File: 3542345234523.jpg (32 KB)

32 KB JPG

No lissen here sonny! That there .30 carbine is too weak, it bounced right off them Chinese winter coats!
What? No, don't ask me how a cartridge with 40% more velocity and energy transfer than modern .357 magnum was somehow beaten by cheap cotton jackets! How dare you imply I was just a shitty shot!

On what gun or platform...?

>>65060277
There were a handful of more modern firearms chambered for it like the IMI Magal because for some reason the IDF really loved the round for their border guard

>>65060266
>soft recoiling
>decently flat shooting
>performs well from both long and short barrels
>softer on the ears, doesn't require as much earpro as 5.56 to shoot comfortably
it really should. a reduced size AR15 in .30 carbine like a modern M1 carbine would be amazing.

>>65060274
It's insane to me that in the age of Youtubers being able to make and show direct comparisons between .30 Carbine and .357 that we still have unironic boomers on the internet spreading this Fudlore, we even had some in an M1 Carbine thread on here a couple of weeks ago

>>65060297
Boomer's don't want to learn, they want to be right, they came from an era where elders were basically gods of knowledge and were looked up to by the young, but then the internet happened, people could fact check anything they said in seconds and find out they were wrong, and that god like status they were so eager for was just straight up denied to them.

how does it compare ballistically out of 16" barrel to 7.92×33mm?

>>65060376
7.92 Kurz is slightly more powerful but overall the two are somewhat comparable

>>65060376
the main difference is the round nose bullet vs spitzer bullet, which is slowed down much less in flight due to a better ballistic coefficient.

if you loaded .30 carbine with modern 110gr spitzer bullets they'd have near identical trajectories, although the round wouldn't fit into any existing mags.

>>65060397
>if you loaded .30 carbine with modern 110gr spitzer bullets they'd have near identical trajectories
Has anyone actually tried this?

>>65060266
We already have 300 aac for this. 30 carbine with modern bullets would be a good hunting round though, if for some reason m1s become a fad

>>65060412
>if for some reason m1s become a fad
M1 Carbines were basically the AR-15 before the AR-15. Lots of WWII vets ended up buying civilian versions for home defense and passing them onto their grandchildren, the round was under 40 cents per round as late as the late 2010s but more recently prices have gone absolutely insane

>>65060382
>>65060397
What about energy, at (let's say) 200 yards?
standard bullet for each

>>65060435
Based on a completely cursory google search, I'm looking at 7.92 Kurz having 750 ft-lbs of energy at 200 yards vs .30 Carbine's 400 ft-lbs of energy, nearly half. Which I'm guessing is probably expected to do the aerodynamic differences between ball ammo and spitzer rounds

Keep in mind that in the real world, while they can be ballistically similar at the muzzle, the M1 Carbine itself is extremely lightweight compared to the somewhat heavier STG-44, which is why German soldiers often found advantages using captured M1 Carbines on the battlefield

>>65060445
Kind of want to build out a khyber pass-esque 8mm kurz rifle since real stg 44s are either unobtanium or too expensive for me to entertain buying. I just find the round interesting.

>>65060474
I've considered something similar but 8mm Kurz itself seems like it's a lot less common on the market since there's way less demand for it than even .30 Carbine

>>65060277
Modernized M1s of course.

>>65060490
Hand loading lessens the blow as the brass can be made out of cut down 308 brass, but yeah factory ammo is basically unobtanium.

File: choate-stock-on-m1-carbine.jpg (75.2 KB)

75.2 KB JPG

>>65060491
They make Polymer Stocks with grips with Picatinny rail that replace the top hand guard. Apparently there were a lot of Israeli Border Patrol running around with these in the 2000s since there was a modernization effort for their massive stockpiles of M1s and .30 Carbine ammo. I considered getting one of those stocks but people told me it was Bubba. I don't think retards realize that the action can just be unscrewed and put into another stock without mangling anything

File: 8-10mm MP and 10mm auto sbs.png (106.4 KB)

106.4 KB PNG

>>65060411
there are no bolt actions in .30 carbine so you'd need an M1 carbine and single feed the rounds into the chamber without a mag to do it, which would pass as an experiment but is not really practical.

110gr .30 cal bullets are quite common and readily available, they are one of the most common bullet weights for .300 blackout, for example.

i've actually designed a 10mm based wildcat that has the ballistics of .30 carbine without the excessive bullet length so that it can be used in both pistols and rifles effectively, basically an autoloading .327 fed mag which is almost an exact copy of .30 carbine ballistically.

>>65060266
Yeah, it's basically just autoloading .357 Magnum which is a nice light rifle round or powerful magnum revolver round. The issue with .30 Carbine is that it has mediocre performance out of a short barrel and it makes for a really awful pistol grip due to the length of it. There's also just not a lot of light .30 caliber bullets compared to something like .223 which would drive up the cost. It's a really small market niche but 5.7 and .300 Blackout fill it for tacticool stuff and .357 Magnum fills it for niche fudd stuff

>>65060502
If you knew that at the time, why did you let anyone's opinion stop you from buying what you wanted?

File: IMG_0031.jpg (217.2 KB)

217.2 KB JPG

The 30 carbine could actually serve as an excellent parent case for a high pressure pseudo 5.56 FABRL. Would increase mag capacity by a couple percent (+5rds for quad stacks) and weigh less than 5.56.

Picrel is a mockup of what I’m talking about. Flanked by 5.7 and 5.56. It’s been over a year since I modeled it in an internal ballistics computer but from what I remember, it should make about 1200ft*lbs at the muzzle, 58gr bullet (assuming all-steel with a copper jacket), 5 calibers long with an i7ff of ~0.8 (scaled down 750gr a-max), eclipsing 5.56 (m855a1 from 14.5”) in retained energy at about 150yds.. flatter trajectory at all ranges due to both a higher BC and higher muzzle velocity. This is the proper application of high pressure cases, not slightly scaling down magnum cartridges for hunters (7mm BC, looking at you)

File: 1244618095.jpg (189.6 KB)

189.6 KB JPG

>>65060620
this is one of the things
i think besides showing how stupid the people were, it showed just how much they needed a man portable lmg (which they then made)

>>65060289
>a reduced size AR15 in .30 carbine like a modern M1 carbine would be amazing.
So a CMMG Banshee in 10mm that takes Glocko mags. Got it.

