# What if: M1 Carbine were chambered for .30 Remington?



## gjs238 (Jul 15, 2009)

What if the M1 Carbine was originally designed for the .30 Remington?

Maybe a nice 20 or 30 round magazine.
Little longer barrel.
Cutts Compensator.
Why not throw in a pistol grip stock.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2009)

Then it wouldn't be a .30 carbine. 

Carbine was designed to replace the .45 pistol for troops whose main job (artillerymen, signalers, drivers,etc) made carring a full sized rifle too difficult. There was a definite weight limit and length limit in the original specification. 

No .30 Remington rifle would meet the specifiaction.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 16, 2009)

Yes, I know.
But what if................


----------



## timshatz (Jul 16, 2009)

We talking a 30-06 round or something smaller? 30 Cal covers so much and the .30 Rem is deceiving.

But an M1 Carb rechambered to 30-06 would be a monster to handle. Little gun and a big round.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 16, 2009)

No no no...
Not rechambering an M1 Carbine with a full power battle round.
_What if_ the firearm was originally designed for .30 Remington
.30 Remington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would be a larger, heavier firearm.

The operating mechanism, scaled up, could very well have formed the basis of the first "assault rifle."


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 16, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> What if the M1 Carbine was originally designed for the .30 Remington?
> 
> Maybe a nice 20 or 30 round magazine.
> Little longer barrel.
> ...


It would have had the power of a .30-30 and it would've been more lethal.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jul 16, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> No no no...
> Not rechambering an M1 Carbine with a full power battle round.
> _What if_ the firearm was originally designed for .30 Remington
> .30 Remington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



The point is that it is redundant. We already had heavy battle rifles, so why? Chambered for .30 Carbine filled a definite niche, but the heavier round was superfluous.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 16, 2009)

There are a lot of fun "what if" posts in the aircraft section, I ASSumed one would be appropriate here too.
Guess not.

The point is to explore the possibility if the operating mechanism design that developed into what was to be called the M1 carbine could have formed the basis of what came to be called an assault rifle.

Perhaps there is no way, regardless of how it was scaled up, the mechanism could have fulfilled this roll.
Or perhaps yes.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2009)

The U.S. Army did not want an assault rifle during the WWII era. Otherwise they would have procured something similiar to the Mini 14 rather then the historical M1 Garand.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 17, 2009)

OK, forget it, this obviously won't work here


----------



## fibus (Jul 19, 2009)

Bigger rounds within reason are welcome. I don't mean 416 Rigby as an upper limit.
But carbines and firepower was answered by men i have known that would discard anything they were carrying to pick up m2 carbines on the battlefield whenever they could.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 19, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> OK, forget it, this obviously won't work here




Perhaps a bit more enthusiasm in the defense of the "what if" and it might bait folks. Whatcha think?

You are talking about a round with half again as much energy. The intent of the M1 carbine was to give a rifle to an untrained user. Size was very important. So as soon as you start increasing barrel length, adding compensators, and beefing up the breach/bolt area to handle the extra stress... you are quickly creating a different animal that likely would not have matched the original premise.

Also of note is that the 30 Remington was yet another cartridge whose deveopment was made for lever action carbines where round nose bullets were required. Therefore, you are buying additional power, but not much range. Sure you can put a pointy thing in the case, but you can't exceed OAL. For if you did it wouldn't be a .30 Remington now would it. Thus you would have to load fairly light FMJBT and with the need to keep them short in length, ballistic coefficient would similarly suffer.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

The M1 carbine was issued to people who in other armies would likely be carrying a SMG or pistol. You cannot make either the weapon or the ammunition much heavier.

Personally I'm surprised the U.S. Army didn't chamber the M1 carbine for the .45cal pistol cartridge.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 19, 2009)

Or even the .44 Mag was a good carbine cartridge.


----------



## davebender (Jul 19, 2009)

I agree. However it introduces a new ammunition type into the army supply system. The .45cal round is already the standard SMG and pistol round. Might as well use it for the new carbine also.


----------



## diddyriddick (Jul 20, 2009)

Amsel said:


> Or even the .44 Mag was a good carbine cartridge.



The only problem there is that the .44 Magnum wasn't available till the 50s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 20, 2009)

.44 Magnum is also about 10-15 years too new. It's rimmed case wouldn't be loked upon favorably by automatic weapons designers.

Since recoil is proportinal to momentum rather than energy the heavy bullets of the .44 Magnum aren't going to do much for full auto fire froma light rifle either.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 20, 2009)

davebender said:


> I agree. However it introduces a new ammunition type into the army supply system. The .45cal round is already the standard SMG and pistol round. Might as well use it for the new carbine also.


That would defeat the purpouse....The M1 Carbine was made to give an officer a little bit more firepower and range....tht their side-arm didn't have.


----------



## Amsel (Jul 20, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> .44 Magnum is also about 10-15 years too new. It's rimmed case wouldn't be loked upon favorably by automatic weapons designers.
> 
> Since recoil is proportinal to momentum rather than energy the heavy bullets of the .44 Magnum aren't going to do much for full auto fire froma light rifle either.



Didn't think about that.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 21, 2009)

As stated already, the .30 Carbine is basically a pistol replacement. Unfortunately it looked like a rifle so people used it like one and thus gave it a bad reputation. At one point, I believe prototypes were chambered for something resembling a .223 Remington and it functioned well enough. Now THAT would be a good "Light Rifle" / Assault Rifle. The problem here though is that because of its design (check the way it is held together), the accuracy is severly limited.

Just my opinion regarding design and accuracy.
- Ivan.


----------



## davebender (Jul 21, 2009)

M1911 pistol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When fired from the 5" barrel of a M1911 pistol the .45 ACP round has a muzzel velocity of 830 fps.

Thompson submachine gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When fired from the 10.5" barrel of a Thompson SMG the .45ACP round has a muzzel velocity of 920 fps.

M1 carbine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The M1 carbine has an 18" barrel. I expect that would push the .45ACP round to at least 1,000 fps. Not exactly an elephant gun. But you could probably hit man size targets at least 100 meters away. About 10x as far as I can hit anything with a government issue M1911 pistol.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know why my post about it disappeared, maybe my computer ate it. Anyway, I said that the US Army could have adopted the Model 8 Autoloader chambered for the 30 Remington and had an assault rifle years before the Germans came up with the Stg-44. The 30 Remington is a rimless 30-30, only slightly more powerful than the 7.62x39 that the AK fires. It would have been a great weapon.

The Model 8 was invented by John Moses Browning and was (still is) a very tough, robust, accurate gun. 

Here is a pic of one with an extended mag, as it might have been deployed.


----------



## renrich (Jul 23, 2009)

Perhaps a better alternative would have been the 276 Pederson. A carbine chambered for it would have been a little larger and heavier but if the Pederson round had had a 130 grain spitzer bullet at about 2200 feet per second, it may have been suitable for full auto fire. As it was the M1 Carbine in it's full auto version could be classified as an assault rifle.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 23, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I don't know why my post about it disappeared, maybe my computer ate it. Anyway, I said that the US Army could have adopted the Model 8 Autoloader chambered for the 30 Remington and had an assault rifle years before the Germans came up with the Stg-44. The 30 Remington is a rimless 30-30, only slightly more powerful than the 7.62x39 that the AK fires. It would have been a great weapon.
> 
> The Model 8 was invented by John Moses Browning and was (still is) a very tough, robust, accurate gun.
> 
> Here is a pic of one with an extended mag, as it might have been deployed.



Wait a minute...
Remington Model 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Firearm Model History - Remington Model 8

John Browning was granted U.S. Patent 659,786 on October 16, 1900 for this rifle.
Production started 1906.
Calibers were what today we would call intermediate cartridges.
The website mentions a 20 round box magazine.

Was the martial utility of this rifle ever looked into?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 23, 2009)

Hello Folks,

The issue here is the degree of modification to the basic M1 Carbine to make it accept the alternative ammunition. For those that have never seen a M1 Carbine up close, the bolt is very small diameter with a small bolt face. The round is also very short. The spent cases bear a great resemblance to used cigarette butts. As such, to make it capable of shooting a .45 ACP round or a .276 Pederson round or a .30-30 length round would require a complete re-design from the ground up. Suggesting these rounds is like saying the M16 would make a great rifle if it were rechambered for a .45-70 or a .50 cal Browning.

What-ifs are fine, and I have nothing against a bit of fantasy here and there, but just be sure to recognise such flights from reality.

Now I guess I should get off my soap box.
- Ivan.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 23, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Folks,
> 
> The issue here is the degree of modification to the basic M1 Carbine to make it accept the alternative ammunition. For those that have never seen a M1 Carbine up close, the bolt is very small diameter with a small bolt face. The round is also very short. The spent cases bear a great resemblance to used cigarette butts. As such, to make it capable of shooting a .45 ACP round or a .276 Pederson round or a .30-30 length round would require a complete re-design from the ground up. Suggesting these rounds is like saying the M16 would make a great rifle if it were rechambered for a .45-70 or a .50 cal Browning.
> 
> ...



The what-if wasn't for modifying an M1 Carbine for a different caliber.
It asks if the operating principle/design could be scaled up for an intermediate power cartridge.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Wait a minute...
> 
> John Browning was granted U.S. Patent 659,786 on October 16, 1900 for this rifle.
> Production started 1906.
> ...



Yes it was, it was judged not suitable. 
Weither the reasons were real or imagianed I can't say. It did use a recoiling barrel in a full length jacket which some peaple were worried could becomeve bent, dented or damaged and jam the rifle. It did not use full power ammuntion. It actually wasn't that light in weight less than 1/2 pound lighter than a 1903 Springfield and that is with the 5 round magazine. 

ANd only the 25 caliber is what we would really call an intermediate cartridge. A 170 grain bullet even at 2200fps is going to have about the same kick as a 123 grain at around 3000fps if we disregard the recoil effect of the propellent.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> Yes it was, it was judged not suitable.
> Weither the reasons were real or imagianed I can't say. It did use a recoiling barrel in a full length jacket which some peaple were worried could becomeve bent, dented or damaged and jam the rifle. It did not use full power ammuntion. It actually wasn't that light in weight less than 1/2 pound lighter than a 1903 Springfield and that is with the 5 round magazine.
> 
> ANd only the 25 caliber is what we would really call an intermediate cartridge. A 170 grain bullet even at 2200fps is going to have about the same kick as a 123 grain at around 3000fps if we disregard the recoil effect of the propellent.


If you think a 30-30 recoils like a 30-06 I have to wonder at whether you contrasted them very well.

The reason it was judged unsuitable (IMHO) is for the same reason Hitler fought the Stg44 idea so insistently they had to label it a submachinegun during development so he wouldn't shoot the idea down. "Conventional Wisdom" was not ready for an assault rifle concept, they wouldn't be ready for one in America until the 1960s!


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> If you think a 30-30 recoils like a 30-06 I have to wonder at whether you contrasted them very well.
> 
> The reason it was judged unsuitable (IMHO) is for the same reason Hitler fought the Stg44 idea so insistently they had to label it a submachinegun during development so he wouldn't shoot the idea down. "Conventional Wisdom" was not ready for an assault rifle concept, they wouldn't be ready for one in America until the 1960s!



I am not contrasting a 30-30 to a 30-06. I am contrasting a 30-30 to a 7.62 x39.
Recoil is much more proportinal to momentum (mass times velocity) than it is to energy (mass times velocity squared). 
I have read that the Remington Model 8 was used as a control weapon in tests of semi-automatic rifles by the US Military in the 1920s. IF true it means that they had already rejected the Model at as a military weapon but not rejected the IDEA of a semi-autometic battle rifle.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Re: Remington Model 8
> 
> John Browning was granted U.S. Patent 659,786 on October 16, 1900 for this rifle.
> Production started 1906.
> ...



Does anyone know when the Browning BAR was patented and entered production?
Browning BAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Talking about the semi-auto rifle, not the M1918.
Wondering if that entered production early enough to be relevant to this discussion.


----------



## Condora (Jul 24, 2009)

davebender said:


> The M1 carbine was issued to people who in other armies would likely be carrying a SMG or pistol. You cannot make either the weapon or the ammunition much heavier.
> 
> Personally I'm surprised the U.S. Army didn't chamber the M1 carbine for the .45cal pistol cartridge.



Well, I recon the U.S. Army wanted to "what if" a bit too: if they just got something using the .45, they would end up with something like a Tommy gun, or any other current SMGs...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not contrasting a 30-30 to a 30-06. I am contrasting a 30-30 to a 7.62 x39.
> Recoil is much more proportinal to momentum (mass times velocity) than it is to energy (mass times velocity squared).
> I have read that the Remington Model 8 was used as a control weapon in tests of semi-automatic rifles by the US Military in the 1920s. IF true it means that they had already rejected the Model at as a military weapon but not rejected the IDEA of a semi-autometic battle rifle.


obviously they didn't reject the idea of a semi-auto battle rifle, but they did reject an intermediate cartridge. They wanted the 30-06 and eventually the .308, not an assault rifle capable cartridge.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not contrasting a 30-30 to a 30-06. I am contrasting a 30-30 to a 7.62 x39.
> Recoil is much more proportinal to momentum (mass times velocity) than it is to energy (mass times velocity squared).
> I have read that the Remington Model 8 was used as a control weapon in tests of semi-automatic rifles by the US Military in the 1920s. IF true it means that they had already rejected the Model at as a military weapon but not rejected the IDEA of a semi-autometic battle rifle.


it wasn't the semi-auto part that bugged them, it was the intermediate cartridge. They didn't accept less than a full battle rifle until McNamara jammed an early malfunctioning version of the M16 down their throats.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

renrich said:


> Perhaps a better alternative would have been the 276 Pederson. A carbine chambered for it would have been a little larger and heavier but if the Pederson round had had a 130 grain spitzer bullet at about 2200 feet per second, it may have been suitable for full auto fire. As it was the M1 Carbine in it's full auto version could be classified as an assault rifle.


The .276 was hard on barrels....So, that wouldn't have been a good choice.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

"A 170 grain bullet even at 2200fps is going to have about the same kick as a 123 grain at around 3000fps if we disregard the recoil effect of the propellent. "


You can't figure that out mathematically because every gun has a different weight.....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

this gets me to wondering, what if the Garand had been chambered for the .30 Remington? Shorten it to the length of the "Tanker Carbine" Garand and load 12 rounds instead of 8. Definitely would have been better for city/hedgerow fighting.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> this gets me to wondering, what if the Garand had been chambered for the .30 Remington? Shorten it to the length of the "Tanker Carbine" Garand and load 12 rounds instead of 8. Definitely would have been better for city/hedgerow fighting.


The .30 Remington would've had minimal armor peircing ability and limited range!.... We would've been at a major disadvantage..


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> The .30 Remington would've had minimal armor peircing ability and limited range!.... We would've been at a major disadvantage..


For the same reason we use assault rifles today, they are lighter, handier and they fight very well at the ranges that combat actually takes place. a 1000 meter cartridge on a non-sniper rifle is pointless. Rifles are not called upon to pierce armor anyway. The M1 Carbine kept finding its way into front line use because soldiers wanted a light, handy quick-shooting gun for the small towns, forests, mountains, and hedgerows that kept the fighting close quarters through much of the war. 

Kalashnikov very quickly realized that the Germans were on to something with the Stg44 and created the AK-47. The soviets realized that a single designated marksman with a scoped rifle could make up any potential range disparity issues and free up the rest of the squad to be more mobile. We use this system today in Iraq and Afghanistan with M-16s being supported by an M-14 (eventually to be replaced by SR-25s)

I can't believe you don't understand that the last 60 years of improvements we've made in weapons somehow put people at a disadvantage versus 10 pound Garands. Those rifles were very good compared with the bolt action weapons our allies and enemies were still using, but a lighter, more nimble weapon is much more important than toting a cannon.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Yes they were called upon to Pierce armor! Soldiers fired their firearms at planes, light-armored tanks and vehicles.
Why do war rifles of the time have adjustable sights that go up to 1,000 meters?

Are you trying to recreate the Spanish-American war situation again? The Spanish were killing us (with there 7MM Mauser's) at ranges that our 30-40 Krags were not effective at...You can't tell me the Germans wouldn't have taken advantage of that.

It was still a war of Battlefields, that's why we used men's cartridges, instead of the Poodle-shooters we use today.

Sorry, for the grammar.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Yes they were called upon to Pierce armor! Soldiers fired their firearms at planes, light-armored tanks and vehicles.
> Why do war rifles of the time have adjustable sights that go up to 1,000 meters?
> 
> Are you trying to recreate the Spanish-American war situation again? The Spanish were killing us (with there 7MM Mauser's) at ranges that our 30-40 Krags were not effective at...You can't tell me the Germans wouldn't have taken advantage of that.
> ...


I guess the US ought to get with the times and go back to the 45/70! We should probably wear a "man's uniform" (bright red) and march in a "man's formation".

Shooting at tanks? Are you serious? That's just stupid. The 30-06 ball round won't pierce an inch of mild steel, much less rolled steel armor. You're going to keep a rifle design based on the insane hope you accidental shoot down a plane with it? The job of a rifle is to kill the enemy soldier. Piercing light cover and (nowadays) body armor is all it should be concerned with. You load your troops down with a ton of excessive gear and immobilize them before marching them into the jungle, see how it works. 

There is a place for big bad cartridges, in machine guns and sniper rifles. Nothing makes me happier than a Marine sniper engaging a target with .50 BMG sniper rifle from 1200 meters, but giving one each to every marine would be absurd.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I guess the US ought to get with the times and go back to the 45/70! We should probably wear a "man's uniform" (bright red) and march in a "man's formation".
> 
> Shooting at tanks? Are you serious? That's just stupid. The 30-06 ball round won't pierce an inch of mild steel, much less rolled steel armor. You're going to keep a rifle design based on the insane hope you accidental shoot down a plane with it? The job of a rifle is to kill the enemy soldier. Piercing light cover and (nowadays) body armor is all it should be concerned with. You load your troops down with a ton of excessive gear and immobilize them before marching them into the jungle, see how it works.
> 
> There is a place for big bad cartridges, in machine guns and sniper rifles. Nothing makes me happier than a Marine sniper engaging a target with .50 BMG sniper rifle from 1200 meters, but giving one each to every marine would be absurd.



 "I guess the US ought to get with the times and go back to the 45/70! We should probably wear a "man's uniform" (bright red) and march in a "man's formation"."  We never wore Bright red uniforms! The British did.

