# U.S. Intelligence Report on Sturmgewehr 44



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

This is interesting. U.S. Intelligence published a report in April, 1945 concerning the Sturmgewehr 44. The report was compiled from German sources (captured German documents, spies, information obtained from prisoners of war) and engineering tests of several of the weapons. The following are noteworthy excerpts from the report:



*Limitations*

*In their attempts to produce a light, accurate weapon having considerable fire power by mass production methods, however, the Germans encountered difficulties which have seriously limited the effectiveness of the Sturmgewehr. Because it is largely constructed of cheap stampings, it dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming. Although provision is made for both full automatic and semiautomatic fire, it is incapable of sustained firing and official German directives have ordered troops to use it only as a semiautomatic weapon. In emergencies, however, soldiers are permitted full automatic fire in two- to three-round bursts. The possibilities of cannibalization appear to have been overlooked and its general construction is such that it may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat if the individual finds himself unable to maintain it properly.*

...

*All things considered, the Sturmgewehr remains a bulky, unhandy weapon, comparatively heavy and without the balance and reliability of the U.S. M1 Carbine. Its design appears to be dictated by production rather than by military considerations. Though far from a satisfactory weapon, it is apparent that Germany's unfavorable military situation makes necessary the mass production of this weapon, rather than of a machine carbine of a more satisfactory pattern.*



Incidentally, similar intelligence reports concerning the Kar 98 and MP 40 adjudged those weapons to be without any negative characteristics whatsoever.
.
.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 28, 2010)

Not suprising. In line with Germany's attempts to "make weapons of the next war to use in this war" concept (if there was such a thing stated). Similar to the Me-262, Advanced U-boats, Anti-aircraft missles, V1 and V2,ect. The ideas/concepts were solid but the debugging and development required to make them reliable across all aspects was not avaible in terms of time. Possible the same with regards to materials (at least in the engines for the 262).


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2010)

Now, during my military service in mid 70s, not as an infantryman but as a pioneer/combat engineer even if Finnish army doctrine for pioneers was nearer to German assault pioneer than US combat engineer doctrine, we were trained to use our assault rifles Rk 62s mostly as semi-automatic/self-loading rifles. Only during the last phase of assault (the mad rush of last 20-40m) or during trench clearing or the last phase of enemy assault we were supposed to use automatic fire. So not so different to that of German instruction in 45. I would have picked up Sturmgewehr 44 rather than M1 Carabine.

Juha


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

I doubt the materials available in the final stages of the war took full advantage of the design's qualities.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

"_Only during the last phase of assault (the mad rush of last 20-40m) or during trench clearing or the last phase of enemy assault we were supposed to use automatic fire. So not so different to that of German instruction in 45._"

Unless you assume that the last phase of an enemy assault or trench clearing is the "emergency" referenced in the report and unless your weapon was incapable of sustained firing which necessitated that directive, then it actually would be quite different.

I have read the reports (two of them) on the MP-40 and both state that it is reliable. The directive to refrain from full auto fire unless absolutely necessary does not appear to be addressed to tactics but operational limitations of reliability.

"_I would have picked up Sturmgewehr 44 rather than M1 Carabine._"

Have you ever fired or even held an M-1 Carbine? The 15 round capacity was its only shortcoming as the full auto version was issued in 1944. It had about *1/2* the weight of the Sturmgewehr 44. Have you ever carried a rifle in combat? Also, the M-1 Carbine is not stamped from sheet metal and featured the tried and true reliable and accurate Garand action.

The Sturmgewehr 44 was the first of a new type of primary fighting rifle and the design philosophy as well as elements of its design itself were copied by the hugely successful AK-47 which our soldiers and Marines face even today. For this reason, I believe a myth of awe and wonderfulness has grown around the rifle.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "_Only during the last phase of assault (the mad rush of last 20-40m) or during trench clearing or the last phase of enemy assault we were supposed to use automatic fire. So not so different to that of German instruction in 45._"
> 
> Unless you assume that the last phase of an enemy assault or trench clearing is the "emergency" referenced in the report and unless your weapon was incapable of sustained firing which necessitated that directive, then it actually would be quite different.
> 
> ...


No, it did not. The actions are very different, the M1 Carbine was developed by David "Carbine" Williams, the Garand by John C Garand. The carbine uses a short stroke gas piston and the rifle uses a long-stroke piston.


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2010)

I do believe that the M1 Carbine could be described as the first successful "assault rifle" although I was not very fond of it in the service.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

"_The actions are very different._" 

Very different? The short stroke piston does not relegate it a non-Garand action. The M-14 also has a Garand action although it is different as well. Manually operate and look at the actions on an M1 Garand, an M-14 (uses a short gas expansion and cut-off system as opposed to the Garand's longer rod/piston) and M-1 Carbine. Anything look similar? Now contrast these with any other rifle actions.


