.30 Carbine vs. 7.62x39mm?????
- Thread starter P99AS9
- Start date
I second the 7.62x39 opinion. In my own informal penetration test on an old rotten log, .30 Carbine was easily outpenetrated by .38 Special 158grn LRN and 9mm 115grn FMJ. Needless to say, neither myself nor the owner of the M1 Carbine were impressed and the Carbine was traded off soon after.
Let's start with the basics:
.30 carbine has a power level similar to the .357 mag.
7.62x39 has a power level similar to the .30-30 win.
No contest that the 7.62x39 is a much more powerful round. Coupled with an accurate SKS or AK variant, it's a legit 200-300 yd performer. (I know that 'accurate' is a relative term here, stick with me.) With good soft-point ammo, it would be a devastating on soft targets. With FMJ, it would penetrate vehicles and many layers of standard building materials.
With the .30 carbine, you have lower recoil and smaller cartridges (ability to carry more). It's also reasonably accurate out to 200 yds but lacks the power and penetration. Powerful enough for soft targets, but not much to spare.
Now you have to ask yourself, "Is the penetration issue a liability, asset or both?" If you're worried about defending your home against urban threats, a reliable .30 carbine with soft-point ammo is nearly ideal. (I have a 9mm carbine that I use in this role.) If you're worried about defending a larger perimeter, desire the stand-off range and over-penetration isn't an issue, then 7.62x39 is the way to go.
I might suggest that there is a third option. .223 using TAP or polymer tipped ammo might be a better compromise. I haven't tested the penetration on building materials but I suspect it will be lower than any version of 7.62x39 and will also be devastating on soft targets out to 300 yds. If full-penetration is desired, FMJ ammo is widely available. In addition, the recoil is slight and the cartridges are small.
I would submit that they are both capable defensive cartridges but have dissimilar roles.
.30 carbine has a power level similar to the .357 mag.
7.62x39 has a power level similar to the .30-30 win.
No contest that the 7.62x39 is a much more powerful round. Coupled with an accurate SKS or AK variant, it's a legit 200-300 yd performer. (I know that 'accurate' is a relative term here, stick with me.) With good soft-point ammo, it would be a devastating on soft targets. With FMJ, it would penetrate vehicles and many layers of standard building materials.
With the .30 carbine, you have lower recoil and smaller cartridges (ability to carry more). It's also reasonably accurate out to 200 yds but lacks the power and penetration. Powerful enough for soft targets, but not much to spare.
Now you have to ask yourself, "Is the penetration issue a liability, asset or both?" If you're worried about defending your home against urban threats, a reliable .30 carbine with soft-point ammo is nearly ideal. (I have a 9mm carbine that I use in this role.) If you're worried about defending a larger perimeter, desire the stand-off range and over-penetration isn't an issue, then 7.62x39 is the way to go.
I might suggest that there is a third option. .223 using TAP or polymer tipped ammo might be a better compromise. I haven't tested the penetration on building materials but I suspect it will be lower than any version of 7.62x39 and will also be devastating on soft targets out to 300 yds. If full-penetration is desired, FMJ ammo is widely available. In addition, the recoil is slight and the cartridges are small.
I would submit that they are both capable defensive cartridges but have dissimilar roles.
Last edited:
I second that...While I own two AK's, my carbine with soft point ammo is the goto HD weapon.
What kind of ammo was used in the penetration test on the rotten log? I find it hard to believe that a 115gn 9mm at 1100 FPS could out penetrate a smaller diameter FMJ 30 carbine at 1900 FPS.
What kind of ammo was used in the penetration test on the rotten log? I find it hard to believe that a 115gn 9mm at 1100 FPS could out penetrate a smaller diameter FMJ 30 carbine at 1900 FPS.
With ball ammo, I would NOT trust the .30 Carbine in a self-defense situation. My late father told me of a case where he and a buddy shot a Jap soldier with their carbines - the Jap turned and ran. They followed the blood trail and found the Jap had run for several hundred yards before bleeding out - he'd been hit in the torso 11 times!!
Further informal testing showed that while a carbine wouldn't knock a coconut off a palm tree, the .45 would, and the M1 Garand would burst it open.
Other anecdotes from WWII through the Korean war only reinforced this opinion.
Further informal testing showed that while a carbine wouldn't knock a coconut off a palm tree, the .45 would, and the M1 Garand would burst it open.
