I had a Universal M1 carbine. It never fed soft-point ammo at all. The lead softpoint would dig into the feed ramp lip and get stuck. The GI-issue one was never designed with soft-point ammo in mind. I would be leery of relying on a .30 carb for defense against anything but large rats. The .30 carb round is not much over the old .32-20 which was an anemic caliber at best. That M1 Garand you have will settle all disputes requiring deadly force with leftovers to boot. I sold my carbine because the ammo is just too expensive for what the caliber does.

 

An armed confrontation requiring a rifle, which would only be outdoors 99% of the time, will be better served with the Garand. Indoors, the carbine is still going to present you with the problem of over penetration.

 

GI-45 - Audie Murphy stated that the M1 Carbine was his favorite weapon. It saved his life on more than one occasion, using plain old USGI ball ammo. His book, To Hell and Back, provides some real interesting reading.

I realize that doesn't answer your question, but mention this to illustrate that .30 carbine round isn't all THAT under powered.

Many years ago, I reloaded ammo for my Universal M1 carbine. I used Speer semi-jacketed RN lead bullets. I never had a problem with reliable feeding or cycling.

I never thought of them as "hunting" loads.

OTOH, folks who know more than I, counsel against handloading handgun rounds that may be used for self defense. Something about the prosecution making it seem like you were loading special man/woman "killing" rounds.

Cliff

 

The best gun for defense is the one you have . 3 or 4 .30 carbine rounds to the chest is going to ruin someones day . I have used the Win hollow point in my Inland for 27 years . It's reliable and hits hard . It's not a rifle capable of match grade accuracy but it was not designed for that purpose . It was intended to replace the G.I.'s handgun .
As a retailer I find the quality of the Universal and Plainfield carbines of the '70's to be very inferior . We repaired and attempted repair on dozens of them . The alloy parts including the trigger assembly were the pits . The Iver Johnson's weren't too bad . Although , the later ones declined badly in quality .
Would the M-1 Carbine be my "go to gun" ? It would be if that's what I had . If I were planning ahead and going to purchase a rifle then I'd go with an AR-15 type , M1A or Mini 14 depending on my budget .
Mitch

 

The Carbine round isn't the best for killing people--which what you're talking about--but if you can reliably put a few into the center of mass, it'll serve. The Bad Guy is gonna lose interest in you, anyway, which is what counts.

Hey, the magazines come in 15- and 30-round sizes. So it takes three or four rounds to do the stop. So what?

And, after all, it's a 100-grains or so of bullet at 2,000-2,100 ft/sec. That's as good as the hot loads in a .357, isn't it? 110- or 120-grain bullets around 1,900?

Think about it: Why is a pistol's "devastating hot load" suddenly a "harmless pipsqueak" if shot from a rifle?

, Art

 

Actually, I've always had a hard time myself accepting the criticism of the .30 Carbine round as being too "weak" or underpowered. To be fair, most of the criticisms I've read are from the Korean War, in which the .30 Carbine round failed to penetrate the thick winter coats worn by the North Koreans and Red Chinese.

That's good to know that veterans such as Audie Murphy liked the M1 Carbine. On the other hand, veterans such as Donald Burgett (author of the excellent "Screaming Eagle" series) didn't have much faith in the weapon, preferring the Garand, so I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

Thanks for the replies, gents.

 

Check the ballistics tables and you'll see that the .30 Carbine round from a carbine is MUCH more potent than the highly respected .357 Magnum from a handgun. Not many would argue that the .357 is not a most suitable defense round against a human adversary. With proper bullets, the .30 Carbine would make a most comfortable choice. FMJ bullets are not the choice, in any caliber, for spectacular results from living targets.
I have heard the story re:"heavy Chinese coats in Korea" many times. I wasn't there, so can't realiably comment. All I do know is that I personally have shot thru both sides of a cement block at 300 yards with a FMJ .30 Carbine round. I can't believe that it wouldn't penetrate even a thick coat.
I have always considered the book "Shots Fired In Anger" by Col. John George to provide representative information re:WWII era firearms effectiveness, both Allied and Axis(in this particular case Japanese). Col. George, in addition to Audie Murphy, considered the M1 Carbine to be his weapon of choice, other than his scoped Winchester M70 .30-06 for snipeing.