Wikipedia:

Winchester hoped Williams would be able to complete various designs left unfinished by Ed Browning. Williams insisted on the incorporation of his short-stroke piston in the existing design. After the Marine Corps semi-automatic rifle trials in 1940, Browning's rear-locking tilting bolt design proved unreliable in sandy conditions.* As a result, the rifle was redesigned to incorporate a Garand-style rotating bolt and operating rod*. 
...
*Contrary to popular myth, Williams had little to do with the carbine's development, with the exception of his short-stroke gas piston design*. As a matter of fact, Williams went about creating his own design apart from the other Winchester staff. Williams' final carbine design was not ready for testing until December 1941, two months after the Winchester M1 Carbine had been adopted and type-classified. *None of William's additional design features were incorporated into later M1 production*.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

"_I do believe that the M1 Carbine could be described as the first successful "assault rifle" although I was not very fond of it in the service._"

I think we touched on this in another thread but I don't recall now. What did you find objectionable about the M-1 Carbine?


----------



## Juha (Jan 28, 2010)

Hello Davidicus
no I haven't hold M-1 Carabine and I have not been in combat, but Rk62 was our personal weapon and I carried it around through my military service.

Now Sturmgewehr 44 was heavier than M-1 but it also fired heavier bullet with higher MV, so it was more powerful and had double of magazine capacity.

Juha


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "_The actions are very different._"
> 
> Very different? The short stroke piston does not relegate it a non-Garand action. The M-14 also has a Garand action although it is different as well. Manually operate and look at the actions on an M1 Garand, an M-14 (uses a short gas expansion and cut-off system as opposed to the Garand's longer rod/piston) and M-1 Carbine. Anything look similar? Now contrast these with any other rifle actions.
> 
> ...



It's a "Garand" action if John C Garand designed it or if it was copied from his work (Like the Ruger Mini-14). The M1 Carbine was not a Garand action, it was as you quoted, a Winchester and Williams action. You might as well call an SKS a Kalashnikov action even though it offered a different bolt design (tilting rather than rotating) and was designed by Simonov.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

By Garand action, I meant the M-1 Garand. I thought you understood what I meant as you responded that the actions are "very different" and we were talking about designs and not designers. 

It was copied from the M-1 Garand design and other than the short stroke piston, which doesn't render it not a Garand action any more than the M-14 is not a Garand action, Williams played no role in the design. On a related note, Garand did not design the short gas expansion and cut-off system on the M-14 which is different than the M-1 Garand. Are you now going to assert that the M-14 is not a Garand action too? As you are well aware, the M-14 is coped from the Garand design too. 

That goes for the Mini-14 too. It was not designed by Garand but copies the Garand design in so much as that was the basis for the M-14 but there are some differences between the Mini-14 gas system and the M-1 Garand gas system as well. However, like the M-14 and M-1 Carbine, it is also a Garand action and as you have pointed out, since they were copied from Garand's design, they are Garand actions. (_It's a "Garand" action if John C Garand designed it or if it was copied from his work (Like the Ruger Mini-14_). 

Juha, the extra 15 grains of bullet weight and 250 fps doesn't confer any advantage in terms of lethality.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> By Garand action, I meant the M-1 Garand. I thought you understood what I meant as you responded that the actions are "very different" and we were talking about designs and not designers.
> 
> It was copied from the M-1 Garand design and other than the short stroke piston, which doesn't render it not a Garand action any more than the M-14 is not a Garand action, Williams played no role in the design. On a related note, Garand did not design the short gas expansion and cut-off system on the M-14 which is different than the M-1 Garand. Are you now going to assert that the M-14 is not a Garand action too?





What did Garand design on the M1 Carbine? Nothing. What did he design on the M14? A lot. Giving him credit for the carbine is credit where credit is NOT DUE. If the Carbine used his design, he should have sued winchester for violating his patent.



DAVIDICUS said:


> Juha, the extra 15 grains of bullet weight and 250 fps doesn't confer any advantage in terms of lethality.



True, it would add range if it were similarly accurate, but it probably was not, considering the roughly steel stamped construction.


----------



## renrich (Jan 28, 2010)

Davidicus, there was an article in the "American Rifleman" a while back that related the same information you posted from Wikipedia. I don't remember the details but "Carbine" Williams was a troublesome fellow and other people were responsible for completing the design of the M1 Carbine. I originally trained with the Garand and qualified "expert" on the KD range. The Garand I used in basic was very accurate and seemed to fit me well. I had never fired a big bore rifle, (although had much experience with a 22 LR and twelve gauge Model 97 Winchester) and was astounded at the accuracy of the Garand out to 500 yards. Later I qualified with the M1 Carbine, 1911 Colt and the M14. I was never in combat but the Carbine seemed to small for me, stock, length of pull and I felt it was not very accurate. I knew about it's ballistics. IMO it is not adequate for Whitetail Deer and I felt it would not be effective much beyond 100 yards, if that. Obviously, it would be better than a pistol, which it was originally designed to replace but then again it was not as handy as a pistol to carry. The M1 Carbine was a good first effort but I would have made it a little larger and chambered for a round with a little more power. In combat, all things being equal I would have rather carried a model 94 Wichester in 30-30.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

"_What did Garand design on the M1 Carbine? Nothing. What did he design on the M14? A lot. _"

John Garand played no role in the design of the M-14. Garand designed the T-20. It was scrapped. The *T-25*, designed by Earle Harvey, is what culminated in the M-14. The design of his M-1 Garand was largely copied. The M-14 has a different gas system designed by others.

John Garand played no role in the design of the Mini-14. The design of his M-1 Garand was largely copied. The Mini-14 has a different gas system designed by others. 