"Shooting at tanks? Are you serious? That's just stupid. The 30-06 ball round won't pierce an inch of mild steel, much less rolled steel armor. You're going to keep a rifle design based on the insane hope you accidental shoot down a plane with it? The job of a rifle is to kill the enemy soldier. Piercing light cover and (nowadays) body armor is all it should be concerned with. You load your troops down with a ton of excessive gear and immobilize them before marching them into the jungle, see how it works. "

Maybe not tanks.... But we did shoot at light-armored vehicles. BTW, We had armor piercing 30-06 ammo.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Are you trying to recreate the Spanish-American war situation again? The Spanish were killing us (with there 7MM Mauser's) at ranges that our 30-40 Krags were not effective at...You can't tell me the Germans wouldn't have taken advantage of that.



This is an exaggeration that's been perpetuated over the years.
The vast majority of US soldiers were using Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield breech-loading rifles.
I only wish 30/40 Krags were issued to all US troops.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> This is an exaggeration that's been perpetuated over the years.
> The vast majority of US soldiers were using Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield breech-loading rifles.
> I only wish 30/40 Krags were issued to all US troops.


I know we used 45-70's! and the same thing happened, the Spanish were killing us at ranges our 45-70's and 30-40 Krags. weren't effective at.

We were behind the times with our 45-70's in the Spanish-American war.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 24, 2009)

Hi Shortround6,

From various accounts and observations, rifle caliber guns that are recoil operated tend not to be very accurate. When used in Machineguns, the accuracy loss is not a big factor, but rifles are intended to be considerably more accurate. If you can accept a rifle that will shoot between 5 and 15 MOA, then consider recoil operation. I spoke to a fellow who worked on Johnson rifles when I was considering buying one. I asked him about accuracy and he claimed that they were not terribly bad when first overhauled (about 2 MOA if memory holds) but quickly deteriorated with use. His suggestion was to buy one if I wanted, but use it for limited shooting and mostly as a wall hanger.

Yes, I know a recoil operated pistol will shoot often much better than 15 MOA, but consider that in order to do this, they need to be tuned. Also consider that proportionately, there is much more metal around the barrel on a pistol.

- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I know we used 45-70's! and the same thing happened, the Spanish were killing us at ranges our 45-70's and 30-40 Krags. weren't effective at.
> 
> We were behind the times with our 45-70's in the Spanish-American war.


The Spanish advantage wasn't range, it was rate of fire. Mausers load fast, from stripper clips. 1873 Springfields were single shot and the Krag's magazine had to be loaded a round at a time, it had no ability to use clips. The Krag was finicky and not very reliable as we found out in the Philippines. Those were the issues that led to the adoption of the 1903, not range. People have made 1000 yard shots with the 45/70 so if it was that important sharpshooters could have made that up.

Also, 1898 was before tanks, planes, and highly mobile artillery. Modern infantry need to be able to be able to move quickly and not present an easy target. Infantry has gotten lighter, more mobile, and better at hiding every generation since the invention of the gun.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hi Shortround6,
> 
> From various accounts and observations, rifle caliber guns that are recoil operated tend not to be very accurate. When used in Machineguns, the accuracy loss is not a big factor, but rifles are intended to be considerably more accurate. If you can accept a rifle that will shoot between 5 and 15 MOA, then consider recoil operation. I spoke to a fellow who worked on Johnson rifles when I was considering buying one. I asked him about accuracy and he claimed that they were not terribly bad when first overhauled (about 2 MOA if memory holds) but quickly deteriorated with use. His suggestion was to buy one if I wanted, but use it for limited shooting and mostly as a wall hanger.
> 
> ...


Recoil operated pistols like the 1911, High-Power, and Glock also allow the barrel to move and then return to zero so the position and action of the parts remains predictable and accurate. They also have much lower pressure cartridges and so take much less beating and on much less complicated parts.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The Spanish advantage wasn't range, it was rate of fire. Mausers load fast, from stripper clips. 1873 Springfields were single shot and the Krag's magazine had to be loaded a round at a time, it had no ability to use clips. The Krag was finicky and not very reliable as we found out in the Philippines. Those were the issues that led to the adoption of the 1903, not range. People have made 1000 yard shots with the 45/70 so if it was that important sharpshooters could have made that up.
> 
> Also, 1898 was before tanks, planes, and highly mobile artillery. Modern infantry need to be able to be able to move quickly and not present an easy target. Infantry has gotten lighter, more mobile, and better at hiding every generation since the invention of the gun.


"The Spanish advantage wasn't range, it was rate of fire. Mausers load fast, from stripper clips. 1873 Springfields were single shot and the Krag's magazine had to be loaded a round at a time, it had no ability to use clips. The Krag was finicky and not very reliable as we found out in the Philippines. Those were the issues that led to the adoption of the 1903, not range. People have made 1000 yard shots with the 45/70 so if it was that important sharpshooters could have made that up."

The advantages that the Spanish had was range and stripper clips! 

"People have made 1000 yard shots with the 45/70 so if it was that important sharpshooters could have made that up"

A 200 yard shot is a long shot with the 45-70....Have you ever shot a 45-70?

"Also, 1898 was before tanks, planes, and highly mobile artillery."


Where did I say there were tanks in 1898?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> "The Spanish advantage wasn't range, it was rate of fire. Mausers load fast, from stripper clips. 1873 Springfields were single shot and the Krag's magazine had to be loaded a round at a time, it had no ability to use clips. The Krag was finicky and not very reliable as we found out in the Philippines. Those were the issues that led to the adoption of the 1903, not range. People have made 1000 yard shots with the 45/70 so if it was that important sharpshooters could have made that up."
> 
> The advantages that the Spanish had was range and stripper clips!
> 
> ...


You didn't say so, but I'm saying that there are NOW and there were in WWII, all the more reason to rely on mobility and cover than trying to stand back at range and trade shots with your "superior range" shoulder cannons until someone drops a mortar shell in your back pocket.

You just fail to understand that infantry needs to be mobile and that weight savings and fast handling are important in a rifle, especially when you face a lot of close-range combat, as happened very frequently in WWII, leading to the M1 carbine's use as a front line weapon in an assault rifle role despite its power deficiencies.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 24, 2009)

Hi Folks,

Seems like folks here are debating the accuracy of cartridges when what they really are discussing is the accuracy of the launch vehicles. A .30-40 Krag isn't an inherently inaccurate round. It is pretty similar to a .303 British which does quite well in the Lee-Enfield. The .45-70 also is quite accurate as proven in various single shot rifles other than the Trap-Door Springfield though the trajectory is not flat. Keep in mind also that the typical Carbine loading of the .45-70 is pretty wimpy as compared to the Rifle loading.

- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Seems like folks here are debating the accuracy of cartridges when what they really are discussing is the accuracy of the launch vehicles. A .30-40 Krag isn't an inherently inaccurate round. It is pretty similar to a .303 British which does quite well in the Lee-Enfield. The .45-70 also is quite accurate as proven in various single shot rifles other than the Trap-Door Springfield though the trajectory is not flat. Keep in mind also that the typical Carbine loading of the .45-70 is pretty wimpy as compared to the Rifle loading.
> 
> - Ivan.


My focus is on the launching platform and the ability to keep the infantry light and engage in urban combat effectively. My great uncle fought in Northern France and preferred a submachinegun to the Garand because of the close quarters and my best friend's grandfather preferred the M1 carbine in Italy because the tiny tightly packed Italian towns didn't allow for any long shots anyway and he wanted something he could deploy quickly around a corner.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 24, 2009)

Hi Clay,

Keep in mind that good examples of those pistols you mentioned aren't shooting any better than 8 MOA and hand tuned examples (M1911) seldom do better than about 3 MOA. I believe this is inherent in the system of recoil operation and really can't be improved upon to any great degree.

- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hi Clay,
> 
> Keep in mind that good examples of those pistols you mentioned aren't shooting any better than 8 MOA and hand tuned examples (M1911) seldom do better than about 3 MOA. I believe this is inherent in the system of recoil operation and really can't be improved upon to any great degree.
> 
> - Ivan.


The good news is that pistols are really designed to operate at "conversational" range.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

What makes an M1 Garand a shoulder cannon?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 24, 2009)

The real point I was trying to make is that recoil operation has accuracy limitations that are unacceptable in a standard issue rifle. Everyone beats on the Ordnance folks for showing favoritism and making silly decisions, but I believe that for the most part they make the correct decision. They just don't explain their reasons.

Regarding the Garand as a shoulder cannon, it is a pretty comfortable rifle to shoot. Military .30 M2 tends to be loaded quite a bit lower than Commercial .30-06. I chronographed a batch of LC 67 or LC 68 at only 2650 fps or so out of a Garand. Commercial stuff out of the same rifle would do about 2900 also with a 150 grain bullet.

- Ivan.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The real point I was trying to make is that recoil operation has accuracy limitations that are unacceptable in a standard issue rifle. Everyone beats on the Ordnance folks for showing favoritism and making silly decisions, but I believe that for the most part they make the correct decision. They just don't explain their reasons.
> 
> Regarding the Garand as a shoulder cannon, it is a pretty comfortable rifle to shoot. Military .30 M2 tends to be loaded quite a bit lower than Commercial .30-06. I chronographed a batch of LC 67 or LC 68 at only 2650 fps or so out of a Garand. Commercial stuff out of the same rifle would do about 2900 also with a 150 grain bullet.
> 
> - Ivan.


