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.
How much drop you get at a certain range is, of course, down to your zero range as well. If you zero your .22lr to 100yds, it wonât have any âdropâ at 100yds at all, but if you zero it at 50, it will have several inches of drop.
I can well believe the figures quoted for .30Carbine however, as I showed in my earlier post, at 200mtrs a .30carbine round is travelling at 1200fps, which is a similiar velocity to a .22lr round at the muzzle. However, the .30 round weighs 110 grains, not 40 (like a .22lr round) so unsurprisingly, its going to drop like an absolute stone between 200 and 300 metres.
EDITED to Add: all this information is based on the load data provided by federal and found on Sierra infinity suite Vol.5.
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
Ironman, I think Cuts may be referring, quite reasonably, to your posting, in defence of your opinions, an orbat from a computer game, including morale points etc.
Neither insulting nor arrogant, merely a factual reflection of at least one of your posts.
Incidentally, and again I apologise for referring to a different topic, if you think frangible bullets are, as you referred to them, play bullets, I suggest you have a talk with the FBI Hostage Rescue team.
At range 300 yards .30 Carbine will have velocity 958 fps 220 ft/lbs of energy TKO coeff 4.5 and will drop in 75.5 inches⌠that information correct ? For goverment issued cartrige with FMJ bullet.
At range 300 yards .30 Carbine will have velocity 958 fps 220 ft/lbs of energy TKO coeff 4.5 and will drop in 75.5 inches⌠that information correct ? For goverment issued cartrige with FMJ bullet.
That sounds about right, I donât have any load data for the original military load to hand, all I have is Federals 110gr Hi-shok RN load data. They give an MV of 1039fps at 300yards, but manufacturers ammo specs are always a little better than they actually perform, and some modern powders can give better performance at the same pressures, I believe, so that might give it an edge over the loadings of 50 years ago.
What zero is that drop value based on? Do you know what the bullet weight of the original military FMJ loading was?
By my theoretical knowledge about .30 Carbine military FMJ weight - 110 gr or 7.2 gramm.
And about that drop value - i guess is it meand absolutely drop. (not sure about right words).
I get you with regards absolute drop. The figures I have are drop from a 100yd zero, so they are obviously less than absolute drop.
Interesting that the original bullet weight was 110grains, I guess that means that either the modern federal load is a little hotter, or that there ballistic data is a bit optimistic!
Nonetheless, the point that the .30 carbine is clearly a pistol round still stands. I donât deny that it will still kill at 300 yards, but it would take a while and you would have to be a lucky man to get away with it!
I understand your feeling, but the fact remains, that the M1 Carbine was used at times a weapon of choice in some circumstances because it fit the role. I canât help it that you donât like that, but I canât change history either.
I keep using Chosin as an example, because it is perhaps the very best example of what you have a hard time accepting:
Perhaps you can explain why such a large percentage of Marines were using an M1 Carbine for fighting the Chinese at 0-250 yards range at Chosin without calling my posts rubbish. It sure as hell wanât because that many support troops were present on the front lines with infantry soldiers who were using an M1 Garand. If that were true, there would have been more support personel present than infantry! It was because, as I have explained but you have not comprehended, that it was faster loading and well suited for that role - because the enemy was so close and coming at them so furiously. My father was on the front lines in that battle. He tells me that it seemed that every other man had an M1 Carbine. :lol: Below I will explain why so many were used:
I think you do not understand that battle at all. I really do. Do you realize that hundreds of Chinese came running over a hill 250-300 yards away at a time, in waves, very frequently. There were 220,000 to 240,000 of them, and only 7,000 USMC backed up by 20,000 UN. The USMC were the ones at the front. Imagine the worst close-range infantry battle you have ever seen in any documentary on WWII. Now multiply the number of men within a 1/4 mile area by 10. Better yet, imagine the Battle of Agencourt faught with rifles. More than half of those Chinese did not even carry a firearm! Instead, they were given a bagful of grenades to throw as they ran toward the Marines and told to pick up their dead commradeâs weapon from the ground and use it - if they lived long enough to get their hands on one. Can you imagine that many men coming at you at such range tossing hundreds of grenades? It was the bloodiest battle in the history of modern warfare to this day.
Perhaps now you can understand why many of the USMC officers thought to themselves, âOH MY FREAKING GOD! Fu*k the Garand! Start passing out carbines ASAP!â.
Do you understand now?
However, in cities, the M1 Carbine was also a weapon of choice for infanry. And in the Pacific Theatre, it was also a weapon of choice to assult Japanese hard positions.
Once more, the carbine was no replacement for the Garand. It was not âtheâ weapon of choice for infantry. But is was a weapon of choice at times, and used that way at times, and it performed flawlessly at those times at those ranges.
There is a specific report out there that im sure one could find addressing the problems of firepower during the korean war. This report was the beginning of a reform in American combat tactics. The way we fought the Korean war was much different than the Vietnam war. Insofar and infantry tactics and weapons.