John Garand played no role in the design of the M-1 Carbine. He submitted a prototype for a full auto model which was scrapped. The design of his M-1 Garand was largely copied. The M-1 Carbine has a different gas system designed by others.


Once again, the M-14, Mini-14 and M-1 Carbine all have gas systems that are different than the Garand. None of these different gas systems were designed by John Garand. Your point is that the M-1 Carbine is not a Garand action because of the short stroke gas system. The M-14 utilizes a short gas expansion and cut-off system that is different too. The Mini-14 uses a different gas system as well. You believe the Mini-14 is a Garand action (_It's a "Garand" action if John C Garand designed it or if it was copied from his work (Like the Ruger Mini-14_).

You are illustrating my point. How is the Mini-14 a Garand action? Garand did not design it. It uses a different gas system designed by others. How is a Mini-14 a Garand action but not the M-1 Carbine? 

I repeat from another post:

*Manually operate and look at the actions on an M1 Garand, an M-14 (uses a short gas expansion and cut-off system as opposed to the Garand's longer rod/piston) and M-1 Carbine. Anything look similar? Now contrast these with any other rifle actions.*

You can include the Mini-14 in the mix as well as all are Garand actions by design.


----------



## Glider (Jan 28, 2010)

This isn't my best area but I am not aware of any full bore rifle that could be used in full auto mode with any success. My limited understanding is that they tended to use use 3 shot bursts.

I certainly could be wrong on this.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

Renrich, I remember your discussion of this now.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 28, 2010)

Since StG-44 was copied*, either as an concept, or as-is, for more then 60 years, I'd say that was a way to go. M1 Carbine was rarely copied.
If US infantry-weapons experts looked to find an over-weighted rifle, they could pick Garands. 

As for bullet with with twice the energy being 'not that more powerful', I found this funny at least.

Re. AK-47 being a direct copy of StG-44: it was not. 

*actually, russkies did have working examples of an assault rifle back in WW one, so one may make it's own conclusions


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 28, 2010)

"_Since StG-44 was copied*, either as an concept, or as-is, for more then 60 years, I'd say that was a way to go._"

Agreed. And like many excellent final products, (AK-47 and family) initial models that they evolved from often leave much to be desired.

"_M1 Carbine was rarely copied._"

The M-1 Carbine was never copied. It did not represent a new kid on the block design like the Stg 44 from which copying sprang. The M1 Garand played that role. The M1 Carbine was a copy of the basic Garand design. And keep in mind that the M-14 (also a basic copy of the M1 Garand design) is still in service today and as a battle rifle and DM rifle, is superior to the AK-47. That's the thing to keep in mind. The two rifles are designed for different roles. One for battles over longer distances out in the open (Battle Rifle) and the other for closer range battles where overall length can hamper maneuverability in tighter areas like street fighting (Assault Rifle). 

The Germans had determined that most engagements were at less than 300 meters with the vast majority less than 200 meters. Don't get too caught up on energy and power of cartridges. The 7.62 NATO has nearly twice the power of a 5.56 NATO cartridge but it is not much more lethal. In battle, if you could hit someone center of mass with a 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps, there was a good chance they were gonna die as even through heavy clothing, such a bullet could still penetrate more than 12". The .30 Carbine can muster the same energy at 350 yards. A hot 9mm Parabellum out of a submachine gun, at about 150 yards.

Glider, with battle rifle cartridges like the .308 Winchester, I would agree. I have a Springfield M1A (basically a semi-auto M-14) and I don't think a full auto version would have much of an advantage.


----------



## Juha (Jan 29, 2010)

Hello Davidicus
if M-14 is so great gun, why US Army went to M-16 after they got experience with AK-47 in Vietnam and why Israelis based their Galiel? assault rifle on our Rk62 and didn't develop a battle rifle from M-14?

Juha


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 29, 2010)

> John Garand played no role in the design of the M-1 Carbine. He submitted a prototype for a full auto model which was scrapped. *The design of his M-1 Garand was largely copied.* The M-1 Carbine has a different gas system designed by others


 All the rest is true, this part I disagree with. I think that Williams and Winchester workedon their own to make the M1 Carbine unless there is some sources you can site that point to their infringement on his patent rights.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 29, 2010)

I don't know the specific parameters of the patent that would have been invaded on by the M1 Carbine. Was the internal bandoleer magazine system and gas system such an integral part of the rifle design, patented on April 21, 1930, that the M1 Carbine with a different gas system and designed for use with removable magazines did not violate the patent?







A patent merely gives you the legal right to challenge those who may be infringing on your patent claims. Parties are free to work out arrangements between themselves to allow what would otherwise be an actionable offense. Winchester produced 513,000 M1 Garand's from 1940-1945. I assume this was by license. I also don't know what role the U.S. government may have played in making sure borrowed designs were brought to fruition to advance the war effort.

This isn't rocket science. Work the action of the M1 Garand while studying it carefully. No other gun had that open, rotating bolt design when it was developed. Look at the M1 Carbine, the M-14 and Mini-14. Coincidence or borrowed (copied) design?

You yourself have already granted that the Mini-14 is a "Garand action." I assume you also agree about the M-14. Why the hesitation on the M1 Carbine?