>>65060266
The only reason to shoot this is training juniors. The 110grn .30 ball has no expansion and the cheap surp is gone. Any Ruger 10/22 can train the juniors and you should step right up to .223 Rem next anyway. The M1 .30 Carbines are too pricy as collector guns for new shooters, but damn, it was good for that.

>>65060289
>reduced size AR15 in 30 carbine
Dream bigger. Feed the mag through the grip. Now you’re over a foot shorter than the m4 and like 2lbs lighter,

>>65060445
>>65060474
I still think that 7.92×33 could and ought be brought back as a niche round. And for supply of new-build select fire StG 44s.

File: IMG_9234-Large.jpg (124.7 KB)

124.7 KB JPG

>M1 carbine thread
>get to post pic rel

I shoot 10mm.

>>65060266
The m1 carbine was such a great weapon.

>>65060642
>10mm
no range
>Glocko mags
absolutely disgusting

File: IMG_8203-900.jpg (410.6 KB)

410.6 KB JPG

>>65060277

Does anyone sell ammo for this thing? I got a carbine from my dad and it's so fun to shoot.

File: IMG_0032.jpg (232 KB)

232 KB JPG

>>65060770
NTA, agreed, though I arrived at this conclusion in a different way. Picrel has a case head of 11.5mm, caliber of 7.62, and OAL of 1.85”. Bullet is a 110gr vmax (same length and bearing surface to ogive ratio) At 80kpsi, the powley computer predicts above 1700ft*lbs from a 10” barrel. why the weird OAL? Cause this can feed through the grip. A steel grip with the magwell cut by EDM. All this yields an mp7 style stg44 or AK

Picrel. Flanked by 5.56 and 300 blackout

Yeah

>>65060770
>>65060808(me)
And I should’ve mentioned. The reason for the cartridge’s dimensions are because that’s the max size that can feed through a human-sized grip, and the reason for the caliber is that will retain max energy at 300yds (but anything from 6.5 to 30 cal will land within ~5% of eachother, but 30 cal will have more at the muzzle)

>>65060777
Checked. Oh lawd. I forgot about this. Now I Can’t believe it took this long for someone to post it

>>65060637
I'm kinda puzzled by this. Why did soldiers aim so much more consistently with the regular M1 but just shoot wildly with the carbine?

Was the increased magazine capacity and lighter recoil really that bad for discipline, or was this more a matter of who was equipped with which type of rifle?

>>65060266
I agree. They should also make handguns in this caliber.

File: HND24-AUTOMAG-2.jpg (65.6 KB)

65.6 KB JPG

>>65060846
Well they did for a time...

>>65060843
I'm honestly confused by this as well since in my experience Vietnam era and newer M1 Carbines have excellent sights and are fairly solid shooters out to 150 yards

>>65060843
>>65060859
Carbines were issued to men who had responsibilities other than shooting. One would expect a guy whose entire job it is to fire machine guns not to panic when firing them.

>>65060843
I think they were really poorly trained in general.

>>65060266
I think it has some conceptual potential, but you'd want to reinvent it for a longer and more modern bullet.

>>65060277
I'd like to see AR15s with shortened recievers (and overall light builds), for it. Also, brand new magazines, none of this using the old Carbine mags, they're shit.

>>65060624
That's also true, but the M1 Carbine is also just a really light and handy little gun that's easy for anyone to carry around (yet packs some power), which is why everyone else also loved it, like the French or the Koreans.

>>65060376
7.92x33mm is a decent bit more powerful, but more importantly it benefits a lot from its more aerodynamic spitzer projectile, allowing for much better effective range.

>>65060397
>although the round wouldn't fit into any existing mags
Which is why it's kind of a moot point. Though with .22 Johnson Spitfire, you COULD fit it in Carbine mags, and it was a much better cartridge (though not as powerful as .223 Remington).

>>65060846
wouldn't be comfortable for the hand

File: M1 Carbine, Retrofitted Muzzelite Bullpup Stock.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>65060445
The bullet makes a big difference.

>>65060528
>there are no bolt actions in .30 carbine
There's a rare few, but generally it was a hard sell since there were dirt cheap surplus carbines.

>>65060642
I'm sick of Glock mags, fuck you.

>>65060672
Potentially also valid (though it can be questioned if you want to reinvent it for modern and more aerodynamic bullets, will it still fit?), however, you could bullpup it to make it even shorter and save on even more weight.

File: SturmgewehrNewAndOld.jpg (280.8 KB)

280.8 KB JPG

>>65060770
There's no practical point to that, supersonic loads of .300BLK are almost identical in ballistics to 7.92x33mm, but they're slimmer and fit in normal .223 magazines.
The fat as fuck diameter of the 7.92x33mm cartridge means that a 30 round magazine of it is as long as a 40 round magazine of .223/.300 is (pic related).

>>65060972
>redesign for sleeker bullets
OAL is at a premium, so concessions in form factor are required. Slightly longer - around 1” in length would retain a bit more energy at 300 but I was thinking I really want 1) sufficient velocity for a 300yd MPBR on a 7” target and 2) if someone actually made this, the recoil would already be punishing. Don’t want to make it any worse. But other combinations of caliber and bullet length, within reason, would work. .224 VLDs would be neat.

>bullpup
Gross.

>>65060982
>almost identical in ballistics
May we see some comparison data?

>>65060843
they legitimately were just that stupid and poorly trained
the U.S.'s training was severely lacking until vietnam (where they gone and massively upgraded it), and the people weren't the best choices for service either
listening to some of the stories out of the war, you gotta wonder how they even won it, and how much more they could have done with even a bit better discipline

>>65061190
NTA
Which metric? The 300 blackout only suffers a very slight muzzle energy penalty, one that it can actually overcome with a >16” barrel. It otherwise has a higher BC bullet with a finer shape going faster. Besides all that, the cartridge is smaller, less tapered, loads in higher capacity mags, and requires a smaller/lighter action.

