"Wouldn't want to stand there" is a superb summary of the Carbine at 300 yards and almost exactly what one veteran I knew was told when he was issued the then new 300-yard sight on the M1 Carbine. It was not expected for him to hit a man at 300 yards, but close enough that they should figure out that they didn't want to still be there when he sent his second shot.
A Marine morter man that started with a 45, recalled he had just watch the enemy advance ...unable contribute. Once he got a Carbine... engagement could be made way before pistol ranges. Great weapon for it's job.
40 years ago I discussed the M1 carbine performance at 200 and 300 yards. Joe was a World War Two drill sergeant and he said that the Carbine was okay at 200, might work at 250, but was mostly useless at 300. Considering that a well-trained pistol shot could possibly hit at 50 and the average effective pistol range was 10 yards maximum, the Carbine was a good replacement for a pistol.
Aye, i dislike when people start comparing this weapon to other ww2 weapons for the same role. Especially the STG44 and i always went "Did the STG44 replaced the P38 in service or the k98? Because as far as i remember, the M1 carbine replaced the 1911 .45 Pistol" i would then often quote the Army request "a compact, lightweight defensive weapon with greater range, accuracy and firepower than a handgun, while weighing half as much as the Thompson submachine gun or the M1 rifle." And some at the range would still try to compare it to an STG44....bloody wehraboo's. From 20 y old videogamers to 60 y old men at the gun range
@@F4Wildcat Funny thing about US Army "replacing" weapons--most of the replacements failed. Example One--the M1 Rifle according to contemporary sources such as the 1940 Infantry ROTC manual (4 volume set) and the 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual said that the M1 Rifle (Garand) was going to replace the Browning Automatic Rifle in rifle platoons and the few submachine guns in service as well as the M1903 service rifle. The M1 Carbine was supposed to replace the submachine gun as well as the pistol, and arm second-line troops who would have otherwise been armed with the M1903 rifle instead of a pistol. Fast forward to 1957 when the M14 Rifle was developed to replace the M1 Rifle, BAR, M3 submachine gun and M2 Carbine. More pistols found their way into rifle companies because the M14 was too much for a grenadier armed with the M79 or machine gun and mortar and bazooka and recoilless rifle crews could deal with--and platoon commanders who were armed with the Carbine during WW2 reverted to the pistol. Also reverting to pistols were signalmen who had a primary job of lugging around a back-pack radio set, those laying telephone wires, and other service troops who were behind the front lines. The Carbine was adopted in part because of Fifth Columnists, paratroopers, commandoes and guerrillas. The submachine gun had a niche--which wasn't shooting enemy personnel at 300 meters--and tank crews retained the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns through the 1990's. The M2 Carbine almost replaced all submachine guns in infantry regiments but training to use the automatic feature was minimal--and that resulted in soldiers pushing that magical rock-n-roll switch when they panicked. The M2 Carbine was actually replaced by the M16A1 Rifle. The best laid plans of mice and military brass often don't work out at first contact with the enemy.
As a lark I talked my CO into letting me tackle the USMC rifle qualification course with my M9. With someone spotting my rounds it wasn't difficult to keep 'em in the black. The Old Man left the range as we cleared the 300 yard line & the XO told me to pack it in. I told him the OM had approved my game but he was adamant & I followed orders, naturally. I'm sure I would have qualified since I was on track to do so with ~50% hits on the rest of the course but I realized later that a number of Leathernecks would need days of remedial shooting/coaching/shooting (& maybe some cheating from another Marine) in order to just qualify, so having Doc do it with a pistol might be pouring salt into a wound for them. With someone spotting for me I don't care what distance you set for an M1 Carbine, my second shot, or the third at most would 'score' on a man-size target. DOUGout
Dude: a) the first 2 shots were flyers; b) you made a quick adjustment to the sight; c) you then proceeded to put 7 of the remaining 8 rounds into the black including a bullseye at 300 meters (328 yards) with iron sights on an M1 carbine. I call that 100% success. I bet you couldn't do that at 75 yards with any pistol.
@@PhycoKrusk I've had a soldier show up to a steel challenge match and he couldn't do that at 10 yards with a pistol most of the people I see at the range cand do it at 10 feet.
My dad swapped his 303. In Korea for an M1 Carbine, he loved his 303.’s in WW2 (North Africa and Italy) , but said in the hills of Korea at close quarters the M1 was a handy bit of kit
Pretty much minute-of-man. Considering that most shooters (cough*me*cough) couldn't do that well at 300m with a tackdriver, your results are actually pretty impressive! Good show!