I knew there was no way it was a shoulder cannon, since it weighs 10 pounds and is semi-automatic.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> What makes an M1 Garand a shoulder cannon?


9.5 pounds empty, 25 ft/lb recoil, 44 inches overall. It is large and heavy and worse than that, long and without any kind of modern ergonomics like a pistol grip. Go to a gun store and handle the SOCOM-16 version of the M-14 and then handle the full size (which is still lighter and handier than the Garand) and imagine swinging it around a corner in a narrow alley or a breach in a hedgerow in Northern France.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> The real point I was trying to make is that recoil operation has accuracy limitations that are unacceptable in a standard issue rifle. Everyone beats on the Ordnance folks for showing favoritism and making silly decisions, but I believe that for the most part they make the correct decision. They just don't explain their reasons.
> 
> Regarding the Garand as a shoulder cannon, it is a pretty comfortable rifle to shoot. Military .30 M2 tends to be loaded quite a bit lower than Commercial .30-06. I chronographed a batch of LC 67 or LC 68 at only 2650 fps or so out of a Garand. Commercial stuff out of the same rifle would do about 2900 also with a 150 grain bullet.
> 
> - Ivan.


compared to an assault rifle it is not a comfortable rifle to swing around or to carry all day over rough terrain.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> 9.5 pounds empty, 25 ft/lb recoil, 44 inches overall. It is large and heavy and worse than that, long and without any kind of modern ergonomics like a pistol grip. Go to a gun store and handle the SOCOM-16 version of the M-14 and then handle the full size (which is still lighter and handier than the Garand) and imagine swinging it around a corner in a narrow alley or a breach in a hedgerow in Northern France.


 A 7.5 pound 30-06 has 20 foot pounds of recoil! The M1 Garand is a 10 pound rifle and it's semi-automatic ( that takes away alot of kick)! 

EDIT: I asked my dad and he said the M1 Garand is a gentle gun to shoot... My dad has handled both those rifles and he doesn't think the M1 Garand is dopic.... My Grandfather had 2 M1 Garand's and I have held both his M1's and I don't find them to be dopic.

BTW, if the M1 is so dopic, then why did Patton call it the best battle implement ever devised?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> "A 170 grain bullet even at 2200fps is going to have about the same kick as a 123 grain at around 3000fps if we disregard the recoil effect of the propellent. "
> 
> 
> You can't figure that out mathematically because every gun has a different weight.....



Well, if you know the weight of the weapon you can figure out the recoil.

The point was just becasue two cartridges have similar muzzle energies dos not mean they have similar recoil in weapons of near the same weight. And you need the lower recoil in order to have a controlable full auto weapon or at least a hope of having a controlable weapon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2009)

THe M-1 used the 30-06 because They didn't want two cartrirdges in the supply chain. The .276 Pederson for the M-1 and the 30-06 for machineguns.

There were several 30-06 military cartridges. The original one with a 150 grain flat based bullet at about 2700fps. A 172 grain bullet was added for machinegun use that ranged much further. THis round was considered to cause too much barrel erosion in the M-1 and to kick too much so a NEW 150 grain load was adopted which gave the same ballistics as the original but at much lower pressure due to the new (1930s) powder.

As far as size and weight go. 

Some sources claim the AK-47 weighs 9.5 lbs with an empty magazine and the StG 44 was even heavier.

Is lighter better? yes, but lets not get all bent out of shape at how much lighter assault rifles were when many of them weren't.
And the M-1 wan't any longer than most peaples bolt action rifles. 

By the way the .30 Remington uses a 51mm long case. The case may be just a bit skinner but a loaded round (even with a 150 grain spitzer bullet) would have about the same lenght as a 7.62 Nato round. Action will be a whopping 12-13mm shorter than the M-1 action.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> THe M-1 used the 30-06 because They didn't want two cartrirdges in the supply chain. The .276 Pederson for the M-1 and the 30-06 for machineguns.
> 
> There were several 30-06 military cartridges. The original one with a 150 grain flat based bullet at about 2700fps. A 172 grain bullet was added for machinegun use that ranged much further. THis round was considered to cause too much barrel erosion in the M-1 and to kick too much so a NEW 150 grain load was adopted which gave the same ballistics as the original but at much lower pressure due to the new (1930s) powder.
> 
> ...


Yes, but the .30 Remington pushes a 150 grain bullet at 2,390 FPS and a 7.62 NATO pushes a 150 grain bullet at 2,800 FPS... The .30 Remington is an underpowered round as far as the .30 caliber's go.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

We should've just stuck with the 30-03.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> We should've just stuck with the 30-03.



Well, if you want to look at it that way, we should've just stuck with the 30-40.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Well, if you want to look at it that way, we should've just stuck with the 30-40.


I have only one reason at to why I said that. I wanted to make all you people run to google, to find out what the 30-03 is! 

EDIT: The 30-03 is more powerul than the 30-40.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I have only one reason at to why I said that. I wanted to make all you people run to google, to find out what the 30-03 is!EDIT: The 30-03 is more powerul than the 30-40.



Then tell us about the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Then tell us about the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm


That's a little to modern for my tastes.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> That's a little to modern for my tastes.



Then your signature photo should be changed to the "other" Corsair, the O2U.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Then your signature photo should be changed to the "other" Corsair, the O2U.


Why? The F4U Corsair in my sig was made during ww2, *not in modern times!*


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Why? The F4U Corsair in my sig was made during ww2, *not in modern times!*



Neither was the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> Neither was the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm


Okay, you're right....But considering I'm 12 I'm not suprised I've never heard of it.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Yes, but the .30 Remington pushes a 150 grain bullet at 2,390 FPS and a 7.62 NATO pushes a 150 grain bullet at 2,800 FPS... The .30 Remington is an underpowered round as far as the .30 caliber's go.



It maybe under powered (gee, the rimless version of round designed with a couple of years of the 30-40 Krag?) compared to some other .30 caliber rifle cartidges but that doesn't mean it would have made a good assault rifle cartridge in the 1930s as it stood. 
It was too big ( actions not much shorter and lighter than 30-06 actions and magazines might only show a 10% gain in capacity) and even using a 150 grain bullet at 2390 it had about 20% more recoil than 7.62x39 per shot in the same weight rifle so full auto fire wold still be rather problematic. 

It works now (6.8mm Rem SPC) because the cartridge has been shortend, necked down to a smaller diameter bullet (can we all say .276 Pederson?) and loaded with newer powders to higher pressures.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> But considering I'm 12 I'm not suprised I've never heard of it.



Alright, now go to bed - and don't spend all day tomorrow (Saturday) on the computer - go out and get some fresh air!


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> It maybe under powered (gee, the rimless version of round designed with a couple of years of the 30-40 Krag?) compared to some other .30 caliber rifle cartidges but that doesn't mean it would have made a good assault rifle cartridge in the 1930s as it stood.
> It was too big ( actions not much shorter and lighter than 30-06 actions and magazines might only show a 10% gain in capacity) and even using a 150 grain bullet at 2390 it had about 20% more recoil than 7.62x39 per shot in the same weight rifle so full auto fire wold still be rather problematic.
> 
> It works now (6.8mm Rem SPC) because the cartridge has been shortend, necked down to a smaller diameter bullet (can we all say .276 Pederson?) and loaded with newer powders to higher pressures.



When I originally posted, I was thinking of a less powerful version comparable to the 7.9x33 7.62x39.
.30 Remington - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

"Alright, now go to bed - and don't spend all day tomorrow (Saturday) on the computer - go out and get some fresh air"
Actually, I've been outside a decent bit today, it's just rained alot today! and as far as I'm concerned it's none of your business.


----------



## gjs238 (Jul 24, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> A little hot humid weather doesn't ground a Corsair!


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 24, 2009)

gjs238 said:


> A little hot humid weather doesn't ground a Corsair!


We've had a really rainy year this year.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Jul 25, 2009)

Hey Doughboy,
Your Corsair was a F4U-5 (note the cheek pouches) and is a post-war version.

Regarding assault rifle cartridges, the 7.62x39 is distinctly range limited. The German 7.92 Kurz was even worse. The 5.56 round for the AR-15 is much better from the standpoint that it doesn't give up much for range and short range hitting power but is still light enough in recoil to work in a full auto rifle.

Yes, it has its issues: very tiny bore, so it's very vulnerable to rain. The ammunition is also very fragile.
Everything has its compromises.

- Ivan.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 25, 2009)

"Hey Doughboy,
Your Corsair was a F4U-5 (note the cheek pouches) and is a post-war version."



Didn't know that... Oh well, I still like it.


----------



## renrich (Jul 29, 2009)

I don't know where the idea that the 276 Pederson was hard on barrels came from. I would think it would not be any harder on barrels than the 3006 or 7x57. It was a 284 bullet of about 140 to 150 grains at about 2500 fps. It was scheduled to be the new sevice round in the Garand but was nixed by Chief of Staff MacArthur who felt that the stock of millions of rounds of 3006 Ammo on hand should not be discarded, especially during the Great Depression. The other issue was that all the service MGs were chambered for the 3006. The advatage of the 276 Pederson was that the Garand would have held at least one more round and would have been lighter recoiling with that load. The ammo would have been lighter and taken up less space.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 31, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> A 7.5 pound 30-06 has 20 foot pounds of recoil! The M1 Garand is a 10 pound rifle and it's semi-automatic ( that takes away alot of kick)!
> 
> EDIT: I asked my dad and he said the M1 Garand is a gentle gun to shoot... My dad has handled both those rifles and he doesn't think the M1 Garand is dopic.... My Grandfather had 2 M1 Garand's and I have held both his M1's and I don't find them to be dopic.
> 
> BTW, if the M1 is so dopic, then why did Patton call it the best battle implement ever devised?