It’s really hard for a new wildcat cartridge to achieve any traction, much less become the 2nd default rifle chambering. They’re typically shilled for a year or two then die an unceremonious death. It’s not for no reason that 300 blackout has stuck around and is one of 2 (or 3) default rifle chamberings. It’s a fine cartridge, especially out of an SBR.

>>65061255
Claim was :
>almost identical in ballistics

Let's see some 100 yd and 200 yd energy and velocity comparisons for each cartridge with comparable-length (~16") barrels

In 16.5" barrel (<--the StG 44) 7.92×33mm out of the muzzle:
>123 gr FMJBT
2,250 ft/s 1,391 ft-lb

>125 gr Ball
2,250 ft/s 1,406 ft-lb

File: 30Carbine_Blackhawk_09-03-2023_A.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>65060798
Based.

>>65061268
300 blackout makes something like 1300-1400ft*lbs from a 16” barrel, so they start off the same, and with bullets of equal weight, the superior form factor of the 300 blackout confers higher BC thus better energy retention. So though it MAY have a slight disadvantage at the muzzle, 300 will overtake the Kurz by 100-200 yards. But this is a delta of at most double digit foot pounds we’re talking about in the first place. It doesn’t even matter.

File: IMG_0033.jpg (105.2 KB)

105.2 KB JPG

>>65061268
Here it is. You made me go to Reddit, dick.

110gr, 1400ft*lbs, 16” barrel. A 110gr (113 actually) 30 cal has the same SD as a 123gr 7.92mm. But the 300 blackout has a form factor advantage, so will have a higher BC than the 123gr kurz.. If you want to keep bullet mass the amme, then Assume a 123gr bullet would intrude only slightly on the powder column, costing about 50ft*lbs in energy. No matter, the 300 blackout permits use of longer ogives, thus this energy gap will be bridged by a superior BC (higher SD and lower form factor).

You know we’re splitting hairs, right? 50ft*lbs has never made a difference in anything, ever.

>>65060266
I want 7.62x25 and .30carbine back. They are just good.
>>65060289
Instead we got 300 blackout...

>>65060277
30 carbine should be on a short stroke system like an ar18 to maximize carbine compactness. Also 16in bolt action on 30carbine would be kinda nice.

>>65060972
fun fact, those muzzelite bullpup stocks (for the Mini-14) were the basis for the prop rifles in Startship Troopers

File: Winchester+M94+30-30.jpg (593.5 KB)

593.5 KB JPG

>>65060266
The only .30 carbine anyone needs. Taken more deer than any other cartridge.

>>65061984
>lever
Nah

>>65060499
which is really unfortunate because im down to ~100 rounds of 7.92x33 for my mp44

>>65060528
What about a Thompson Contender?

File: 32453245432532.jpg (48.6 KB)

48.6 KB JPG

I'm honestly surprised it was basically a "genetic dead end" of ammunition, even with 1940's era powder it outclasses most modern .357 magnum loadings while still being light recoiling enough that some handguns could be chambered in it, imagine just how hard a .30 carbine would be with modern powder and defensive bullets would hit.

File: 1628574953783.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>65061920
I know. Also Muzzelite stocks are kind of shit (which is usually the case for bullpup kits, but those are one of the worst types).
Also they never made those for the M1, some boomer just modified it to take one as a proof of concept of his ideal light rifle.

>>65061123
I don't love bullpups either (yet also don't hate them), but using a lighter rifle cartridge like this gives you a lot of opportunity to make a particularly lightweight and compact carbine, and a bullpup design would be a way to maximize weight and length reduction, but while still having a lot of good barrel length to work with (also so you don't get such a blasty gun).

There's also ways to make better triggers for bullpups than many designs tend to do.

>>65061637
desu you would want to be looking at something like the Korobov, with its vertically traveling bolt group, and forward ejection. Go for that .22 Spitfire and you can also have lighter recoil, ammo weight, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atyPwvgYH-c

File: IMG_0034.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

>>65062418
>bulloups

Mag-in-grip takes you halfway to bullpup (mag moves half the distance back and superimposes with the grip) without incurring the penalty of weird weight distribution and weird ergos. And with a collapsed stock, the OAL of both are the same (length = barrel length + BCG + negative cycling space + buttpad). The only difference is the mag-in-grip is about 6” longer with the stock deployed.

>i [don’t hate] bullpups
I do, especially SBRs. Picrel, how the fuck am I supposed to hold this thing? And that barrel is 11.5”. It’s even stupider with a 10”. I can see their merit if the barrel must be extremely long.

>>65061920
Is that so? I thought those were mini 14s

File: C3F. Hillberg Carbine.jpg (202.7 KB)

202.7 KB JPG

>>65060277
Hillberg carbines, of course

File: Starship-Troopers-Movie-Prop-1997-Ace-Levys-Jake-Busey-Hero-Live-Fire-Morita-MK-I-Rifle.jpg (98 KB)

98 KB JPG

>>65062791
They are. The Muzzelite MZ-14 is a bullpup conversion kit for the Mini-14, a cheap plastic clamshell with a pretty awful trigger linkage.
It looks kind of neat though, so it worked well in sci-fi for a while, the Morita rifles in Starship Troopers were Ruger AC-556 rifles (select-fire Mini-14) in built up and modified Muzzelite stocks. Some also had underbarrel Ithaca 37 shotguns built into them.

Muzzelite also made/make these stocks for the Ruger 10/22, the Marlin 60, I think, and also the Marlin Camp carbines.

File: Live-Fire-Morita_Starship_Troopers_Movie-Prop.jpg (75.8 KB)

75.8 KB JPG

>>65063356
They used plastic or painted handguards IIRC. Mind, you barely get a good look at the shotguns in the movie, and the rifle part is a Mini-14 with a rod pushing on the trigger for a linkage.

File: IMG_7403.jpg (184.6 KB)

184.6 KB JPG

>>65060528
>there are no bolt actions in 30 carbine
Behold!

