Why talk like an asswipe? What’s with the “walt” garbage in every post? Grow up. I’ve put up with it in a gentlemanly manner for a long time now, and not allowed myself to be drawn into that kind of behavior. Start acting like a gentleman and you will not elicit ungentlemanly responses as well.
from the man who referred to everyone as
my boy
POT MEET KETTLE -
Bet he couldn’t repeat it either 
People do get lucky after all!
Oh, and in case “Walt” isn’t translating from English, it refers to a film “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” about a fantasist who thinks they’re something they aren’t. And somehow I doubt you’d ever qualify, being as you actually know what you’re talking about.
That story sounds questionable to me. In fact, it sounds like utter bullcrap. i don’t believe that one my friend.
I could empty a 7 round .22 rifle magazine into you at 50 yards and you’d drop like a sack of potatos - guarenteed. In fact a .22 will even pass through a 2x4 at close range, and your body is a helluvu lot softer than pine. Imagine what a .30 rifle does to a man at 200 meters, especially when the bullet flattens out. And this guy emptied a mag from an M1 Carbine into a fleeing man… to no effect? LMFAO Don’t go that far into the abyss. Obviously the guy never hit him.
[/quote]
Sure, if you’ll try kill somebody from 50 yards with .22LR rifle - you’ll done it well.
But we need few points of Cuts story to clear it.
1st - range.
2nd - air temperature etc. Muzzle velocity depends from air temperature and whole ballistic depends from a lot of meteorological things, altitude, atmosphere pressure etc. If you like judge - you need all this data.
At range nearly effective range limit for some weapon bullets, especialy revolver-like flattered nose bullets, lose speed avalanche-like. And at limit edge it can hit body but without big traumatical effect.
I have seen it few time in fight - pistol bullets only hit body and penetrate it only about 10-25 mm. In normal situation it will cause shock and death by pain shock. But in stress full of adrenaline man need something better to drop down.
By the way head shot not always cause immidiately death.
…and the M1 Carbine’s action is a scaled down version of the action of the M1 Garand, as Preatorian so kinly pointed out some time ago.
[/quote]
Better i’ll quote myself.
“Then take in hand M1 Garand. Look at bolt. Can you see ? Bolts looks very same, bolt lock - same in both M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, trigger mechanism - same… Differences ? Gas mechanism… M1 Carbine…yes, it was redisigned a bit, but parts and way of operation same…”
And i need add some for clarity - gas piston (not sure that is right word) got hard link with operating rod. M1 Carbine - not have that hard link.
And difference - both M1 Garand and Carbine are gas operated. But M1 Garand used long gas recoil and M1 Carbine - short gas recoil.
Oh but you did. And oh but the M1 Carbine was used as an assult rifle. Yes, yes indeed my friend.
I see. I would agree with that in a way. I understand now what he mean. Thank you for pointing that out.
However, on that note, since the range is given as 300 yards, I’d still say that it was effective at up to that range, since that is what ballistics shows it was effective to. I think MV is less important than effective range anyway, even though they are related by some measure.
I might believe it. it depends. But when someone says they emptied a magazine of .30 calibre rounds into a man within range and it had little effect, you know the story is crap, or they missed all but 1 or 2 ill-placed rounds. Ofcourse, I realize that it’s not easy to hit a running man. You just have to use common sence when people give you war stories like that one.
I think it did in a small way. Since they were no longer limited to the slow reload trime of the bolt action, and since the MP44 was relatively rare among German troops, they faught with more aggression on foot. Typically the German troops moved in along with mechanized units supported from the rear my MG to keep the enemy down. Once they had a more formidible weapon, they were able to move more quickly on foot instead of needing the accompanyment of MG fire and mechs.
Do you not think this is so?
That man still serving in police. And i never have seen men, who more dexterous with long barreled weapon. Just russian version of Davy Crockett.
I know who are Walter Mittey http://humor.big.ru/thurber1.html
Thanks to Cuts. :lol:
I found something interestin about .30 Carbine and 7.62x33 Kurz ballistics.
