Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M1 Carbine

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2005, 06:51 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,116
AR-15 In .30 CARBINE

http://www.olyarms.com/?page=m1_k16_k30#

Takes Carbine mags. Very tempting.
Inland44 is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 08:15 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 1,975
Kind of a neat concept, though, I'd almost always choose the 5.56 round over the .30 Carbine, whether it be target shooting, hunting, etc.

I'd really like to see some less expensive .30 Carbine ammo (finally) become available---that's what would really 'help' the .30 Carbine cartridge, M1 Carbine collecting, etc.
ChairborneRanger is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 11:44 AM   #3
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,416
Call me stupid, but I completely fail to get the point of a .30USC AR-15, especially when you could buy a good GI shooter carbine for what the conversion costs.
Snake45 is online now  
Old 02-19-2005, 12:16 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 1,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snake45
Call me stupid, but I completely fail to get the point of a .30USC AR-15, especially when you could buy a good GI shooter carbine for what the conversion costs.
If nothing else, vastly superior in terms of mounting optics----and state of the art optics, in particular. As your eyes get a little bit older, you'll find that those peep sights aren't quite as "wonderful" as they once were---but gosh, in contrast, something along the lines of one of those Trijicon ACOG's or possibly a Leopold Goldline certainly are NICE!!
ChairborneRanger is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 01:56 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,116
ARs in pistol calibers are in wide use by many, including SWAT, HRT and other police teams - not as the primary weapon, but for entry guns and 'in the house' fighting. Keeping the same concept but upping the power to the .30 Carbine and making use of the 30-rd magazine seems to be a good call. I would reach for it in lieu of many other possibilities for home defense, particularly with HP ammo. The State Police here were recently investigated when they used M4 Carbines in a subdivision to stop a killer charging them in his pickup. The problem was, the .223 bullets that missed the truck tore through houses in the line of fire. Fortunately only the killer was hit, but there were a lot of people diving for cover. .30 Carbine, for one, would have a shorter range, less penetration and reduced lethality, particularly at distances over 100 yds., while increasing firepower over the other pistol-caliber AR platforms at closer ranges. I have long thought that the .30 Carbine was overlooked as a premier sub-gun cartridge. Imagine the .30 Carbine AR on full rock & roll!
If I had one, I would definitely consider using the Wolf steel-case ammo in it.
Lastly, why not just use a Carbine for home defense? Well, you could, but I only have one, and its a good one, so I don't want to have to keep it ready to use, which would include shooting it a lot more. I don't want to buy a good Carbine for this purpose, either, when I can get the upper for less (assuming the upper can be bought for 67% of the MSRP like all other guns), and get some use out of my AR.
I think it beats the heck out of any 9mm carbine or any other pistol caliber.
Inland44 is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 05:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE PA
Posts: 3,023
I noticed that AR in .30 before. Knowing olympic arms, you probably have to buy specially modified magazines from them that would cost you about $10 anywhere else UNMODIFIED, but about $65 from them modified. Same thing they did with $5 sten gun magazines. Weld a piece of metal to them, and add $60 to the price of the mag.

that rant aside, its a great idea. I'd even say that if you get smacked with a PMC JSP (Man, I LOVE those expensive little buggers!) you're not likely going to get back up. I forgot to look, but I don't recall the SP's I killed my deer w/ exiting. I do recall my brother telling me he spit out a hunk of bullet while eating the deer's meat, though. So overpenetration isn't a real likely scenario. FMJ's are a different story though. Israel actually has a gun that uses M1 Carbine mags, and its still in use today. Our G'vt should take a hint from Israel. Chamber a SMG for .30 carbine. Then we'd have our cheap .30 carbine, and milspec to boot!
Cap'n Dex is offline  
Old 02-19-2005, 08:49 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Dex
Chamber a SMG for .30 carbine. Then we'd have our cheap .30 carbine, and milspec to boot!
I have read that during WW2, if the Thompson submachine gun had not been replaced by the M3 greasegun (M3s were MUCH cheaper, faster & easier to manufacture) that it was planned to develop a .30 carbine version. Also, a stainless steel version, with an actuator on both sides of the receiver. These ideas went by the wayside though, since they needed guns fast & the Thompsons were just too complicated for mass easy production.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 02-20-2005, 04:08 AM   #8
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,416
I have ARs, Carbines, and even 9mm pistols. I don't ask them to shoot each others' ammo, or do each others' jobs, and I still don't see much use for bastardized hybrids (i.e., pistol-caliber "carbines").

