The .30 Carbine Cartridge - Why?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- This is a discussion video in which we address the following questions from Patreon supporter Alex V:
"I was wondering if you could address the choice by the US Army of the M1 Carbine in .30 Carbine, over a full-auto weapon like the Thompson or the grease gun, and in a new and otherwise un-used cartridge, instead of something already in production and in the supply chain.
What practical real world benefit would the .30 Carbine round offer that would offset the nightmare of getting yet another item to troops in all theaters of the war?
Why go to a semi-auto carbine, when the Russians and Germans were proving the effectiveness of full auto SMGs that could also be fired single shot from the shoulder?
While the M1 Carbine is a handy little rifle, it seems like there would have been better options available to the Americans when it was adopted."
/ inrangetv
.45ACP out to 300 yd? Hey that's perfect for artillerymen - it's indirect fire!
Even better for mortar operators, start at 45 degree incline and walk it back.
Lmao it really is. I hit a 2 liter at 100 yards with a 9x18 polish makarov. Took all six rounds and the holdover was rediculous lmao. I wasnt actually aiming more like using the dirt splash to adjust lmao. It really was field artillery with a pistol.
Inhuman Filth that’s weird, thinking that 9x19 almost has no drop at 100
@@basti080891 since you mention it i would like to take my berretta out sometime and try that shot again with both pistols as i did not posses a standard 9mm at the time. The 9x18 cartridge is fairly enemic when compared to 9x19 even though they are simmilar in stature, it would be interesting to see how they stack up side by side.
@@inhumanfilth681 sounds interesting, have no experience with 9x18, but I shot 9x19 out of a cz shadow 2 at up to 200m and at 200 it dropped little more than the height of the front sight, was much less than expected
The M1 carbine was very popular with the troops that carried it in combat. I recommend "With the Old Breed " by E.B. Sledge. It was the memoir of a Marine mortarman in the Pacific.
Sledge carried a Thompson though…
That was extremely informative (and very interesting!
Yeah, I think both the M1 Carbine and STG-44 were well-designed, effective weapons at the roles/jobs they were intended for. The M1 Carbine was a highly welcome weapon for troops in need of a light, smaller, handier weapon than a full-sized rifle--paratroopers in particular. The STG-44 was meant to be the ultimate front-line infantryman rifle, effective up close and from afar, even if it was heavier, more expensive to produce, and too big to be truly practical for other forces.
In short, the M1 Carbine was intended to fulfill a less glamorous, more indirect, and more widespread need than the STG, and did so in a more logistically-friendly way.
Wait, too big? Do you mean for paratroops and tankers and the like, or...?
May your swords stay sharp! (mysss29)
Yes, that was referring to tankers, paratroopers, artillery personnel, and other miscellaneous roles.
This is the best way to describe it.
Well said.
My father was a Corsair pilot in the Pacific during the second world war, on the day peace was declared he took the top round off all his firearms as souvenirs so due to the vagaries of family life I have ended up with 3 of the 6 browning 0.5inch cartridges and the 30carbine round from that day. He saw plenty of combat including allot of troop support on landings through the pacific flying from land bases. The carbine would have hung on the wall of his hut just in case. He also carried a 38 revolver he was RNZAF on an American base so had to be very careful as the Americans all wanted to swap their 1911's for the revolver. I am not a handgun sort of guy so have no idea what that gun was? Any trouble though he was more likely to be running to his plane and its 6 Browning machine guns that mucking around with the carbine.
Love the M1 Carbine!!! Love the concept, execution, and final result. I feel it was way ahead of its time, what with the popularity of PCC's like the Ruger, any AR-variant in 9mm, etc. I also love the nostalgia of it-Band of Brothers, etc.
Love your videos.
Everyone should read 'To Hell and Back' Autobiography by Audie Murphy, the Most decorated Veteran of WWII.
His favourite weapon was the M1 Carbine. He had lots of kills at 200 yards
Magazine are usually the source of poor reliability. Check to make sure the magazine springs are not upside down, or front of spring is flipped. Also magazines were frequently replaced in field as they were easily damaged. Check followers and feed lips.
M1 Carbines were also frequently used in Vietnam. The lighter weight and smaller size made them popular with S Vietnamese.
Also US advisors (Green Berets).
There is a picture of Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf using a short barreled M1 Paratrooper model in VN.
Later famous for the 1st Iraq war.
As to the effectiveness of 1911 in combat:
Everyone should
Read 'A Rifleman Went to War' by Herbert McBride.
