In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

.30 Carbine vs. .38 SPL

codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
edited April 2010 in General Discussion
It seems to me that a smarter move both ballistically and logistically that the M-1 Carbine would have been better served in .38 spl than .30 Carbine. Any takers?????

Comments

  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't understand why. The .30 Carbine has quite a bit more energy than does the 38 spl.

    .30 Carbine, 110 grain projectile: 1900+ FPS, 967 ft-lb at muzzle.

    38 Special, 110 grain projectile: 950 FPS, 220 ft-lb at muzzle.

    The 38 +P is even under 300 ft-lbs.

    The indoor range I use on occasion will not allow .30 Carbine because of its muzzle velocity and energy.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • ammo guyammo guy Member Posts: 810 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I don't know what you mean by "better served" but I assume you are stating that the .38 Spl is better that the .30 Carbine cartridge. If one is to go this route one might substitute the .357 Mag. for the .38. Of course to use either one of these in a GI carbine would require major modification of the gun and magazine. Out of a rifle barrel the .357 with a 110 gr bullet(same as the .30 Carbine) would probably have close to the same velocity as the Carbine. I don't see how it would be that much better than the Carbine load. The .38 Special would be hard pressed to run 1100-1200 fps even out of a rifle barrel. This would not be very impressive. Maybe you can clarify what you are thinking on this.
  • fishkiller41fishkiller41 Member Posts: 50,608
    edited November -1
    I think not.But we are all entitled to our opinion...[;)]
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I think the most important factor in selection of the .30 carbine round is that it is rimless cartridge, which makes it much better suited for a compact magazine fed carbine. Mag fed .38 spec pistols have been picky feeders, & none has anywhere near 15 round capability.

    Neal
  • SNOOOSNOOO Member Posts: 274 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Forget those others....You just cannot compete with the .223 Remington cartridge.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well I'm not to keen on the idea, though I'd probably buy an M1 carbine chambered in .38 if one was made and it turned out to be reliable.


    Now if it was chambered in .357 or .44magnum, that would be something special if it came with 15 round mags. The only thing I never liked about the ruger 44 carbine was the fact you have to reload it every 4 shots.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I thought the carbine was made to replace pistols as the main weapon of NCOs and non combat troops close to the action..

    The grease gun was the deemed replacement of the thompsons.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
    if it has a rim, it aint going in a box magazine. (unless it's 7.62x54R) that rules out any revolver cartridge. apparently back in the 40's they thought small caliber gopher cartridges should be used on gophers. bizarre, huh.


    The Coonan in .357/38 special feeds extremely well, as does the Desert Eagle in .357. The DE is a little underpowered in .357, but keeping the gas port clean and the slide, bolt, and frame clean and well lubed makes it fairly reliable.

    There is nothing that prevents a semi-auto box/stick magazine rifle in these calibers, and the stack does not have a practical limit as to the number of rounds in the mag that I can see (stacks like a .22LR stick mag). If someone were to come out with one, I'd be powerful interested.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    I thought the carbine was made to replace pistols as the main weapon of NCOs and non combat troops close to the action..

    The grease gun was the deemed replacement of the thompsons.


    That was the idea, it was to be issued in place of a M1 Garand or a M1911A1.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 15,576 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    I thought the carbine was made to replace pistols as the main weapon of NCOs and non combat troops close to the action..

    The grease gun was the deemed replacement of the thompsons.
    dunno, do they have some history on wikipedia?


    dunno, I never looked, I got what I know from reading books on it.

    Hang on, i'll ink the M1. I'll say right now Wiki Is wrong atleast half the time on finer details.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Designing_the_M1_carbine

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine#Combat_use
  • Horse Plains DrifterHorse Plains Drifter Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 40,233 ***** Forums Admin
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    I thought the carbine was made to replace pistols as the main weapon of NCOs and non combat troops close to the action..

    The grease gun was the deemed replacement of the thompsons.
    Not necessarily. As far as I am aware, most non infantry outfits used the carbine as opposed to the rifle. My dad was in an artillery battalion and they were issued carbines.




    quote:SNOOO Posted

    Forget those others....You just cannot compete with the .223 Remington cartridge.
    That thing is a pea slinger, nothing more. There are dozens of better rounds.
  • jonkjonk Member Posts: 10,121
    edited November -1
    I'd be happy with either in a defense situation.

    If I want respect, I'll take a 45/70. Ain't nobody bad * enough to argue with a 45/70.
  • givettegivette Member Posts: 10,886
    edited November -1
    For support troops: Ease of carry. More downrange accuracy than any pistol in the average 'GI Joe's hands.

    Goal by ordnance designers was to allow the artillery folks/Red Ball drivers more of a hit probability to an advancing adversary prior to said adversary getting into grenade-tossing range.