When Patton died, it still was as far as he knew. Sorry, I know you love your antiques but it is still just as antiquated as the trapdoor Springfield. Too awkward, too heavy, not enough ammo capacity, gimmicky reloading. Gimme a lighter more ergonomic gun in a more accurate cartridge.

I own an H&K G3 in .308. If you want a combat gun in a full power cartridge look that one up: liighter weight, more accurate, better ergonomics, easy scope mounting, 20-30 rounds.

I'm not a proponent of the AK or the M16 as perfect examples of assault rifles. The 7.62x39 is inaccurate and the .223 is underpowered. The 6.8 SPC would be perfect if anyone but SOCOM would adopt it. Regardless of that, the assault rifle has vital advantages including light weight, including lighter ammunition, the ability to carry more, and decentralized automatic fire which allows any soldier to suppress the enemy without putting all of that burden on the squad machine gun (and allowing the enemy to concentrate on knocking him out). 

Until a new revolution in tactics emerges, the average rifleman of any army will carry an assault rifle and scoped high power battle rifles will be deployed as support weapons at the squad level like machine guns are.


----------



## Doughboy (Jul 31, 2009)

"too heavy"


I can't disagree with that....The M1 Garand was too heavy.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Jul 31, 2009)

I have heard hat the M4 does just fine with the Mk262 match grade 77gr ammunition. Much better than the M855. Even with the very short 14.5" barrel the Mk262 is still traveling about 2,600-2,650fps. I know that doesn't sound very lethal compared to the 7.62 Nato but trust me, it is very lethal, even at longer ranges. 

You can put a lot of extremely accurate fire down range with very little recoil or muzzle rise to disturb follow up shots.

I agree that the 6.8mm SPC would be a superior cartridge in the M4 platform. The 6.5 Grendel an even better choice. I do not believe SOCOM has "adopted" the 6.8. The FN SCAR is not even chambered in 6.8 and there is apparently no plan to do so.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 1, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I have heard hat the M4 does just fine with the Mk262 match grade 77gr ammunition. Much better than the M855. Even with the very short 14.5" barrel the Mk262 is still traveling about 2,600-2,650fps. I know that doesn't sound very lethal compared to the 7.62 Nato but trust me, it is very lethal, even at longer ranges.


You are exactly right but most of the guys overseas are still shooting the 62 grain stuff and it is underpowered.



> I agree that the 6.8mm SPC would be a superior cartridge in the M4 platform. The 6.5 Grendel an even better choice. I do not believe SOCOM has "adopted" the 6.8. The FN SCAR is not even chambered in 6.8 and there is apparently no plan to do so.



OK, adopted was a bad choice of words. They have it in their inventory. SOCOM really doesn't "adopt" much. They have all kinds of different gear to pick from.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 1, 2009)

I think I understand what you are saying but "underpowered," in the strict sense, is not the problem with the M855. You will notice that at shorter ranges the M855 actually has more foot pounds of energy or "power" because an increase in velocity has a greater effect on terminal energy than an increase in mass. (Double the weight of a bullet and you double the energy. Double the velocity and you quadruple the energy.)

The lighter and faster M855 (62gr) actually has greater energy or power at closer ranges than the heavier and slower Mk262 (77gr). Conversely, the better BC of the 77gr match load will retain more of its velocity at longer ranges and surpasses the M855's energy.

That being the case, however, the Mk262 is still more lethal even at closer ranges where it has less foot pounds of energy or power. 

Terminal ballistic lethality is more than just increasing the power. I will not bore you with specifics as they are readily available pursuant to web search but differences in the construction of the bullets which were designed with slightly different objectives in mind, penetration characteristics from differences in sectional density and terminal effects from differences in length such as fragmentation behavior all play a role.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 1, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> I think I understand what you are saying but "underpowered," in the strict sense, is not the problem with the M855. You will notice that at shorter ranges the M855 actually has more foot pounds of energy or "power" because an increase in velocity has a greater effect on terminal energy than an increase in mass. (Double the weight of a bullet and you double the energy. Double the velocity and you quadruple the energy.)
> 
> The lighter and faster M855 (62gr) actually has greater energy or power at closer ranges than the heavier and slower Mk262 (77gr). Conversely, the better BC of the 77gr match load will retain more of its velocity at longer ranges and surpasses the M855's energy.
> 
> ...


I've actually been very much into studying terminal ballistics in different cartridges since 2001 or so. I said "underpowered" because this is an aircraft forum and I didn't want to bore people by talking about wound ballistics, raw energy versus energy transferred, tumble rate, bullet fragmentation etc. Love to talk to you about it some time.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 1, 2009)

A good abbreviated treatment of the subject.

The AnarchAngel: Terminal Tumbling


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2009)

I don't get the description of the Garand as having gimmicky reloading or not an accurate cartridge. The 3006 is one of the all time best hunting cartridges and plenty accurate for that purpose so in military use the accuracy should be more than ample. As far as loading, it is an easy weapon to reload, IMO easier than the M14 and I qualified with both. The thing is that the Garand can be reloaded easily without looking and if a sling is in use it does not have be unslung to be loaded. The M14 has to be turned over to load easily. Just an opinion from one who has used both although not in combat. I know one thing and that is if I am engaging an enemy in the terrain I have seen pitures of in Afghanistan, I would rather have a Garand or an M!4 than one of those pea shooters with the 223. I have killed a lot of game with the 270 which is quite similar to the 3006 ballistically, all the way from magpies to mule deer and one can reach out and get them with that round.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 1, 2009)

"Too awkward, too heavy, not enough ammo capacity, gimmicky reloading. Gimme a lighter more ergonomic gun in a more accurate cartridge."


A more accurate cartridge? It one alot of shooting matches at Camp Perry and it competes against the .308 and .223..


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 1, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> "Too awkward, too heavy, not enough ammo capacity, gimmicky reloading. Gimme a lighter more ergonomic gun in a more accurate cartridge."
> 
> 
> A more accurate cartridge? It one alot of shooting matches at Camp Perry and it competes against the .308 and .223..


If you read some reloading resources, match quality .308 is capable of a lot more inherent accuracy. The shorter cartridge case makes for a more even propellant burn and more predictable trajectory. It is much harder to get a 30-06 rifle to .5 MOA than the .308. They don't make sniper rifles or tactical rifles in 30-06 any more for that reason. Base factory ammo is probably similar accuracy, but match quality or handloaded ammo is going to put the .308 pretty far ahead.


----------



## renrich (Aug 1, 2009)

I have handloaded both the 308 and 3006 and I realise the 308 is supposed to be inherently more accurate but we are talking about a service rifle with iron sights in all sorts of weather, not something to be used in match shooting. All I know is that the Army could take city boys who had never fired a weapon before and teach them to put at least a few rounds into a 30 inch bull at 500 yards from the prone position with service ammunition. In combat use if the soldier could not hit with the Garand, there was something the matter with the sights or the soldier, not the rifle, or the cartridge.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 1, 2009)

renrich said:


> I have handloaded both the 308 and 3006 and I realise the 308 is supposed to be inherently more accurate but we are talking about a service rifle with iron sights in all sorts of weather, not something to be used in match shooting. All I know is that the Army could take city boys who had never fired a weapon before and teach them to put at least a few rounds into a 30 inch bull at 500 yards from the prone position with service ammunition. In combat use if the soldier could not hit with the Garand, there was something the matter with the sights or the soldier, not the rifle, or the cartridge.


I agree that it is not an inaccurate gun. The 30-06 is still one of the best hunting cartridges on the planet as well. The .308 is still a little better and actions based on it are shorter and easier to make reliable and accurate. That was a minor point. The real advantages over the M1 can be had in weight and ergonomics.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 2, 2009)

Hello All, apologies in advance for being so long-winded.

I have had a fair amount of experience in reloading the .30-06 and the .308 for various guns including the M1 Garand and the M1A/M14 series. I haven't tried reloading for the HK-91/G3 series. (Those guns try to rip up cases and put them into low Earth orbit!) Folks say that there is an accuracy difference between the .30-06 and .308 but I don't believe there really is much unless you REALLY try to shoot better than 0.5 MOA groups. Either cartridge can be made to shoot below 1 MOA and even 0.75 MOA if the gun is capable. The advantages are basically a shorter powder column, a shorter neck and a slightly sharper shoulder. It might make a difference if you are shooting High Expert in the National Matches or shooting a Benchrest Match, or just want an academic discussion like we are having here. From my experience, the .223 is much easier to load accurately than either of the .30 cal cartridges.

For that matter, the accuracy potential of the 7.62x39 isn't bad either. The problem with that cartridge is that most folks try to shoot crappy ammunition out of AK-47s and figure that is all that cartridge can do.