File: 1772634402274968.jpg (186.7 KB)

186.7 KB JPG

>>65063716

>>65063716
>Straight Pull
Would be kino if it had a proper wooden stock and wasn't just ARslop

File: IMG_7404.png (948 KB)

948 KB PNG

>>65063733
ALSO BEHOLD!

File: 5.7_MMJ.jpg (109 KB)

109 KB JPG

>>65060957
>.22 Johnson Spitfire
Would be happy to see a revival of this.

File: 1741614114325404.gif (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB GIF

>>65060637
>SLA Marshall
I immediately don't trust this data. I want to, but that guy was so up his own ass about making shit up to prove his preconceived ideas that I just can't take anything with his name on it at face value.

What does .30 carbine do that 5.56 isn't better at.

>>65063983
Fitting in the M1 carbine

>>65060620
Isn't it that only ~5% of male population are natural-born killers and in military there's ~10% of such people?

>>65063971
>SLA Marshall was completely full of shit, everyday, all the time
Exactly correct

>>65060849
I want one. It fucks.

File: tfb-field-strip-m1-carbine.jpg (77.7 KB)

77.7 KB JPG

>>65060777
Checked and keked
>>65061637
Blessed retard. The m1 carbine was the first short stroke. Its a tiny action for shooting something with 80% of the power of 5.56

>>65064760
I know which is why it should stay this way. You just know someone would fucking DI a modern 30 carbone gun

>>65060266
As much as I like my M1 the round gets brutally mogged by .223 while being >50% more expensive and only a tad softer shooting and more compact.

File: Screenshot_2026-04-10-10-36-15-68_40deb401b9ffe8e1df2f1cc5ba480b12.jpg (103.7 KB)

103.7 KB JPG

>>65061984
>The only 30 carbine anyone needs. Taken more Pinay pootang than any other cartridge.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-16 at 10-30-36 453_1.jpg (JPEG Image 750 × 410 pixels).png (156.9 KB)

156.9 KB PNG

>>65060266
People tried it, apparently because they couldn't hold all the .30 carbine ammo the US was handing out, but 5,56 plain got better results and came in lighter firearms, which kind of is the point of an intermediate caliber rifle.

>>65060274
>Set the sights to full power
>them damn cynamen just eat them like they're nothing

>>65063953
It's not unlike .22 tcm, really. What I'd like to see is an actual pdw that isn't just a cheaply made direct blowback, direct blowback is fucking aids

>>65064830
>came in lighter firearms
M1 carbine is 5.2ish pounds

>>65060277
well >>65060274 makes me think that it could be a fun cartridge in an subgun. the only thing i'd wonder about is if the tooling left over for manufacturing it is still significant enough that it would even be worth it over just doing 10mm or something. i've always had a want for a something absolutely fucktarded like a .44 or .357 mag SMG and .30 carbine might actually be perfect instead. though .300 BLK might just be so close to what I'd want that there's not much of a point.

>>65064861
.22 Spitfire is like 30% away from the power of .223 Remington, there's no fucking way .22TCM is anywhere close.

>>65064909
It's a 40gr .22 going 2800fps. It's less powerful to be sure but not that different, really. There is a pretty huge variety of loads though, it's almost non-standardized.

File: 724196.jpg (480.4 KB)

480.4 KB JPG

>>65064825
30 krag was a perfectly fine round and 30-06 was and is unnecessary
pic unrelated

>>65064870
Surprisingly light, even for today’s standards, and it was made 80 years ago. The Thompson was like 11 pounds. The uzi came not long after and it weighed 8 pounds.

>>65064933
5.56x45mm NATO, M193 Ball:
>.224 caliber, 56gr FMJ
>3260ft/s (20" barrel)
>~1300ft/lbs

5.39x39mm, 7n6:
>.220 caliber, 53gr FMJ
>2900ft/s (16.3" barrel)
>~980ft/lbs
(Just for added comparison.)

.22 Johnson Spitfire:
>.224 caliber, 40gr FMJ
>2850ft/s (18" barrel)
>~720ft/lbs

.22 TCM
>.224 caliber, 40gr FMJ
>2800ft/s (22.75" barrel), >2000ft/s (5" barrel)
>~700ft/lbs, ~380ft/lbs
Reasonably spicy actually, but that's getting to be a very long barrel.

>>65063953
I found a barrel on eBay and it headspaced good, one of my favorite rifles. Its recoil impulse is less than the 30, is more reliable and more accurate as well. Got the dies from midway. Its everything great about the carbine with just a tiny caveat of needing to load your own ammo. Otherwise very much worth it, if you have the budget and come across one, I highly recommend grabbing it.

Just checked, there's a barrel on eBay right now for a couple hundred if you want to get started.

>>65060972
>I'm sick of Glock mags, fuck you.
Literally, the best mags on the planet along with Ruger 10/22 mags..

>>65060849
>I cast fireball

>>65060618
What’s the point of that rather than trimming a 5.56 case and using the same bullet? The bullet is making it better, not the case. Then you could keep using the same mags, same bolts, same everything.
>but capacity
You’d get 2 rounds more in a 30 round mag, maybe 3. I won’t lie and say a 10% increase in capacity doesn’t matter. It does. But it doesn’t matter enough to convert everything from production to BCGs over to a slightly different case.

>>65060620
Can you not be lazy and find it? Or a more specific name so I can search for it? That sounds interesting.

>>65060777
Fucking checked. Beat me to it anon, good job.

>>65065190
5.45 out of an 8.8 inch barrel is doing like 2300 fps with a 53 grain bullet or roughly 622 ft-lb of energy. Something like EA T6B (32 grain 5.7) out of a 10.4" P90 SBR is going 2650 fps or about 500 ft-lb. Really opened my eyes to 5.7 because out of a P90 it's in spitting distance of a 5.45 Krink

>>65065375
>Really opened my eyes to 5.7 because out of a P90 it's in spitting distance of a 5.45 Krink
That's telling of more how comically short the barrel is on the Krink (like 8.5", shorter than a Mk.18), and also how the P90 gets to have a lot of barrel length (10.4"), because of its sleek bullpup design, but that's also still a lighter 32gr bullet, the Krink will still be spitting a heavier 53gr bullet, and that adds up.