He put down a lot of Germans in the trenches of WWl with his 1911.
There was a great demand for 1911s in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and later conflicts.
Don't forget Alvin York, He killed 7 Germans taking out a Machinegun nest with his 1911 in WWI. (Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor).
1911s have been preferred backup weapons with frontline soldiers ever since WWI.
I know a Vietnam Lurp Vet who killed 3 Vietcong with his 1911A1 when they ambushed on patrol. His XM177 was taken out of action when a VC bullet went through its receiver. 3 shots 3 kills faster than you can say it. He was also wounded. Unfortunately the other 5 members of his patrol were killed at the same instant during the ambush.
Some Tunnel Rats preferred the 1911A1 While some others preferred the S&W Model 10 .38 Specials.
Soldiers who were not issued 1911A1s figured out ways to get them bribes & trades.
ex trades of an SKS for a 1911A1 were common.
Also trade of an SKS for a XM177.
As you could take an SKS back to the world as a war trophy because they are semi-auto
The .30 carbine had extreme penetration of soft tissue and bone. This is because the bullet was not a spitzer like a .30-06. The bullet would not tumble but go straight through a person. When the GIs thought the chinese clothing was stopping .30 carbine bullets the exact opposite was taking place. The bullets were punching straight through without mushrooming, fragmentation or tumbling. Yes a person would eventually bleed out without medical attention but it might be minutes or hours, not seconds.
The .30 carbine can penetrate both a steel GI helmet as well as a kevlar helmet. The Kevlar at close range.
If you shoot jacketed hollow points I would say it would be effective enough to kill a whitetail deer. Bullet placement is important just like it would be with a larger cartridge.
Vasili Panin He means the tumbling/yawing upon impact with the meaty target, as most bullets do.
Owning a M1 Carbine I will say they are very underestimated. Paper ballistics do not show the cartridges potential. They in proper use and at reasonable distance out to 150 will cleanly take deer size game, I know I have taken more than a few with mine.
It's under rated in more ways than 1.
The .327 Federal Magnum needs some recognition here, too. It's a bit hotter than a .30 Carbine, I think, rimmed, so it works well in revolvers and lever actions. Federal factory 100gr SP clock 1541fps in a 7.5" revolver, and 2221fps out of a 20" lever gun barrel, over my Oehler chronograph. I've reached similar velocities with 115gr hard cast LSWC handloads, no pressure signs. This is near .357 magnum punch, even flatter shooting, less recoil, and reloadable cheaper than .buying 22. My poor .22s have been neglected for a couple of years now. Near .357 energy on a .22 frame, this is just WAY too much fun to shoot. I like it a lot. Working on 122grain and 135grain loads, too. Someone (Rossi are you paying attention?) needs to chamber a Model 92 in this caliber. It would sell like hotcakes and really give the .327 a boost as the ideal wandering around out in the woods and deserts round.
MontanaMountainMen Just look at Busy Siegel's rubout pics. Very effective round.
MontanaMountainMen from experience with my carbine, I completely agree. The muzzle energy is in the same range as a .357 mag and no one complains about those being under powered.
Yea Jessy if you compare a 357 Magnum 110 grain bullet to an M1 carbine, the same weight bullet, 357 magnum is 1,500 muzzle energy and 30 carbine is 967 just so you know, however I would still take the M1 Carbine because what people forget is with 30 round Magazines you can put down range about 750 rounds per minute with that M1 Carbine. Also at distance I still think the 30 carbine is better due to more muzzle velocity from the longer barrel. I own one, I can hit a guy with a 357 Magnum and hit him accurately before he can shoot me. I used to hold it out with one hand and make a can dance in the air, you won't get that type of accurate follow up shot with a 357 magnum handgun. Either of these weapons will kill you pretty dead.
If I needed to travel fast and light and raid something, I would definitely take the M1 Carbine on that mission. For the weight you really can't beat it.
You can carry 300 rounds loaded and move fast, you can't do that with most rifles.
Thanks men! I have asked that very question 1000 times or more!
I've had my Auto-Ordnance M1 .30 for about three years. I've fired close to 2.000 of mostly steel case ammo through it. And with all that I've had one mishap. A failure to eject. People can debate the issue of the power of the .30 round all day long but I can tell you who won't be here debating with us. The many thousands of German, Japanese, North Korean, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong who were killed with it.
funny that you mention the north vietnamese apart from the vietcong, as to basically recalling your countrys massakers of women and children. I'd like to pose one question to you though, what is the city of Saigon called right now?
this actually answered a lot of my own questions, great video guys!