IF carbine ammo were still cheap (say, 5c a round for genuine GI surplus), and the .30USC AR upper sold for maybe $400, I might see a certain appeal. Carbine ammo usually costs MORE than .223 now, and this upper costs more than I spent on my last AR full-gun build. No sale!

Now, an AR upper in .44 AutoMag (rimless .44 Magnum) might have a certain appeal--if anyone made the .44AM ammo anymore. And I don't see why someone hasn't developed a carbine of some sort for the full-tilt 10mm round. That makes more sense to me than a full-size gun shooting 9mm.
Snake45 is online now  
Old 02-20-2005, 09:49 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mi.
Posts: 241
Not wanting to start a p*ssing match here as we all love the little M1, but balistically the .30 carbine cartridge isn't much to write home about. The 5.56 might be considered a "varmint" cartridge to some but velocity and range is very much better. Many carbines were left on the battlefield in Korea because of the poor penetration of the cartridge and reliablity of the carbine in cold weather. It would be better to have the carbine chambered ( not our beloved USGI models of course) for a better round than chamber the AR15 for the .30 carbine.
Garandgary is offline  
Old 02-20-2005, 10:31 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 7,627
Garandgary....hmmmmm. Could I sense a bit of...disdain.....?
The carbine was designed to replace the Colt handgun and provide the rear echelon & support soldiers with a weapon that was easier to learn, easier to use, and longer ranged than the handgun. In this they succeeded. The carbine was so successful it found its way to the frontlines. During the Battle of the Bulge, some Germans were seen using captured carbines, and apparently they really liked them -- but they never thanked us for them, so perhaps that's speculation.... ....The carbine when used in its proper role did an excellent job. The problem in Korea was use at too distant ranges and the layered winter clothing the N.Koreans had tended to stop bullets.
"Not wanting to start a p*ssing match here" but I remember one letter-to-the-editor from an WW2 veteran complaining about a recent review of the Garand, complaining about his in WW2, stating it was "too heavy", had "too much recoil," that it "jammed" and he had to turn it over and "shake out all the stamped junk" then, as I recall, he was transfered, and issued a carbine, which he loved .
Okay, I've exacted my sweet revenge!!! Seriously, in one respect I think we can agree; there is never a perfect weapon. For some it's too big, too heavy, too much penetration, or it's to little,, jams too much, whatever. We're allowed our own individual preferences, IMHO.
......But, if YOU EVER compare the venerable carbine to that Frenchi disaster, the chauchau, I'll....I'll....I'll

TommyGunn is offline  
Old 02-20-2005, 10:39 AM   #11
Moderator
 
Snake45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: "Close, but no donut!"
Posts: 12,416
Ruger's making their .44 mag carbine again, and with some halfway usable sights on it, too. They should chamber it in .44 AutoMag and make it with a box magazine. Hell, they could call the round .44 Ruger Magnum (since no one has made the ammo for years), it would probably start a trend in the industry, and we could see some cool guns made for that.
Snake45 is online now  
Old 02-20-2005, 11:09 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dixie
Posts: 543
Wonder if it'll take those aftermarket 30 round magazines we all have that won't work in our carbines...
varoadking is offline  
Old 02-20-2005, 02:41 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mi.
Posts: 241
TommyGunn,
Did I once in my posting mention WW2?????? We are talking about two different wars here. Why did German officers during the Battle of the Bulge use American weapons?? Because they were short of weapons and ammunition themselves. Americans picked up the other side weapons thmeselves when the situation arose.
Here is an interesting paragraph from "The M1 Carbine"( Intended replacement for the 1911A1? ) http://usgi1911.tripod.com/M1carbine/