Other anecdotes from WWII through the Korean war only reinforced this opinion.
Deaf Smith
New member
Jim Cirillo, of the NYPD stakeout squad, felt the M1 carbine, with soft point ammo, was the best stopping weapon they had. Worked very well.
Lt. Col. John George, of WW2, who was a Lt. in the 5307th Composite Unit Provisional (that is Merills Mauraders) feth the M1 Carbine was an ACE weapon. He shot himself out of a Japanese trap were a company of Japanese had surrounted his small recon detail and they had to fight their way out to the battalion. Oh, and before the war he was a NRA match rifle shot, and during the war he was one of the few people they allowed to bring their own personal sniper rifle (a modifed Springfield 03 with a match barrel no less.) So he was no dummy with firearms or shooting.
In his own words:
"The M1 carbine turned out to be the ace weapon of the war, as far as I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably accurate ... The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helmet, and to perforate the plates of the Japanese bulletproof vest, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than 200 yards ... For many types of offensive fighting, such as sneak raids and infiltration tactics, it was often superior even to the M1 (Garand), penetration being the only point of difference."
Now as for the 7.62x39 .vs. M1 Carbine.
The AK round is definatly more powerful and the AK is more robust. But for SD inside the house, the blast of the AK round is way way more than the M1 carbine and penitration is much more.
For short range defense, inside 100 yards, the M1 Carbine is preferable, especially inside a house. But for general combat, sure I'd go with the AK, hands down.
Lt. Col. John George, of WW2, who was a Lt. in the 5307th Composite Unit Provisional (that is Merills Mauraders) feth the M1 Carbine was an ACE weapon. He shot himself out of a Japanese trap were a company of Japanese had surrounted his small recon detail and they had to fight their way out to the battalion. Oh, and before the war he was a NRA match rifle shot, and during the war he was one of the few people they allowed to bring their own personal sniper rifle (a modifed Springfield 03 with a match barrel no less.) So he was no dummy with firearms or shooting.
In his own words:
"The M1 carbine turned out to be the ace weapon of the war, as far as I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably accurate ... The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helmet, and to perforate the plates of the Japanese bulletproof vest, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than 200 yards ... For many types of offensive fighting, such as sneak raids and infiltration tactics, it was often superior even to the M1 (Garand), penetration being the only point of difference."
Now as for the 7.62x39 .vs. M1 Carbine.
The AK round is definatly more powerful and the AK is more robust. But for SD inside the house, the blast of the AK round is way way more than the M1 carbine and penitration is much more.
For short range defense, inside 100 yards, the M1 Carbine is preferable, especially inside a house. But for general combat, sure I'd go with the AK, hands down.
Not even close, 7.62.
On top of what has already been said the 7.62 gives you a better choice of bullets. Want less penetration AND more damage than the .30 Carbine, shoot the 123 gr V-MAX or the inexpensive Wolf MC HP they both frag well but penetrate just enough to reach the vitals of the average sixed zombie.
On top of what has already been said the 7.62 gives you a better choice of bullets. Want less penetration AND more damage than the .30 Carbine, shoot the 123 gr V-MAX or the inexpensive Wolf MC HP they both frag well but penetrate just enough to reach the vitals of the average sixed zombie.
Obviously the 7.62x 39 has more power and because of it, it has more range. But you said self defense. Most self defense scenarios are less than 7 feet. For me, that would make the 30 carbine more ideal because of the compact size and low recoil for the second shot and possible third. Most of you will never see a self defense scenario and I can assure you aiming is the last thing you are going to do. A low recoiling rifle (if a rifle is the only choice) is far better than a but kicking rifle. The smallness of the carbine is also a plus and it is somewhat balanced over most of the 7.62x 39's I've played with. My choice would be a carbine for a self defense scenario. Extend the range to if THF type stuff and the 7.62x 39 is hard to beat.
Mike Irwin
Staff
The .30 Carbine, obviously.
The 7.62 is a Godless Russian Commie round, while the .30 Carbine is the home spun God blessed product of the United States.
No contest.
The 7.62 is a Godless Russian Commie round, while the .30 Carbine is the home spun God blessed product of the United States.
No contest.