Juha, I'm not sure if you're just being cute or if you really don't know the answers to those questions. I think the former. How about this though. The M-14 is so great and the U.S went with the M-16 and even though the M-14 is so great of a battle rifle, Israel opted for an assault rifle to succeed its FAL battle rifle. I don't see the contradiction or inconsistency.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 29, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> ...
> 
> The Germans had determined that most engagements were at less than 300 meters with the vast majority less than 200 meters. Don't get too caught up on energy and power of cartridges. The 7.62 NATO has nearly twice the power of a 5.56 NATO cartridge but it is not much more lethal. In battle, if you could hit someone center of mass with a 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps, there was a good chance they were gonna die as even through heavy clothing, such a bullet could still penetrate more than 12". The .30 Carbine can muster the same energy at 350 yards. A hot 9mm Parabellum out of a submachine gun, at about 150 yards.
> ...


All you said works fine in theory. But...
1st, enemy need to be hit, therefore the bullet must not be deflected by a branch, piece of gear, or some other light obstacle found on battlefield. Then we have doors, windows, light/thin walls. The more powerful bullet would have less trouble with that.
2nd, after the enemy is hit, you want him either dead, or incapacitated. The 'light' bullet is again in trouble. The US police FBI found out the hard way that multiple 9mm torso hits do not guarantee a kill, so they asked got more powerful weaponry. As for M1 Carbine, Wiki says (FWIW):


> 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.[14] 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.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 29, 2010)

> 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.[14] 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.



My best friend's grandfather (I've known him since I was a kid) fought in the Korean war, he said that the insufficient stopping power complaints were excuse making for poor marksmanship. He loved the M1 Carbine, so did my grandfather who was in the national guard during the war but wasn't sent because he had 3 kids. Take that FWIW.


----------



## renrich (Jan 29, 2010)

Your grandfather in the National Guard who was not sent to Korea is in the same position as I was. I carried the M1 Carbine all over central Louisiana and I liked it very well over the M14 or a Garand. Light, small, easy to carry. Does not mean that it was a good battlefield weapon. My suspicion is that the popularity of the Carbine has more to do with it's portability than with it's lethality. If I see a bunch of ChiCom soldiers at about 200 yards or more in Korea and I have a Carbine, there is not much I can do except wait until they get closer and even then the stopping power is lacking. If I cannot be sure that a Texas whitetail that weighs 100 pounds goes down with a hit from the carbine, then I am sure not going to be confident with the Carbine and chances of getting a disabling hit at 200 yards are not nearly as good as with a Garand. However, having a Carbine is sure better than having nothing or only a 1911 Colt. Having said that, though, the !911 did good work in VN at LZ X Ray.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 29, 2010)

renrich said:


> Your grandfather in the National Guard who was not sent to Korea is in the same position as I was. I carried the M1 Carbine all over central Louisiana and I liked it very well over the M14 or a Garand. Light, small, easy to carry. Does not mean that it was a good battlefield weapon. My suspicion is that the popularity of the Carbine has more to do with it's portability than with it's lethality. If I see a bunch of ChiCom soldiers at about 200 yards or more in Korea and I have a Carbine, there is not much I can do except wait until they get closer and even then the stopping power is lacking. If I cannot be sure that a Texas whitetail that weighs 100 pounds goes down with a hit from the carbine, then I am sure not going to be confident with the Carbine and chances of getting a disabling hit at 200 yards are not nearly as good as with a Garand. However, having a Carbine is sure better than having nothing or only a 1911 Colt. Having said that, though, the !911 did good work in VN at LZ X Ray.


If you have to go around a corner or fight in any close urban or mountain environment, that Carbine sure does swing around easier than a Garand, like turning a Volkswagon versus turning a 64 Impala. Different weapon, different roles. 

As a standoff weapon the M-14 can't be beat except with a similar gun (FN FAL, H&K G3, Dragunov, another M-14) and a better marksman. Fighting a fast moving running gun battle in a mountain village, that portability is a big combat advantage, not just a relief to tired soldiers.


----------



## renrich (Jan 29, 2010)

On the other hand, if I know that enemy soldiers are in a house in a village or in a vehicle, I can penetrate the walls of most houses or the sides of most vehicles with a Garand or M14 but not with that puny round of the Carbine. As far as pointing is concerned, I can point my Model 95 Browning in 3006( a copy of 1895 Winchester) and a big rifle just about as fast as my Winchester 9422 a little rifle in 22 LR. The big advantage of the Carbine, IMO, is that, in the chow line under "combat conditions" you are holding your mess kit in one hand and your cup in the other with the Garand slung over your shoulder. Just as you get your coffee or Kool Aid, the damn Garand slides down off your shoulder and spills your drink. Then when you are washing your mess gear in GI cans with an immersion heater, the damn Garand slides off your shoulder into the hot water. The Carbine did not do that as much because of it's light weight.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 29, 2010)

"_All you said works fine in theory._"

No theory at all. I said center of mass hit even through heavy clothing with 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps. The .30 Carbine uses a 110 grain bullet that leaves the muzzle at 2,000 fps. There have been a lot of tests concerning deflection from interim objects like wooden dowels (simulating brush) and all bullets get deflected. There is no such thing as the mythical "brush buster." Yes, all things being equal, heavier bullets with more momentum can penetrate better through glass and steel. 

As for "light bullets" which you have characterized my discussion of 100 grains, the current rounds used in the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan are far less than 100 grains. They are in the 60 grain range. There is movement to use a heavier round of 77 grains though.

