Why isn't .30 carbine more popular?

It's just about my favorite rifle, and I don't think anyone could improve on the ergonomics of the m1 carbine, so maybe that's why there
aren't any other rifles chambered in it. As someone said, the 300 blackout round kind of has taken the .30 carbine niche now.

I really enjoy shooting steel plates at 100 yards with the m1 carbine using iron sights.
 
Never quite understood-why the .30 Carbine round when the .357 was already available. The platform notwithstanding (excellent by all accounts) It seems wasteful to come up with a new round when all the infrastructure is already available in something else.

Feel free to school me...
It's rimmed. Muzzle velocity of the Carbine is 2,000fps from an 18" barrel. While a .357 might be loaded for a carbine, rimmed cartridges are not the best choice for a box magazine of up to 50 rounds which was anticipated.

I really have not found much on the "development" of the 30 carbine that spells out the how and why they came up with it.....
The short version of several long books...

The original "light rifle" spec was developed in June 1940. It called for a maximum effective range of 300 yards. The maximum production volume was expected to be 500,000 rifles. The impetus was that a "Ludicrously small" number of casualties were inflicted by the M1911A1.

There was no suitable cartridge on the market and resources weren't available to develop a brand-new round from scratch. Ordnance asked for help from Winchester - which was a division of Western Cartridge. Western had a lot of experience with "self loading" ammo.

After evaluating commercially available ammo, Western suggested adapting the .32SL [Self Loading] cartridge, necked down to use .308 bullets. They provided a sketch to Ordnance in October 1940.
i-fqDMJbt-L.jpg


So the original "Light Rifle Circular" called for a rifle "...adapted for a cartridge of caliber .30 with case similar to that of the Winchester Self-Loading Cartridge Caliber .32. The weight of the bullet will be 100 to 110 grains cartridge case shall be of the rimless type. The powder charge shall be sufficient to impart a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 fps and the bullet shall be full ... metal jacket."

500,000 rifles was a big order and there were nine designs submitted. Two dropped out after initial review. The seven remaining were:

  • A JC Garand design from Springfield Armory
  • A Pierce design from Savage Arms
  • A Reising design from Harrington & Richardson
  • A Woodhull design.
  • A Browning design from Colt.
  • A Bergman design by Auto-Ordnance.
  • A Hyde design from Bendix Aviation.

These were tested in May and June of 1941: and all found unsuitable! So the competition was left open until September 1941.

At that point Winchester had a partially completed design invented by Edmund Browning (brother of God). They had also hired David Marshall "Carbine" Williams for a one year contract. Williams owned patent rights to a short-stroke piston design that was combined with Browning's earlier concept. This design was submitted chambered in 30.06 in the USMC's service rifle trials in 1940. The USMC officially selected the M1903 [which caused no end of logistical problems] while noting the M1 Garand (which the Army had adopted in 1937) was the best of the self loaders. That said, the Winchester submitted had several desirable features and weighed only seven pounds.

Work continued and ideas from several other prior rifles (including the M1922 Bang) and trigger mechanism from an earlier Winchester were used to develop a working prototype by May 1941. Contrary to popular belief this was done by others, not Williams. This rifle was shown to Ordnance staff and test fired.

There were five rifles still competing in the "Sudden Death" trials before the Winchester was officially selected Oct 1 1941.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to try the Sierra 110gn HP varmint bullet once I get up and loading 30 carbine on the new Lee pro 1000. Right now on a good day from a rest I can shoot sub 5" groups......key work being groups.
Getting them into the 10 ring is another story. I have worked out some kinks with my carbines. Replacing the recoil plates with nos. Found a nice fitting stock. This is well with in the USGI standard.
My other carbine...well it's on the outer limits of the accuracy standard.
 
Far and away the most popular rifle I hand to new shooters who want to graduate from .22LR, is the M-1 Carbine. Light, yet with little recoil, reasonably accurate and reasonably powerful, you see grins on almost every shooter. Until I tell them the cost.

The Carbine does it all, Paul. Plinking, home defense or even hunting, with the right bullets of course. Ammunition is reasonably priced and can be reloaded without breaking the bank. Who could ask for anything more?
 
The US Military?

With the way the DOD works now they will file an RFP for the next infantry rifle, and a requirement will be that it can also plug wounds and make hamburgers. Then after someone actually designs something that does all of that stuff pretty well, they still won't buy it.

-Mike
 
I always thought the M1 carbine was a fun little rifle, and great for situations where the idea is lower recoil / lower weight, etc. -- for its time. Here and now, the AR is better in just about every way (and even if, for some reason, .30 is preferred over .223). The AR completely addresses the potential need for a lighter/low recoil option, and the flexibility of an AR is unmatched.
 
The .30 round was found to be not effective enough which is the reason of the development of the M16. Enemy was being shot with the carbine and getting back up again.
 
The .30 round was found to be not effective enough which is the reason of the development of the M16. Enemy was being shot with the carbine and getting back up again.

Jason... this is BS.. Tell you what...let me shoot you with a M1 carbine and see you get up.....then I will believe your comment and statement ! [mg]LOL
 
Jason... this is BS.. Tell you what...let me shoot you with a M1 carbine and see you get up.....then I will believe your comment and statement ! [mg]LOL
Here is the basis for most of the criticism of the M1 Carbine. After WWII Springfield Armory began a project to refurbish M1 Garands and rebuilt roughly 500,000 of them. But there was no similar program for M1 Carbines. When Carbines were sent to Korea it was found many were in poor repair, the action did not cycle reliably in very cold weather if over-lubricated, and the ranges in Korea were substantial.

Korea wasn't so much of a mobile fight so the benefits were overwhelmed by the disadvantages. Troops quickly learned the best way to lubricate the guns in cold weather was with pencil lead. The box magazine meant sustained firepower in firefights, but they didn't try to use them at 200+ yards.

