is the direction it SHOULD go? Open mind, closed mind. You choose.

 

[444]

You are right, this is the direction it always seems to go. Personally, I haven't been active in on-line gun forums for years, so I have not had this discussion for quite awhile. I am sorry, I can't just leave it alone. I even tell myself that I am not going to become involved. I managed to keep myself in check until the post about 300 yard MOA accuracy and I had to respond

 

[444]

"No kidding, but IF both use the same WEIGHT bullet....at the SAME velocity...same barrel length...your kidding right?"


I'm not sure what part I am kidding about ?

Yes, you can fire a .357 handgun, using the same weight bullet as a carbine (110 grains), at the same velocity as the .30 Carbine when fired from a carbine. Using safe, published loads that are within industry standard specifications. Let me state again, I haven't checked any loading data recently, but I have used the loads published on the Alliant powder website using Blue Dot powder that gives just over 1900 fps with a 110 grain bullet when fired from a .357 handgun with a 6.5" barrel (Ruger Blackhawk).

So, if both use the same weight bullet, at the same velocity.......... Yes. However not the same barrel length: the .357 achieves this velocity with a handgun barrel, so that part.......No.

 

[Hacker15E]

Did you ever consider that this is the direction it SHOULD go? Open mind, closed mind. You choose.

Choosing to have the discussion in the topic of the thread is being "closed mind"ed?

The thread isn't ".30C vs .357", or "which round is better than .30C", or "stopping power of .30C", or even "accuracy of .30C".

I made the post about the description of .30C in the linked rifle's description and saying I was surprised that this discussion of the cartridge hadn't devolved into these typical discussions that are had over and over and over.

And, ironically, my making note of that caused the thread to do just that. There's got to be a correlation to the "observer effect" in there somewhere.

 

[45_auto]

If not, then cite some REAL examples of cartridge failure.

Plenty of references out there if you're not wearing blinders. How many do you want? Took about 10 seconds to find the list of references below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

However, negative reports began to surface with airborne operations in Sicily in 1943,[12] and increased during the fall and winter of 1944.[13]

Other soldiers and marines engaged in frequent daily firefights (particularly those serving in the Philippines) found the weapon to have insufficient stopping power and penetration.[15][16] Reports of the carbine's failure to stop enemy soldiers, sometimes after multiple hits, appeared in individual after-action reports, postwar evaluations, and service histories of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps.[15][17] Aware of these shortcomings, the U.S. Army, its Pacific Command Ordnance staff, and the Aberdeen small arms facility continued to work on shortened versions of the M1 rifle throughout the war, though none was ever officially adopted.

A 1951 official U.S. Army evaluation of scores of individual after-action combat reports for all small arms usage in Korea by the Eighth Army from 1 November 1950 to 1 March 1951 documented the weapon's cold-weather shortcomings, as well as noting complaints from individual soldiers that the carbine bullet failed to stop heavily clothed[30][31][32][33] or gear-laden[34][35][36] North Korean and Chinese (PVA) troops at close range after multiple hits.[26][28][37] Soldiers reported that their "reaction to the weapons family was almost universally to the point that what they have is good and adequate to the tactical need...The one exception was the carbine.

One company in the 38th Infantry Regiment expressed its satisfaction with this weapon; but it was alone in the Eighth Army. In all other units, bad experience in battle had made troops shy of this weapon."[38] Marines of the 1st Marine Division also reported instances of carbine bullets failing to stop enemy soldiers, and some units issued standing orders for carbine users to aim for the head.[39][40] Ironically, PVA infantry forces who had been issued captured U.S. small arms disliked the carbine for the same reason.[41]

References:

12) Gavin, James M. (Lt. Gen.), War and Peace in the Space Age, New York: Harper and Brothers (1958), pp. 57, 63: Col. Gavin's love affair with his M1A1 carbine ended in Sicily, when his carbine and that of Maj. Vandervoort jammed repeatedly. Noticing that carbine fire rarely suppressed rifle fire from German infantry, he and Vandervoort traded with wounded soldiers for their M1 rifles and ammunition; Gavin carried an M1 rifle for the rest of the war.

13) Burgett, Donald, Seven Roads To Hell, New York: Dell Publishing (1999), ISBN 0-440-23627-4 pp. 153-154: Burgett, a machine-gunner in the 101st Airborne from Normandy to the Battle of the Bulge, witnessed several failures of the .30 carbine to stop German soldiers after being hit.

15) Dunlap, Roy, Ordnance Went Up Front, Samworth Press (1948), p. 297

16) McManus, John C., The Deadly Brotherhood: The American Combat Soldier in World War II, New York: Random House Publishing, ISBN 0-89141-823-7 (1998), p. 52: Private Richard Lovett of the U.S. Americal Division noted that "It didn't have stopping power. Enemy soldiers were shot many times but kept on coming."