@Joshua Grahm I could see that being the case in the Pacific, having something smaller and lighter in a close quarters jungle setting would certainly be a benefit over the Garand, mind you an M3 Greese Gun would most likely be even better. As an Aussie though I'm partial to the Owen gun if we're talking SMG's in the tropics haha
I saw the thumbnail and title and immediately thought, "Now here is a worthwhile investigation into the efficacy of a historical firearm. Let's see what this fella decided." Edit: I was not disappointed. It's very clear, when you consider the value of artillery, armor, and logistics, exactly why the US built more of these during WWII than it did the M1 Garand. This was just too good of a supplement for those types of troops not to produce in mass quantity.
I mean if you can hit the circle at 300m you can hit a person at that distance. I think it shows it is capable of engaging targets at that range. Remember that soldiers of WW2 had only their clothes and no armour so this would be enough to kill and you have 15 rounds which is 10 more than average Axis bolt-action rifle at that time.
The Korean War story about .30 Carbine not being able to penetrate winter clothing was supposedly because of "bad" WWII surplus ammo. The powder when fired at sub-zero temps often resulted in incomplete powder burn and potential loss of around 2/3 the velocity.
The 7.62 x 33 round is certainly a large improvement on the 9 mm rounds uswd in the smg 's like the STEN etc. Given the option between those two I shall choose the M1 carbine every time.
@@GunFunZS Never heard of 7.62x41. Other than as a very early cartridge the Soviets used before shortening it 2mm to become 7.62x39mm. What....exactly do you mean by 7.62x41mm?
Cool Video, looks much like the standard Swiss range, shot with the club in Derindingen many years ago, as well as with the Biel club, and at the big 1995 shoot in Thun.
I have a few Carbines and have read that they can reach out to 300. The old timers told me they were 100 y/m guns and that the rear receiver lug interface is important for accuracy. I am happy to see your video.
@@burtonkephart6239 never tried that but as a practical matter my own 1943 Inland M1 carbine will ten-ring a 50 yard pistol target at 100 yards, which translates to perfectly acceptable accuracy to 200 yards. That's with an M2 stock, a nicely fit recoil plate, and an original type 3 barrel band. Original 2-rivet USGI forward guard. So chasing the last bit of accuracy out of the old girl really isn't worth it- it already does what it always was meant to do. I feel available ammo is more limiting than the hand guard, as well.
@@bbb462cid yes if you have an original USGI carbine I would leave it alone for sure. I have an USGI carbine that stays in case and an auto ordnance new production one I shoot occasionally and have all tricked out with choate folding stock and metal hand guard with rail etc etc that is my go to gun . My red dot hits spot on at 50 yards Also. I agree that quality ammo is the main issue.
You are right, it was/is a PDW. I find it great that the mass produced adjustable rear sight works as well as it does. Those adjustments are really designed to be angle of man and as you illustrated, it works. Thanks for the video.
I love my WW2 production Winchester M-1 Carbine. It runs smoothly if "wet" (well lubed). Magazines are critical to good feeding. Originally the mags were considered an expendible. In WW2 the troops ditched magazines after two or three uses. The best mags are South Korean military surplus. Recent commercial mags are total crap!
Good show, made excellent point it's a PDW I could of beatent the STG to the punch if it weren't handicaped by the Army's choise of a round If they had used something like a 115 gr spitzer bullet it would of been better for intended useage And a better rifle for general useage as well Imagine they stuck with the oringinal requirement for selective fire, better cartridge and bang (yes intended) the first assault rifle ( I apologize for spelling been up along time) Have a great day
Two local ranges here run CMP, Garand, M1 Carbine, High Power matches. One at 100y the other 200y. The War Babies do well at both ranges. Since most rifle in the matches use either the M1907 sling or the web sling and both are capable of being used as looped shooting slings, the M1 Carbines sling you have to use in the Hasty sling method. so suffers.
1945 Inland carbine. Coffee can hit repeatability 280 yds no matter what. Love the M1 Carbine. Argue all everyone would like, it’s hits that count. Long live the M1 Carbine.
The original concept was that the mags would be disposable and thus made from very thin sheet steel. The army would have none of that, they don't dispose of anything. Yet, didn't go back and have the mags made of heavier steel either. That's always been the weakness of the M1 carbine. Owners know the mag lips can be tweaked with some needle nose pliers and work until they need to be tweaked again (which won't be long). I happened onto a Korean brand of carbine mags called RWB (Red, White, Blue) that are made of heavier steel. They generally aren't reliable out of the box, but once tweaked the heavier steel stays tweaked and you have permanent reliable mags. Just a tip for carbine shooters.
It would be interesting to see how another M1 Carbine would do with the same ammunition, same distance and range, and with the same shooter. Would another gun with not such a mixed pedigree perform the same?
For my sins lol I bought a Chiappa M1 22lr . Being a shooter in the UK it was the closest I could get to a real M1 carbine. I moved it on after a short while. Ha ha Good shooting Bloke.