 

OTOH, folks who know more than I, counsel against handloading handgun rounds that may be used for self defense. Something about the prosecution making it seem like you were loading special man/woman "killing" rounds.

Urban legend.

Think about it: Why is a pistol's "devastating hot load" suddenly a "harmless pipsqueak" if shot from a rifle?

Same thing that makes the 9mm a pipsqueak, while a .38 snubbie is "an effective defensive weapon."

 

Originally posted by Dogwhisperer5:
FMJ bullets are not the choice, in any caliber, for spectacular results from living targets.

So do you think these soft-tipped .30 Carbine hunting rounds would be more effective than FMJ Carbine ammo?

(Assuming they will feed reliably, of course.)

 

I realize that doesn't answer your question, but mention this to illustrate that .30 carbine round isn't all THAT under powered.

On the other hand marines carrying them as they fought their way south from the Chosin Reservoir said they were utterly useless against the chinese troops in heavy clothing. something to think about.

 

If your main concern is self-defense in artic conditions against heavily-clothed adversaries, perhaps some ballistic peculiarity affecting only .308 diameter 110 grain FMJ bullets traveling at 1900 fps(+-) comes into play requireing the use of "heavier" armament. As I mentioned- in other than artic conditions- I have personally shot thru both sides of a cement block at 300 yards with the .30 Carbine. If that is not sufficient, I suppose .30-06 M2 AP might be your next step.
For other situations- I'm confident that a soft point, or hollow point 110 grain .30 Carbine load will provide an excellent degree of deterrent to any adversaries you encounter.
Again- the .30 Carbine provides greater foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards than the .357 Magnum does at the muzzle!! To feel that it is not "powerfull enough" somehow doesn't seem reasonable. The use of an expanding bullet, and some decent marksmanship, is required to maximize the effectiveness. For sure verify the functionality of your carbine with the ammo and magazine(s) selected.

 

A 30 Carbine will do the trick in the right hands. Jim Cirrilo used it well but most of his shots were head shots under 30 yds and let's face it, if you could shoot that well and at those ranges, you could do it with a Ruger 10/22. However comparing it to a .357 mag does it no justice. A .357 mag is still a handgun caliber, weak and anemic compared to rifle calibers. It may break a cement block (which is not that hard to do) but penetrating layers of thick clothing that has some "give" is another matter. If you are going to carry a rifle or carbine you might as well carry one that uses a rifle caliber such as .223, 7.62 X 39 or .308. A .30/30 is good too. Some dandy carbines are made light and easy to handle that shoot a good rifle round, not one in between a rifle and a pistol. An "excellent degree of deterrent" is not the goal in a carbine. Instant incapacitation is the goal. We do not want to change their mind, we them to wonder how they just got hit with the hammer of God.

 

I do not, did not, and will not think the .30 Carbine is the ideal defensive/offensive rifle cartridge. GI-45 basically asked if he could feel safe defending his life with this weapon. The answer is-
if you consider the .357 Magnum from a handgun to be sufficient, then you can feel safe with the .30 Carbine.

 

You guys are splittin hairs.
More people are killed in the U S each year with the 22 lr than anything else (remembered statistics--correct me if I'm wrong). I think it as matter of quantity (I've got a dozen or so 22's myself) rather than what is desired.
I'm not sure what the most desirable "average" law enforcment calibre is now, but I bet the 30 cal exceeds it in performance. Firepower is more important in my neighborhood than anything else. We are not jammed together, and ricochet isn't a concern. I'm going with 14 rds of 30 carbine, and if that's not enough, I'll put #15 in my lame brain.
"Bad Boyz" aren't warriors--mostly, they are drug addicts. The sound of a 12 guage shell gettin jacked into the chamber is enough 99% of the time.
In the dark, thats exactly what my carbine sounds like !