External Ballistics for M1 Carbine
Range (yards) Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft-lbs) TKO Index Drop (Inches)
0 1950 912 9.3 0
200 1130 306 5.4 26.7
300 958 220 4.5 75.5
500 776 144 3.7 296
External Ballistics for MP43/Stg44
Range (yards) Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft-lbs) TKO Index Drop (Inches)
0 2125 1073 10.5 0
200 1580 593 7.7 10.4
300 1356 437 6.6 34.8
500 1057 265 5.2 148
Note that 3 time loss at 200 yards for .30 Carbine and traectory ! 68 sm drop !!! And at 300 yards - about 2 meters !!! Holly shit ! For M1 Garand energy for 200 yards - 1823 ft-lbs… :shock: M1911A2 at 100 yards got about 326 ft-lbs, a bit more than M1 Car at 200…
Things for me begin be more clear…
He’d have to be to have a chance of a shot like that. I was more thinking along the lines of is an RPK physically capable of hitting a head sized target repeatedly at 600m? I have virtually no shooting experience so am in no real position to know, but I was under the impression that they weren’t all that accurate (hence the overwhelming preponderence of bolt action rifles for high accuracy work).
Not having a go at the guy at all (I’ve got more sense than to insult someone who can shoot like that :lol:), it’s just my engineering mind at work. OK, I admit it, I’m a geek!
RPK - qute same with AK 47 LMG. Serios construction with heavy long barrel, 7.62x39 cartridge… bolt frame - not stamped, but milled from one-pice of hammered steel, such like first AK-47 frame. In close look is it just long AK -47…
In single shot mode that gun really very accurate, maybe a bit whorse accurate than PK/PKM, but PK more massive thing, used rifle full-size cartridge 7.62x53R and suitable for direct shot to standing figure at range 650 meter (effective range - 1500 m)…
I really didn’t think I should reply to this.
I try my best to act honourably.
I didn’t think I should fight with Tinwalt, it seems unfair.
Why on earth should I enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed man?
However I have been advised, by another soldier that I should at least note a couple of points
My first posts to you were respectful, in fact I believe at least one included the words ‘with respect.’
Your replies however do not change; anyway I think others have commented adequately on this.
Misleading? The manufacturer was misleading about the rated velocity? You mean all of those weapons experts are wrong? Now you want to say that the M1 Carbine had a much lower MZ than it did to support your claims?[/quote]
Again other people have mentioned this, it would be a waste of time and effort for me to explain it in depth as you are an expert…via Google :roll:
That story sounds questionable to me. In fact, it sounds like utter bullcrap. i don’t believe that one my friend.[/quote]
Like I’m going to be worried about what a walt thinks.
Please tell me, which service did you serve in, and when?
Active service?
No, Playstation does NOT count.
If the weapon were not up to the task, it would not have been issued, and there would not have been more M1 Carbines present than M1 Garands. One of the reasons the weapon was issued so much because of it’s light weight to ease the burden of those carrying equipment (support personell). That does not mean that those troops were not using it in combat, such as the Seargents who went with their troops.[/quote]
That close support or command troops have used them in contact is not in dispute, the fact is that during WWII the weapon the GIs used for a deliberate assault was the M1 Garand, supported by the BAR and Browning 30.
You might like to go through your post on the troops that took Foy. You will find more M1s than M1 Carbines. But don’t believe me, get a numerate friend or relative to help you, after all, you posted it…
FacialCuts,
You are again confused. You’re hung up on the idea that because the M1 Garand was the overal preferred weapon of US troops in WWII, that the M1 Carbine was somehow not used for anything more than a support personel weapon. But that is incorrect. The M1 Carbine was, FacialCuts, in fact used as a front-lines weapon quite a bit, especially in city fighting and close range fighting elsewhere. In fact, it was a preferred weapon of the Marines in the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare.
Whoever said the it was preffered more than the M1 Garand overal? Nobody. ScarCuts, you are arguing about nothing. Why?
Well, your “expert” lost it right there when he said “comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly” He’s completely thinking is a little wooden box.
…
… At 300 yards, the M1\M2 Carbine will kill without a headshot. It’s range is 300 yards. …[/quote]
Look at ballistics table, please.
In hope to hit something at range 300 yards with M1Carbine you need aim in point about 2 meters (75.5 inches) over your target… can you imagine it ?
:lol: Right.
This rule in use in russian spec-ops squads today. One of important conditions for service in this squads is “he lucky ?”. Sounds a bit mysticall, but worked well.
