February American Rifleman

[Seaspriter]

The oft-repeated sentiment that the .30 Carbine round is a pistol cartridge is also incorrect. The round was developed by Winchester and was based on an earlier carbine round, the .32 Winchester, but with better modern propellant and jacketed bullet.

This is technically very correct -- the round was based on the .32 Winchester. But the reality was this was considered a very underpowered rifle round and never caught on -- too little power.

In reality, the .30 carbine cartridge was really an extra-long .32 ACP cylindrical pistol round (think of it akin to a ".30 Magnum" -- the old 1905 .32 Winchester with the advantage of more advanced propellant chemistry several decades later.)

At the time of 1940, a true "rifle" round would be considered akin to a the common full-bodied .30-06 or .303. To illustrate, take one .30-06 (or .303) cartridge in one hand and two .30 carbine cartridges in the other hand -- they weigh just about the same (about 25 grams).

At the time of early WWII, there was already a well tested tradition of using pistol rounds as a "mini-carbine" otherwise known as a "sub machine gun" -- this is the principle of the Tommy Gun: using the .45 ACP in a longer barrel (mini-carbine with or 12" barrel) or the M-3 Grease gun (8" barrel) designed to fire .45 ACP or 9mm Lugar or the British Sten Gun and Lancaster (9mm) or the German MP20/40 (9mm).

Our beloved M1 Carbine is a really a hybrid -- half pistol, half rifle -- one of the best compromises between the pistol and rifle that still fills a niche 70 years later. Because of its versatility, some military people expected it to be the "universal" gun was expected to do more and more --an unrealistic expectation. The M1 is like a good friend, a good partner, a reliable buddy, a great protector, but she's not an assault rifle, not a sniper, not a long-range blaster, nor a machine gun.

The reason the M1 is loved by many is that we understand her qualities and limitations. Conversely, the reason she was despised by some is because they were expecting her to perform beyond her design expectations.

If I had to survive in the woods for several years, and had the choice of only one weapon, it would probably be my M1 30 carbine. Second choice: my PTR-91 (HK G-3) .308/NATO.
Both are quite reliable, very accurate, easy to handle, powerful enough to hunt and protect.

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.

[Captain O]

This is technically very correct -- the round was based on the .32 Winchester. But the reality was this was considered a very underpowered rifle round and never caught on -- too little power.

In reality, the .30 carbine cartridge was really an extra-long .32 ACP cylindrical pistol round. At the time of 1940, a true "rifle" round would be considered akin to a the common full-bodied .30-06 or .303. To illustrate, take one .30-06 (or .303) cartridge in one hand and two .30 carbine cartridges in the other hand -- they weigh just about the same (about 25 grams).

At the time of early WWII, there was already a well tested tradition of using pistol rounds as a "mini-carbine" otherwise known as a "sub machine gun" -- this is the principle of the Tommy Gun: using the .45 ACP in a longer barrel (mini-carbine with or 12" barrel) or the M-3 Grease gun (8" barrel) designed to fire .45 ACP or 9mm Lugar or the British Sten Gun and Lancaster (9mm) or the German MP20/40 (9mm).

Our beloved M1 Carbine is a really a hybrid -- half pistol, half rifle -- one of the best compromises between the pistol and rifle that still fills a niche 70 years later. Because of its versatility, some military people expected it to be the "universal" gun was expected to do more and more --an unrealistic expectation. The M1 is like a good friend, a good partner, a reliable buddy, a great protector, but she's not an assault rifle, not a sniper, not a long-range blaster, nor a machine gun.

The reason the M1 is loved by many is that we understand her qualities and limitations. Conversely, the reason she was despised by some is because they were expecting her to perform beyond her design expectations.

If I had to survive in the woods for several years, and had the choice of only one weapon, it would probably be my M1 30 carbine. Second choice: my PTR-91 (HK G-3) .308/NATO.
Both are quite reliable, very accurate, easy to handle, powerful enough to hunt and protect.

This sounds about right. I'm an old Sailor that served stateside during the last days of the Vietnam Conflict. I owned a Universal Carbine and it shot very well. I want to replace it, but cant afford a USGI that will be in decent shape by the time I can afford to buy one. This makes me upset beyond belief.

People keep throwing up the USGI Carbine's superiority, thrusting it into my face. They can't understand how rude such boasting is. Any that are worth owning will be well out of my price range or will cost the proverbial "arm and leg". Those that are affordable will cost upward of $1300.00-$1450.00 (purchase price + restoration costs + transfer and shipping costs) to restore them to "reasonable shooting condition". Those that can afford these don't understand that not all of us are "flush with funds" and can afford such an expenditure.

As an admirer/adherent of the M1 Carbine, it pains me to wait until early 2017. I'll be saving $200.00 dollars per month from August through January (or February) in order to pay for the piece. Not only is it embarrassing, but I'll be reducing my expenditures on food to $200.00 per month to do this. I receive no Food Stamps and survive on a VA Pension for now. (Less than $1100.00 per month). Obviously, money is tight.

Thinking before you write would be appreciated.