>>65065515
Pretty common for that sort of PDW/Carbine type thing. The HK53 has an 8.3" barrel, G36C a 9" barrel, SG552 is an 8.9" barrel. The short MCX is a 9" barrel. Most non-DI intermediate caliber carbines seem to be somewhere between 8" and 9". DI has to be 10.3"-11.5" to ensure reliability and it was never going to be super compact with that buffer tube anyways

>>65065334
>what’s the point?
Weight. The difference isn’t much, maybe one gram per round. I was trying to equal 5.56 with the smallest and lightest cartridge

>>65060528
>autoloading 327 fed mag
Isn't that basically 30 Super Carry?

>>65065375
Its basically designed for women, they can't say it. A man really doesn't have trouble with 556 recoil, to a man it's basically just a little feedback but it totally throws a woman

>>65065777
Are you drunk?

>>65065856
What the fuck are you talking about? None of those cartridges have any recoil to speak off.

>>65066105
The 5.7 carbines were shilled as being low recoil self defense rounds

>>65060843
>given to support troops more than frontline “real” soldiers
>poorly trained
>military fuddlore
On the last point, there was a misconception that .30 carbine was shit and barely did anything. I could see idiots thinking it didn’t really matter and had little chance of hurting the enemy. Hence the “can’t shoot through frozen coats”.

In WWII when soldiers that were in actual fighting and killed a lot of enemies, they tended to like the M1 Carbine.

>>65061190
Nigger can you not google yourself?

>>65060798
>>65061306
Besides being cool as fuck, is there any point to .30 carbine over .357 in a pistol? I don’t see one.

Cool is a perfectly good reason.

>>65066193
At one point .30 Carbine was dirt cheap due to surplus from the 40s and 50s. Kinda like why there were 5.45 ARs at one point

>>65065777
.30 Super Carry was designed to try to get comparable performance to 9mm Luger but in a thinner cartridge, so you could get some more capacity in compact carry pistols.
Doesn't seem to have really caught on, and it's not like you can't get a sleek and compact 9mm pistol that holds 12+1rds, which is actually quite a lot.

>>65063716
Boomers have no fucking shame, Jesus Christ. 5K for some dogshit gun made in a sweatshop.

Is there any way to have an M1 Carbine rechambered for a newer/more relevant caliber?
>inb4 "muh bubba!"
Relax, this isn't a World War II era relic, I know what I got sonny, I'm just curious anyways

>>65060798
Kino photo

File: 1687562778934614.jpg (35.4 KB)

35.4 KB JPG

>>65066188
Get killed.

checked

>>65063983
.30 Carbine is closer to a PDW round while 5.56 is an intermediate round, you're comparing apples and oranges here. Might as well ask what 5.7 can do that 5.56 can't

>>65066193
Not anymore, no.

>>65066632
>.30 Carbine is closer to a PDW round
Kind of, but that's because it's held back a lot by its projectile. See: >>65060397

>>65066616
Chiappa makes a 9mm carbine which takes Beretta 92 mags, and which is styled to look like the U.S M1 Carbine, but apparently it sucks every known cock in the observable universe.

>>65063716
>christchurch
I assume that’s kiwi dollars which is probably 8 nickels in real currency.

Also, how kino would it have been if Tarrant did that with a straight pull .30 carbine instead?

>>65063953
That would be a slick little gun

>>65066643
>Chiappa makes a 9mm carbine which takes Beretta 92 mags,
That's not what I asked

>>65064909
>there's no fucking way .22TCM is anywhere close.
You’d be wrong. It does 2000fps from a pistol barrel and ~2700 from a rifle. It’s a better 5.7x28. You can probably get better .22 spitfire velocities with modern powders, but it’s going to be within 100-150fps of .22 TCM

>>65065720
>1 gram
So maybe 1oz per mag? Less than half a pound per combat load. Big fucking deal. Also are you comparing to 5.56 now or to a trimmed 5.56 which would have less brass? It doesn’t make any sense.
>gram
Eurofags need to keep their opinions to themselves.

>>65066616
Depends on how much you want to pay. Garands have been rechambered to .458 win mag for example. I know it’s a completely different design outside of looks, but the point is the same. Someone could make you a carbine clone or rechamber it, but it’s going to be pricey.

>>65066629
.300 blackout and 7.92 kurz are nearly identical. And that’s been proven before your reply. You’re the one coping here.

>>65066678
Comparing it to itself only with a 9.6mm case head instead of 9mm

>1g each
I was considering 75rd quad stack mags (which is another benefit of the small case head). Half a pound over a combat load, yeah, or ~20rds for free, however you want to look at it. Quad stacks are also lighter per round carried so there are weight savings there. 7 30rd pmags are 2.1 pounds of plastic that ends up on the ground anyways

>eurofag
No, American. I forget exactly how much lighter it would be vs a normal size case but I remember it’s somewhere around 15gr. So I said a gram. Whatever.

File: Ingram SAM Rifles.jpg (21.3 KB)

21.3 KB JPG

>>65066660
I mean, that's basically it, at least that I know of.
Gordon Ingram made some M1 Carbine derived rifles at one point, but they never saw any mass production, and basically the only real option for what you're looking for is the Ruger Mini-14.

Otherwise, there's companies making new M1 Carbines, but they're all .30 Carbine

File: IMG_0951.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>65060411
Yes, 110gr sierra varmiter hollow points. Seated to magazine depth, load was somewhere between 11-12gr of w296 I can’t remember for sure. Shot fine at around 1850-1950fps. 50 yard group, two fliers were on my eyes trying to see the damn target.

>>65066717
I think Chiappa still makes one in 9mm and in .22LR.

>>65066690
>proven
Wrong.

>>65066736
If he didn't want their legendarily dogshit 9mm one, I imagine he probably wouldn't want their .22 (even if it's not as bad).

>>65066742
Supersonic load of .300BLK:
>124gr, .308 caliber
>2200ft/s (16" barrel)
>1360ft/lbs

7.92x33mm:
>123gr, .324 caliber
>2250ft/s (16.5" barrel)
>1390ft/lbs

>>65066759
>greentext
At the muzzle that was ^^^^ posted 80-posts-ago

Where is the energy and velocity data at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel?