Quote: "Initially, issue of the new weapons was intended for rear echelon personnel, MP's, medics, officers, and any other personnel considered at risk for attack but unable to shoulder the full-size Garand rifle. However, because the Carbine could be made in such large numbers quickly its use quickly spread to front-line soldiers. Initially the carbine proved quite popular with soldiers, as it was light, easy to carry, and easy to shoot. Many soldiers also appreciated its high magazine capacity and rate of fire. However, once the front-line fighting around the globe became intense the honeymoon ended fairly quickly. There were three primary complaints. First, the cartridge it fired lacked power and enemy soldiers often had to be shot multiple times with it. Second, the Carbine was sorely lacking in accuracy beyond 150 yards or so. And third, the weapon proved somewhat temperamental and fragile under some conditions. During the Carbine's production span numerous design improvements were made to increase the durability and reliability of the weapon, but not much could be done about its power or accuracy. The simple fact was that the M1 carbine was never designed to be a front-line battle weapon, but it was used as such anyway for logistical (as opposed to practical) reasons. Although the M1 Garand was the US military's standard-issue battle rifle, as with all weapons systems the supply never really caught up with the demand. The M1 carbine was considered an ideal substitute. While this may have been fine from the standpoint of logistics, it was of scant comfort to the soldier who was issued one, and who knew he couldn't range out to hit the same enemy his buddy was able to hit using his M1 Garand. The later M2's full-auto capability and 30-round magazine alleviated some of these complaints, but in the opinion of others it was a stop-gap solution at best." Unquote.

I love all of my Carbines, but that doesn't make them the weapon of choice. In my military training I went from a M16A1 in the Army to a M1 carbine in the Nat'l Guard to a M1D as a sniper rifle and I also qualified with an M14 . Everyone of them had their faults. But the carbine would be my last choice of the 4 mentioned. I like Carbines that is why I collect them but that doesn't mean it was the best weapon available!!!!
Garandgary is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 07:12 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE PA
Posts: 3,023
the idea of a .30 carbine AR is an idea I agree with for law enforcement, and the like. The bullet's heavier, noise is lower, and penetration is reduced. Its not about shooting north koreans at 300yds in the winter. Its basically about shooting criminals at less than 100yds in urban settings. Its a good idea. I mean...I don't think I'd want 5.56's hitting my house because the cop decided to use an M4 and the bullets went right thru the bad guy. But maybe someone else wants those same bullets hitting their house, so who am I to judge?

as far as .30 carbine being underpowered...its more powerful than a .357mag, which nobody disputes is pretty powerful, and its fired from a revolver. the .30 carbine is not a .30-06. it wasn't designed to be. Not even close. Its like racing a Cobra Mustang against an LX escort. no, you're probably not going to reach out 5-600yds w/ a .30 carbine. that's the whole idea. to replace the 1911. Not the M1 rifle.

As for it not being a front line weapon, 1) would you rather our army pulled an "enemy at the gates" and issue 1 rifle to 2 soldiers? 2) Tommy guns made it to the front, and they don't have the range of the M1 carbine. So now I'm confused.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I can't understand the logic.
Cap'n Dex is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 08:11 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mi.
Posts: 241
The point I'm trying to make is that the M1 carbine was designed as a miltary weapon. When you are shooting at Nazis, Commies and Terrorists you want those rounds to go through trees, houses whatever they (the enemy) is behind. It did not perform well in that respect.

A few years ago in L.A. when those guys were wearing body armour, would .30 carbine rds. penetrate that armour?? I'm not sure. If a LEO with an AR15 in .30 carbine shot at a bad guy and missed would the .30 carbine bullet go through a window or the screen door on your home??? The way many houses are built today a round might go throught the wall.