Good question, good response. Thank you.
Great video and question and response. My two cents worth, the M1 Carbine did the
job it was assigned in WWII, very well. An average skill shooter can take an M1
Carbine to an indoor pistol caliber only shooting range and a rifle range with
100+ yard capability and do OK. The same
shooter with a 1911A1 will only perform well at the indoor range at close
ranges. I very much appreciate the discussion framed
with knowledge and experience.
The Americans didn't know of the developement of the 8mm kurtz, but in the early '30 the Frankford Arsenal TESTED the Terni 1921 select fire rifle, that used an intermediate 7.65x32 cartridge (so a .32 caliber in a shortened Carcano case) that fired a spitzer 134.5 grains bullet at 600m/s.
Power-wise, at 1155 foot-pounds, that cartridge was middle way between the .30 Carbine and the 8mm Kurz, but with a better ballsitic coefficient than both.
I know a guy that's only hunted with the m1 carbine since he was old enough to hunt . I just got my first m1 and can't wait to get some rounds down range .
I personally think the select fire feature is important for identity of an assault rifle since that is the defining feature that separates a military weapon from a modern sporting rifle. Which is important if for no other reason than giving gun grabbers a less provocative term to try and use to use as leverage
But it isn't a matter if tactical implementation, it's semantics
In today's context, yes; in yesteryear's context, no, since nobody at the time fielded a selective-fire self-loading rifle as general issue to all infantrymen.
Paul Lytle Last time I checked, the M16A2 and A4 still have their semiautomatic capabilities, and with not alot of practice you can easily squeeze 2-5 round bursts out of an AK.
If they made an AR chambered in M1 carbine I'd buy one right away. Would be cool having .30 carbine in a gas impingement operated rifle instead of the short stroke piston like the M1 carbine is. Although I have no problem with the original style M1 carbine, I love them.
That the M1 was used by often used by front line troops by choose in an offensive capacity and not just by rear echelon troops as a PDW suggests that it was an assault weapon.
Yes. It was pushed into front line service. But that's just it: It was pushed into front line service because there weren't enough M1 Garands at all times. The production capacity of the M1 Carbine was staggering.
But it was designed, and intended, only as a PDW.
I bet that Thompson chambered in 30 carbine, is a dream to shoot, has anyone at the Cody museum ever talked to anyone that has fired it?
That Automag III though....
Great discussion. Thank you for bringing up the point of our "definition" of assault rifle being debatable. I would, and do, argue that full-auto is not only not required on an assault rifle but that it is far less effective than double-taps and single, aimed shots for any distance. Cheers and lets talk more about this. :)
@ Randall Randallman - Re: "I would, and do, argue that full-auto is not only not required on an assault rifle but that it is far less effective than double-taps and single, aimed shots for any distance."
Ken Royce, the author of "Boston's Gun Bible" and also a longtime firearms trainer, makes virtually the same points in his book. He argues that "real" firepower is hits per minute, not rounds fired per minute, and he goes on to argue that riflemanship -mastery of aimed, precision rifle fire - has been in decline since WWI. He cites statistics showing that the number of rounds expended per confirmed enemy KIA has been soaring since then, and by Vietnam it reached over 50,000 rounds per confirmed enemy KIA.
The assault rifle was invented - at least in the case of the Soviets and Germans fighting on the eastern front - as the next logical step in the firepower battle going on between the two sides in infantry combat. The MP43/StG44 was the German reply to the massed forces of Red Army tank riders armed with fast-firing SMGs. Once the concept took off post-war, militaries around the world adopted mass firepower as doctrine rather than precision fire as had been emphasized in the past. Royce argues, convincingly IMO, that the pendulum swung too far in that direction, and some correction back the other way is needed.
Excellent video. Probably the best answer I've heard to this question.
the M2 Carbine which was really just a slightly modified M1 Carbine with an extended mag and was select fire I would say that the M2 Carbine is an assault rifle as it ticks all the boxes but it doesn't predate the sturmgewehr
M2 Carbine
-Intermediate Cartridge
-Select fire
-Magazine fed
-Useful out to around 300 yards (which is a common thing among most assault rifles)
By the way, have you looked up ballistic range tables for the 45? A rifle barrel produces about 1000 fps for a 230 g fmj bullet with a .195 coefficient. Speer # 11 says with 100 yd zero at 50 yd 4.1" high, at 100 yd 0, at 150 yd 8.1" low, at 200 yd 40.7" low but we have 'flip sight technology' and a 150 yd zero yields 50-5.9 high, 100-9.7 high, 150-0, 200-21.2 low still going over 825 fps. Pretty good for a man stopper cartridge over 100 years old. I think I had rather have one of those.