We have 170 posts remaining itt for someone to show us the money.

>>65066765
You couldn't fucking infer from the data? Yeah, a 100% EXACT comparison would be nice to make it as clear as possible, but barring someone with the money and time to spend on this, I doubt you'll see that done.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will correctly assume that two cartridges of very similar caliber, and with extremely similar projectile weights and muzzle velocities from extremely similar length barrels, are probably going to also perform extremely closely.
How much difference are actually expecting to see made by a shift from .324 caliber to .308 caliber with all else being the same? This isn't some 7.92mm Mauser Vs. 7mm Mauser comparison, this difference is minimal.

>>65066765
See: >>65061327 and >>65061307

File: IJ_Carbine_1992_Gun_Digest.jpg (77.5 KB)

77.5 KB JPG

>>65066759
>the legendarily dogshit 9mm Chiappa
Makes me bitter to remember Iver Johnson used to make an actual gas-operated M1 Carbine in 9mm. It didn't sell well, probably because it looked weird with a mag in place (which I think was a modded Browning P-35 mag)l.

>>65060266
it does nothing better than a 5.56

>>65066794
>>65066801
>infer
Whenever the *field data* actual test results of energy and velocity at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel is posted in this thread, everything is going to be fine.

File: 1000011073.gif (376.6 KB)

376.6 KB GIF

>>65060849

>>65060274
You gotta understand the psychology of people back then. There was no internet and no group of autistic people to verify if everything you were saying was correct or not, therefore there was little consequence to coming up with BS excuses for stuff. Didn't make your shot? Then it must be the rifle caliber's fault. See a guy leaking out from cover 800 yards away, well by golly you lined up your irons on your trusty M1 Garand brand Garand and shot that gook right in the head. It's not that the guy clearly heard inaccurate rifle fire from 800 yards away and ducked back into cover, nope, you didn't see him again so he must of been blasted! This Linda behavior sorta explains why boomers are as bad as they are, all their parents are grade A bullshitters. Still kinda funny though, it's a very glass half full way of looking at life in a goofy way

File: Screenshot_20260411_072830_Brave.jpg (203.8 KB)

203.8 KB JPG

>>65066105
No. They have negligible differences. Sure, you can hotrod or buy Buffalo bore 327 fed and it will be noticeably hotter than 30SC, but factory ammo is gonna be pretty damn similar.

>>65066765
Why don’t you disprove it you lazy nigger? You can get better BC bullets for .300 blackout vs 7.92 Kurz. Distance is going to help the .300.

>>65066867
Asking for data you know doesn’t exist to get out of admitting you were wrong doesn’t make you smart. It makes you a weasely jew.

Alternatively if you don’t know how the bullets react due to wind drag in the current year+11 then you’re retarded

>>65067855
>>65067846
>wrong, disprove
I never asserted anything. Whenever the *field data* actual test results of energy and velocity at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel is posted in this thread, everything is going to be fine.

>>65068248
>I never asserted anything
By saying “nu uh your proof isnt proof” you are asserting something. Again, don’t weasel out of being wrong like a fucking jew

>>65069336
All of those are good cartridges though. Honestly I have yet to see a .30 caliber cartridge I really didn’t like.

>>65069264
>'you know doesn't exist', 'muh jew'
Whenever the *field data* actual test results ('that doesn't exist') of energy and velocity at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel is posted in this thread, everything is going to be fine. Keep seething in sunny Haifa, Yoran.

File: Stoodstill3.jpg (384.2 KB)

384.2 KB JPG

based thread

>>65060843
>M1 Garand
Holds 8 rounds, has some heft and kick to it, no doubt the big bullet will put a man on his ass with one hit
If you see a bunch of fuzzy China Men running across a frozen field, you will probably be more deliberate with every shot so they count.

>M1 Carbine
Holds 15-30 rounds, very light, and little recoil, you've barely shot it, let alone sighted it.
When you see The Great Wall of Ching Chong come screaming down the hillside, you set the sights to max power and start spraying and praying that those stories you heard from the other guys in the motor pool about its stopping power were wrong. You see a whole lot of yellow now and very little if any red, so you begind firing faster and faster.

I'm glad we can agree that .300BLK is objectively almost identical to 7.92x33mm.

File: A5jKrKX.jpg (321 KB)

321 KB JPG

.30 Carbine never left, it just got fat. Like we all did.

>>65069764
Prolly .360 Buck Breaker, which is like Three-Fiddy Legend with a rim.

>>65069709
>agree
That the 200 yd field test data doesn't exist, correct.

File: chiappa-m1-9.jpg (552.2 KB)

552.2 KB JPG

>>65069353
>>65066842
iirc the Iver Johnson 9mm, while not as shit as the Chiappa, wasn't that great either. The gas system was prone to fouling and was finnicky on ammo.

I really wish the Chippas aren't as shitty as they are. I'd love a handy rifle like that to pair with an M9

>>65069918
>field data

Like you can’t very easily determine its performance with a ballistics computer. Here:

Shooterscalculator.com

Hint: if both bullets start with equal energy, the one with the higher BC will retain more at all ranges. And there’s tons of 300 blackout chrono data on the internet. you can probably compile a list in half inch barrel length increments.

>>65070163
No, that's not heckin good enough! There's no real life test, so that means he wins!

>>65069341
Thanks anon

>>65069709
I agree. It’s nice when obvious things are universally agreed upon.

>>65069407
>field data* actual test results
What does that even mean?

>>65060274
I would think that a guy who has used a weapon in anger on an actual battlefield would know a thing or two especially compared to some rando on 4chan but maybe I'm just not very smart. Would you rather get shot by a FAL or an M1 carbine at 1000 yards?

>>65070163
>>65071079
>>65071407
>gigacope mald

File: brainlet.jpg (44.3 KB)

44.3 KB JPG

>>gigacope mald

>>65071441
>dilating
130 posts remaining won't bring back what you whacked off

>>65071443
Why don't you prove us wrong?