    That was the premise of the M1 Carbine..and you needed a very hot round for that (compared to pistols). Best, Joe
  • BamavolBamavol Member Posts: 966 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    bushmaster, good reply. I think that the 7.62x25 and the PPsh are not fully appreciated. The grease gun in 7.62x25 would be a good weapon. It could carry a lot of rounds in a simple stick mag. and good control in full auto due to low recoil. But that is a little off subject.
  • RosieRosie Member Posts: 14,525 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Take it from a man who knows. Never under estimate the little carbine. It will do what it was intended to do.
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I'm not a great fan of the M1 carbine but it was a lot handier to carry around than the PPSH would have been. The PPSH is HEAVY.
  • nunnnunn Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 36,085 ******
    edited November -1
    My memory is fuzzy, but I think I read of someone doing .357 Magnum conversions on M-1 carbines back in the 60s.
  • RamtinxxlRamtinxxl Member Posts: 9,480
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    Well I'm not to keen on the idea, though I'd probably buy an M1 carbine chambered in .38 if one was made and it turned out to be reliable.


    Now if it was chambered in .357 or .44magnum, that would be something special if it came with 15 round mags. The only thing I never liked about the ruger 44 carbine was the fact you have to reload it every 4 shots.


    I couldn't agree more. What I wouldn't give for a carbine in .44 Mag that used 15-20 round removable mags. That would be fine choice for SHTF use or general woods/wilderness roaming, IMHO.
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    My point lies more with the fact that .38 was already part of the supply system. I would never consider a 110 grain pill for it (.38)either-don't know where that came from. Case capacity would easily permit a .38 to be uploaded to near any velocity desired. I did think about .357 too. Not sure if, logistically, it would have made any more sense than the carbine did. I think ammoguy pretty much figured what I was going for by asking the question.

    I understand the reasoning behind its issue, so no need to discuss that. Funny that the same issue remains som 60+ years later.

    I always considered the .30 carbine to be fairly anemic as a rifle round-but I do speak from a position of some inexperience with it as well.
  • River RatRiver Rat Member Posts: 9,022
    edited November -1
    The M1 Carbine was cheaper and faster to make, and easier to tool up for, brilliant move, I believe. I think part of the reasoning was that it would be easier to train troops to use, and easier to shoot, than the 1911.

    The result was one of the least-appreciated miitary firearms ever developed. Light, fast, and easy to carry. Excellent action, and incredibly reliable. The cartridge was downplayed by many, because it was no .30-06. But it did its job perfectly. It was a defense gun, and no more.

    The M-2 version, full auto, was in my opinion unnecessary since the crisp trigger can fire just about as quickly in semi-auto.

    I'd like to get one of these, and was delighted to see Auto-Ordnance is making them again in WWII configuration. They look a little rough, especially the raw wood. In my opinion this is an ideal SHTF defensive semi-auto. Also an ideal urban warfare tool. At short distances, it hits hard.
  • bobskibobski Member Posts: 17,866 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    remember the amt 30carbine pistols?
    just curious what the MV was on those guns. anyone ever crono one?
    btw...those were great guns.
    Retired Naval Aviation
    Former Member U.S. Navy Shooting Team
    Former NSSA All American
    Navy Distinguished Pistol Shot
    MO, CT, VA.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,694 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bobski
    remember the amt 30carbine pistols?
    just curious what the MV was on those guns. anyone ever crono one?
    btw...those were great guns.


    I've never chrono'd mine, or the .30 Carbine Blackhawk for that matter. They do shoot a bit of a flame out the muzzle, though, so I suspect the MV is quite a bit less than the 1900 FPS out of an M1.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 3,148 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The 38 is compared with the 30 carbine because of some formula which says they have similar stopping power. It may be that they are not especially comparable in the real world especially if fmj bullets are used in the 38. Perhaps the round exceeds the capabilites of the formula which may have been designed to compare pistol bullets. Plus, it needs the sd & velocity to go through a helmet at 1-200yds.

    Downrange hittability would be poorer with 38. It would be no better than a 9mm. If you uploaded it, how would you simplify anything? You'd just wind up needing new revolvers!!! 9mm Mauser Export would be a better choice anyway.

    How's this? Issue a s&w model 10 stretch version chambered in 30 carbine! It's about as hot as a 357 but 3/4 less bore area, so 3/4 of the recoil.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 3,148 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by bobski
    remember the amt 30carbine pistols?
    just curious what the MV was on those guns.Don't know about amt but Speer #9 says a 7-1/2" Blackhawk could do 1127 with a 110 & 296 (which is i think what service ammo was loaded with) and 1209 with Alcan AL7.
  • SoreShoulderSoreShoulder Member Posts: 3,148 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by fideau
    It was during the Korean War that many people found it was not very effective against the Chinese in their winter garb, large heavy overcoats that were stopping penetration of the Carbine round.
    The 30 carbine GI ammo was loaded with noncorrosive primers from the outset. Some of the early ones may not have worked so well in cold weather. It was also loaded with a factory version of 296, which is supposedly not an easily igniting powder. In the winter it is possible the powder wasn't igniting properly. Maybe they should have issued winter ammo loaded with 4227.
Sign In or Register to comment.