I've always looked at the M1 carbine as the original ASSAULT RIFLE...
Something that existed in the 30s and was rimless and .30 cal was the .30 Remington. Its an intermediate .30 cal that already existed.
.25 Remington and .300 Savage too. They could have use the brass as parent case and make new .276 Pedersen out of it.
Great question and great answer. Thanks guys!
I've rarely seen a subject so clearly broken down, discussed, and put back together, be it weapons or widgets or spacecraft. All aspects I could think of were covered, as well as a couple I didn't. One curious thing stood out to me: the program to build this PDW used data to set its goal, a 5 lb weapon with limited capability, and *stuck with that goal.* No growth of added on requirements, or adoption of the usual suspects (the submissions from Thompson, etc) because they were a familiar favorite. No one deciding halfway thru that a 500 yd range was needed. They even wisely dropped selective fire.
I'd love to see a pic and more of the Thompson submission that wasn't based on the Tommy gun.
They did drop with (a few) full auto carbines in June 1944 (or that is what the vets claimed in the autobios I read, Hell, I was not there). They were proto-types of the M2 from what I gather and they performed well. The one account I remember was that it handled just like the M1a1, just with select fire. I can only imagine it was spray and pray, and I would most likely hurt myself with a 30rnd clip. ;-)
Great video! Hope to see more like these! Thanks!
I have an M1 Carbine chambered in .22 Spitfire (Johnson)
ISREALIS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING!
Long range 32ACP ...
easy to mod for selective fire
sights/bolt system intuitive for M1 Rifle users
best handgun replacement for crew serviced weapons ever.
Great question...
It's interesting that Winchester developed the .30 carbine cartridge, but did not initially enter the competition for the carbine to fire it. Winchester designers were busy developing their own full power rifle design, the M2, and did not enter a design in the first round of carbine trials. When Winchester contacted army ordnance requesting they evaluate the M2, ordnance replied they weren't interested in another full power rifle, they were quite satisfied with the M1, but thought the M2 design would lend itself well to scaling down to a carbine. Winchester threw together a team for a rush project to do just that, allegedly completing the redesign from 30-06 to a smaller lighter .30 carbine in just 13 days. Army ordnance officials made encouraging comments about this prototype, and Winchester refined the design to enter the second round of trials, at which their new design outcompeted all competitors.
Would have loved for a 30 second version of this where it was just karl saying " no good fucking reason at all" with Ian nodding
I often wonder if back in the late 20’s when the 38 super was evolving out of the 38acp what could have been. If the cartridge was made rimless, and the government converted all 1911’s, and Thompsons to the 38 super. What would the ballistics of the 38 super look like in a carbine? The grease gun, & liberator would be different, even the liberator could use the 9mm as well…
@ cal30m1 - Cool historical fact: Elliott Ness and his Untouchables, as well as a number of other law-enforcement agencies during the height of the gang warfare era of the 1920s-1930s, equipped themselves with M1911 pistols and Thompson SMGs chambered not in 45 ACP, but in 38 Super. The 45 is a potent fight-stopper but it isn't ideal for penetration of some materials, due to its large cross-section and relatively low muzzle velocity. The 38 Super was specifically used to defeat primitive body armor then in use - but most-importantly, to penetrate automotive sheet metal and glass reliably and with sufficient kinetic energy to do damage on the other side. It was also considered an excellent gun-fighting cartridge for handguns since it had less-recoil than the big 45 230-grain slug. Today, many handgun competitors use it for pistol competitions. It remains popular for that sport.
A few points: 1 terminal ballistics are terrible with M1 for the same reason the army went from the 38 caliber pistol in the Philippines. It does not STOP an aggressor with Military full ball ammo without multiple hits, 5 to 9 required (per after action intel in Vet Nam). 2 Full auto is way over blown in a hand held combat arm unless used by the guy putting down suppression fire (Squad light machine gunner) or area denial fire (medium or heavy machine gunner). Hit what you shoot at and it is not needed per 2 tours in SE Asia. Which brings up a topic Ian mentioned. The venerable M16 was considered uncontrollable on full auto in 1968 and 2-3 round bursts trigger control was taught. The army even went from full auto to 2 or 3 round burst fire only M16s. Why I can only speculate. If you can't hit someone when you aim at them, maybe you can hold close enough that one of the other bullets will get lucky?