>>65071450
Whenever the *field data* actual test results ('that doesn't exist') of energy and velocity at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel is posted in this thread, everything is going to be fine. 130 posts remaining

>>65071614
Because you'd never do it.

>>65071626
No, (You) wouldn't.

>>65071645
You mean, spend lots of money and time on practically demonstrating something which is extremely readily deduced with basic math, all to appease some smug neckbeard who likes to pretend he's smart? And who would then move the goalpost anyway in response?
No, I don't suppose I would do that, that sounds like a really terrible use of my time and money, I think I'm just gonna call you a faggot instead.

Moreover, I will continue to maintain that 7.92x33mm is almost identical to supersonic .300BLK, and everyone will agree with me.

>>65071713
'i-i'm coping'

>>65071713
Based on the Kurz ballistics he posted (>>65061268), and the 300blk ballistics I posted (>>65061327), both from 16” barrels, 300 blackout 110gr has an energy disadvantage of 3 whole foot pounds (1406 vs 1403). The Kurz is clearly superior. It’s night and day. No question about it.

>>65071871
200-yd field test result data for each is what's not been provided.

>>65071883
What metrics are you looking for in a 200 yard field test? Chrono at 200 yards? Gel at 200 yards?

>>65071891
Terminal 200-yd energy and velocity in field test results of each.

>>65071907
To what degree are numbers from a field test expected to deviate from those produced by an external ballistics calculator?

>>65071909
I have no idea, that's the purpose of field tests.

>>65071919
>I have no idea
I’ll enlighten you. They are the same. It’s just Newtonian physics, it maps near 1:1 with reality. Any disparity will be caused by atmosphere or pressure or temperature but will apply equally to both bullets so their relative velocities will be the same. Just use the online calculator.

>>65060277
Get Ruger to make an LC-series carbine for it.
Get Kel-Tec or S&W to make a sub2k/FPC for it.
Put your choice of bufferless system in an AR and use that.
I think the hard part is probably getting someone to make a decent magazine.

>>65071944
120 post remaining.

>>65071944
He's dead set on his premise, as far as he's concerned he's already won, and he doesn't think it's a technicality.
You're wasting your time, you could actually go through with it and he would never recognize or admit it.

>>65071944
.300BLK would have better BC though.

>>65072348
Yes it would, and that’s why 300 blackout mogs. Plus, it can be loaded with heavier, higher BC bullets.

>>65072325
I think judging by his intransigence, there’s a slight chance that he is “6.5BMG guy” from about a year ago. This guy would shit up every thread with his physics illiteracy, suggesting the army should adopt a 6.5 creedmoor that does 160gr@3400fps or something insane like that, and stick it in a constant recoil gun (the bolt mass required was like 8 pounds, but he ofcourse didn’t *believe* that).

>>65071614
Why don’t you prove the multiple anons wrong?

File: IMG_6114.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>65071431
>can’t even define what he wants
Post guns. Relevant 300blk

>>65072377
>6.5BMG
That sounds fucking hilarious.

>>65072377
>'i-i know that guy'
Wrong. Creedmoor is for faggots, .260 Remington rules.

>illiteracy
= (You).

>>65072419
They have to prove and provide the field test data. Not me


>'it would'

>>65072424
>IMG_6114.jpg
Barrel length?

110 posts remaining.

>>65072434
>>65072429
Cool, you have 109 posts remaining to post a single gun you own
>inb4 muh serial number cope

>>65072448
108 posts remaining.

What's the barrel length of muh 300blk (You) volunteered itt, plebbitard Faggot?

>>65064979
Because pistol caliber carbine suck.

>>65060502
Do it.

>>65065777
.327 federal magnum loaded to spec is basically as powerful as .357 magnum, .30 sc is more like .32 H&R magnum at best, a much smaller and weaker cartridge.

>>65072471
Oh, it's YOU, no wonder you come across mentally ill.

>>65072600
>reeeeeEEEEEeeeeeeeeee
checked

>>65072426
It was. He also suggested a p90 chambered in 400 legend as a sidearm with a ~150 round combat load. Also suggested a >1000ft*lb loading of 9mm for pistols, which I then called “9mm action express”. These were all hills he’d die on.

I honestly miss that guy. He was so stupid and we had so much fun roasting him.

>>65072637
>He also suggested a p90 chambered in 400 legend as a sidearm with a ~150 round combat load.
That sounds like something Jeff Cooper would have thought up if he developed a debilitating crack habit.

>>65060454
I worked at a gun store for a while and we had a carbine in .30 on the wall. It really was insanely light and handy. Makes my M1 feel like a fucking cavalry lance in comparison.

>>65072471
>still doesn’t post a gun
Called it. You a europoor or were you committed and can’t buy one? My money is on the latter.

It’s a 10.5” but I don’t see why that matters.

>>65072637
>He also suggested a p90 chambered in 400 legend
Get on it Kel-tec

God I wish I saw that thread. That’s highly entertaining

>>65073915
>10.5”
It matters because the field test data we're in need of is 16 or 16.5 inch barrel.

>>65073999
We're in need?

>>65073999
What need? Couldnt you get 10.5” testing with a 7.92x33. Post that then I’ll post field tests with an equivalent .300.

Why don’t you post a gun you own first? Or talk more about your 9mm pistol with over 1000 ft lbs of energy. Sounds neat.

>>65074265
>>65074300
checked, whenever the field test results of energy and velocity at 200 yards for both 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel is posted in this thread, everything is going to be fine. 94 posts remaining

>>65074726
You don't strike me as a person who could ever be fine.

>>65074741
When the field test results of energy and velocity at 200 yards for 7.92 and BLK out of a 16.5" barrel are presented, everything (and everyone) will be fine.

>>65074726
I will post the data when you post a gun you insufferable faggot

>>65074726
Here’s something. To chrono a bullet of moderate velocity at 200 yards, one must take care to ensure they don’t accidentally shoot their chrono. So to know how high to aim, They must know how much drop the bullet will have at that range, so they need to know its trajectory. To know its trajectory, they need BC and MV….. so they can plug it into a ballistics computer and predict, among other things, its velocity at 200 yards, rendering the whole fucking chrono experiment redundant. That’s how you compare cartridges. You don’t actually need to do things IRL if you have a physics framework that is for all intents and purposes 100% accurate.