"_The US police FBI found out the hard way that multiple 9mm torso hits do not guarantee a kill, so they asked got more powerful weaponry._"

A shot in the torso with a .44 Magnum does not guarantee a kill. Many police agencies use the 9mm including the largest, the NYPD. The U.S Secret Service uses the 357 Sig. That's just a 9mm with a little more velocity over a +P+ 9mm Parabellum load. In real life police shootings, the 9mm has among the highest one shot stop percentages and contrary to popular belief, the .45acp has been shown not to do much better. The FBI uses the .40S&W. European countries use the 9mm Parabellum, the 9mm Kurz and even lighter chamberings. The MP-40 was not considered a child's toy either and it killed many G.I.'s. And the MP-5 is widely used today by police agencies and the FBI.

Those stories of the .30 Carbine not penetrating through the heavy clothes and coats of enemy soldiers in Korea are myth. Here is a Youtube video of a .30 Carbine, 110 grain FMJ bullet, zipping through eight layers of frozen denim, a pressure treated wood 6"X6" (that's a compressed, solid wood post) and a gallon jug of water. Not scientific by any means but you get the idea.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7ktaTbgQsU_

My original point on this was that the .30 carbine was really not less lethal than the 7.92 Kurz.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 29, 2010)

In the interest of full disclosure I ought to mention that I personally carry a .40S&W which I prefer over the 9mm. I also prefer the .40 S&W over the .45acp.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

I was not to fond of the 9mm, but then again the ones that were issued to us were crap.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 29, 2010)

By "ones" do you mean the ammunition or firearm? Both?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> By "ones" do you mean the ammunition or firearm? Both?



The firearm itself. We were issued old weapons with lots of play in the parts, some were even bent slightly. People that normally would shoot expert, were having trouble with them. Fortunately in Iraq they re-issued us some new ones (at least those that needed them...)


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 29, 2010)

Any gun that is beat to hell will give you problems. I know that the M9 has detractors among those who carry it but in torture test evaluation after torture test evaluation, it has proven to be reliable and accurate.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 30, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "_All you said works fine in theory._"
> 
> No theory at all. I said center of mass hit even through heavy clothing with 100 grain bullet at 1,000 fps. The .30 Carbine uses a 110 grain bullet that leaves the muzzle at 2,000 fps. There have been a lot of tests concerning deflection from interim objects like wooden dowels (simulating brush) and all bullets get deflected. There is no such thing as the mythical "brush buster." Yes, all things being equal, heavier bullets with more momentum can penetrate better through glass and steel.
> 
> ...



.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2010)

From "NRA Handloaders Guide" "The M1 Ball Service cartridge with 111 gr bullet has a muzzle velocity of 1970 fps and muzzle energy of 956 ft lbs. Performance of this cartridge on deer class game is marginal and it's use for hunting such game is expressly prohibited in some states. It's use in other states for hunting deer class game is prohibited indirectly because of it's relatively low muzzle energy." 
From the Hornady Handbook- " The 30 M1 carbine lacks stopping power as a hunting round and the rifle itself lacks accuracy for varminting at any distance."
The 30 Carbine was supposed to have an effective range of 300 yards. From the Hornaday Handbook again:
The 30 caliber 110 grain round nose bullet at a MV of 2000 FPS has a ME of 977 ft lbs
At 100 yards, the velocity is 1500 fps and the energy is 550 ft lbs
If the rifle was zeroed at 100 yards, at 200 yards, the bullet has dropped 15.24 inches and at 250 yards the bullet has dropped 32.33 inches.
The energy at 200 yards is 317 ft lbs and at 250 yards is 264 ft lbs.
The rifle, I have read, was capable of two to five MOA accuracy. (The one I qualified with must have been the five MOA variety)
Combine all those factors and it seems to me that the weapon is about an effective 100 yard weapon if you can hit your enemy .
I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance. Neither one would I want to use in combat unless I had no other choice. "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing."


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 30, 2010)

I agree that they should have beefed up M1 carbine performance. I would suggest a round based on a shortened .30 Remington case. 100 grains at 2500 fps would probably give adequate lethality.

On the other hand 150 Grain at 2000 FPS would give you the same bullet as the 30-06 and about 70% of the power/recoil. Like having a shorter range version of the same gun.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2010)

I have read that the ballistics of the round in the AK are about the same as the 30-30 and I think that is about where you are talking, Clay, and I agree. As I said before, I would rather go into combat with a Model 94 Win in 30-30 if ammo was available than with the carbine. If an enemy head was sticking up at 100 yards, I would feel more confident with the Model 94 than with the Carbine.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> I have read that the ballistics of the round in the AK are about the same as the 30-30 and I think that is about where you are talking, Clay, and I agree. As I said before, I would rather go into combat with a Model 94 Win in 30-30 if ammo was available than with the carbine. If an enemy head was sticking up at 100 yards, I would feel more confident with the Model 94 than with the Carbine.


The model 94 wasn't very reliable under combat conditions. Hunters are able to pamper their guns than soldiers. I'd expect the 94 Winchester to be about as reliable as the 30-40 Krag-Jorgensen rifle (which was, incidentally a very fine deer rifle when bought surplus). 