"It does not STOP an aggressor with Military full ball ammo without multiple hits, 5 to 9 required" I saw a program on the History Channel in which a guy was in Iwo Jima and said the same thing. He said that he traded his carbine in for a .45 after hitting a Japanese soldier 5 or 6 times in the torso and said that he would have run right over him if he had been running at him.
D. Lindsey not too experienced on ballistics but what a lot of people seem to be saying is because the bullet isn’t a Spitzer like the 30.06 or more modern 5.56 it tends to easily penetrate and not tumble within the body, idk how that applies to the .45 tho
Terminal ballistics for the .30 carbine are almost identical to .45
Velocity causes larger wound channels than the bullet itself, so the increased velocity of the .30 makes up for it's smaller size
I would also like to see the gel ballistics at various ranges as well.
I had the opportunity to fire an M2 select fire carbine when I was in the Army in 1966.
It was during a pseudo rifle qualification. I was an intelligence guy and hadn't handled
a weapon since basic training. The clown before me left it set on full auto. I aimed and fired.
The 30 round mag emptied and the M2 was pointed at the sky. The first shot hit the target.
Luckily nobody was keeping score.
Awesome video! Thanks guys!
the best answer I found to this is that the M1 was never supposed to be a "PDW", "SMG", "Assault rifle" or any of those things. What the Army wanted was an Artillery Luger in .357Magnum. building it with a full stock just made things easier for the troops since the carbine pistols were effectively dead in the US after the NFA
Nope, PDW is what they wanted. That is why it was called a light rifle project.
Keeping it real, thanx! Btw, it’s worth noting that 30 carbine ME is about double that of a 357
I have a special request/video idea for you to do maybe sometime in the future - The 1st Zulu War battle/massacre of Isandlwana - How the battle played out, and how the Martini Henry rifle may (or may not have) played a factor in it (pros and cons of the rifle and it's cartridge). It's been done before, but I think you would do a better job of talking about the details of the rifle (And even the battle itself - hey, what can I say, you all make some great videos here haha) - Thanks guys, and keep up the awesome work!
the M1 carbine is a very accurate little rifle, my pal shot like 10 inch groups at 200 yards with it
I understand the 30 cal issue for less tooling etc for mass production but why didn't they go with a more pointed tapered projectile like a lower grain 308/30-06 style projectile.
I've shot some hand loads with a small grain 308 projectile that was a really great round.
Its still one of the most fun to shoot.
The 30 carbine is fun, I agree with that. ~Karl
If the SturmGewehr is the original Assault Rifle then the M1 Carbine is the original PDW.
TBH using the same bullet like 8mm Kurz (????) as your main rifle caliber makes a whole lotta sense to me. Saves lots of parts.
With the availability of the .30 caliber carbine round, why aren't there any other rifles being made to fire this round. The new pistol carbines now being produced have gone to 10mm, but why not .30 camber Carbine? It would be accurate to 200 yards and still hit with significant energy. It would make a more useful weapon.
Great honest review thank you.
Thanks for the info. I always wondered why the U.S. made such a one-off rifle cartridge.
I agree: excellent video!
The 1911 was never meant to be a main line weapon it was a backup weapon for close range and it does well in that mode. And I guarantee more Germans were killed with it in WW2 than they attribute.
Hot take what really prevents the M1 Carbine from being the first assault rifle is that it wasn't intended as a frontline weapon. The Germans intended their rifle to be at the frontlines and be a primary assualt rifle from the outset of the project.
So it is really more a doctrine based arguement rather than a haggling over specifics arguement.
Re: "Hot take what really prevents the M1 Carbine from being the first assault rifle is that it wasn't intended as a frontline weapon."
That's debatable. I don't see how that claim holds water when mortar teams, artillery crews, NCOs and company grade officers, all of whom were often in the thick of the fighting at the front - used the .30 Carbine successfully. It is more-correct and more-accurate to state that it was never intended to arm infantrymen as their primary long arm or service rifle, at least not as long as the M-1 Garand was the standard weapon for such troops. The other problem with that idea is that the dividing line between the front and the rear is often very nebulous or even non-existent during warfare. Are you prepared to tell a mortar crew 25-50 yards behind the infantry, with combat going on all around them, that they are "not at the front"? I'm sure not!