During wartime many weapons are pressed into service as weapons and ammo are always in short supply.That is why Thompsons and Carbines were at the front. Remember too that, these weapons were supported by BARs, Garands, Springfields and air and artillery. There were not out there all by themselves. When you can choose your weapons,choose wisely!!!! There are better rounds available and better ones are being developed.
Garandgary is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 11:38 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garandgary

A few years ago in L.A. when those guys were wearing body armour, would .30 carbine rds. penetrate that armour?? I'm not sure. If a LEO with an AR15 in .30 carbine shot at a bad guy and missed would the .30 carbine bullet go through a window or the screen door on your home??? The way many houses are built today a round might go throught the wall.
I think any centerfire round would go through windows & screen doors! A BB might, too!
As for ballistic vests, my research says they will go through the layered kevlar vests; I mean the standard ones that police wear on a daily basis. There are heavier ceramic vests that will stop .30 carbine, since as ou must know they will stop most rifle bullets.
In WW2, Some Japanese officers wore body armor. It was crude by mid nineteenth century standards. It would stop .45acp, but not .30 carbine.
As for Thompsons, they were very useful in Europe in streetfighting. They went house to house, loosing a burst into rooms occupied by Nazis. I don't believe they reached the front due to logistics. They actually couldn't make Tommyguns fast enough. The 1928s were too complicated & expensive, so the design was simplified to the M1 & M1A1 versions, which were still time consuming to make. This compelled the army to search for a cheaper answer, hence the M3 Greasegun, that stamped-metal tube-shaped thing that achieved the disdain of some but still filled the role of submachinegun fairly well at the time. If there wasn't an active need for a replacement for the Thompson, the greasegun would have been unnecessary, hence the SMG wasn't there, IMHO, due to a shortage of something better, it was there because it had a specific role in the battle theories of the time.
I suggest you check a book by Timothy Mullin called Testing the War Weapons. He has some comments about the M-1 carbine which are pertanent. He regards it as an underrated weapon, and has favorable comments on it when it is used in its intended role.
I realize that the carbine is not an anti-aircraft cannon, nor did I ever intend to make it out some kind of "wonderweapon." It served a role in it's day. Yes, some soldiers did use them in innappropriate roles and complain that they didn't perform. I'm sure maybe someguy maybe used an M1 Garand on a rabbit and complained it blasted all the meat off at one time! I have heard enough complaints about the M-16 series and the .223 to believe it may not be the best arm we could give our soldiers.
If I could afford to go out and buy a dedicated battlerifle right now, I believe I'd choose an M1A in .308. But I don't have $$$ right now.
If I needed to reach out and touch someone, I have a Rem700 in .,30-'06. If I need firepower, however, the best choice I have is the carbine I own.
Garandgary, I hope you realize what I have stated was not intended to be tendentious or bad-natured. In rerereading my original post I wonder if another person reading it would take it with the same..."inflection," I tried to put there, but maybe I went overboard a little. I appreciate your opinion and it is always a pleasure for me to read other's opinions and experiences on this board. I have disagreed with people in the past and always still be able to respect and appreciate their opinions and beliefs, and if I did fall short above, then I apologize.
TommyGunn is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 12:59 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,116
The weapon takes standard Carbine mags. To use just their upper, you have to put a different mag catch in your lower.
The argument is not whether the .30 Carbine is an adequate battle round - its whether its worthwhile to add the .30 Carbine to the list of AR uppers in pistol calibers. For all the reasons previously given, I think it is. If you don't, then just don't buy one. There is no valid argument against it for its intended use as a more powerful 'pistol caliber' carbine. The suggestions of .45 and .44 caliber magnum applications could certainly be done, but you would give up one of the primary reasons for doing it at all; magazine capacity. Another point for the .30 Carbine is it uses almost the same bolt as the .223 (probably they do use the same bolt, but I'd have to check that); look at the dimensions of the case heads; the .223 is only .018" larger. The more I think about it the more natural this conversion seems. I never wanted a 9mm AR, but this is different.
Inland44 is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 04:27 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7
Lets see a light fast handling rifle in a adequate defensive cartridge, with excellent ergonomics and loads of accessories available for it. What is not to like about it. Like others have said it is a rifle in 30 carbine and should be compared to other 30 carbine rifles, it has limitations like all firearms learn those limitations and it will serve you well.
On another thought because this is a rifle that can handle a higher chamber pressure might it be possible to get more velocity from the 30 carbine and what about a slightly modified mag to allow a wider bullet selection than the typical round nose profile.