But, yes, the .30 Remington is nothing but a rimless 30-30. an auto-loading carbine chambered for this fine round using the M1-Style action (call it a Garand action if you want, generically I guess that's appropriate) would be a true assault rifle with more accuracy than the AK-47 (albeit more expensive).

It would probably handle and shoot a lot like a Ruger Mini-14 (Mini-30 is the 7.62x39 version).


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

"_With only 60% of energy (compared with 7,92 Kurz), I'd say .30 carbine is far less lethal._"

Approximately 980fpe vs. 1,400fpe. It has 70%. But your math aside, you are again caught up in the energy as the measure for lethality. The difference between the 7.62NATO in a battle rifle (2,520fpe) vs the improved 5.56NATO 77gr load out of an M4 assault rifle (1,246fpe) has the M4 with just 50% the energy of the M-14. By your logic, the 5.56NATO is "far less lethal" to a far greater degree than the .30 Carbine is to the 7.92Kurz.

This is not the case so I again ask that you rethink your use of energy as the measure of lethality. Your conclusions would never prefer the use of assault rifles over battle rifles.

"_I agree with most of what you've said. But (always that 'but'), requiring from a soldier to hit the enemy in the stomach from 200-300 yds, while receiving enemy fire, is too much to ask._"

This is the case with any rifle and a hit at 200-300 yards with a .30 Carbine or a 7.92Kurz would be indistinguishable to a doctor able to render immediate surgical aid. At 200 yards, both cartridges would likely fully penetrate a soldier as a 9mm at very close range with 124 gr fmj will fully penetrate a person's torso and the .30 Carbine with a 110gr. bullet at 200 yards has about the same velocity as the 9mm at the muzzle and has greater sectional density (.166) than the 9mm (.140). Moreover, the intelligence report was very critical of the Stg.'s accuracy but I do not know of any tests that would allow us to compare the two rifles against each other.

We're talking about the Stg 44 vs. the .30 Carbine. One weighs twice as much and is so unreliable in its operation that there is an official directive to refrain from full auto fire. It does have a 30 round capacity. The other weighs half, is fully automatic (.30 Carbines issued in the latter half of 1944 when the Stg. 44 were full auto), is very reliable but it has a magazine capacity of 15 rounds).

You would choose the Stg. 44. You apparently feel that the difference in lethality plus the higher magazine capacity would outweigh the reliability and weight issue. 

I for one start from the position that any fully automatic rifle that is so unreliable as to trigger an official directive not to use full auto except in emergencies, and even then only in short bursts, is simply crap. There is no appreciable difference in lethality between the two. All things being equal, I believe that two forces, one with the .30 Carbine and one with the Stg. 44, would see the force with the .30 Carbine come out on top.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

Renrich, I assume that you would also find the .223 Rem / 5.56NATO only marginally effective as a deer hunting cartridge too. It is quite effective in dispatching humans, even with fmj ammo though.

"_I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance._"

I am looking at the Federal website and at 100 yards, the jhp 210gr .41 mag has 507fpe. The 30 Carbine 110gr fmj is listed at 597fpe at 100 yards. There is a 210 grain Swift A Frame bullet load for the .41 Mag that is showing 529fpe at 100 yards. In order to develop 595fpe at 100yards, a 210 grain bullet needs to be traveling 1,130fps at 100 yards. 

_Neither one would I want to use in combat unless I had no other choice. "Ole ugly is better than ole nothing."_ 

But the issue is whether in late 44 and 45 you would rather carry the Stg. 44 or .30 Carbine. I would rather carry an M1 Garand myself but as between the two at issue, I would rather have a .30 Carbine.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 30, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Renrich, I assume that you would also find the .223 Rem / 5.56NATO only marginally effective as a deer hunting cartridge too. It is quite effective in dispatching humans, even with fmj ammo though.
> 
> "_I have a three screw Ruger Blackhawk in 41 magnum and the energy at 100 yards is about the same with a 210 grain bullet as the 30 carbine, 595 ft lbs. With the iron sights I can, from a rest, keep 3 rounds in a 20 inch bull at 100 yards so they seem to be somewhat close in performance._"
> 
> ...


A friend of mine's uncle fought in WWII and get a medal for 11 confirmed kills. James doesn't know what medal it was. In any case he fought mostly in Italy and he said that the Carbine was very handy in those cramped Italian mountain towns.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 30, 2010)

The Garand is a battle rifle. It's a big and heavy gun. It weighs about the same as the Stg. 44 assault rifle. The Stg. 44, just as heavy, is shorter affording better handling in tighter areas. The Garand also has much better sights and a much longer sight radius. The Stg. 44 wasn't very robust either while you could drive a jeep back and forth over the Garand no problem.

Robert Bruce's book "German Automatic Weapons Of World War II" published in 1997 discusses how the flimsy construction and heavy weight contributed to function impairing damage from merely dropping it on a concrete surface from a height of 1.65 meters ( 5' 5").

There is a story about how the British said that it could be damaged merely from being knocked over on a hard surface but that is an exaggeration.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> "_With only 60% of energy (compared with 7,92 Kurz), I'd say .30 carbine is far less lethal._"
> 
> Approximately 980fpe vs. 1,400fpe. It has 70%. But your math aside, you are again caught up in the energy as the measure for lethality.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 31, 2010)

There are very good reasons for using short burst with automatic weapons. Controllability, and conserving your magazined ammo are the main reasons. 

