Short little video from NRA channel debunking the "M1 Carbine bullets bouncing off frozen clothing" myth.
M1 Carbine Myths shooting DEBUNKED! - YouTube
Printable View
Short little video from NRA channel debunking the "M1 Carbine bullets bouncing off frozen clothing" myth.
M1 Carbine Myths shooting DEBUNKED! - YouTube
The clothing myths are supposedly hits from 2-300 yds away. I don't doubt that the carbine is deadly, but I have talked to several Marine vets who shot small Japanese several times and they didn't stop. The big gun knocks them *** over teakettle every time. When walking or at route step, I'd want a carbine. When stopping some drunk Japanese with a bayonet, I'd take an M1 rifle every time.
I agree and no argument there Dave, but you know the M1 Carbine was never meant for long range shots, as we all do... It was meant for a better, more accurate extension of the officer's 1911-A1 service pistol which was for all practical purposes effective out to around 20 ft in all practicality for the average soldier.
It was a conundrum back then too.... The M1 carbine turned out to be so easy to maneuver and light to carry, and still accurate to the practical ranges in most combat, MANY soldiers wanted a carbine.
We all know a 30.06 (M-2) will tear anything to pieces and knock the recipient to the ground, but the truth of the matter is few combatants really had a lot of close combat and they hated carrying the super heavy M1 Garand...
I took one of my Garands to a gun show and 'walked' it around the gun show because I really needed the money last month... I had it slinged but after only a half hour I appreciated how terribly HEAVY it was. It still seemed like a trade off to me as I thought about it, but I understand why so many GI's opted to carry a carbine if they could get one... With a full pack and all the web-gear, canteens, etc they had to carry, and then a heavy M1 Garand cannon to carry with it, I can see why so many wanted a carbine.
It would be more accurate if the total environment was frozen, there is so much more to this than how it was presented.
I think the OP did a good job with his presentation, his work and studies, and he went far and above than anything I've seen before on this controversial and likely 'urban legend'.
He really tried to reproduce the conditions of the gear the North Koreans/Chinese would have had back then in the worst and improbable frozen conditions.
Go ahead and tell us about everything Sarge1998. I am interested in why you have your opinion.
Interesting. But, I doubt that any soldier in Korean had 2" of frozen clothing, no matter how cold/rainy it was; if your inner layers of clothing got wet & froze solid, hypothermia would cause death within a few hours.
Ballistics of the .30 carbine round are reasonably close to .357 magnum; within the 100 yd useful range of the carbine, I really don't think anyone without a ballistic vest can take a round to the chest & shake it off.
I once had the opportunity to fire .30 cal carbine tracer rounds at a military range with an impact area > 2 miles. It was pouring rain, so no danger of starting a fire. We were able to follow the trace to various distances, & the carbine can never be mistaken for a "flat shooter". Hold off even at 200-300 yds would be so great that few soldiers would come close to hitting what they aimed at.
Neal
Harlan is right. The Carbine was never meant to be a rifle, but rather the WW II version of the PDW (Personal DEFENSE Weapon). They were meant for "up close and personal," that's why it worked so well for my dad and uncles in the PTO in WW II. EVerything, by and large, was close range. The fact tha t at 100/150 or less it is nasty (as it will generally do at 100 yards was a 5.56 will do at 200) is a bonus. Many shared his sentiments. I knew a guy that was an Army Sgt. D Day on. He carried a Garand in the countryside, but when they went into a village or town, he switched for a Carbine with his RTO, since the Sgt was the one clearing buildings.
Seems to be an ever popular topic.
When it comes to debunking a "myth". I'll take the words of the guys that were actually there with their lives on the line over those doing the "debunking".
Check out "Last Stand of Fox Company". It discusses the problems with the M1 carbine and the Chinese troops clothing in some detail. As the solution was to shoot them in the head only, it is apparent that the problem did indeed exist.
The test is flawed is what I stated, you may well get the same results under frozen arctic conditions, and you may get something else. My opinion is a well placed shot should take out the target, but this guys video is a poor way to prove it. A sub-zero environment, weapon sluggish due to cold and elements and lack of cleaning effecting the lubrication and operation of the carbine, actual 1950-52 ammunition.
This guys target was frozen cloth which becomes brittle and will shatter is this how a Chinese or NK would actually wear their clothes (see Neals remarks)? The narrator says 100 yards as the video displays 75 yards. I don't know what the results would be under actual conditions and to say this guy debunked the myth is just wrong. I didn't need convincing to share an opinion that the .30 Carbine round would not bounce off enemy clothing, I just don't buy this videos presentation and methods.
I still think it was poor shot placement that's responsible...and excess range...
I've shot lots under arctic conditions, at least Ft Wainwright Alaska in Jan-Feb would likely classify, for example. There's lots of factors then. Like poor shooting due to too much clothing between you and your weapon and not wanting to freeze the end of your nose again by touching it to your frozen weapon. Maybe poor trigger manipulation because of goofy gloves or trigger finger mitts...things like that.
I have these, maybe not the fix for heavy gloves, but an attempt to solve the issue.