Joe
jrumsey is offline  
Old 02-21-2005, 07:14 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Ah, the old arguments surface. Olympic Arms is just trying to capitalize on the popularity of the .30 Carbine. The ammo isn't that expensive when you consider you get 50 rounds for around $10.00-$12.00 per box. That's 20 to 24 cents per round, less than .45 auto ammo and just slightly more than .223 surplus.

I believe, and am using 25 years of gunsmithing and instructor experience here, that the .30 Carbine may be the ideal submachinegun round as it is a relatively straight case, has alot more punch than the handgun rounds used in subs, out to longer ranges. Call it a "super" magnum handgun round along with sub-rifle, as it falls in between these two. The Garands ARE very heavy, but you have to have weight to offset recoil. You can't have a rifle the size and weight of a Carbine firing high-powered rounds or it will beat you to death. If the military was looking to improve all the time, then why did they revert to the 9MM handgun? This cannot be considered an improvement over the Colt .45 by any stretch of the imagination, nor can the .223 over the .308 be considered "better". The M16 is lighter and handier than the M14, and more powerful than the Carbine, thus they were looking for a compromise weapon, not an improvement.
There is no "magic" firearm that can do everything, nut the gun magazines and manufacturers are still trying to sell the idea that there is. If you are going to be shooting a large, powerful caliber, you need weight to offset the recoil. If not, then you sacrifice ballistics for weight. It's all about trade-offs, as the physics won't change. The 10MM round is great, but it needs to be fired from a handgun the size of a Desert Eagle or it's uncontrollable. You just can't fight the physics no matter how hard you try.
 
Old 02-21-2005, 08:29 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
TommyGunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Morgan County, Alabama "In Dixie Land I'll take my stand."
Posts: 7,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneCP01
I believe, and am using 25 years of gunsmithing and instructor experience here, that the .30 Carbine may be the ideal submachinegun round as it is a relatively straight case, has alot more punch than the handgun rounds used in subs, out to longer ranges. can't fight the physics no matter how hard you try.
Wayne, I don't know why I didn't remember this awhile ago since I think I've previously stated the Thompson was going to be redesigned to chamber the carbine rnd. before it was canceled for the M3 greasegun. Have you ever heard of the Cristobal Model 2, and the 62? Designed by Armeria Fabricus de Amas, San Cristobal in the Dominican Republic. It was designed by people who had experience at Beretta. It chambers the carbine rnd and uses 30 round M-1 mags. and the cyclic rate was pegged at575 rpm. One bizarre feature was it has two triggers, front for semiauto and rear for full auto. If you can get Military Small Arms of the 20th Century, 7th edition, by Ian Hogg & John Weeks, check out page 111. It used a lever system to achieve delay-blowback action. The 62 was the same action with a perforated handguard and some had a collapsible stock.
It seems someone's already ahead of you. Maybe it's a case of "great minds thinking alike?"
TommyGunn is offline  
Reply

  Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > M1 Carbine


Search tags for this page

30 carbine ar 15

,
30 carbine ar upper
,
30 carbine ar upper for sale
,
30 carbine ar-15
,
30 carbine ar15
,

ar 15 30 carbine

,

ar 15 in 30 carbine

,
ar 30 carbine
,
ar15 in 30 carbine

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IBM CORP - M1 CARBINE -- M1 Carbine .30Cal. (CMP in box) M1 Carbine 23 10-16-2013 05:59 PM
WTB/WTT M1 carbine mag(s) or grandson got a carbine M1Rifleman Accessories 0 07-30-2009 03:37 PM
Enfield #4 carbine = #5 jungle carbine? Burnfan Curio and Relic 14 11-26-2005 07:32 PM
WTB: WWII M1 Carbine - No Safe queen - just a solid carbine travisaasen Guns 0 03-25-2005 10:12 PM
Bump fire M1 carbine? Is it bad for the Carbine? Airborne146 M1 Carbine 9 01-03-2005 04:55 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2014 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.