As for launch platforms, the M1, M14, and G3 AND the M16A2 for that matter all weigh within about a pound or so. The AK-47 is much lighter, but it is also a Piece-O-Cr.p IMO. Yes, it goes bang nearly every time but there's no way to make that beast shoot accurately without seriously re-engineering the gas system.

For long range hitting power, I would put the order at M1 M14 tied, G3 well behind, and M16 behind that. The .30-06 has about a 150 fps advantage in commercial ammunition, Zero advantage with military ball, and about a 50 fps advantage in Military Match ammunition. The reason I consider the M1 and M14 equal is because the M14 is much more tolerant of higher gas port pressures than the M1. (Stated differently: the range between "will function" and "will break something" is wider.) The G3 generally doesn't care about ammunition within reason because it has no gas system. The problem with it is that it only has a 18 inch barrel which makes for a terrific muzzle blast but loses a good bit of muzzle velocity. In theory, the G3 should have an accuracy advantage because of the free-floating barrel, but on the range, I just haven't seen that happen. A match tuned M1, M14, or M16 simply does better though I have no idea why. Perhaps the results would change if my sample size were larger because I have only fired about 3-4 HK-91/G3 types not including CETMEs. From memory, the FALs I have fired also tend to do as well or just slightly better than the G3/HK-91 types (if the FAL isn't a cobbled together piece of junk).

If I had to pick among these guns for long range shooting, the M14/M21 glass bedded with a lugged receiver and with a B-Square mount wins easily (which is NOT to say that there aren't better long range guns).

- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

> If I had to pick among these guns for long range shooting, the M14/M21 glass bedded with a lugged receiver and with a B-Square mount wins easily (which is NOT to say that there aren't better long range guns).



This is a great gun/system but you should really compare the M-21 to the MSG-90 rather than the stock G3.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

Ivan, as far as I am concerned, be long winded anytime. Your posts are always informed, and enjoyable. From a weight point of view, I have a Number One Ruger which with a sling and scope weighs close to what the Garand weighs and I have toted it many times all day at altitudes above 8000 feet. The Garand's weight and "ergonomics" are a non issue to me when it comes to killing or being killed.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> Ivan, as far as I am concerned, be long winded anytime. Your posts are always informed, and enjoyable. From a weight point of view, I have a Number One Ruger which with a sling and scope weighs close to what the Garand weighs and I have toted it many times all day at altitudes above 8000 feet. The Garand's weight and "ergonomics" are a non issue to me when it comes to killing or being killed.


I guess the entire world is crazy for going to modern weapons then. Lets all hope our enemies don't discover that big rifles that only hold 8 rounds are the way to go before we do.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> Ivan, as far as I am concerned, be long winded anytime. Your posts are always informed, and enjoyable. From a weight point of view, I have a Number One Ruger which with a sling and scope weighs close to what the Garand weighs and I have toted it many times all day at altitudes above 8000 feet. The Garand's weight and "ergonomics" are a non issue to me when it comes to killing or being killed.


What caliber is your Ruger NO.1 in?


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

270 Win. I used to handload for it and using 150 gr Noslers, it would shoot MOA groups with a MV of 3000 fps. I do believe I have heard that M14s are being used again in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not advocating the Garand as a service rifle today. All I am saying is that in an area like Afghanistan, a rifle like the M14, (or the Garand if ammo was available) makes more sense to me than the M16. Same reason one should not hunt elk in the Rockies with the 223 Remington, no matter how light the rifle.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 2, 2009)

"270 Win."



That's a really good Deer caliber.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 2, 2009)

_I do believe I have heard that M14s are being used again in Afghanistan and Iraq. _

Yes, they are used by "Designated Marksmen." The M-14 is not more accurate than the M-4. The 7.62 NATO offers superior barrier penetration for reaching an adversary on a roof or in a window of a building where the bad guy is partially obscured. At long ranges, it also puts the bad guys down better as fragmentation is not a design parameter for lethality. The minimum frag velocity for the Mk262 is about 2,200fps and about 2,700fps for the M855. (This is the primary reason the M-4 has proven less effective with the M855 ammunition. It's shorter barrel with less velocity decreases the range limit at which reliable fragmentation occurs.)

The .270 Win is indeed an excellent cartridge. Practically speaking, I don't think the 7mm Rem Mag has anything on it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

DAVIDICUS said:


> _I do believe I have heard that M14s are being used again in Afghanistan and Iraq. _
> 
> Yes, they are used by "Designated Marksmen." The M-14 is not more accurate than the M-4. The 7.62 NATO offers superior barrier penetration for reaching an adversary on a roof or in a window of a building where the bad guy is partially obscured. At long ranges, it also puts the bad guys down better as fragmentation is not a design parameter for lethality. The minimum frag velocity for the Mk262 is about 2,200fps and about 2,700fps for the M855. (This is the primary reason the M-4 has proven less effective with the M855 ammunition. It's shorter barrel with less velocity decreases the range limit at which reliable fragmentation occurs.)
> 
> The .270 Win is indeed an excellent cartridge. Practically speaking, I don't think the 7mm Rem Mag has anything on it.


7.62 NATO is more accurate at long range, windage affects the .223 more severely due to the lower weight and lesser inertia. The further you want to shoot, the heavier the bullet gets as a rule.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

Doughboy, the 270, loaded like I had loaded with the 26 inch barrel of the Number One is a good elk rifle too. Actually it is good for any North American game except the Kodiac Bear, IMO. I think the Garand would have been marginally better in the 270 Win with the 150 grain bullet at around 2700 fps because the recoil would have been slightly less and because the BC of the 270 in 150 gr is better than the 3006.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> Doughboy, the 270, loaded like I had loaded with the 26 inch barrel of the Number One is a good elk rifle too. Actually it is good for any North American game except the Kodiac Bear, IMO. I think the Garand would have been marginally better in the 270 Win with the 150 grain bullet at around 2700 fps because the recoil would have been slightly less and because the BC of the 270 in 150 gr is better than the 3006.


probably, though of course the .270 didnt come around until the 1950s. When we talk about WWII cartridges, remember that only the 250 savage had ever been pushed over 3000 FPS. Modern powders allow the older cartridges to do things they never could in their heyday. If I was inventing the 270 for WWII, your load would be a great one to start with. I believe the greater BC would have made for better range.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 2, 2009)

I said "The M-14 is not more accurate than the M-4." I then gave the reason why designated marksmen are outfitted with the M-14. It has to do with mission requirements of dealing with a large scale unsophisticated sniper threat. (Sniping with open sighted AK-47's)

I did not indicate that at 1,000 yards, a match .308 Win load out of a match rifle would not be more accurate than a match .223 Rem load out of a match rifle. 

The M-14 used by our Army and Marines is not a match grade rifle. Neither is the M-4. The M-4, however, is designed from the outset to be a sub MOA rifle while the M-14 is not.

From Field Manual 3-22.9 Rifle Marksmanship. SDM (Squad Designated Marksman)

*The primary mission of the SDM is to deploy as a member of the rifle squad. The SDM is a vital member of his individual squad and not a squad sniper. He fires and maneuvers with his squad and performs all the duties of the standard rifleman. The SDM has neither the equipment nor training to operate individually or in a small team to engage targets at extended ranges with precision fire. The secondary mission of the SDM is to engage key targets from 300 to 500 meters with effective, well-aimed fire using the standard weapon system and standard ammunition.*


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

According to the NRA Handloaders Guide the 270 Win was first announced in 1925. The initial cartridge drove a 130 gr bullet at 3100 fps. Jack O Connor was an advocate for the cartridge and had a lot to do with making it one of the most popular hunting cartridges ever. I am not saying that the Garand should have been chambered for the 270 for the same reason that MacArthur turned down the 276 Pederson. Too much 3006 ammo on hand and too many other US military weapons chambered for it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> According to the NRA Handloaders Guide the 270 Win was first announced in 1925. The initial cartridge drove a 130 gr bullet at 3100 fps. Jack O Connor was an advocate for the cartridge and had a lot to do with making it one of the most popular hunting cartridges ever. I am not saying that the Garand should have been chambered for the 270 for the same reason that MacArthur turned down the 276 Pederson. Too much 3006 ammo on hand and too many other US military weapons chambered for it.


Well, I stand corrected on the .270.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

Davidicus, that is an interesting post about the SDM. I infer from that the the standard infantry weapon, M16?, is not very effective beyond 300 yards and the SDM is supposed to engage targets beyond 300 yards. All things being equal, LOL, I would like that job. My personal weapon in 61-62 was the M1 Carbine but I always said I was going to get me an M14(even though I preferred the Garand, but there was no ammo for that) if we went into combat. Thankfully I did not have to.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 2, 2009)

_I infer from that the the standard infantry weapon, M16?, is not very effective beyond 300 yards ..._

Well, I think reliable fragmentation is lost but I wouldn't want to be standing in the path of a 62gr pill, 400 yards from its author, traveling at 1,850fps. That's still carrying 471fpe. On the other hand though, a 7.62 NATO round is carrying 1,200fpe at that same range which is about muzzle energy for the former and design fragmentation is not an issue

My dad, a 25 year old Army Technical Sergeant who participated in D-Day, carried an M1 Carbine. I confess that have never fired an M1 Carbine so take the following with a grain of salt but I think the .30 Carbine may be a victim of a lot of undeserved bad press. I understand that the claims about how during the Korean War the the 30 Carbine would not penetrate the heavy uniforms and outerwear of the enemy are complete fabrications and I have read penetration tests specifically designed to test that claim that appeared to prove that even with more layers of heavy clothing than that which were encountered, the 110gr bullets zipped right through and penetrated deeply into ballistic gelatin. (I do not recall the range) Funny that the Tommy Gun with its .45acp handgun loading was never the recipient of claims of weakness. Push come to shove, I would rather have an M1 Carbine than a Tommy Gun. Much better sights, much more accurate and certainly no less lethal.