 

I think the key term here is "offensive" or "defensive." From what I have read, the M1 Carbine was intended as a defensive weapon for use by truck drivers, officers, mortar crews, etc. If a GI tried to hit an enemy soldier at 200 yards & was disappointed with the results, it's simply because he was using it for something it was not really intended to do. (Kind of like taking a Honda Civic off-roading, I suppose. ) However, at close ranges (less than 100 yards), I think the "war baby" can do it's job. And if it is indeed as powerful (or more powerful) than a .357 Magnum, I'd feel pretty safe using it as a short-range defensive round.

Thanks for the posts, guys. Lots of good reading here.

 

The Soviets did pretty well (and so have the Chicoms and Korcoms and others) with the PSh-41 subguns. 7.62x25mm (7.62 Tokarev). That's alittle more (not much) than a .30 Luger - about equal to a .357 SIG necked down to .30 cal.

This subject was covered (or was it trampled?) in a long thread awhile back.

Without digging it all up again, I think any .30 cal slug in the right place will work. I think it was Chuck Karwan that speculated that many of the stories revolving around the "... I gave him a whole mag and he kept coming ... " 's were more likely "spray & pray = nearly all misses" being closer to the truth. I know an ex- South Vietnamese special forces officer that is adamant the M-2 .30 carbine was [is] better than anything else around.

A .32, .35 or larger slug might do it faster once in awhile - if it penetrates. And that is one thing fast .30 slugs will do is penetrate alot.

 

M1 Carbine

I got a Ruger Blackhawk 20 years ago so I could carry one kind of ammo when I was camping or hiking. For self defense while hiking the carbine was better because it carried better for hikes than a garand or such. Didn't have the range, but all that was needed was for wouldbe's to see I was armed. As for power, I stopped carrying the Ruger because for a pistol, those carbine rounds are a lot hotter than .357's, and a lot less pleasant to shoot. [I use .22's now, they weigh less]

 

The main thing that got the M1/M2 Carbine into trouble in Korea was its tendency to not work in the freezing cold. Imagine being suddenly set upon by a human wave charge, grabbing your Carbine, taking aim, and having the thing work only as a single shot! That's assuming the mags even worked, which were prone to jamming when snow and ice got into them (BTW ever notice how easily GI Carbine mags corrode?). IMO the stopping power issue was more of a last straw than the main issue. It also didn't help that many soldiers who were armed with the Carbine could see what their buddy could do with his M1 Garand by comparison.

Much of the military's stockpile of Carbines ended up being given to the South Vietnamese and Thai governments. Apparently there the little Carbines were very well-received by the small-statured SE Asian soldiers.

 

Here are a couple of threads from Tactical Forums discussing the terminal ballistics of the .30 Carbine:

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000186.html

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000362.html

 

Thanks for those links, Alfadog. Lots of good info.

 

GI--no problem. Thank DocGKR for the info.

BTW, I like your taste in weaponry (even if your pistol doesn't have a horsey on it).

 

(even if your pistol doesn't have a horsey on it).

Actually, it almost came down to a coin toss between a Colt 1991A1 or the Springfield. The new Colt rollmarks were just coming out, but none of the dealers I talked to could guarantee I'd get one with new rollmarks. (Yes, the old "COLT 1991A1" marks did bug me that much, LOL!) So Springfield got my dough.

Oh yeah; this is the "Long Arms" forum. Umm... M1 Garands rule!

 

It'll work:

.30 carbines with SP have taken many a deer or black bear.
Test fire your carbine first. If it feeds SP reliably, keep it and use it for the purpose that you've stated.
If not, pawn it towards an AK from www.OhioRapidFire.com

 

Not sure GI45 still has the carbine as this thread was from 2 years ago ?

Thanks for checking though .

 

I shoot my Carbine in IPSC or similar 3-gun matches, often with handloaded 110gr SP rounds; it is easy to hit human-sized targets out to 200 yards or more, if you take the rainbow-like trajectory into account (Zeroed for 100yds, you're 56" low at 300). I've found the 30-round mags to be somewhat finicky, but no more so with the SPs than FMJs of the same shape. For (inside the) home defense, I think a .45 is preferable, but in a dynamic, urban setting, 30rds of .30 Carbine would be pretty comforting.