If this question were asked today (oh wait, it was) you would answer FNH P90.
The P90 in its proper select fire guise with the right ammo is the best PDW/Subgun ever made, IMO. It's phenomenal. ~Karl
Do you think that Germany's economic influence on NATO killed a brilliant weapon system, vs the HK MP7 failure in testing?
+InRangeTV you guys are great.I dont have buddies that can keep up w gun conversation.sp thnx for beingy vertual shootin buddy
Well, color me surprised. I always figured you'd think the P90 was too gimmicky to be taken seriously, Karl!
+InRangeTV I honestly have no clue of the advantages of the P90, besides being compact and using a high-penetrating round. I don't believe you've made any videos on the P90, know anywhere else I can check for practical information on it?
Compared to a pistol the M1 Carbine was brilliant for the trooper who doesn’t carry long heavy M1 Garand. The carbine was never to replace a battle rifle. Yes, the cartridge could have been better. But at the time the army needed a carbine to issue troops immediately
I wish people would quit calling the 30 carbine round was a handgun round originally. It never was. It was developed from the .351 Winchester rifle round. It was used eventually in pistols and revolvers. I hear people say that a 9mm round is a better round and more powerful than the 30 carbine round in a carbine length weapon. This is totally wrong. The 30 carbine round is far more powerful than the 9mm. I wish people would do some reasonable research on this subject before spewing mis-information about this subject.
Actually..it was developed from the 32 Winchester Self Loader. M1 carbine brass can be loaded to shoot in the 32 WSL (which has a 321 bullet)
Kids know no better.....
Ranger Up: I always thought of the M1 Carbine as a rimless 357 magnum.
To this day I think an MI Carbine with a GI 15 round mag would make a dandy home defense gun for anyone.
Be it woman, children, or men as long as the've had the proper taining.
They even make MI Carbines with lights/lasers/scopes, but give me my old amalgamation of five pound wood and metal and I'm set.
Correct, the .30 carbine is way more powerful than 9mm is at any range. For some reason, googling ballistic charts is hard for some people! Just a few minutes on google people, try it.
The *.45 acp* was basically designed as a _contact weapon_ for mounted infantry.
And to add one further point: The above does not even take into account the numerous countries around the world which have used and still use the M1911 design and the 45 ACP cartridge, ranging from Norway to Argentina to the Philippines and many points in-between.
I think the m2 was select fire. Would that qualify as an assault rifle.
I'd love to have one just for the historical value.
Solid information and quite dead-on.
So, fun thought excercise- Would the 30 Carbine Thompson have been a better SMG at it's full 12 pound weight than the .45ACP version?
Yeah! I guess even the increased range alone would have been something?
Although, _increasing_ the Thompson's weight is a bit absurd. xD
They tried that....too heavy.
" Hollow Soft Points " Not legal in war.@Jon Bradfield
@@bradybell6129 Police and civilians do not apply.
You guys are the best gun channel on TH-cam hands down..
Awesome video man.
Re-watching this video, and see all these comments on whether or not the .30 Carbine is a pistol cartridge or a rifle cartridge, confuses me.
Why?
To me, the cartridge was designed to be used, in a rifle. The case it was derived from, was a rifle cartridge. To me, it is a rifle cartridge.
I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that it is a pistol cartridge.
I mean, .22 LR is still considered a rifle cartridge, even though it is used in a LOT of pistols.
.22 Hornet is still considered a rifle cartridge, even though it has less power than the .30 Carbine
The .32-20 is still considered a rifle cartridge as well.
On the otherside, we still consider .44 Magnum, .454 Casull, .460 and .500 S&W magnums as handgun cartridges, even though they encroach on the power offered by "intermediate" rifle cartridges (.44 Magnum), or the are rivaling the power of .308 (.500).
So why do people consider it, a pistol cartridge?
I think the argument is that it's a PCC, just without any pistols being made for it
But I'm team intermediate rifle cartridge
If only they had made it a higher pressure cartridge, it would have been even better. The 8mm Kurz for example is 10,000 PSI higher than 30 carbine, and velocity and foot lbs are significantly increased even with a heavier bullet.
A Thompson chambered in 30 carbine would be super easy to control on full auto. Likely Kriss Vector level of controllable. Great video gents.
