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

[Doughboy]

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.

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]

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

 

[gjs238]

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]

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]

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]

Then tell us about the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm

That's a little to modern for my tastes.

 

[gjs238]

That's a little to modern for my tastes.

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

 

[Doughboy]

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]

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

Neither was the German GeCo, 7.75x39mm

 

[Doughboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

 

[Doughboy]

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

We've had a really rainy year this year.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

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]

"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]

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]

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.