M2 vs. M1928M1

[Captain O]

I have been thinking (and reviewing) the M2 versus the M1928M1. The M2 seems to supersede the M1928M1 after 30 yards, period. The .45 ACP seems to "run out of gas" in short order. At 100 yards, the 110 grain pill still carries the energy of the .357 S&W Magnum (1602 fps) the Soft Point ammunition plays a large part in this, but I doubt if a .45 ACP at 100 yards can even come close.

Besides, it is easier to pack 30 rounds of .30 Carbine than it is to carry 30 rounds of .45 ACP of any kind.

No, the M2 wins this "shootout".

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[INLAND44]

You're right. The .30 Carbine is IMO the best sub-gun round ever. I've said before I would love to have An AR in .30 Carbine. Olympic made one but had to suspend it because of low sales.

[CINDERS]

Would it be expensive to have say an unchambered AR barrel done in 30 Carbine could you use the same bolt/extractor or would it require extensive mods...!

[Seaspriter]

I vividly recall the first time I ever handled a Tommy Gun. My first reaction was "Wow, this is heavier than I imagined." At 10 1/2 pounds (felt like more than that), it's as heavy as an M1 Rifle, without the M1 Rifle's .30-06 horsepower.

No wonder the M1 Carbine has so many strong adherents (me included).

But the problem really boils down to the fact that a real STG43 style assault rifle was never developed to fit in between the M1 Carbine (which you astutely compared to a .357 Magnum, which would be a comparable cartridge) and the M1 Rifle with its .30-06 heavy duty round.

Of course, with hind sight we could all speculate what would have happened had the US Marine Corps gotten behind further development of the Johnson Submachine Gun, and it's derivative: the AutoCarbine which weighed in at a little over 8 lbs and fired the .30-06. (see http://milpas.cc/rifles/ZFiles/Semi-...%20Carbine.htm)

[Captain O]

I believe the .30 Carbine was/is superior to both the M1928M1 as well as the M3A1. It even oupterforms the H&R Reising M50. (Though I have fancied an H&R Reising M60 for a short range carbine). After many hours of cogitation and rumination (Believe me, that can be painful)! The .30 Carbine which, contrary to popular belief is a short rifle cartridge, not a pistol cartridge as so many have asserted! This property, is what makes it successful 75 years after it's inception/introduction, in countries around the world.

[shadycon]

To accurately compare cartridges one must understand what the cartridge was designed for! The .45 is a slow/heavy 'pistol' cartridge. The .30 carbine is a heavier/faster cartridge designed to fill the void between 'pistol' and 'rifle' cartridges. IMHO.........................

[Seaspriter]

contrary to popular belief is a short rifle cartridge, not a pistol cartridge as so many have asserted

You are absolutely correct in this. However, the short rifle cartridge (.32 Winchester from 1905) never took off, it was quite underpowered.

From a physical comparison, the .30 carbine is comparable to a .357 Magnum or .38 Special pistol cartridge, and smaller than a .45 Colt, the biggest difference being the latter cartridges were for revolvers. For the fun of it, put all four of these side by side, then along side a .303, .308, .30-30, .30-06, and it's easy to see why .30 carbine is thought of a pistol cartridge.

Put another way, compare case capacities:
- Compare the .357 Magnum (also developed in the 1930s) to the .30 Carbine -- about the same. The bullet weight of a .357 Magnum is 125 grains compared to 110 grains of the .30 Carbine.
- Compare the .30 Carbine's case capacity (1.364 cubic Centimeters) to the .30-06 capacity (4.4 cubic centimeters -- 3X bigger.)

In reality the .30 carbine is the "magnum" version of a .32 ACP (it's sort of like the difference between .22 and a .22 Magnum). When Winchester designed the .30 Calibre cartridge, the biggest change over it's 1905 .32 forebearer was the propellant, taking advantage of chemistry advances -- pushing more horsepower out of the barrel.

What's hard today is we have to put ourselves in a late 1930s mindset to understand the thinking of weapons developers then, not from our 21st century perspective. Our beloved M1 Carbines were designed as "Light Rifle" akin to a Pistol designed to get lots more horsepower out of a longer barrel.
----------------------------------------------------
The Speer manual has some comparison data for 3 loads (light, medium, heavy) in 26 different revolvers. Each revolver got identically loaded cartridges and velocities were measured the same way for each. Examining nine revolvers with 6" barrels, there is a spread from a low of 1237 fps to a high 1603 fps for a 110 gr bullet. If they used an 18" barrel with a heavy load, they would have gotten the same ballistic performance as the .30 Carbine.
---------
BTW, I love my M1 Carbine -- it's a great rifle; I have nothing to criticize about it. Fantastic design. Superb performer. She weighs the same as my .22 carbines. But she was not intended to be a "Battlefield" nor "Assault" rifle.

The M1 Carbine is like a good wife -- you better love her for what she is, not what you wished she was.

[shadycon]

Seaspriter; Well said!!

[Bill Hollinger]

For some reason the Tommy Gun is still more appealing to me

[carwashchris]

Yes I love my M2, but when I shoot my friend's Thompson I get the feeling I'm shooting a more refined weapon. And it's hard to ignore it's nostalgia.