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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Well, I stand corrected on the .270.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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