I have used automatic weapons in anger, and we never fired indisciminately. It was always short controlled bursts. spraying bulets everywhere is the stuff of Hollywood legend or the wild west, perhaps, but not for post war soldiering


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2010)

Yep, for longer bursts there are other weapons, mostly belt-fed ones, with tick barrels and bipod or tripod.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 31, 2010)

"_There are very good reasons for using short burst with automatic weapons. Controllability, and conserving your magazined ammo are the main reasons._"

Yes. And had the intelligence report and German documents not stated that the reason was the inability to operate with sustained fire (jamming), I would never have started this post. 

I would suggest Robert Bruce's book "German Automatic Weapons Of World War II" for further reading on complaints from German soldiers about reliability and the weapon's susceptibility to function impairing damage from merely being dropped on a concrete surface from 1.65 meters.

Also, on the issue of energy being a good indicator of lethality with "not-so-different bullets" I would recommend reading Martin Fackler's published tests and studies. He has debunked the "kinetic energy" killing theory. In reality, once you can hit the magical 12-14" of penetration, you are likely to kill and the .30 Carbine with it's 110gr. fmj bullet will do that easily at 350 yards through layers of denim. That extra 15 grains of lead and 250fps makes no practical effect. Dead, dead + 2 and dead + 6 all equal dead.

The Firearms Tactical Institute has also published extensively in this area as well. There are numerous ballistic gelatin tests that you can look up on the web that show the penetration of fmj 9mm bullets that have less sectional density than the .30 Carbine or 7.92Kurz. If a 124gr. 9mm fmj at 1,000 fps will penetrate 16-17", then you can bet that the .30 Carbine will make it past 12" through heavy clothing at 350 yards. At less than 300 yards, you are likely to get full penetration through the torso with the .30 Carbine just as you would get full penetration through a torso from a 9mm 124gr fmj bullet at the muzzle. With muzzle velocities in the 2,000-2,250fps range, you don't get permanent crush cavities. You are basically just poking a hole in your adversary and there is no practical difference in a 7.62mm and 7.92mm hole. (Again, read Dr. Fackler's work) 

The Pig Board tests (Where they would shoot hundreds of pigs to figure out lethality and range), conducted by the US Army, found that the .30 Carbine had an effective range well beyond the 300 yards yards required by the Army.

Anyway something tells me that I am not going to change your mind.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2010)

I really appreciate your inputs, mate 

And I really do belive that M-1 Carbine is real threat to anyone's health if that person gets hit in the right part. The quirk is to really aim to the enemy, then the bullet negotiates the obstacles it could met, then the bullet hits where it counts. The bullet with greater energy would have more 'flat' trajectory, will less suffer (both in speed direction) if it hits a branch, part of a vehicle, window, part of light field fortification, piece of enemy gear, and retain more energy when entering the body. 
In other words, if the enemy is exposed standing, he'd be killed without problems by M1 carbine (and by PPSh-41). Now if he's laying down behind a heap of earth, or behind a tree, or behind a vehicle, or running behind some picket fence, the same weapons would be in disadvantage vs. a more powerful one.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 31, 2010)

Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 31, 2010)

We don't ave to agree and I always learn a lot from everyone on this board including you. Truth be told, I also think the .30 Carbine is underpowered. I just don't think there is much practical difference between the two but you raise a good point about trajectory and more effective strikes through fence boards, glass, doors, etc.

The US military has been getting complaints about the 5.56NATO not putting the bad guys down with center of mass hits at longer ranges, especially in Afghanistan. Apparently, the use of the M4 with 14.5" barrel (as opposed to the M-16 with 20" barrel) bleeds just enough velocity off of the 62grain bullet to impact its effectiveness. The military was studying a switch to a 6.5mm 115-120grain bullet at about 2,500fps but perhaps due to the military unfriendly atmosphere in Washington with democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches and the monetary and political costs involved, they are apparently going to go with a 77 grain bullet (Mk 262) that will develop about 2,650fps and 1,200fpe in the M4. This round in testing has been shown to perform well up to of 300 yards. It is a v-e-r-y long bullet and begins to yaw after about 5" of penetration creating a more effective wound channel.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 31, 2010)

_Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle._

I wouldn't stand in front of a .22Lr at 300 yards! Dr. Fackler, who was a battlefield surgeon, established that you need less than 250fps to get a bullet to penetrate into a human body.

This is an interesting read that discusses temporary and permanent crush cavities. There is also a discussion regarding energy under "The Kinetic Energy Fallacy" at about page 6.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/effects_of_small_arms.pdf

*WOUND PROFILE
...
Despite the greatly increased velocity (and more than double the kinetic energy) possessed by the new jacketed bullets, reliable historical accounts are unanimous in their observations that the tissue disruption and overall effect they caused was far less than that produced by earlier and slower lead bullets.* [The newer bullets were of smaller caliber thus making smaller holes]


*THE KINETIC ENERGY FALLACY
The erroneous assumption that the amount of kinetic energy "deposited" by a projectile is a measure of the damage it produces continues to mislead. 
...
A large slow projectile will crush a large amount of tissue, whereas a small fast missile with the same kinetic energy will stretch more but crush less.
...
The kinetic energy fallacy is a smokescreen which hides the actual ways in which the projectile interacts with tissue. Authors who use "kinetic energy transfer" as an explanation of how a projectile causes a particular injury are missing the crux of wound ballistics, as well as spreading the worst kind of misinformation; that which induces complacency by masquerading as knowledge. How much better off the field would be if the words "kinetic energy" were erased from its vocabulary; then one would be forced to look into the mechanical interactions of projectiles and tissue wherein lies the key to understanding. 