17) McManus, John C., The Deadly Brotherhood, p. 52

26) Canfield, Bruce, Arms of the Chosin Few American Rifleman, 2 November 2010, retrieved 10 May 2011

28) S.L.A. Marshall, Commentary on Infantry and Weapons in Korea 1950-51, 1st Report ORO-R-13 of 27 October 1951, Project Doughboy [Restricted], Operations Research Office (ORO), U.S. Army (1951)

30) O'Donnell, Patrick, Give Me Tomorrow: The Korean War's Greatest Untold Story: The Epic Stand of the Marines of George Company, Da Capo Press 1st ed., ISBN 0-306-81801-9, ISBN 978-0-306-81801-1 (2010), p. 88, 168, 173

31) Clavin, Tom, Last Stand of Fox Company, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, ISBN 0-87113-993-6, ISBN 978-0-87113-993-1 (2009), p. 113: In addition to their bulky cotton-padded telegroika coats, which could freeze solid with perspiration, Chicom infantry frequently wore vests or undercoats of thick goatskin.

32) Jowett, Philip S., The Chinese Army 1937-49: World War II and Civil War, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 978-1-84176-904-2 (2005), p. 47

33) Thomas, Nigel, The Korean War 1950-53, Osprey Publishing Ltd., ISBN 0-85045-685-1, ISBN 978-0-85045-685-1 (1986), p. 47

34) Andrew, Martin (Dr.), Logistics in the PLA, Army Sustainment, Vol. 42, Issue 2, March–April 2010

35) Thomas, Nigel, The Korean War 1950-53, Osprey Publishing Ltd., ISBN 0-85045-685-1, ISBN 978-0-85045-685-1 (1986), pp. 37, 47: Many Chinese troops carried either rice or shaoping, an unleavened bread flour mixture in a fabric tube slung over the shoulder.

36) Chinese troops frequently wore bandolier-type ammunition pouches and carried extra PPsh or Thompson magazines in addition to 4-5 stick grenades.

37) Russ, Martin, Breakout: The Chosin Reservoir Campaign: Korea 1950, Penguin Publishing, ISBN 0-14-029259-4, ISBN 978-0-14-029259-6 (2000), p. 40

39) Clavin, Tom, Last Stand of Fox Company, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, ISBN 0-87113-993-6, ISBN 978-0-87113-993-1 (2009), pp. 82, 113

40) O'Donnell, Patrick, Give Me Tomorrow: The Korean War's Greatest Untold Story, p. 88

41) Spurr, Russell, Enter the Dragon: China's Undeclared War Against the U.S. in Korea, 1950-51, New York, NY: Newmarket Press, ISBN 978-1-55704-914-8 (1998), p.182: Chinese frontline PLA troops disliked the M1/M2 carbine, as they believed its cartridge had inadequate stopping power. Captured U.S. carbines were instead issued to runners and mortar crews.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Of course the M1 Carbine is not going to have the same stopping power as anything shooting 30-06 or 50 caliber. That comparison is almost laughable. I don't think they were shooting Nazi's, Chi-com's, or Japanese with .357 mags either, especially at 20 below zero. Why don't you throw the 9mm out there too? I am, and have been, critical of the moderators on this site for having itchy trigger fingers for locking threads, but this one has earned that distinction........

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Your right about us getting off track. Why don't we just limit comment to the OP's original question, instead of lynching the M1 Carbine and its chambering? No need to lock the thread; let's lock out our off topic comments ourselves.

 

[Tommygunn]

A 1951 official U.S. Army evaluation of scores of individual after-action combat reports for all small arms usage in Korea by the Eighth Army from 1 November 1950 to 1 March 1951 documented the weapon's cold-weather shortcomings, as well as noting complaints from individual soldiers that the carbine bullet failed to stop heavily clothed[30][31][32][33] or gear-laden[34][35][36] North Korean and Chinese (PVA) troops at close range after multiple hits.[26][28][37] Soldiers reported that their "reaction to the weapons family was almost universally to the point that what they have is good and adequate to the tactical need...The one exception was the carbine.

Oh boy, the old Korean Quilted Jacket as bullet-proof vest myth again. That was debunked during the Korean War when one commander, upon hearing this complaint, went out to a battlefield and examined a number of corpses of N. Korean soldiers who had this quilted overcoat and who had been shot dead with M-1 carbines. He found a bullet hole upon entry and a second bullet hole, an exit hole, in most of theses corspses -- which, by the way, obtained the "corpses" status by way of the .30 carbine round.