The carbine got the bad rap with ball ammo. So did the 9MM, etc. Put some soft point or HP ammo in the M1 carbine. A frangible bullet like that going 1800-2000 fps is not a weak sister by any means. It would probably be a better choice for you than say, an M4 223 carbine for close in work at say 100 yards or under. The combloc round is good for defense also and would not probably need to be an expanding bullet for effective use, but generates a whole lot more blast and noise and recoil than the 30 carbine so take that into account also. You are not bound by any laws (in most states) to use ball ammo only and degrade the effectiveness of the 30 round. I would just as soon use that in any instance that you would use any other pistol caliber carbine. No jap would run 100 yards after taking a direct hit from a Winchester HP I don't think.
sc928porsche
New member
The 7.62x39 cartridge has more power the the .30 carbine.
Although the .30 carbine was designed for a rifle, it lacks a lot of "punch".
In a pistol however, the .30 carbine is a very nice round. It is far superior to the 9mm. I would really like to see it in a semi auto. I have one in a ruger blackhawk and it is a tackdriver and perhaps the sweetest shooting pistol that I own. In a HD situation, I would not hesitate to use it over the 9mm.
Although the .30 carbine was designed for a rifle, it lacks a lot of "punch".
In a pistol however, the .30 carbine is a very nice round. It is far superior to the 9mm. I would really like to see it in a semi auto. I have one in a ruger blackhawk and it is a tackdriver and perhaps the sweetest shooting pistol that I own. In a HD situation, I would not hesitate to use it over the 9mm.
The carbine was designed to replace the .45 pistol in certain situations. Infantrymen were still considered riflemen and it was assumed they would carry the M1 Rifle as standard issue, or perhaps a BAR or even a Thompson. But the carbine was taken into the combat roles that it was not exactly envisioned for. Still alot of infantry guys liked them OK and they also appreciated the light weight compared to the Garand. It does have plenty of energy and if paired with expanding bullets to make the terminal performance more formidable, it can do alot more than it could with ball ammo. As for penetration, I have seen ball go thru a creosote treated 4x4 cleanly, so if you don't intend to try to shoot thru an engine block or something, I suspect it has enough penetration for SD. It is not a rifle exactly, it does not fire a rifle round. It is a sidearm substitute, a sort of very accurate long range pistol. And fires fast without alot of recoil or muzzle rise for fast followups. You can hit a bad guy to the extreme limits of the effective range with no problem. They can be more accurate than a standard Mini 14, for example. That is a good one, not a rusty bent barrel relic from the bottom of the barrel of imports. Addendum-check out that box o truth demo firing with the WInchester hollow points and see if you are not impressed with the improvement over ball performance.
It was either WWB or American Eagle 110grn FMJ, I don't remember which. Despite being FMJ, the carbine bullets were visibly deformed (they looked like someone had lain them on their sides and smacked them with a hammer) and found at nearly right angles to the side of the log while none of the other calibers we tried did this. Penetration was about halfway between .380 Auto FMJ and 9mm FMJ and well less than .38 Spl 158grn LRN. We also shot some various .357 Magnums and centerfire rifles but none were recovered and we assumed that they went all the way through. My guess is that the .30 Carbine's higher velocity and energy cause the bullets to deform and therefore inhibited penetration.
I saw a claim somewhere that commercial ammo is now not loaded to the full spec. MV, which is at least 1900 fps. Well I can say that commercial ammo does not show the case expansion that handloads do, when supposedly loaded into that region. They even claimed that postwar carbine mil. ammo was not loaded up like the WW2 stuff, which I find hard to believe. Would like to compare penetration of the carbine to that CZ 52 pistol that supposedly launches lighter 30 cal bullets at maybe about 1600 fps. Some LC GI has steel jacketed bullets, if that might help a little.
7.62x39 certainly has a lot more punch and range. BUT, for SD, we're probably talking about indoors yes? You're not likely to be walking around town with either in a holster...
The .30 carbine was built to take the place of the .45 ACP. It's ballistics more or less match a .357 mag. Plenty of folks keep a .357 six shooter handy for defense and don't feel undergunned.
The carbine is lighter and handier than an AK and with some nice JSPs I think 4 or 5 rounds will most likely discourage rude strangers interrupting you at night.
Plus what Mike Irwin said.....
The .30 carbine was built to take the place of the .45 ACP. It's ballistics more or less match a .357 mag. Plenty of folks keep a .357 six shooter handy for defense and don't feel undergunned.
The carbine is lighter and handier than an AK and with some nice JSPs I think 4 or 5 rounds will most likely discourage rude strangers interrupting you at night.
Plus what Mike Irwin said.....