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

[Doughboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

"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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What makes an M1 Garand a shoulder cannon?

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.