My mother once had a report written by a high school friend of hers who went to WW2 as a medic. He would later document many of his cases in a report that became part of a study that resulted in the formation of M*A*S*H units in Korea. One such incident in his report I distinctly recall as it was very odd. A soldier on one of the Pacific Islands in WW2 was detailed to drive a jeep back to the beach to obtain supplies. Just out of camp a few minutes he started taking Japanese sniper fire. He did a "bootleg" turn and hot-tailed it back to the encampment to report the sniper. Men started trying to get him to calm down and relax, but until his CO reached over and took off his helmet he didn't -- then he saw his helmet. There was a bullet hole in the front of it. The CO removed the liner. There was a bullet hole in it, too, as well as the back. In fact there was an exit hole in the rear of the helmet. The soldier reached up to wipe what he had thought was sweat off his forehead.
It was blood.
He'd been shot square through the forehead, exact center. He had an exit hole on the rear of his head as well.
Surgeons who examined him immediatly understood why he had survived, though they couldn't quit figure out how he hadn't known he'd been shot. The bullet had transected his brain, exactly down the center between the left & right hemisphere, thus causing very little neurological damage. Atleast in WW2 they didn't have the medical ability to detect any. The soldier healed up pretty well.
There were a few other examples of soldiers who'd been shot through the neck and lived, and not known at the time they'd been shot, as well. None was as spectacular as the above story of the soldier who'd taken one through the brain though.
Query: was the rifle round the Japanese used impotent?
Or is it a matter of "placement is everything?"

Well, the later of course -- in an ironic way.
The .30 Carbine round has a reputation for being more penetrative than it theoretically should be. Close up it is a decent round, and if you use soft nose or hollowpoint it is even better.
A great deal of claims of it being ineffective derive from poor marksmanship -- especially in Korea and parts of WW2.
It is also less than stellar when used at ranges where the Garand would have been a far better platform.
But it was never designed for long range riflery.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Off topic, I notice a lot of the .30 carbine ineffective stories involve the .30 carbine as ineffective in winter in WWII Europe or the Korean War (cold people don't bleed like they do in the tropics) or they involve emptying the magazine of an M2 carbine at a charging NK trooper (and no accounting of how many actual made connection).

On topic, I had one of the Marlin Levermatics in .30 carbine. worked fine with commercial softpoint, but the extraction was weak with some lots of military ammo.

 

[Snowdog]

For some reason, I find I hold the .30 Carbine dear. I don't know if it's because it has been underrated for so long or because the M1 carbine is so darn cute.

Either way, both the cartridge and the M1 Carbine is surprisingly versatile, especially considering the ballistic limitations.

This opinion was galvanized a couple years ago when I took my Kahr Arms/AO M1 Carbine to a private range where the owner provided all sorts of fun stuff to shoot. I was pleasantly surprised to witness what that little carbine would shoot through. It was easily punching through metal objects that a .357 Magnum would shallowly dent. The effects on soft items such as pumpkins using 110gr Gold Dots were impressive.

The .30 Carbine cartridge has enough going for it to keep me interested. It's good to know others feel the same.

 

[Snowdog]

Oh, I forgot to mention the M1 carbine serves as one of the two HD carbines I have. I have to admit that I'd probably grab the M1 Carbine before the AR if it involved an intruder already in the house as it's lighter and just feels handier. It's an excellent choice for such a role when modern defensive ammunition is used.

As for being "lethal", I'd wouldn't imagine any sane person with average (or greater) intellect would even bother trying to argue against 15/30 rounds of 110gr .30 Carbine JSPs or JHP being fully capable of neutralizing multiple intruders at hallway ranges.

A full-fledged rifle cartridge it is not. However, what it does do is generate roughly half a ton of energy at the muzzle.
A run-of-the-mill JSP will also penetrates about 19" in ballistic media (since that tends to be a standard of measurement these days) after expanding to .50 caliber.

Keeping in mind you have 15 (or 30) rounds at the ready to eviscerate your assailant should the need arise, all in a handy package... I'd say all's good regardless of the presence of more "modern" options.

This said, I wouldn't choose the .30 Carbine for hunting roles. The cartridge was designed and intended to kill people who are trying to kill you. With expanding rounds, it does this exceptionally well. With FMJ, well... again, you have 15/30 rounds.

My scumbag repellent:

 

[Speedo66]

Now this is when the Carbine is fun.
a friend shooting one of mine.

Click on picture.

M-1 or M-2?

 

[Speedo66]

My father was in the 3rd Armored Div. (Spearhead) as armored infantry in WWII.

He was in the Battle of the Bulge, and served in combat for approx. two years.

He did not have a kind word to say about the Carbine. "Underpowered, not good stopping power, etc., etc., etc. I have to figure given the choice to carry a 5 lb.Carbine or a 9 lb. Garand, if he thought the Carbine was sufficient, he'd be carrying the the lighter rifle.

He also did not have kind words for the M-3 Grease Gun.

Anecdotal perhaps, but from someone who was there. I wish I could have gotten him to talk more about his experiences, but he pretty much didn't care to talk about it. When I got my Carbine, I thought he'd be pleased to see it, but the opposite was true. That's when I heard the criticism.

That being said, I very much like my light recoiling, fun to shoot Carbine.