Why I’m answering absolute piffle I don’t know, perhaps dotage has made me more patient.
Whatever, in the forlorn hope that he will take anything on board I’ll try.
FacialCuts,
You are again confused. You’re hung up on the idea that because the M1 Garand was the overal preferred weapon of US troops in WWII, that the M1 Carbine was somehow not used for anything more than a support personel weapon. But that is incorrect. The M1 Carbine was, FacialCuts, in fact used as a front-lines weapon quite a bit, especially in city fighting and close range fighting elsewhere. In fact, it was a preferred weapon of the Marines in the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare.
Whoever said the it was preffered more than the M1 Garand overal? Nobody. ScarCuts, you are arguing about nothing. Why?[/quote]
Yes, we’ve established that both the M1 and M2 carbine have been used in contacts.
That members of the USMC used it in an extreme battle is not disputed.
That it/they are assault rifles is incorrect.
A very good friend of mine is USMC (retd).
His father was also a Marine and fought in Korea.
He, (the father,)fought in one contact where it was hand-to-hand.
By this I mean where he looked several foes in the eye.
He used his Garand, his entrenching tool and his K-Bar.
That he used them to kill his enemy face-to-face does not make those items CQB weapons, any more than using an M1/M2 in either an attack or defence makes them assault rifles.
Please learn from others.
Please understand that there are people in the world that have a greater knowledge on certain subjects than yourself.
Google is not a substitute for experience.
Playstation games, while they might be fun, are not indicative of how armed conflict in the real world is.
I appreciate that you both own and have shot firearms, but the report on firing does not imbue you with special powers of tactical or doctrinal knowledge
They are merely tools.
That they are used in one way or another is not a base from which to examine their design or type.
I am posting this not to antagonise, but so that you may finally understand that not every opinion you put forward, especially those concerning subjects in which you have no experience, is correct.
yes,google isn`t a substitute for experience.
so,we should use yahoo,msn search or altavista :lol:
don`t cry,only a JOKE 
Hi there,
Just to add my ha’pennyworth to a few of the points mentioned along the way in this thread with regards ballistics…:
1)My Sierra manual* classifies .30 Carbine as a pistol round, and states that it is unusable as a reliable deer cartridge even from a rifle. (I know deer aren’t people, so take from that what you will.)
2)Janes Guns describe the M1 and M2 carbine as “One of the most appealing of weapons, light, handy, easy to shoot and totally useless at ranges over 200yards, since it fired a pistol bullet”. (They agrees with the 6 mill production figure over its service periods, but says that it is still in production as a commercial weapon.)
3)Ballistic information wise, this may be like other ‘vintage’ calibres, such as 6.5x55mm Swedish, in that there are loadings kicking around which vary depending on whether they are designed to be used in ‘original’ rifles or modern variants (which are stronger). If anyone knows the SAAMI standards for .30Carbine, I would be interested.
The data in the manual sadly is based on a 7.5" barrelled pistol, so is not comparable.
Federal also offer a loading for this round and they quote a MV of 1990fps and a ME of 967.1ft/lbs. Retained energy at 200yds is quoted at 376.2ft/lbs, and 1241.2fps. Assuming a 100yd zero the bullet drop would be 12.87inches. This ME at 200 yards is comparable to a 9mm pistol round.
Now then, what I find most interesting about this with regards to Cuts mates tale of putting a few in a Terr who didn’t go down, is that the MV is very low: It is commonly accepted that 2000fps is an important velocity milestone, after this hydrostatic shock starts to occur when a bullet strikes animal tissue, which provides a much more instantaneous “knockdown” effect than a comparable amount of energy delivered as more mass and less velocity. (This does assume a reasonably amount of mass, really weeny bullets at stupid speeds aren’t up to much either.) Without this velocity, which effectively causes a ‘ripple’ through the soft tissues of the body causing significant damage, you are effectively only punching .308" calibre holes through someones body. (Yes, the actual size of a .30 round in .308" diameter.) There are, I believe, plenty of instances of people being stabbed multiple times and still having a fair amount of energy! They will eventually die from blood loss if untreated, but unless you are lucky enough to hit a vital organ they will not neccessarily drop immediately. Given that the terr was running away, his motivation to keep going may have been somewhat firmer than the motivation of the chinese troops to keep attacking; therefore, he keeps running for a few minutes despite being shot, whilst the chinese troops sit down (and largely bleed to death) because that is a better bet than advancing and being shot again. (I’m not convinced I put that well, but you get my point, I hope.)