The 30 us carbine cartridge was not developed from the .351. There was a .32 SL used in the predescesor of the wincherter 07 rifle. The 30 us carbine used a lighter bullet. The 32 SL used a .321 bullet of 165 grain at maybe 1992 fps. ""Winchester introduced the .32SL and .35SL cartridges in the Winchester '05 self-loading rifle, a centerfire version of the Winchester '03. The .32SL never gained popularity as a hunting cartridge, although it may be suitable for the largest small game such as fox and coyote at ranges under 150 yards.[1] Both the .32SL and .35SL were soon superseded by the introduction of the more powerful .351SL in the Winchester '07 ""
A.30 carbine thompson would be mean af
...in college I knew professor of Psychology who killed a German with a 1911 in the War..we got into a conversation about guns and gun control.. and hr mebtioned that incident...ca 1968 or so...
FYI tangent - It has been suggested that the 400AR is an offshoot of the .30 Carbine. And its been blogged that the 400AR was inspired by the .401WSL, related to the .30 Carbine via the .32WSL. In the search for the "ideal wild hog gun," the .401WSL was reviewed, but its rim made it unsuitable for the AR-15. The decision to headspace on the case mouth was justified by the .30 Carbine, but the .30 Carbine was not the starting point for the 400AR. The 400ARs starting point was simply, "largest bore compatible with a double-stacking case size." 400ar.wordpress.com/ www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/06/08/400ar-another-wildcat-cartridge-ar-15/
also the M1919 this round is awesome
Please do a feature-length bromance comedy film!
Great vid. Thanks.
I think the M-16 is the ultimate. In WW 1&2 they called the rear echelon "sappers". Sappers complained about doing their job while carrying an M-1 Garand. So they got the 1911. They didn't want it for the obvious reasons so they were given the M-1 Carbine.
Great video!
What was the 1903 Pederson device chambered in?
Awesome video thank you. Really goes with a question I've been trying to figure out recently. .30 Carbine is still going strong so why hasn't there been an upgrade? A lightweight (5.5 lbs or under) but in a modern caliber like a 30 carbine with slightly more case capacity chambered in a 6.5mm that will really buck the wind to increase the range of a light kicking, lower velocity cartridge.
because the rise of true intermediate cartridges like the 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm have made .30 carbine obsolete. Why tinker with something when something already better in every way already exists.
My drill sergeant was killing at 100 yards EASILY with a .45 pistol in the '60s, so I don't know what the problem is. I used a Mk 4, Series 70 in the '70's, and I doubt that I am an expert, but 7 yards is ridiculously short range.
You're both minoritys. Most men suck at shooting handguns and when you have more important jobs like working artillery or driving a truck, you can't spend a ton of time learning to shoot a M1911 well.
@@atfyoutubedivision955 I can see that. Thanks.
Well done gents!
+InRangeTV I've shot my M1 Carbines out to 350-400 yards and although the spread is quite significant I've always found the trigger to be the real limiting factor in the practical accuracy of them. Nobody ever seems to mention that though :( lol
It's a mass produced weapon designed to hit a low budget price point.
Wasn't the M2 issued around the Okinawa campaign?
Jeremy Eckerman I recall hearing this as well.
By 1945, it was seeing use. It works better in semiautomatic. The barrel heats up quickly on full.
Yes, the full-auto capable variant of the M-1 Carbine, the M-2, saw action during the Okinawa campaign in April-June 1945, as well carbines equipped with infra-red night-vision scopes. The latter inflicted a disproportionate number of casualties on Japanese defenders, since the enemy tended to come out of their tunnel complexes only by night. The same system was also used in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. By the time of Vietnam, the army had taken to mounting the infra-red systems mostly on M-16s instead of M-1/M-2 carbines.
Excellent question and excellent answer
1:45 Ian says as Alvin York rolls over in his grave.
FN's P90 in 30 carbine would be awesome !!! Anyone? Anyone?
That's never going to happen. ~Karl
So the .30 Carbine is a WWII era Intermediate Cartridge... .45 ACP Standard Pistol and .30-06 Standard Rifle with .30 Carbine being between the two.
Can you do something similar for the British 303?
As you question the rifle and round.I question that T shirt
I haven’t fired my .30 cal carbine in over 50 years.
About time you blew the cobwebs out if it, you think?
It was just a pissy little cavalry carbine cartridge.
