M1 Carbine in an intermediate caliber

[eb in oregon]

Might be interesting for someone to load-up some and hand-feed single-shot style with a full carbine powder charge and chrono at 350-yards. I can’t see that far and don’t want to walk back-n-forth that far either.

It had better be a very accurate M1 Carbine at 350 yards as at that distance the chronograph is merely a target. I've shot my chronograph once, I'll not be doing that again. And too the .30 Carbine fired about the biggest bullet the case can handle due to case capacity. Due to international treaty it was designed for full metal jacketed bullets, as soft points or hollow points simply cannot be used by the military. Period. Also taking into consideration that the .30 Carbine was designed as a replacement for the pistol and no pistol round of similar size and weight works worth spit at ranges greater than 300 yards.

[eb in oregon]

Where's my post? It shows I made the last post, where is it?

[floydthecat]

It had better be a very accurate M1 Carbine at 350 yards as at that distance the chronograph is merely a target.

Now that’s a fact. Never would I attempt to chrono anything shot from my carbines much past 5-yards. My neighbor has killed 2 chrono’s and another friend has given his a haircut more than once.

[eb in oregon]

Now that’s a fact. Never would I attempt to chrono anything shot from my carbines much past 5-yards. My neighbor has killed 2 chrono’s and another friend has given his a haircut more than once.

I once set up my Pact chronograph at 4 yards and tried the .458 magnum. Blew the sky screens clean off and I had to buy a new set. An old friend put a 240 grain bullet right through his Crony. That was impressive.

[DaveHH]

The carbine was not designed to replace the pistol. Maybe supplement the pistol but not replace. BQ will probably stop by to reinforce that. The carbine was designed as a new intermediate rifle from the beginning.

[browningautorifle]

supplement the pistol but not replace

Correct. It was for guys that couldn't hit things with a pistol but a carbine was easier to hit with.

[Wineman]

My take and Happy Holidays! The WSL rifles which the 32 WSL became the 30 Carbine were all Blowback guns. With 40K CUP (more than 357 Mag and 9 mm +P) that meant a heavy rifle. When Mr Williams gave us the short stroke Tappet, now a long "pistol" was possible. The M1911 while a good stopper, has an issue with Newtons second law: good stopper with a big ball bullet = lots of recoil the other direction. How much practice did anyone get with the big 1911? A nice cute "Light Rifle" was the result. Not ineffective, powerful enough, well designed, and mass produced, it allowed every kid who ever shot a 22 a chance to hit the enemy, up close and personal. 6.2 million of them were made to just about the same standard, with differences in stocks, minor parts, a bayonet lug (really?). They still work today. Accuracy is good enough and sometimes better but 4 MOA was all it needed to do. Making it a full time real rifle was just not in the cards. A successful 22 caliber at 900 fps more a 30 Carbine had to wait 50 years for the 5.7x28 and it was again a PDW, just like the 30 Carbine. There was no room in the design for any increase in cartridge size or power. The Carbine was not frail, but just not designed with any future thoughts. Even today a 5.56x45 62 grain vs a 7.62x39 123 grain shows how long range accuracy vs defeating shorter range cover will keep us arguing for many more years. Carbines can be accurate, but consistency is not one of their strengths. Pistol accuracy is easily achieved, but nobody ever won Wimbledon with one, let alone an NRA XTC. The SKS is heavy, the AK is lighter but not by much, both are 50-100% heavier than the M1 Carbine. They run every day, all day long and have supplied armies for 70 years and the 22 vs 30 argument is still there. Had Mr Pederson's 276 made the cut we might have a different outcome, but Douglas MacArthur chose to save money and keep the big 30 cal in service, until the shorter 30 cal could replace it after 60 years. The 22 caliber only needed 15 years to usurp the 7.62x52 and until the penetration vs weight is finalized we will be talking about this for quite a while.

All the best!

Dave

[eb in oregon]

If people had difficulties in using a pistol but a light carbine would enable them better marksmanship, yes it was designed to replace the pistol. If people had pistols before but were then given carbines it was to replace the pistol. That some people think different seems to fly in the face of reality. We're talking the old "po-ta-to" "po-tah-to" argument here.

[floydthecat]

Regardless of what you did with it, making improvements to the round it shoots would likely be futile in trying to make it a long range weapon. Skinny barrel rifles are simply not known for accuracy. It took Ruger a few years to arrive at that conclusion with the Mini.

[Bruce McAskill]

The specs on the .30 carbine was approx. 1900 fps. max effective range was 300 yards with a velosity of about 850 fps. The same as a standard .38 spl round. After 300 yards it began to loose everything. When Johnson converted carbines over to .22 cal. the best he could get with proper pressure guildlines was a light weight 40gr. bullet at 2800 fps. The US military was looking at .22 cal. rounds at that time and other rounds with a hevier bullet and higher velosity were already being studied. As someone else said he was a little too late to the party.