If you had a choice of weapons...

It is more than marginal, at least the numbers are. While the little Carbine’s muzzle velocity is 1990 feet per second at the muzzle out of its 18 inch barrel, with 967 ft-lbs of energy; by the time its 110 grain projectile travels out to 300 yards it has deteriorated to 1035 fps, and only carries 262 foot pounds of energy.

On the other hand with the 10 ½ in barrel of the Thompson, its 230 grain .45 ACP ball cartridge starts off with 925 fps at the muzzle, and 430 foot pounds of energy. This is an improvement over the M1911 .45 ACP, which clocks 830 fps, and 350 foot pounds of energy.

Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is very good, even at the longer ranges. A few feet from the muzzle the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it would still stumble through 3 3/4 [Page 1107] boardssufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a victim.


See:

THE THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN

For the Thompson SMG data.

On the other hand the MP40 had a 9.9 length barrel (251mm), and produced a muzzle velocity of 1,247 fps (380 meters per second), with its 115 grain bullet; the only reference to projectile delivered energy is one which sticks in my head, but might be wrong so don’t hold me to it; 400 foot pounds at the muzzle. This lighter powder charge pushing nearly the same weight bullet as the .30 Carbine really drops off at the 100 yard distance.

 

Being a proud owner of both a garand and carbine i can tell you i would not feel very comfortable shooting at a target as close as 100 yards away using the .30 carbine. Do not get me wrong i love the little carbine, it is very fun to shoot.

However we must remember the role it was designed for, a sidearm to give an officer a little something more than a colt. Many soldiers were jealous of those carrying the carbines just because of the light weight of the firearm.

I would NOT feel comfortable engaging an enemy at a distance with a carbine.

Call of Duty is NOT a reliable source!

 

Who is talking the game Call of Duty? I myself formed my opinion of the little "sweetie" carbine over about 45 years of hunting with one in the "river brush" of Montana for white tail deer. As I mentioned in my original post, I wouldn't shoot at one if they were over 80 yards away.

They (bucks) weigh about 150 lbs before field dressing, and at that range they would drop from a single shot to the chest. Those were however not FMJ rounds, but PowerShok hollow points. I did use my .30 on coyotes, rock/wood chucks out to more than that range as well; but they weigh far less than a white tail. But it would still do them in just fine. Under 100 yards, a .30 Carbine shot, to the proper area (torso) of a human would, if they weren't too bundled up in wool or some other fabric would (in FMJ), I'm sure, produce "unpleasant" effects on the recipient at the very least.

As I said originally, it is a short range weapon and if anyone tries to shoot it at greater ranges (over 100 yards/meters) they should expect less than stellar results. I wouldn't even take the shot at greater than 80 yards, simply let the deer run off, and re-stalk it and get the range down to where I was comfortable with the distance.

With all of those disclaimers, I would choose the little Carbine for city fighting and jungle work, and the Garand for more open fields of combat. The French loved the little .30 Carbine M2 so well during their combat in Vietnam, they specifically ordered them for their troops. Many were still in the hands of both sides when the US got involved.

 

I would take the carbine, no questions asked. Its lighter for me to carry into combat. Once I have to engage I will throw that sucker off to the side and pick me up a real weapon.... like the Garand lol

 

the carbine makes a good personal defense weapon behind the lines. i'd choose it over the garand or any pistol or sub-gun if i'm a truck driver, an artillery man, a tanker, or even a batallion-level officer. rifles are easier to shoot and poor shots shouldn't be given pistols. but the lack of range and power is real. if you have a rifle, better have a strong-enough one.

 

I've got a friend who is a reenactor, and he goes deer hunting with his M1 at least once a year and says the kill is as clean and precise as could possibly be.

 

I suspect all the noise about the M-1 Carbine lacking "knock-down" power had more to do with bullet placement than any real lack of power. The exception being Korea in winter. There the enemy was in the habit of wearing quilted (padded) uniform jackets and the extreme cold worked to reduce projectile velocities for all arms. The cumulative effect was to reduce the effectiveness of all hits by small arms to the point where they were sometimes marginal, the padded uniforms acting as a form of armor especially in the case of low-velocity, lightweight projectiles. The Army investigated these complaints and I remember reading that report with exactly that conclusion in it.

As for the range of the Carbine, I seriously doubt most "marksmen" trained by the US Army could even hit a man-sized target beyond 300 yards, whether they were using a carbine or the M-1 Garand. For example, I have heard of hunters here in Oregon shooting deer with a .300 Winchester Magnum round from a scope-equipped bolt action rifle, and that is considered a very long range shot; not many real hunters would even attempt it. An average shooter placing a round from a rifle equipped with iron combat sights, in a vital area of a man-sized target at 300 yards under combat conditions would border on the miraculous. Bullet placement would be "iffy" at best.