Carbine
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff014-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff015-1.jpg
Garand
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff016-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stuff017-1.jpg
Did the fit those to carbines also? I've seen them on rifles...I guess they would have. Still you can't feel through heavy arctic mitts or gloves.
I think he was using "Korean War" vintage ammo, which I've heard is down a bit on power compared to that from the WWII or Vietnam era. Does anyone know how much the performance of the .30 Carbine cartridge itself is affected by extreme cold? - Bob
Ammo IS affected by cold and heat.
It would be more accurate if ammo was frozen too and increase the distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge1998
There are as previously stated lots of problems with his testing methodology. If the enemy soldiers clothing was already frozen I would think he had other problems other than being shot most likely frost bite and hypothermia at least. My understanding of the issue is that it related to the thick padded or quilted uniform worn by the Chinese and not frozen clothing and the fact that the m-1 carbine was never intended as a main battle rifle.
I like the idea that has been presented before that the GIs in Korea, who had many M2s, were experiencing muzzle rise and firing over the enemy at over 100 yards.
I would think that a large amount of layers of thick clothing that was NOT frozen would do better. In any event, the carbine is a killer. It just isn't as good a killer as the big rifle. My Coastie buddy tells about how they shot a polar bear dead with carbines at some base in Alaska. That says something.
My Uncle has told me when he wasin Korea and how darn cold it was , he would say they would drop Koreans down at 50 to 75 yards and even a few at 100 or abit over and some would run off , while soldiers were saying " i know hit that blank and blank, he should of dropped" he said alot would use Semi Fire rather than Full due to fact what Inland44 said about the muzzle rise while shooting at the K& C soldiers on the move or still. That there were times to use Full Auto and Not To use it. But for sure i dont care if the Korean Soldiers had Frozen clothig i dont think the Korean would think im okay those bullets bounce right off us. He said and this was his opinion that it was the Cold Weather that was the problem shooting the 30 carbine ammo that the weather was the problem..
Frank
My old insurance agent was a Marine and was in the march from the Chosen to UN lines. He said it didn't matter what rifle one had they all froze up from the cold. They had to pee on them to keep them firing and then just fired them as much as possible to heat them up and to evaporate any moisture still on the weapon. The Garand had more range then the carbines but the carbines worked just as well as the Garand's. He never had or saw a problem with the carbines not stopping the enemy.
My dad was on Iwo Jima with a carbine, and my uncles in other areas of the PTO with carbines. They all liked it, and said it worked great for them. All of their fighting was up close. As far as the carbine being equal to a 357, I think you will find it quite a bit more powerful than a 357. A 110 carbine round generates 1970 FPS and 960 ft lbs ME at the muzzle and at 100 yards delivers 1567 FPS and 600 ft lbs ME. The 357 only gives that much at the muzzle (what the carbine gives at 100 yards) even out of a 357 carbine!
I have found that my Inland was a lot more accurate at 200 yards than I thought it would be. Would I want to use it at that distance in combat? Only if I had no other choice. As stated it was intended as a personal defense weapon and not a main battle rifle. As far as lack of penetration goes I heard it was the thick quilted clothing and that's not to say it didn't penetrate but perchance it didn't penetrate far enough to do mortal damage. I was also told that when it got real cold some would take all the grease/oil out of there weapons and shave graphite from a pencil into the actions to solve the problem of freezing and or sluggishness of the grease/oil.
How about the reverse with the PPSh with a 90 grain bullet at 1,400 fps that was pretty deadly when up close and personal? Remember that the AR-15 with the original 1:14 twist would not stabilize 55 grain bullets under arctic conditions. Robert Service had it right about the cold doing strange things 107 years ago when he wrote "The Cremation of Sam Mcgee".
Dave
Wineman that was what supposedly made the M16 so deadly the bullet tumbled and IF it hit you you never knew where it would exit as it tumbled through the body but they also found that they couldn't hit anything with a precision shot if they needed to so they changed it to 1 in 9 and now it's accurate but you lost the devastating tumble effect so now you have a .22 battle round. the Russians solved that problem with the 5.45x39 it's a FMJ but the tip under the jacket is hollow so it flies great and when it hits the tip bends and then it tumbles.
The M16 went from 1-14 twist to 1-12 twist for the 55 gr bullet. All of the Vietnam era rifles had 1-12 chrome lined barrels. 1-9 barrels came out after the 62gr bullets.
I haven't shot any Koreans nor Chinese, but I've said that more than once after shooting deer with a .44 Mag. They die, but not always where they got hit. Have had some run off leaving no blood trail but well hit in the chest cavity. They don't go down for 2-300 yards. Can't help but think that the same is possible with folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by imntxs564
You are right, but if you watch the Outdoor Channel, those guys will plug a Whitetail with a 300 WMG and they take off and run for the same distance. The only real drop dead shot is the neck or liver. I've shot a few big mulies with an 8mm mod 98. I hit one twice in the liver from about 100 yds, it literally blew his liver to pieces, he dropped like a rock.
Dave you are probably right on the twist rates so I won't argue. What I do know for sure is I didn't like that plastic piece of junk when they put one in my hands in '69 and I don't like them now. I always used to say you couldn't give me on. Now I say give it here and then I'll trade it in on a good rifle. But that's me for what it's worth.