At 200 yards, the .30 Carbine 110gr bullet is zipping along at 1,200fps and 370fpe.

AT 200 yards, the .45acp (slightly enhanced velocity due to 10" barrel length) 230gr bullet is zipping along at 700fps and 250 fpe.

These are fmj bullets and one is .45 in diameter vs. .30 in diameter. I do not have penetration data on either. 

For those who have held a Tommy Gun, I am sure you will agree that it is about as ergonomic as a 2x4. Strictly for close range spray. If I were in a firefight with an enemy 100 yards away or further with only exposed heads, shoulders and arms for targets, I would choose the 30 Carbine hands down.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> Doughboy, the 270, loaded like I had loaded with the 26 inch barrel of the Number One is a good elk rifle too. Actually it is good for any North American game except the Kodiac Bear, IMO. I think the Garand would have been marginally better in the 270 Win with the 150 grain bullet at around 2700 fps because the recoil would have been slightly less and because the BC of the 270 in 150 gr is better than the 3006.


I was just saying that the .270 is a great deer rifle....I wasn't saying you couldn't kill an Elk with it.

I think the Garand would have been marginally better in the 270 Win with the 150 grain bullet at around 2700 fps because the recoil would have been slightly less and because the BC of the 270 in 150 gr is better than the 3006. "



There isn't enough of a difference between the 30-06 and the .270 as far as recoil goes.... The M1 Garand is a 10 pound rifle and is semi-automatic, so the kick shouldn't be that bad.




Here's a comparison.....

.30-06 Spfd. (150 at 2910) 17.6 foot pounds of recoil


.270 Win. (150 at 2900) 17.0 foot pounds of recoil.



http://www.chuckhawks.com/recoil_table.htm


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 2, 2009)

Regarding the M1 Carbine and penetration:
A few years ago, a member of a range I belong to brought in a big laminated sheet of kevlar that had been shot with various kinds of handguns. There wasn't a common caliber that I could think of that wasn't represented. Only ONE caliber of handgun penetrated the 1/2 inch or so of Kevlar. It was a .30 cal Carbine that I believe was shot out of a revolver. This sheet of kevlar was HEAVY, much more than a person would reasonably wear as armour. A few of the other rounds like a .44 Magnum distorted the sheet but did not penetrate.

The M4 Carbine and just about anything built on a AR-15 type action is good for MOA or better as long as the barrel and ammunition are decent quality. There really isn't much tuning that is required. Things like fancy triggers, free float tubes and such are to reduce the effect of the rifleman in screwing things up (IMO). About the only thing I would add is a "Accu-Wedge". It doesn't gain much but I believe it does help.

The M25 DM rifle (Modern M14/M21) IS tuned to be a MOA rifle or better. Accuracy in the M14 types requires a LOT of tuning beyond the "Good Barrel and Good Ammunition". I also believe there is a small element of voodoo involved here because every once in a while you run into a gun that just won't shoot well even though there isn't any obvious reason that it shouldn't. In checking out these guns, I generally can find something wrong if the gun won't shoot, but not always. Also, I have shot M14 types that were quite accurate even though they shouldn't have been.

Regarding the .223 versus the .308, Neither is really a 1000 yard cartridge. Yes, I know there are Palma matches and that the National Matches have .223 guns shooting amazing distances with accuracy, but the bottom line is that in both of these cases, the rounds have been hot-rodded well beyond common accepted (SAAMI) standards. I have shot 69 grain bullets (which don't seem to do as well as lighter bullets at short range) but never tried the 80 grain bullets in a .223. 

Regarding the Thompson SMG, I have only fired semi-auto versions. To me, the guns are terribly heavy (18.5 pounds with a loaded 50 round drum), but balance well and point fairly well. Accuracy is fairly poor though: about the same as an untuned .45 Cal M1911.

Regarding the MSG 90 and the PSG1, I haven't fired either. Some folks claim great things from these guns and some folks claim they won't shoot well. Since I have no personal experience, I can't comment. I do wonder a bit about the necessity of welding external reinforcing plates to the receiver though.

Long winded again.
- Ivan.


----------



## renrich (Aug 2, 2009)

Davidicus, The problem with the M1 carbine was that it was so little that I could not get into a good position with it and hit anything, as opposed to the Garand. I am probably putting too much emphasis on accuracy( after all I liked hunting with a single shot rifle) but it did not seem to me that it was a rifleman's rifle. Course it was a carbine. Confidence in your weapon is everything. My 270, handloaded was still carrying 1000 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards. Probably not really relevant in combat but I consider 1000 ft lbs as minimum for deer(and humans) I saw a program on TV where a Thompson Gun was demonstrated and the shooter said that "spraying" with the gun was highly overrated. He fired controlled bursts that were quite accurate at 50 yards or so. My suspicion is that the Thompson was not much use beyond 100 yards but a good shooter with it was lethal at ranges under 100 yards, kind of like with a shotgun at under 50 yards but with more ammo.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 2, 2009)

renrich said:


> Davidicus, The problem with the M1 carbine was that it was so little that I could not get into a good position with it and hit anything, as opposed to the Garand. I am probably putting too much emphasis on accuracy( after all I liked hunting with a single shot rifle) but it did not seem to me that it was a rifleman's rifle. Course it was a carbine. Confidence in your weapon is everything. My 270, handloaded was still carrying 1000 ft lbs of energy at 500 yards. Probably not really relevant in combat but I consider 1000 ft lbs as minimum for deer(and humans) I saw a program on TV where a Thompson Gun was demonstrated and the shooter said that "spraying" with the gun was highly overrated. He fired controlled bursts that were quite accurate at 50 yards or so. My suspicion is that the Thompson was not much use beyond 100 yards but a good shooter with it was lethal at ranges under 100 yards, kind of like with a shotgun at under 50 yards but with more ammo.


My grandfather and my great uncle loved the M1 carbine in the ETO. My best friend's great uncle got a confirmed kill at 300 paces with it.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Aug 2, 2009)

According to a much older half sibling, my dad could consistently hit a 2lb coffee can from the hip in an impressive show of accuracy with the M1 Carbine. I have no idea what range it was.


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2009)

My attitude about the carbine was that if I had to hit a head sized target at 100 yards, I was in trouble. Maybe the one I qualified with was a dud. The Garand I qualified with as expert was super accurate, I felt. Made by International Harvester, serial # 5182609, funny how that is stuck in my mind. Anyone can get lucky on a given shot so I don't put much weight on those stories. I once made a one shot kill on a Pronghorn at 641 paces with a modified 284 Win and killed a flying coot with a 22 pistol at about 40 yards. Pure luck. I think the major advantage of the carbine was it was easy to carry. I liked it in the boondocks of Louisiana. In combat, it would have been a lot better than nothing. I know a lot of veterans thought it would be a good deer rifle and wonder how many deer were wounded by it?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 3, 2009)

I think you must have qualified on a subpar carbine. My grandfather could hit the bullseye all day on the range with the carbine but couldn't make a standing shot hit the bullseye with the garand predictably because the length and weight made it impossible for him to keep the end of the barrel still unless he was kneeling or prone.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 3, 2009)

I have never heard of the M1 Carbine described as particularly accurate but having trouble hitting a head sized target at 100 yards? Renrich, you sound like quite a good shot. Never having fired the M1 Carbine myself, though, I am ill equipped to offer a response. 

It was never meant as an alternative to a Garand which is a battle rifle designed for engaging targets at hundreds of yards. I think the Tommy Gun is a better comparison as to designed role. Have you ever fired a Tommy Gun? If so, would you prefer to engage head sized targets at 100 yards with that over an M1 Carbine?

Has anyone else fired both? Any thoughts?


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 3, 2009)

_Anyone can get lucky on a given shot so I don't put much weight on those stories. I once made a one shot kill on a Pronghorn at 641 paces with a modified 284 Win and killed a flying coot with a 22 pistol at about 40 yards. Pure luck._

I once hit a running jackrabbit at about 40 yards with a bolt action .22 mag rifle. It was a point and shoot situation. No time for aligning the sights and determining lead so I chalk it up largely to luck too. I will say, however, that I believe there are times when you simply act with an intuitive precision that is impossible to replicate with the purposeful application of careful skill. 

_I know a lot of veterans thought it would be a good deer rifle and wonder how many deer were wounded by it? _

I don't consider it an adequate deer gun either. I always cringe when I hear about people hunting deer and pig with the .223 Rem too.


----------



## Doughboy (Aug 3, 2009)

renrich said:


> I think the major advantage of the carbine was it was easy to carry. I liked it in the boondocks of Louisiana. In combat, it would have been a lot better than nothing. I know a lot of veterans thought it would be a good deer rifle and wonder how many deer were wounded by it?


I know a member on WW2F has shot deer with the M1 carbine....He said that the M1 carbine was okay on deer out to 50-75 yards and that a 100+ yard shot is risky.....I only wish I could find his post.....


