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

"too heavy"


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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

A good abbreviated treatment of the subject.

The AnarchAngel: Terminal Tumbling

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.

"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..

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..

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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).

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

What caliber is your Ruger NO.1 in?

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.

"270 Win."



That's a really good Deer caliber.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.