The Inland may go in "Harm's Way" again.

Just got clearance from my job to carry long gun as a patrol carbine. I have a armed contract patrolling dams and powerhouses in the Sierra at night (Homeland Security mandated "Critical Infrastructure Protection") Up to now I have been only armed with 9mm. Considering the plethora of mountain lion (saw 2 different ones this week) black bear (saw 4 this week), Mexican Mafia dope growers in the National Forest (yes, I have run into a few of them already, but they have not messed with me so far, as I am "solemente Seguridad, no Polica"), and the fact that I am on patrol to prevent Akmed and his Muji buddies from blowing up dams, I have been feeling under-gunned . It is a solo patrol, and the county Sheriff is only back up. It is a good gig, three 12 hour shifts a week in a new Jeep Rubicon, but it will be nice to have a rifle backup now.

I have two choices in my personal armory: My recently acquired "un-messed with" Inland, or a Kalifornia legal "featureless" AR-15 build (muzzle brake instead of flash hider, pinned CAR-15 stock, and Hammerhead non-pistol grip In order to use magazines with a capacity of greater than 10 rounds in Kalifornia, it must be a "Featureless" build: i.e. NO pistol grip, no collapsible stock, no EVIL flash hider). In this configuration, I can use my pre-ban 30 round magazines, and not limited to 10 rounders and a bullet button.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...10/6531b-1.jpg

While the AR carbine in this configuration still has the firepower, it is not as handy as the carbine. I dismount the vehicle numerous times in the 12 hour shift, and most times will want the carbine on my person. Stopping power, the 5.56 has the edge, but not by a large margin because it is a 16" barrel. The M-1 Carbine has a draw for me, since most of my LEO career, I used a carbine as a trunk weapon, though I had an XM177E2 for several years. I will probably go with the M1 Carbine. The old Inland will "ride again."

Can you get a variance on what you are allowed to carry being a mandated patrol? Might be worth checking. That would change everything.

I carried an M2 Carbine in 1968, M-16 in 1969 & 1970. You may have to trust you life to this weapon. As much as I like the M1 Carbine, I would go with the AR.

It has to be my personal weapon, Kalifornia compliant, and preferably a type of weapon that I have previously qualified with. I have qualified with both types in the past.. I can carry either weapon. There would be no contest if the AR did not have to be neutered with the pinned stock and odd grip. I really wish I had the XM177E2 I had for a few years on the SO!
Though, thinking back, comparing the damage from a 110 JSP that the carbine did to a deer, and seeing what the 55 grain M193 did to human trargets in my LEO career, the 5.56 is much NASTIER!

If you are on night patrol, I would think the AR would be preferable. Lots of options to increase hit probabilty, ranging from just a big rear sight aperture to the various easily installed night vision gear. (Or an ACOG without the NV, which would be my choice.) If you can use expanding type bullets, either caliber ought to do.

ETA: but I would much prefer expanding bullet .223 rounds with some penetrating types on hand.

I'm with everyone else on this one. As much as I love these little carbines, I don't know if I'd trust it to put down dangerous game like bears and mountain lions, afaik both of those animals can take a fair amount of abuse before they give up.

You would have a better chance with large animals with the carbine then you would with the AR. Now an AR with a 1 in 12 twist with 55 gr. FMJ you would be fine to take on critters with two legs and put them down well and quick. The faster twist AR rifles stabilize the bullets too much and they tend to pass through without much damage being done very much like the FMJ carbine rounds. FMJ carbine rounds work very well against vehicles. HP or SP carbine rounds are much better on animals or critters on two legs and do expand nicely and still penetrate well. You would not be under gunned with a carbine or an AR. Just a personal choice by you.

I applaud your service rangemaster and am no way qualified to say which rifle is better suited to the task but have to say that it seems crazy to be a solo operation.
good luck and stay safe.
Jim

Seriously, can you carry a Garand? That would handle ANY game and I assume CA compliant. Yes it's big and bulky but the firepower is superior to both the other choices.

Thanks guys! I thought I would just share my "random ruminations" with forum, thinking you carbine lovers might get a kick out of it being pressed into service again.

Bruce, the 110 JSP being better for bear and game was one of my considerations (I was thinking of the picture of the guy sitting on the dead grizzlies the the carbine). I am also better at "snap shooting" the carbine than I am the AR with the ugly non-grip. As I said, I carried an AR16/M16 variant in the Army and Air Force, and part of my LEO career, and the Carbine for most of my LEO career, so I am comfortable with both.

The Garand is not a good idea, first because I don't have one, and second because of my twice rebuilt right shoulder. I even stay away from 12 GA, except for light cowboy loads in a 30" SxS! You know, I do wish I had an FN FAL para carbine, or AR10 carbine! That would be very good.

I do believe I would go with the AR15 on this patrol. I assume it is sighted-in and dependable. Also assuming a 1:9 twist, 69gr Match would be my ammo. I understand completely the romantic attraction of putting an M1 Carbine into service, but the ballistics, reliability, ammo choices, magazines and effective range of the AR are simply superior. If the AR had been available in 1942, it would have become the 'Light Rifle' the Ordnance Dep't was looking for.