M2 vs. M1928M1

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".

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.

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...!

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)

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.

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.........................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain O

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.

Seaspriter; Well said!!

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

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.

'Ballistically and from a physical comparison, the .30 carbine is comparable to a .357 Magnum or .38 Special pistol cartridge, '

Oh, .357 Magnum now goes 1990 FPS and has 990 Ft Lbs of energy?

'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...! .

A .300 Blackout barrel would be great, with a chamber insert. The bolt would remain unchanged. A carbine mag can fit inside an AR mag, so that would take a little finagling, but you can see how easy it would be. At least so far; it might get more complicated with the gas port size and recoil spring weight but those can be done by trial and error. So basically, if you have a .300 upper, you can have any machinist make the chamber insert and the mag set-up should be fairly straighttforward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I understand nostalgia, but can't ignore performance. Were I to step into a "street altercation" scenario, I would feel better with an M2 in my hands than a Thompson Submachinegun. The fact that the M2 is lighter, tends to be more accurate and hits harder with Soft Point ammunition pushes the Carbine to the head of the line.

Fun is fun, but when "the fecal matter impacts the air motivator", accuracy and power make the difference.

The .357 S&W Magnum is generally housed in a lever-fed,tubular magazine carbine. It is unlikely that the .357 S&W Magnum will ever be commercially found in a self-loading carbine.

86 years ago (1930) the police relied on lever-action rifles, but no longer. The .30-30 has since given way to the .30 US Army (the .30-06) and then the 7.62 x 51 self-loading rifles.

At 100 yards, the full-power 110 grain .30 Carbine Soft Point load is still traveling at 1602 fps, generating 627 foot-pounds of energy. This is usually more than most .357 S&W Magnum revolvers are generating at the muzzle of a four inch barreled service revolver! :move eek:

I'm sorry, but with this information, my bet will continue to rest on the .30 Carbine. :thup:

Thank you very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by INLAND44

'Ballistically and from a physical comparison, the .30 carbine is comparable to a .357 Magnum or .38 Special pistol cartridge, '

Oh, .357 Magnum now goes 1990 FPS and has 990 Ft Lbs of energy?

'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...! .

A .300 Blackout barrel would be great, with a chamber insert. The bolt would remain unchanged. A carbine mag can fit inside an AR mag, so that would take a little finagling, but you can see how easy it would be. At least so far; it might get more complicated with the gas port size and recoil spring weight but those can be done by trial and error. So basically, if you have a .300 upper, you can have any machinist make the chamber insert and the mag set-up should be fairly straighttforward.

---

Right now I'm in the middle of building myself an AR in 300 . I see it as a modern version of the 30 carbine . It will easily do at 300 yds ( and beyond ) what most people THINK a 30 carbine will do . It can also be handloaded with all the neat 150-168-ish grain special bullets that people only think of in 30-06 terms . And a big plus is the ability to use 200-220-250 grain bullets at sub-sonic ( think suppressor ) . And , it can do it all in a 9-10 inch barrel .
I just think spending the time and money to put the carbine round in this platform with the 300 so available is , well , silly.
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emmagee1917

Right now I'm in the middle of building myself an AR in 300 . I see it as a modern version of the 30 carbine . It will easily do at 300 yds ( and beyond ) what most people THINK a 30 carbine will do . It can also be handloaded with all the neat 150-168-ish grain special bullets that people only think of in 30-06 terms . And a big plus is the ability to use 200-220-250 grain bullets at sub-sonic ( think suppressor ) . And , it can do it all in a 9-10 inch barrel .
I just think spending the time and money to put the carbine round in this platform with the 300 so available is , well , silly.
Chris

---

Chris,

This never occurred to me at all. If I want to move beyond the .30 Carbine, I step right up to the 7.62 x 39 Soviet. I really don't need a suppressed .30 Caliber rifle. If I do, I can have a suppressor installed on my MAK-91 barrel, or my .30 Carbine. (I doubt that i'll ever do it). The .30 Carbine is useful out to 150 yards for "serious social situations". There's no need for an expensive new rifle, unless you feel a compelling need to spend money on a new AR-type rifle.

I have been shooting for more than 50 years and neither the 5.56 x 45 nor the .300 Blackout hold any thrills for me.

Whatever melts your butter.

Well , I acually started by looking at taking a .30 carbine , SBR-ing it and cutting the bbl down to about 12 inches ( leaving just enough room for a type one band to clear the end of a M1A1 folding stock ) . I then did some real 300 yard shooting of several full sized carbines , and was unimpressed . It was very good at 200 and would do the job at 250 , but a lot changed by 300 . I then found out that it was no real task to get much better groups out of the AR15 / 300 platform with bbls as short as 9 inches at 300 yds ( say 3-5 inches rather than a foot plus ) . The 300 Blackout is basicly a 7.62X39 , but with a lot more accuracy due to better case design / platforms / and match bullets . The ability to SBR a lower and have several uppers allows a lot more flexable and fun platform . The case and bbls were designed from the start to work with 100 to 220 + grain pills .
So , yes , after 30 years into the USGI WW2 stuff , I'm going into the dark side .
Chris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emmagee1917

Well , I acually started by looking at taking a .30 carbine , SBR-ing it and cutting the bbl down to about 12 inches ( leaving just enough room for a type one band to clear the end of a M1A1 folding stock ) . I then did some real 300 yard shooting of several full sized carbines , and was unimpressed . It was very good at 200 and would do the job at 250 , but a lot changed by 300 . I then found out that it was no real task to get much better groups out of the AR15 / 300 platform with bbls as short as 9 inches at 300 yds ( say 3-5 inches rather than a foot plus ) . The 300 Blackout is basicly a 7.62X39 , but with a lot more accuracy due to better case design / platforms / and match bullets . The ability to SBR a lower and have several uppers allows a lot more flexable and fun platform . The case and bbls were designed from the start to work with 100 to 220 + grain pills .
So , yes , after 30 years into the USGI WW2 stuff , I'm going into the dark side .
Chris

---

Chris: This is not "going to the dark side" this is a departure from a Military Surplus rifle and doesn't belong on the Forum. Think of it as putting a 40 foot neck and 3 foot legs on a giraffe. This isn't
"Militaria" nor is it even close. Another forum might be appropriate for this subject.

BTW, the "thread drift" away from the Carbine vs. Thompson isn't proper, either.

"To each his own" Everyone has their own preference as to what they like. The M2 and the TSMG will both do the job at a reasonable range. If the range is greater than what you think the firearm you have is capable of being effective, get a bigger one! Nothing is perfect in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

Folks get to responding to 'threads' and they get sidetracked by the conversation. It's just human nature. Why get upset?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadycon

"To each his own" Everyone has their own preference as to what they like. The M2 and the TSMG will both do the job at a reasonable range. If the range is greater than what you think the firearm you have is capable of being effective, get a bigger one! Nothing is perfect in the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------- Post added at 07:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------

Folks get to responding to 'threads' and they get sidetracked by the conversation. It's just human nature. Why get upset?

---

Because if they want to discuss anther arm, they should start anther thread. This was a comparison thread about two specific arms. If they want to discuss another arm (which isn't a surplus arm, nor is it a military cartridge) they need to start another thread on a forum where it is applicable/appropriate.

Fellas, I am closing this thread. Although the discussion has remained carbine related it is starting to touch a nerve. I think we need to move on now. Thanks :thup: