Carbine included here because is isn't a medium bore round in spite of caliber.

Question:
250 Meter sniper duel. Equal Cover.
One round each. Winner takes all.
Which do you pick? Both in as good of general issue conditions as could be hoped, no hotrod gunsmithing and the ammo is issue ammo (appropriate for barrel twist in the case of the one). No optics allowed that wouldn't have been or be GI issue.

Remember, whoever can make the one shot kill the fastest wins.

Choices:
.30 Carbine M-1 Carbine War Baby
5.56mm AR/M-16/M-4

 

Considering that optics are allowed and the 5X ACOG is being issued and used on the M4 it's not any contest. The M1 Carbine did not have any optics issued for it. The M3 Carbine had an infared night scope but was of limited capability - not hardly 250 meters. Also with iron sights the M1 Carbine (in good condition) is most often 3-4 moa capable at best. The M4 is generally 2-3 moa capable. Given a proper zero for each,using issue iron sights and given a shooter who is shooter familiar with each they are pretty much equal on an E or F target.

Larry Gibson

Larry:
The poll was framed as it was for a purpose.
There is a lot of bigotry in both directions and I wanted to see where the AR readership landed because I find AR people more thoughtful than bigoted compared to other gun forums.

I should have added "equal riflemen familiar with both".

I thought this was a hunting/reloading forum. Not some penny arcade video parlor. Shouldn't this be over in "pretend war r us"??

I sometimes think the best response is NO response.

quote:

Originally posted by Leadlobber:
I sometimes think the best response is NO response.

And yet...

In my hypothetical shootout both shooters realize they don't have the right equipment or enough ammo and decide to get drunk instead of killing each other.

I like happy endings

Terry

quote:

Originally posted by tom`:
Carbine included here because is isn't a medium bore round in spite of caliber.

Neither would win,When they chambered rounds, KLAATU would say "BARADA NIKTO" and they would
both be vaporized.

You do want a teenage wet dream scenario to match the teenage wet dream poll question?

OBTW, I'm one of those thoughtful sensitive people who owns both.

Ask a real question.



Covey16

Having used both the M2 carbine and the M14 in combat, and having had a lot of later experience with the M16, anyone who'd pick the .30 carbine AS ISSUED over the M16 AS ISSUED at 250 meters, is completely LOCO!

When we fired the carbine on the KD range, the 200-yard target was the Army "B" target-the bull is 20" in diameter. My carbine would stay within that 20" bull, but was all over it. Other carbines would miss the bull about half the time. The carbine was NEVER fired ON THE RANGE at targets beyond 200 yards (the carbine was gone before the Army started measuring things in meters.)

The carbine was intended to be used for the same kind of shooting that the M1911A1 .45 auto pistol was used for. The reason for the carbine was that just a whole lot of people could not hit anything at all with any handgun (nothing wrong with the M 1911A1 PISTOL-lots wrong with the shooters!!) So the carbine was issued to guys who had previously carried the pistol. It was easier to hit with than the pistol, but had no stopping power at all - it is marginal for jackrabbits! And at 250 meters, how much remaining energy do you think the carbine round will deliver??

Somebody and his camp followers have made it a regular statement of, this by people that seem to mostly know guns as to if they are pretty to them or not rather than function, that the Stoner pattern rifles are garbage and they'd take a M1 Carbine over one.

I was proving a little point by taking a little poll. Nobody was harmed in the process. No need for acrimony.

The funniest thing is the .30 Carbine round has less energy at 50 than the 5.56 has at 200.

Wasn't playing army or suggesting it here. Just asked what people would grab if the occasion arose.

I don't need a history of either gun or its development, or the cartridges for that matter, as I already know those things and have the bookshelves on them as well as having fired and gunsmithed many of both. Was just a simple poll to prove a point. I figured risk of death by making the wrong choice would make it more interesting, Sorta like which DGR would you pick around eles. People will make all sorts of weird arguments when they are just going to argue about a bad wind and all it involves in the end is pieces of paper.

I have a number of Stoner rifles and have had a War Baby but I got rid of it because it was of no use but to look at and I'm not a museum keeper in that sense. My old Brit single shots actually can be useful on game.

Tom

I thought it a fair question. I have used the M1 Carbine (actually a new M2) in combat and also the M16. I have seen soldiers miss just as badly with either with unzeroed rifles or piss poor marksmanship. As I said; in good condition, using the issue iron sights and properly zeroed either will suffice to hit an E or F target at 250 meters. Whoever would get the first shot off accurately has to do with the soldiers shooting skills and mental ability to shoot quickly with accuracy under pressure.

Larry Gibson

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:
Tom

I thought it a fair question. I have used the M1 Carbine (actually a new M2) in combat and also the M16. I have seen soldiers miss just as badly with either with unzeroed rifles or piss poor marksmanship. As I said; in good condition, using the issue iron sights and properly zeroed either will suffice to hit an E or F target at 250 meters. Whoever would get the first shot off accurately has to do with the soldiers shooting skills and mental ability to shoot quickly with accuracy under pressure.

Larry Gibson

Yup, but the anemic nature of the carbine round past pistol ranges would put me off using one on purpose as a general carbine. There's better options.

Heh. Looks like 2 of the moffie camp followers have been here.

In a 250 meter death match it's very important to pick the rifle that has less energy at 100 than the other has at 250. Softball pitch trajectories are likely also very important. It's in the rules of internet warfare.

90:10 says it all, though.

quote:

Originally posted by tom`:
Heh. Looks like 2 of the moffie camp followers have been here.

In a 250 meter death match it's very important to pick the rifle that has less energy at 100 than the other has at 250. Softball pitch trajectories are likely also very important. It's in the rules of internet warfare.

90:10 says it all, though.

Spoken like one who's really used niether but is quite adept on the internet. The question didn't ask for "better options" now did it?

Larry Gibson

The only reason someone could even consider the .30 is because of the specified known range. Make it one shot at say a head sized target at an UNKNOWN range between 200 and 400 meters and most of the carbine boys would have a helluva time hitting it, not that it would be a chip shot with the .223 either but the flatter trajectory would sure help.

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Gibson:

Spoken like one who's really used niether but is quite adept on the internet. The question didn't ask for "better options" now did it?

Larry Gibson

Used both, have owned both, one would be silly compared to the other. I know exactly how I phrased the question.

The laws of ballistics as to the relative energy carried at range by the two objects in question are immutable.

94% vs 6% now. Most people can do the math.

my last carbine..not my most accurate...

couldn't hit an 1/8 acre pond at 250m....

i tried!

I saw the original rant in question. I think the writer, who I generally respect, took a vacation to smoke crack.

The .30 Carbine is NOT more powerful than a .357 carbine. It's 2/3 the power of a 5.56. It's harder to find, no cheaper a weapon, harder to accessorize. I'm missing the up side. Unless the point was just to take another crap on the AR, which seems likely.