The M1 Carbine was so ineffective in Korea

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

Really guys, come on. Chinese in the snow, what about Germans in the snow? No doubt there are limitations with different calibers. Did we always put the proper caliber into the correct setting, NO. Did we learn from it, I think maybe.

We can debate over what this or that did/will do. Yesteryear verses today. Bottom line is cartridges were all designed for different applications at different times in history. Long range, up close, caliber, bullet weight, FMJ or HP, case length, gr's of powder, barrel length, weapon size & weight, etc.

Garand: 30-06 Ball, M2 weighs 150 gr and has a muzzle velocity of 2,805 ft/s and muzzle energy of 2,655 ft·lb from a 24" barrel.

Carbine: .30 carbine ball weighs 110 gr and has a muzzle velocity of 1,990 ft/s and muzzle energy of 967 ft·lb from an 18" barrel.

M-16: .223 55 gr Nosler has a muzzle velocity of 3,240 ft/s and muzzle energy of 1,282 ft·lb from a 24" barrel.

By comparison,

Revolver: The .357 Magnum revolver firing the same weight 110 gr CorBon bullet from a 4-inch barrel has 1,500 ft/s for about 550 ft·lb from a 4" barrel.

1911: .45 acp 230 gr bullet has about 830 ft/s and about 352 ft·lb from a 5" barrel.

M-9: 9mm 124 gr bullet has about 1,200 ft/s and around 382 ft·lb from a 5.9" barrel.

???? .40 165 gr Remington has about 1,150 ft/s and around 485 ft·lb from a 4" barrel.

What do our guys have today? An A4 .223 and an M-9 9mm. Trending back to 45 acp.

What would you chose today??? Choices are purely personal, and always different for each individual. Today if I had to chose, one rifle and one pistol for all around protection and get rid of all the rest, I would go with an M-16 and 1911. One designed in 1956 the other in 1906. Many will have differing opinions. I don't think there is a right/wrong.

[bonnie]

As an aside, I have never shot padded clothing, frozen or otherwise with an M1 carbine. I did however, shoot a USGI Kelvar helmet with a carbine using a FMJ bullet. From 15 yards it passed through both sides of the helmet. Shot the rear of the helmet with a 45 Auto FMJ at the same distance. It did not pass through but left a bulge on the inside rear of the helmet.
Nothing scientific but I did find it interesting.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

As an aside, I have never shot padded clothing, frozen or otherwise with an M1 carbine. I did however, shoot a USGI Kelvar helmet with a carbine using a FMJ bullet. From 15 yards it passed through both sides of the helmet. Shot the rear of the helmet with a 45 Auto FMJ at the same distance. It did not pass through but left a bulge on the inside rear of the helmet.
Nothing scientific but I did find it interesting.

Did you have a mellon in there too??

[Badger]

I'm not sure if this helps or not, but has everyone viewed the video in the "sticky" at the top of the forum?

Infantry Weapons and their Effects (WWII and Korean era U.S. Training Films)

Regards,
Doug

[Aragorn243]

You can sit and debate and speculate all you want on it, or you can learn from those that actually experienced it. The choice is yours to make. There is a reason it got a bad reputation in Korea and it wasn't a myth. I don't have a particular stand on the issue. I wouldn't want to be shot by one with or without padded clothing as it is foolhardy to make the attempt. But I'm not going to sit back and say the veterans that experienced it first hand are lying about it either.

I know what the particular rifles were designed for, what the limitations of the FMJ bullets are and why, the differences between them and a soft point tip. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions are limited to FMJ. An FMJ bullet is not specifically designed to kill, it is designed to wound. If they wanted to kill, they would use soft tips or hollow points. Wounding removes three people from the battle and ties up resources in the rear. Killing removes one from the battle. So when battling fanatical troops, who deliberately wind heavy cloth around them to both stop bleeding and hide the pain from a bullet hit with little regard to whether they survive or not, you see the problem with a bullet that does not have a comparatively high stopping power.

A hit with a 45 will knock you off your feet whether it penetrates body armor or is stopped by body armor. A smaller round such as the 30 cal will not. 22's are dangerous to some forms of body armor because the small bullet and high velocity will often send them through the weaves where a larger bullet simply will not fit.

So even with a pass through strike, the stopping power isn't there as evidenced by those that used the rifles in Korea and as noted by one other in the Pacific in WWII.

[bonnie]

Did you have a mellon in there too??

No, Dang it! Bout twenty years too late for that good idea.

[JimF4M1s (Deceased)]

The first 6 1/2 minutes shows the Carbine and Garand.

Situations and conditions vary. No one is or should discount different veterans experiences. WW2, Korea, Vietnam. We weren't there.

I had first hand experience with a Carbine in Vietnam. It was fine for close quarters action, I'm still here.

[vintage hunter]

I have read the Russians were less than impressed with the stopping power of the 7.62x25 round and in post war testing it was revealed that when fired from a SMG length barrel it would penetrate something on the order of 42 inches of soft tissue. It is also rumored to be capable of penetrating modern level 3 body armor. On paper the .30 carbine round from an 18'' barrel is a fair bit more powerful so it stands to reason it will do anything the 7.62x25 round will and a bit more provided bullet construction is equal.
As far as a .30 carbine bullet being stopped by heavy clothing is concerned I think it's entirely possibly under the right circumstances and beyond a certain range but I wouldn't bet my life on it happening twice. What happened in Korea is probably just an isolated incident. Never heard of that happening in WWII.
I have had FMJ .30 carbine bullets completely penetrate a 3'' thick cured white oak plank and go about half way through the one behind it at 75 yards, thats roughly 4 1/2'' of wood. And cured white oak is some tough stuff.
Unless I'm mistaken it was the Hague Convention of 1899 that outlawed the use of expanding bullets and interestingly enough the U.S. never ratified that ruling. We must have at some point as I read where the use of BTHP bullets by snipers in actual combat had to have some level of legal approval first.
I don't believe FMJ bullets were designed to only wound, all pointy and some round nose FMJ bullets will yaw to some degree upon impact with soft tissue and the wounds they produce are equal to and sometimes greater than those caused by bullets designed from the ground up to expand.

[browningautorifle]

FMJ was for simple max penetration. Hold things together.

[bonnie]

Unless I'm mistaken it was the Hague Convention of 1899 that outlawed the use of expanding bullets and interestingly enough the U.S. never ratified that ruling. We must have at some point as I read where the use of BTHP bullets by snipers in actual combat had to have some level of legal approval first.

My understanding also. The United States never signed the Hague Convention but we have always abided by the agreement concerning the banning of expanding bullets by the military. Read about the legal ruling on the use of BTHP bullets for sniper use also. I believe the USA recently ruled for our military that these are non-expanding bullets and the hollow point was only for long range accuracy. Same as match grade bullets.