 

I've heard of that as well- the padded jackets being armor. I remember reading a Finnish account about how it took half a dozen hits with their SMGs to drop a Soviet assault trooper.

That's the part that seems kind of miraculous to me. These bullets can penetrate layers of wood, how can they not penetrate a jacket without ease?

 

I would imagine the difference being a "solid" target (wood planking), and pliable material that "gives" when hit. Multilayered quilted jackets would fall into the "pliable" realm where they absorb the impact and disperse it, while a wooden plank simply reacts to the inertial energy when it hits.

 

So the small bullet would only penetrate the individual only superficially thanks to the heavy coat?

 

I believe that is correct, the foot pounds of energy transferred by that 110 grain .30 caliber bullet to the target dropped of quickly at distances over about 50 yards. It would still make an impact of note on solid objects, i.e. wood or such, but its energy would be easily dispersed by pliable material. The small bullet was also easily deflected by other materials as well, leaves, twigs, brush, blah, blah....

In the Philippines the Moro tribesman were nearly impervious to the handgun round then standard issue in the US Army, the .38 Long Colt. These men were Islamic zealots, who would wrap themselves in leather strips and work themselves into a religious frenzy before charging the American line.

The .38 was so ineffective it lead to the development of the .45 round as the new standard for Army handguns, both semi-auto and revolver in (I believe) 1906. Officers could carry other weapons of their own choice, and the .38 remained available as a choice, but the recommended round by WW1 was the .45 caliber pistol round.

 

M1 garand. Anything you shot with it tended to stay down. Not so the M1 carbine, just like other people are saying, the round is simply too weak ballistically and a good chance your enemy will have a chance to shoot back at you. I have read many accounts of this happening in both ww2 and korea where the carbine often could not even penetrate the thick quilted jackets of the commie hordes.
Also the garand used the same 30.06 ammo as the BAR and the m1919 machine gun so in a pinch you were more likely to be able to find some. Im sure someone figured out how to reload the expended clips if they had to.

 

brndirt, nobody said anything about call of duty, i was just venting. Since the game came out there has been a sharp increase in the number of m1 garand and carbine experts. Something about the original post just screamed video games to me.

 

The 30-06 was by far best cartridge we've ever used in a war.

 

Haha, yes! If the army really wanted the shennanigans in Iraq and Afghanistan to end, they would dust of some springfields and M1s!

 

I've read that the modern 5.56 mm round is more potent in every faculty than the 30 cal. from WW2 thanks to superior modern propellant/metals.

 

the 5.56 is not even in the same class as any of the .30 caliber battle cartridges of WWII. Don't just read, get the firearms and use them. I've extensively fired and hunted with the .30-06, .303 British, 7.62X54r, 8MM mauser, 7.7 Jap, and the 5.56 and I will tell you the 5.56 does not even begin to compare to the others. Col. Cooper always liked to refer to the 5.56 as the "poodle shooter".

 

Well said, the 5.56 is really just a "hotted up .22", and even the old Remington .222 is only a bit off the stats of the military .223 round. All they were designed for when they came out on the commercial market was "varmit" shooting. Nobody went deer hunting with one; chucks, coyotes, gophers (Richardson's ground squirrels), and prairie dogs were the main targets.

That said I saw my cousin drop a prong horn antelope with his .222 one time at about 80 yards, but I think that head shot was a fluke.

The .223 has proven itself in close combat, its tumbling effect cannot be denied when it encounters a human body, but it really isn't the "stopper" of the larger rounds. I loved my Remington 700 in 30-06, it was a wonderful weapon and round which I could load to almost any requirement.

I did purchase a 300 Winchester Mag in the Ruger #1 single shot falling block, and it would "reach out and touch" at about 300 yards with less than a 3" drop on level ground. That is what I liked using on elk in the Charlie Russell elk range since it is flat and/or river break hills rather than mountains. Its speed also meant that the projectile; when it hit even a smaller animal (prong horn) at distance did little damage to the edible meat while dropping the antelope in its tracks. It wasn't just a "larger boom" as many claim, that stinker could really travel and NOT loose power or accuracy.

 

While were touching on the debate of rifle caliber. I am really curious if any of you would honestly believe that there are soldiers in the U.S. today who would honestly prefer a .30 round in their infantry rifle?

I am not knocking the 30-06 by any means, i am saying that i would rather have the low recoil and large capacity of a smaller caliber. The reasons why the 5.56 has had so much success.

I do like to wonder what kind of impact the garand would have had shooting the .276 round. (.276 pedersen) A smaller recoil, and two more rounds of rock and roll. If you ask me the .276 round was ahead of it's time compared to what some would call overpowered rounds such as the 30-06 or 8mm, but was obviously never put into service.

Pedersen rifle