Anyway, as to whether the M1 Carbine is a Assualt Rifle or a SMG, personally, I would have called it a Semi Automatic Carbine! :lol: That is to say, a short rifle. (Which in this case is chambered for a pistol round) The later automatic versions could arguably be said to be a SMG though.
*This is a reloading manual, that is, a book of data and ‘recipes’ for construct centrefire ammunition from its component parts. As such it contains a variety of handy information about most rifle and pistol calibres currently in use. I mention this in case anyone confuses it with the “Ladybird Book of Cartridges.” :lol:
That does not seem right to me. For example, a .22 LR drops about 1-2 or possibly 3 inches at 100 yards, depending on your ammunition, and a 30-30 drops about the same or less. Well, I don’t know about that with the bullet drop of this or that weapon. All I can say is that it has been used to great effect ar over 200 yards in serious batte situations. Obviously the bullet will drop the most in the last portion of the weapon’s range however. From my experience with firearms, and judging by how well the M1 Carbine was used to kill at 200+ yards, I think it does OK. I’m not saying it has the same effectiveness at 250-350 yards as the pointed bullet AR’s, but it has proven to do very well at 200-250+ yards in battle.
I agree with all but the last. The M2 Carbine, at least, has all of the characteristics of an assult rifle:
Yes, some of that fight was that close. I agree that using such weapons in one way does not make them assult weapons, but if they are suited to that role, and selected for use because that is the role to be filled at the time, then you have a situation where the weapon is being actively chosen for use in an assult situation. However, the Marines at Chosin did not fight as an assult force. They faught more than anything as a defensive force against a tremendous attack, at Chosin.
I believe more than anything there are 2 things which define an assult weapon:
You have not yet offered an explaination fo why you believe the m2 Carbine was not an assult weapon, other than to say that:
A) it was not designed or intended for that purpose
B) it does not have a range of gak 600m - which no assult rifle does
You have said nothing at all that is plausible to prove that the M2 Carbine is not an assult rifle.
The M2 Carbine has the characteristics, the M1 has all but one, and to a limited degree, such as boulding-to-building fighting in the cities of Europe, it was actively selected over other weapons by many troops at times, because it was faster loading, had a larger magazine, and was shorter and easier to wield, and it was effective at those ranges.
Again, I have not and will not say that the carbine was the preffered or most used. Absolutely not. We all know the Garand was the boss most of the time.
I do learn from others. I have learned quite a bit, especially about MG’s from others here. I have probably learned something from you too. However, you have a way of rebuttling someone’s post by using insults and name calling, and when you do that in the process of posting false information that some of the younger crowd might believe and go away believing, you are doing an injustice to their impressionable minds.
I never fired a weapon on Google.
Now see, that right there is the kind of mentality that causes you to be viewd as an insulting, arrogant person. After all of the bogus claims of yours that I have disproved, and you still say such as that. tisk tisk
When you have fired a case or two of ammo from an M1 Carbine, let me know. Then you can say such a thing without being a hypocrite. I have respectable experience with firearms of different calibres different ranges. I have also endeavored to provide only the most authoratative references when applicable. So, that comment is not only incorrect, but unnecessary.
Singer Sewing Machine Co. also manufactured M1 Carbines, unless they are in your list as a different company name.
I just copyed that list. Sure, i have heard about Sewing Machine Co… and maybe in that list lost some companys…
Rock-Ola produced M1 Carbine… 
Hey, nipps, let’s rock ?
In Israel army, where whole family of AR15/M16 today in service, usual joke about old M16A2 or CAR15, produced by Hydramatic Div. (GMC) - “Army so loves you that army gived to you GMC for free”.
A very interesting topic, with most posters in agreement. Then there’s ironman who’s posts are well, rubbish, they show a complete lack of knowledge as to the realities of the .30 Carbine round.
I know a couple of posters from other forums and as soldiers/ex soldiers who have had active service, I would and do respect their input.
I am ex brit Army, I have also fired many hundreds of rounds out of M1 and M2 Carbines and a lovely weapon it is too, but not a weapon I would carry on active service by choice.
Gun Plumber