I donât doubt that such a report exists. However, the need to improve weapons, for example, was more a need to improve the primary weapon (M1 Garand) than the support rifle (M1 Carbine). The Garand, as good as it was, was simply not adequate for modern warfare anymore. A faster loading, larger capacity, shorter weapon was needed. The next weapon was a replacement for the Garand, not the carbine! [b]Chosin was a good lesson on this. The Garand was simply too slow and cumbersome to load (it was not uncommon to get oneâs fingers pinched in the process), held too few rounds, was too long and heavy for such close encounters.
You have made my point about why the carbine was used so much in that battle for me![/b]
I donât think you understand how the Korean war was fought. As the UN troops went up the penninsula of Korea, they were very effective. They made good progress and continued all the way up to Chosin. What happened there was not expected. They did not expect to be attacked by 200,000+ Chinese. They were not fighting China, but were instead chasing a retreating Korean Army.
You are implying that the M1 Carbineâs performance was poor in that battle, which it was not, and which I have explained to you with the testimony of one who was there. Because the carbine is not as effective at killing as the Garand is not reason to say that it performed poorly, because it did not. There were no penetration problems whatsoever with the weapon into the heaviest winter coats of any army in the world (Chinese). Many hundreds of Chinese died before they got close to the USMC - many of them dropped by an M1 Carbine at 100-200 yards. And that my friend, is a fact.
the US military has always worked to improve itâs weapons and such, and still does. However, the M1 Carbine was in fact a weapon of choice for that battle, and it performed flawlessly in that battle, and the kill ration for the USMC was estimated at 10-1.
Oh, is it USMC policy to carry large stocks of alternate weapons around with them at all times just in case they run into a situation where their primary rifle performs poorly? Iâve certainly never heard of that happening before!
Oh, is it USMC policy to carry large stocks of alternate weapons around with them at all times just in case they run into a situation where their primary rifle performs poorly? Iâve certainly never heard of that happening before![/quote]
Uh no but we did happen to have alot of reseve weaponryâŚsince WW2 just ended 5 years ago. In any war you go with what works not what should be working. Generals get the fame and glory. The solider does the fighting. His imput is the most important because he knows first hand of what is going on in his sector of the conflict.
For example. Some American soliders where issued camoflauge on the western front in WW2. Great. Only problem is that the only other units that were using camoflauge were GERMANS. Many accidental shootings.
A lesson learned by US soliders of WW2 and Korean war. The M1 Garand make a distenctive clinging noise when the last shot is fired and the clip is ejected. So many GIâs carried an extra clip to throw to make the noise in attempt to convince the enemy that the were reloading. Bang your dead.
This was not taught but learned. This why the report i was talking about earlier was done. The weapons were good but were not made for fighting an army of superior numbers with a rush and forget the causalties advance.
Perhaps now you can understand why many of the USMC officers thought to themselves, âOH MY FREAKING GOD! Fu*k the Garand! Start passing out carbines ASAP!â.
My grandfather just fixed the bayonet and went for close combat,crazy old bastardâŚi donât know how he maganed to survive with a temper like his.Fortune favors the berserk,i guess.
Hmmm⌠so Ironmanâs talking rubbish again then. Point being that reserve stocks of weaponry are useless if you need them immediately and theyâre stored somewhere in the CONUS waiting for demand. The battles he was referring to were at the start of a major retreat by the USMC through atrocious conditions under which many other armed forces would have disintegrated (the less charitable would argue that the US Army DID disintegrate under these conditions elsewhere on the peninsula). Under those circumstances getting a supply of new carbines to the front and issuing them to the troops is completely implausible. While it would have been possible elsewhere in Korea at different times, Chosin reservoir and the retreat from it was not such a time.
IRONMAN your lack of knowledge of the realities of the .30 Carbine round shines through like a beacon.
If I may: âThe accuracy of the carbine combined with the ballistics of the cartridge limit the effective sporting accuracy range to about 150 yards maximumâŚThe .30 Carbine cartridge is in the same class as the 32-20 WCF. It is wholly a small game roundâŚBecause of inadequate energy, the .30 carbine is illegal for deer hunting in most states (USA)âŚit is for hunting small game at short rangeââŚThe full Jacketed Military bullet has poor knockdown power, even on small gameâŚcomments quoted (more or less) from Cartridges Of The World by Frank Barnes.
The .30 Carbine is not a particulary accurate or powerful round and is not a manstopper of a cartridge.
Lots of soldiers liked the M1, M2 Carbine out of âcombatâ itâs nice and light but after the first taste of real âCombatâ would then take a .30-06 weapon.
If you zero your .22lr to 100yds, it wonât have any âdropâ at 100yds at all, but if you zero it at 50, it will have several inches of drop.
The figures I have are drop from a 100yd zero, so they are obviously less than absolute drop.