----------



## renrich (Aug 3, 2009)

Davidicus, I agree with your analysis of the sometimes seemingly hard shot. I was hunting white tails one day, not really wanting to kill anything. Walking through the Texas brush with an 1895 Browning in 3006 with a Redfield receiver sight mounted. A buck got up and went crashing through the brush about 75 yards away and without thinking I swung and sqeezed off a round that hit him in the head and blew one of his antlers off. I have always been ashamed about killing that buck. I qualified with the Garand, M14, 1911 Government Model and the dad blamed carbine. Don't get me wrong, I hit the target at 100 yards but the groups were ragged. Actually, the carbine is probably easier to shoot off hand at 100 yards than a Garand because of the weight but I never felt that I could get in a good steady loop sling like I could with the Garand. We did not have any Thompsons in our unit. We had a few grease guns but I missed shooting them. Did get to shoot the Ma Deuce and the M60 though. The Pronghorn shot was made from the sitting position with a tight loop sling.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 3, 2009)

This account is from personal experience, so your mileage may vary:

A typical M1 Garand unaccurized but in good shape should do about 2 to 2.5 MOA for 5 shot groups. They MIGHT do better, but I would not expect any better than about 1.5 MOA. It all depends on how well the parts fit and on an unmodified gun, generally there is a fair amount of tension in clamping the trigger group into the gun. Metal parts are a "maybe tight and maybe not". If the gun does worse than about 4-5 inch groups, there is something really wrong with it. A match conditioned one should do much better than 1 MOA. If I were to pick up a surplus gun in generally unknown but functional condition, I would expect about 3-4 inch groups.

A typical M1 Carbine does about 2 to 3 MOA. I haven't fired that many, but the ones I have shot all tended to be in about that range. I am sure you can get one screwed up enough to shot a lot worse.

The Thompson does about as well as a crappy example of an AK-47. I have fired the Thompson carbines at 25 and 50 yards quite a lot, but can't remember if I have ever shot one off the bench at 100 yards. I seem to remember roughly 6 inch groups at 50 yards but some of that inaccuracy may be due to the poor sights. A lot of .45 commercial factory ammunition won't function a Thompson. Military and equivalent loads or hotter are required.

Hope that helps. (Remember, YMMV)
- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 4, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> This account is from personal experience, so your mileage may vary:
> 
> A typical M1 Garand unaccurized but in good shape should do about 2 to 2.5 MOA for 5 shot groups. They MIGHT do better, but I would not expect any better than about 1.5 MOA. It all depends on how well the parts fit and on an unmodified gun, generally there is a fair amount of tension in clamping the trigger group into the gun. Metal parts are a "maybe tight and maybe not". If the gun does worse than about 4-5 inch groups, there is something really wrong with it. A match conditioned one should do much better than 1 MOA. If I were to pick up a surplus gun in generally unknown but functional condition, I would expect about 3-4 inch groups.
> 
> ...


230 grain ball should cycle a Thompson ok. The heavy bullet loads tend to have a more predictable recoil impulse.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 4, 2009)

230 grain "ball" is another name for standard fmj military fodder. 

Thompson presently recommends only 230 grain ball for reliable function. 

http://www.auto-ordnance.com/DL/WarningAmmoCard.pdf


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 4, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> 230 grain "ball" is another name for standard fmj military fodder.
> 
> Thompson presently recommends only 230 grain ball for reliable function.
> 
> http://www.auto-ordnance.com/DL/WarningAmmoCard.pdf


I know that. That's why I use it as practice ammo in my 1911. 230 grain hollow points also cycle just fine.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 4, 2009)

Do you own many firearms Clay? What's in your inventory besides that .45?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 4, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> Do you own many firearms Clay? What's in your inventory besides that .45?


14: 
2 .303 Enfields, (one sporterized, one all original
2 Mosin Nagants, one M44 Carbine, one 91/30 rifle.
3 1911s (Springfield Ultra Compact, Rock Island Armory GI, Grandfather's WWII issue)
1 Yugo M49 Mauser
1 Marlin .22 semi auto
1 NAA Guardian .32
1 Heritage Arms .22
1 .22 revolver of unknown parentage
1 Norinco Shotgun (Remington 870 clone)
1 Heckler Koch G3


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 4, 2009)

That's a very nice collection. Is the Guardian a concealed carry piece? 

How do you like the G3?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 4, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> That's a very nice collection. Is the Guardian a concealed carry piece?
> 
> How do you like the G3?


1: yes, I got it when I realized how little I was carrying the Springfield U-C 1911.

2: With the scope sighted in it shoots pretty well. I'd like to give it a bit of work to tighten the groups.


----------



## Daviducus2 (Aug 4, 2009)

_1: yes, I got it when I realized how little I was carrying the Springfield U-C 1911._

I hear you there. I have Glock 27 which is a very potent little package yet still too large and bulky for comfortable pocket carry.

As much as I prefer the potency of the .40SW Speer Gold Dot 165gr loads, I have been thinking about a Ruger LCP in .380 because a .380 in the hand is better than a .40SW at home. The second worst thing in the world is having to kill someone. The worst thing in the world is having to kill someone but not having the means to do so.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 4, 2009)

Daviducus2 said:


> _1: yes, I got it when I realized how little I was carrying the Springfield U-C 1911._
> 
> I hear you there. I have Glock 27 which is a very potent little package yet still too large and bulky for comfortable pocket carry.
> 
> As much as I prefer the potency of the .40SW Speer Gold Dot 165gr loads, I have been thinking about a Ruger LCP in .380 because a .380 in the hand is better than a .40SW at home. The second worst thing in the world is having to kill someone. The worst thing in the world is having to kill someone but not having the means to do so.


I've heard good things about the little ruger.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 5, 2009)

Hello Clay_Allison,

Regarding .45 ACP ammunition for the Thompson Carbine, the answer is a bit more complicated than "230 grain bullets":

What I observed was that the Thompson would not cycle reliably with commercial 230 grain FMJ (I BELIEVE it was Remington UMC brand but it has been so long I really can't remember). The gun would cycle fine with military ball (I believe it was TZZ headstamp). Nominal velocity of military ball out of a Thompson is (IIRC) 920 fps but was probably faster out of the carbine since it had a 16 inch barrel instead of little short one on NFA guns. Out of a M1911 type, military ball is nominal at 860 fps. Commercial 230 grain ball is nominally at 830 fps.

What I found out when chronographing out of a M1911 type is that the military ammunition averages very close to 860 fps. The commercial stuff only averaged 805 fps out of the same gun. Even with a 18 pound recoil spring, the 805 fps commercial stuff reliably cycles a M1911 type (Standard spring is only 16 pounds). Target loads for the M1911 (also with a 230 grain FMJ RN bullet) only averages between 700 and 750 fps. With the 18 pound spring, sometimes those won't cycle.

Folks probably expect me to be a bit longwinded, so I will try not to disappoint. Here comes a story:

A friend of mine with a Ruger P90 was having some issues with his handloads. Seems like about once every 10 shots or so, his gun would not go into battery. He diid not separate his cases by headstamp but just ran everything through in a single batch. (I think it was on a Lee Loadmaster.) After a range session, we decided to check out his gun. What we found was that most of the handloads would chamber just fine but a few would not. They would almost close, but not quite. I checked the headstamps. All the ones that would not chamber were PMC brand. 

What we found was the following: The minimum case length for a .45 ACP is 0.888. The maximum is 0.898. The minimum chamber length is 0.898. The maximum chamber is 0.920. .45 ACP cases tend to run on the short side of that range. What you will find is that your typical M1911 type tends to have fairly long headspace. My sample size is small, but I am guessing about .910 to about .915. Because of the way the recoil spring pushes against the bottom of the barrel lug, the long headspace isn't obvious unless you put shim stock or feeler gauges to figure out how long a cartridge (or headspace gauge) needs to be before it doesn't close. With a lot of guns, firing pin portrusion limitations would prevent a gun with excessive headspace from firing but with the M1911, the firing pin portrusion is not really limited in a practical sense. The firing pin can stick out at least a half inch beyond the breech face, so it will always reach the primer. Also the extractor can hold the cartridge back even if the chamber is too long.

In this case, what we had was a cartridge manufacturer who made cases very near the max length (Cheers for them!!!) and a gun that had a minimum length chamber. Add a little bit of powder fouling and the gun stops working. What got me to thinking about this story is that PMC ammunition tends to be very close to military. I don't know if this is true in .45 ACP, but it is worth a try.

- Ivan.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Aug 5, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Clay_Allison,
> 
> Regarding .45 ACP ammunition for the Thompson Carbine, the answer is a bit more complicated than "230 grain bullets":
> 
> ...


Perhaps your Thompson needs to have its spring replaced by a lighter one, if I am correct in understanding that the power of commercial ammo just isn't enough to fully run the bolt.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Aug 6, 2009)

No one ever said that it was "MY" Thompson. Besides, the gun is spec'ed out for military ball ammunition and runs fine with it, so there is no good reason to change anything. Who would have figured that commercial ammunition was so lightly loaded? The 805 fps surprised me also. 

BTW, I believe there are actually two springs powering the Thompsons. Each is about the diameter of a pencil and they are not very strong if I remember right. The breech block is just really heavy and you really can't do much about that.

- Ivan.


----------