The Carbine was widely used in the early days of Vietnam, was standard issue to RVN troops, and many Americans were happy to trade the new M16 for a Carbine any chance they got.
 
I have an M1 Carbine story that demonstrates the limitations. A buddy's dad was a marksmanship instructor stateside for a while, then when to Germany because he spoke German. He stayed in the Reserves and wound up in charge of an Infantry company in Korea. He caught a Chinese soldier running along a ridgeline at 100 yards away. He took aim and fired six times before the guy dropped.

They found 5 strikes on the guy, but several of them were in the outer layers of his insulated clothing, yielding a five-round group of about 18"! After that he carried a Garand.

General James "Jumpin' Jim" Gavin carried a Garand after the Sicily invasion. Many generals carried an M1A1 carbine in lieu of or along with an M1911A1. Matthew Ridgeway carried an M1903 Springfield!
 
Last edited:

"If anyone shot at a North Korean Commie and he didn’t go down, it was because they missed him."
That was CPT Lahm's assessment.

I would love to see a test done at a longer distance than what TBoT did (looks like 25 yards tops). I have access to a sand pit (100 yards is doable though I haven't measured it out as I don't have the equipment) near me (Strafford County, NH) and I have an M1 carbine. I do not have ballistic gel though.

If anyone has range finding equipment (and a chronograph) and wants to perform this test please let me know a date and time.
 
I talked to a few Korean war vets and they said the big problem at least for them is much of their combat engagement was in higher elevation and with little cover and they where trying to engage heavily clothed soldiers at 150-200 yards. Toss in the deep cold and yes the M1 carbine was a little lacking. From what this gent said the put the M1 carbines up with front line troops in larger numbers than the M1 in the early stages...this was just his personal account.
 
I worked with a 1st Division Marine now in his 80s who was at the Chosin Reservoir he said the only thing good about the m1 carbines was the wood on them made a nice fire but never throw much heat. Also the front sights were filed down for 300 meter firing.
 
Also part that if someone was an actual infantry man they carried a garand. No body gets overly nostalgic about shooting grandpa the cooks m1 the same way they shoot grandpa the gis garand.

A lot of front line troops chose the carbine for close in work. Mainly because it carried twice the number of rounds and could be reloaded and shot much much faster.
 
Think of it this way. The M2 Carbine (machine gun) and the kit to convert M1s to M2s wasn't developed for cooks and mechanics.

Oh and it was also carried by paratroopers with both all wood and metal folding stock.
 
Well, right now, given that my AR15 (& .308ar) is set up as long-range target/hunting rifle (high power scope, bipod, etc.) my "quickly-accessed, use my pistol to fight to my rifle" rifle is the M1 carbine with a full mag. For cqb, it's the best 'rifle' I have at the moment (+ shotty, + gs scout). If it's good enough for paratroopers against an armed enemy, it's good enough for me vs a couple coyotes attacking our terrier.
 
May I interject a couple of tidbits?

The history of that M1 carbine is that it was designed to be an weapon that behind the lines soldiers were going to be issued INSTEAD OF the venerable 1911. Cooks, engineers, mechanics, etc. would be given on in a scabbard. It did evolve to more forward use but it had a sketchy history because it did not like the Korean winters. Some guys really hated the thing. Some companies reported in excess of 30% failures, too, and even higher. Firing pins would freeze up and cause light strikes; bolts would freeze up and the round was just anemic in a big battle field. It was well known to the Koreans, too. How well known?

Quite a while back I read about one terribly long and costly Battle of Chosin Reservoir (I tried to locate the source of this story but don't have the time) between our guys and the N Koreans/Chinese in the winter. When it was finally over, both sides of the battle went out to pick up the casualties and dead and equipment. Quite telling was the fact that neither side picked up the carbines left in the battlefield and this was at a time when the Koreans were using our equipment against us.

I, frankly, found it to be fun to shoot but I always had a hard time accepting it as a full-blown rifles OR as an oversized hand gun. It seemed to have its own little niche. They made MORE M1 Carbines than Garands, too. There were many stories about the bullet bouncing off frozen quilted fabric that the Koreans wore. Supposedly bounced of two layers of frozen denim as well. Anecdotal stories for sure but there has to be some truth behind them. As for the M2, well, it's just an answer looking for a problem. A few years back a C&R buddy of mine had just returned from a "buy" and part of that was a small carton of miscellaneous bits and pieces. As he sorted through the junk, what do you know but found an M2 receiver. Out to the driveway with a big sledge we did go and made it into a paper weight
 
There were many stories about the bullet bouncing off frozen quilted fabric that the Koreans wore. Supposedly bounced of two layers of frozen denim as well. Anecdotal stories for sure but there has to be some truth behind them.

Can you forward this analysis to the Obama administration? I'm sure they will release those 6 million Koreans carbines for importation once they know they fire nerf rounds;)

Here’s what John George, who fought in the pacific said about the Carbine:

“The carbine turned out to be an ace weapon of this war, as far as
I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably
accurate. If I had to make my own in hostile jungle, travelling
with the lightest possible kit where I should be likely to encounter
enemy at any time, the carbine is the weapon I should choose.

….The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses
of helmet, and to perforate the plates of the Japanese bullet proof
vests, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat
shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than two hun-
dred yards.”

I don’t doubt that a Garand would be preferred beyond 300 yards.
 
-20 degrees and I'm in my foxhole waiting for the next bugle charge. I aimed at the guys head when he was running towards me. But he didn't go down. WTF? This piece of crap M-1 Carbine failed me. Wish I'd stop shivering long enough to light this cigarette.
 
Back
Top Bottom