>>65075238
>>65076188
>'y-you don't need to actually do it'
checked
Steel target tests at 100 and 200 yards for each round in addition to the energy and velocity field measurements.

>>65076204
Just like you don’t need to post a gun, right? Do you like repeating yourself? And forcing others to repeat themselves? Do you also enjoy dismissing relatively simple physics equations?

>>65076858
HEY! He's actually very smart, and very handsome, his mom said so!

>>65076858
>>65076890
Steel target tests at 100 and 200 yards for 7.92 and BLK in addition to the energy and velocity field measurements.

>'dismissing, forcing'
? Provide the field test data and there will be an end to your own imagined suffering.

>>65060274
It's funny that boomers to this day never realized the combat long distance site setting on the korea era m1 would shoot like 50" low at 300 yards

>>65077114
It's even funnier that a .30 Carbine thread turned into a urinating contest between .300 BLK and 7.92x33 Kurz.

>>65077144
>'contest'
No. There's merelhy a request for field test results instead of "informed speculation" by two illiterate brainlets.

>urinating
Wrong website, degenerate.

>>65077155
> two illiterate brainlets.

That’s not just one guy?

>>65077271
idk get the impression there are at least two (guy that posted the sbr pic and another one), no idea fr or its a samefag

>>65072377
>constant recoil gun
As a general rule of thumb, this basically a red flag for autistic faggots who lack firsthand knowledge of firearms eager to share what they've learned on from their irrelevant circle jerk of a home forum, which may or may not be Reddit. When you see someone bring this up (particularly when it's not already being discussed), be prepared for the signal to noise ratio of the thread in question to drop precipitously. They're not there to learn, they're there to sperg.

>>65077155
Show us on the doll where the cartridge touched you.

>>65077613
Why is it a red flag? Is it guys thinking constant recoil is magic, or are there some innate problems with it not visible in footage of such guns being fired in full auto? Cause I look at the ultimax and wonder why literally every 5.56 rifle made after that wasn’t made with a longer receiver and heavier bolt. Lower cyclic rate + constant-ish energy delivery to shoulder = much more useful full auto

>>65077683
That's for him not me.

>>65078177
>Cause I look at the ultimax and wonder why literally every 5.56 rifle made after that wasn’t made with a longer receiver and heavier bolt. Lower
Because it'd be a fucking longer and heavier gun? 5.56mm has barely any recoil to speak of, it's not necessary for rifles.
LMGs is where constant recoil can make some sense, as you'd actually be doing a lot of full auto with one.

>>65078636
>longer and heavier gun
Heavier but only slightly
Not longer because the receiver length eats into stock length. So the stock gets shorter and LOP stays the same.

>>65078177
Kek great fucking job living up to this to a T
> basically a red flag for autistic faggots who lack firsthand knowledge of firearms eager to share what they've learned on from their irrelevant circle jerk of a home forum
Why don’t you talk more about the 6.5 BMG idea?

>>65060266
>>65060672
>Feed the mag through the grip
>>65061634
>7.62x25
Because fuck Kevlar basically.

>>65066193
Unburnt powder produces bigger bang.

>>65079225
(I’m the 2nd guy you’re responding to)
>feed the mag through the grip
>fuck Kevlar basically

I don’t get it.

>>65079092
Yeah forgive me for having never shot a unicorn rifle in full auto. explain to me what internet armorers are missing about constant recoil.

>6.5BMG
that’s the other guy

>>65079260
Well mostly they every 5.56 rifle shouldn’t be optimized for firing in extended full auto. Soldiers don’t carry enough ammo for that. Barrels heat up quicker, you run the risk of cook offs with a closed bolt after a couple hundred rounds. If you expect that much sustained fire it should be a dedicated LMG, not an infantryman’s rifle.

Then it gets to if it’s a LMG, does 5.56 make sense vs 7.62 or whatever other caliber. That’s a whole different debate and I don’t have a great answer to.

File: Barrett M240LWS.jpg (28.3 KB)

28.3 KB JPG

>>65079355
I think 5.56mm LMGs can be really good (carry lots of ammo and being able to move and fire with it basically as easily as a rifle), as long as it means not depriving people of having a 7.62mm GPMG available to them.

For constant recoil, I really don't see a big point in it for 5.56mm rifles because you're only ever doing occasional tiny bits of full-auto with one, and the recoil is already very easy (especially on AR15s/M16s).
However, I CAN see the appeal in constant recoil for support weapons, intermediate or full powered, as full-auto is the entire point.

Maybe using KAC's LAMG, putting both a 5.56mm AND 7.62mm one on the squad level, so that you have lighter (yet still one extra capable) support weapons with your group at all times, could be good.
This would be while keeping stuff like the M240L (or Barrett's M240LSW) for more serious and heavy suppression.

File: MG4-0002.png (661.5 KB)

661.5 KB PNG

>>65079367
>5.56mm LMGs

File: Stoner 63A, Vietnam.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>>65079379
Yes, they are really light and easy to move and maneuver with, you can easily shoot them from the shoulder, and you can pack SO much ammo.
You don't get the range, power, or barrier penetration of a proper 7.62mm GPMG, or 7.62mm LMG, but that's a tradeoff, even a real strong guy will have a harder time being as mobile with one of those, and simply can't carry the same amount of ammo for the same weight and bulk.

File: HK421_Foto_JP-Weisswange-e1694517336323.jpg (187.1 KB)

187.1 KB JPG

>>65079395
for mobile and CQB forces they're advantageous
the 'in between' category are the recent LMG-configured 7.62s, HK's contender is more durable and sturdy than FN (that is just an up-calibered Minimi)

File: KAC LAMG, Ranger.jpg (1.9 MB)

1.9 MB JPG

>>65079403
I do think that lighter 7.62mm LMGs make an interesting middleground.

File: heckler-koch-teases-the-hk-421-a-new-lightweight-machine-gun.png (212.3 KB)

212.3 KB PNG

>>65079412
>an interesting middleground
indeed