Short ambush range is 50 yards and the limit for an .45 ACP. Love this show! Measure a 30.06 case trim it to the length of a .45 ACP case and you see you can reload it for a .45 ACP. Only problem if there is a double flash hole and it is hard to get rid of the old primer.
One thing that gets missed in history is the m14 didn't need to be an assault rifle. In a way the M1 carbine already filled that role to a large extent.
If we had truly been able to develop the M-14 into an all purpose weapon, it would have met the primary goal of an all purpose weapon, simplified logistics: commonality of ammunition, spare parts, and training.
An M-1 carbine supplementing the M-14 does not reach that goal.
@@johnc8910Your reversing history. The M-14 was adopted to replace everything existing. The .30 carbine, the BAR, and the Garand. It failed to be a do it all gun.
@@WALTERBROADDUS : That is pretty much what I said.
@ Northern Outdoor Adventures - Re: "One thing that gets missed in history is the m14 didn't need to be an assault rifle."
Wow, you've got that right! If you look at the design requirements the army ordnance people laid on the rifle that eventually became the M-14, they wanted it to replace not just the Garand, the M-1, but weapons firing a completely different class of cartridges, such as the M-1/2 Carbine and its .30 Carbine 110-grain round, and the M3Grease Gun in 45 ACP. What were those guys drinking or smoking, anyway? I ask because that's pretty crazy and off the wall thinking, especially from "experts" who should have known better. Mission creep is ever-present right??
1:38 Assuming this is a joke, considering there are a few accounts of soldiers using a 1911 for that purpose. Not that a 1911 is better than a M1 carbine, but hey.
I still think it's my favorite ww1 weapon close second would be the garand then arisaka rifles.
WW1?
It's not a rifle, it's a pistol, Dude! Carried both the .45 and the Carbine in the early 60's during my mis-spent youth, both in the CZ {Panama} and then in the Garden Spot of SE Asia. I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally can't load a.45 with 30 rounds in one second and then put all of them into a c-ration case sized target at 150 yards. If you can, good for you! Also, I don't know what has happened to carbines but reliability wasn't any problem then, at least under hot, sweaty, filthy wet conditions. Just use more oil! Served with a lot of Korean vets then, they all loved the carbine.
Why do you call this a pistol cartridge? It was designed and made for a rifle! 7.62 X 23??
They should have used the 351 auto round.
You guys handle having two people in front of the camera speaking based on a loose script far better than many other youtubers, e.g. TFB-TV. Neither of you seems to talk over the other, or talk the other down, and you keep disagreements more civil. I definitely prefer your presentation style (no offense to anyone else intended).
For sure, TFB is a close second though.
I think a lot of it comes from genuinely being close friends and knowing each other very well. When you spend that amount of time with someone you can tell when a small movement is an intention to speak or just a small movement. But as mentioned it definitely helps a lot. I'm glad the channel is getting a lot more popular these days. I came from Ian's channel a while back and I'm glad I did. Personally TFB-TV and the like seem to have too many pre-concieved beliefs. We all do, but at least here they feel comfortable disagreeing and giving the counter argument (like AR-15 vs AK strengths/weaknesses) to show that its not a firm truth.
Was going to say they played off each other very well without either seeming annoyed or step on
that rug really ties the room together
I love that movie.
This is the first TH-cam comment that made me laugh out loud.
Lars Schröter lol
I wanna pee on it...
El Duderino
I view the M1 Carbine as more of a precursor to the modern PDW (P90, MP7) than as a "proto assault rifle." The assault rifle is meant to decrease the weight and increase close range firepower for combat troops, the PDW is meant to increase the firepower of support personnel. The M1 Carbine was definitely designed with the second goal in mind.
True in a sense. It was designed to be a better PDW than the 1911. But it uses an intermediary cartridge unlike the current PDWs making it more of an assault rifle. so i wouldn't really regard it as a precursor to modern PDWs since those tend to be more related to submachine guns in general.
Its interesting how much they have in common considering one has the word "assault" in it and the other has the word "defence" in it
In the military we don't call it an "assault rifle" it just a rifle
The only people I know that call a rifle “assault” are anti 2nd Amendment. Assault is a verb not a noun... please!
@@stephenwatts2879 Like it or not, assault rifle has become the term that military historians use to distinguish rifles like the AK47 and M16 from things like the FAL or G3 (what they call "battle rifles"). If you are using "assault rifle" to refer to a magazine fed, select fire rifle shooting intermediate ammo, you are semantically correct. The big problem is when people use "assault rifle" to refer to "guns that look scary".