CONCLUSION
...
Recognizing that the penetrating projectile simply crushes tissue to form its hole and that the walls of certain parts of this hole may be dilated or stretched for a few milliseconds after the projectile passes, provides the basic foundation needed to understand the effects of projectiles on tissue. The characteristic wound produced by a given projectile is most accurately described by illustrating both crush and stretch tissue disruption along the entire tissue path. This foundation can be built upon by those who need more detail, but it must remain the logical basis for understanding.*


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2010)

Davidicus, my info on the 41 magnum came from page 276 of the NRA Handloading Guide and it was based on factory ballistics with a six inch barrel. The MV was 1350 fps and ME was 850 ft lbs. At 100 yards the bullet was still kicking along at 1130 fps. The ballistics on the 30 carbine were taken from the Hornaday Handbook and the bullet was a 110 grain round nose with a BC of .135. I really think we are in agreement on the 30 carbine, rifle and cartridge. The cartridge is underpowered and the rifle is not very accurate but still better than a pistol, in most cases. If we had gone to Europe in 62 to confront the Warsaw Pact, I promised myself that I would get something more effective than the carbine but fortunately for the US and the 49th AD, and me, we did not have to go. As I mentioned in another thread though, Karamojo Bell is supposed to have killed hundreds of African elephants with either the 6.5 Mannlicher or the 7x57 Mauser. That does not prove that those cartridges are good to hunt elephant with. In fact trying those cartridges against elephant is a good formula for getting oneself killed. Concerning the 30 carbine, when you combine the poor accuracy inherent in the firearm and cartridge, the rainbow trajectory and the lack of "stopping power", I still say that most of those who liked it did so because of it's portability. I agree also with you that I don't want to stand 300 yards in front of anyone with a 22 LR and Clay don't be discriminating against us seventy somethings. I am almost 75 and can still shoot a little.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> Give my grandfather an M1 carbine right now (he's 78 ) and I doubt you would stand at 300 yards telling him he can't hurt you with his inferior rifle.



Ditto what DAVIDICUS said


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 31, 2010)

DAVIDICUS said:


> We don't ave to agree and I always learn a lot from everyone on this board including you. Truth be told, I also think the .30 Carbine is underpowered. I just don't think there is much practical difference between the two but you raise a good point about trajectory and more effective strikes through fence boards, glass, doors, etc.
> 
> The US military has been getting complaints about the 5.56NATO not putting the bad guys down with center of mass hits at longer ranges, especially in Afghanistan. Apparently, the use of the M4 with 14.5" barrel (as opposed to the M-16 with 20" barrel) bleeds just enough velocity off of the 62grain bullet to impact its effectiveness. The military was studying a switch to a 6.5mm 115-120grain bullet at about 2,500fps but perhaps due to the military unfriendly atmosphere in Washington with democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches and the monetary and political costs involved, they are apparently going to go with a 77 grain bullet (Mk 262) that will develop about 2,650fps and 1,200fpe in the M4. This round in testing has been shown to perform well up to of 300 yards. It is a v-e-r-y long bullet and begins to yaw after about 5" of penetration creating a more effective wound channel.



Glad to know there is no bad blood 

For the standard 5.56 in M-4, it does have the issues light--fast bullets have - if one 'steals' a small amount of velocity out of it, the energy drops noticeably. That's why I like the proposed 6.8 6.5mm cartridges, but guess only small quantities would be issued, if any, to the military.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 31, 2010)

"_For the standard 5.56 in M-4, it does have the issues light--fast bullets have - if one 'steals' a small amount of velocity out of it, the energy drops noticeably._"

The new Mk. 262 round has less energy than the 62 gr round. Remember that velocity is a greater component of energy than weight. Double the weight and you double the energy. Double the velocity and you quadruple the energy. Moving up to a heavier bullet eats up energy through the loss of velocity more than can be made up by having a heavier projectile.

The newer Mk. 262 round is more effective because of its yawing properties. The standard 62gr round needs a certain amount of velocity to penetrate, yaw and fragment and the bleed off from the 14.5" barrels, at long range, leaves the operator just punching little .22 cal holes in the bad guys. 

The 77gr round in the M4 is more effective than the 62gr round out of the 20" barrel.


----------



## renrich (Jan 31, 2010)

Does the new longer bullet have a better BC so that it retains it's velocity better? For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jan 31, 2010)

"_For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards._"

I don't know but the problem with the 62grain bullet in the M4 was that at long range, it didn't achieve the designed penetration then yaw and fragmentation characteristics that allowed the use of such a small round. The new l-o-n-g bullet makes a very effective permanent crush cavity when it yaws.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Feb 1, 2010)

renrich said:


> Does the new longer bullet have a better BC so that it retains it's velocity better? For instance, what is it's velocity compared to the standard bullet a t 250 yards.


Yes, it actually started life as a Match Target round and carries energy downrange very well for a .223.


----------