Unique use of a PDW. I like it when you stretch the legs on various firearms. I agree it isn't stellar at 300m but as you said, I wouldn't want to be down range because a lucky shot could ruin your day.
It is refreshing to see someone ‘Across the Pond’ shoot, and shoot well! You hit a bulls eye at 300 meters-that is a high standard set for the rest of us “Blokes” over there or here in the former colonies. The US designed the M-1 Carbine to replace the pistol, but many a soldier and Marine carried and used it effectively as a primary weapon in the 1940s. Great video!
When I was in high school in 70s a friend and I were experimenting with a hallucinate substance. We were at his parents house shooting pool. His dad was a deputized vigilante on the drug task force. His dad came in slapped a magazine in his M1 Carbine and told us to keep our noses clean. M1 Carbines have freaked me out ever since. lol
That accuracy plus the fact these were issued to guys that are less than stellar marksmen, and you can see why myths like the “frozen coats” came about in the Korean War. They actually just missed
I suspect that a lot will have been inadequately zeroed too, which will compound that problem. But my view of the "frozen coats" myth is the same: there was an awful lot of missing going on.
@@BlokeontheRange When Forgotten Weapons did a Q&A with Larry Vickers on the AK, I asked why the AK has a reputation for poor accuracy. He gave a similar response, use by poorly trained marksmen and the fact that few AKs have ever been zeroed after leaving the factory
@@BlokeontheRange How "poor" is poor accuracy? Could you keep it in the 5 ring at 300? I'm thinking of getting a Type 81, and internet lore has it that the Chinese adopted it because they wanted the "accuracy of the SKS in an AK" but reports are that it's a 3moa gun at best
The best one probably keeps it in the 5-ring at 300m. It's "wouldn't want to stand there" accuracy, not "I can guarantee a torso shot if I do my bit" accurate.
love the M1 carbine. that rear sight being far off to one side isnt abnormal. The one I have also has it over to one side and the reciever portion of the dovetail staked. fun shooter, and does its job as a PDW well.
Hey bloke, thanks for the video! Always liked the look of M1s, they look like a .22lr in scale. Totally out of context idea - I'd love to see you do a mad minute with your WWSD rifle, just to show what modern rifles are capable of. I know the number would be staggering and ammo costs are a thing, but it would make a great point of comparison!
too unfair, they're not even the same caliber. You could do a ishapore vs a ar(lr308 actually)10 though and rapid fire the hell out of the two at 50 yards. the ar platform is gonna have a 25 round maximum unless you get a drum mag. Another think you could do to make it way more fair is to do a m14 vs a ishapore. Then do the m14 again but with only using stripper clips. If the recoil of the 303 and 7.62 are the same then a regular smle can be used instead.
Bloke: today we have a carbine Hickok45: Hickok45 here. And today we have the m1 carbean. Carbine. Carbean. You can say it how you want. I respect people when they are wrong. Just kidding. 😅😅 Good work mate. The m1 carbine is an absolute gem of a firearm. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🔥💪💪
Very interesting, and not bad results, considering that service specs are 4 mos at 100 yards, you did real well at 300 m imo! Thanks for showing some love to my favorite gtw pew!
We are all spoiled by our modern 1 MOA, optic sighted, straight line stocked wonder guns that can reach out to 600y. But consider that this weighs less than a naked WWSD carbine despite being steel and wood instead of polymer, aluminum and carbon fiber.
The Garand was big and heavy. It was deadly at at 1000 yds/m. The carbine was more convenient for some troops and as you as showed, it was deadly at 300 m. The M2 is easy to control on full auto.
Great and instructive video! BOTR is hitting a 60cm circle with rounds still carrying about 211 ft lbs... that would really spoil my day if I was his target!!
Always an under-rated firearm, it shines 200 yards and under, 300 is stretching it to it's extreme, interestingly unless you are fighting in a desert, most combat engages at 200 yards or less in our modern world. So, it's still a viable weapon in 2022
Timothy Bagrowski This is essentially a "magnum" pistol round so it has plenty of punch and hits hard even at 300 yards but at 200 yards or less the M1 .30 Carbine has virtually the same muzzle energy as a .223/5.56 AR15M4. Not velocity but energy. Yes it shines at 200 yards and under. Effective accurate range is indeed stretching it at 300. I would not feel under gunned at all with it against an AR15M4 up to 200 yards. The AR15M4 would beat it in velocity but not energy on target nor ammo capacity.
What is the diameter of that target though? Is it wider than a man's upper torso/chest area? If not then the accuracy is fine at 328 yards for the purpose intended. It is a combat weapon.
@@BlokeontheRange There you go, nothing wrong with that, surprised it performed so well actually, especially as it was a bitzer, absolutely fine for the purpose intended, primarily as a close range defence weapon in contrast to an offensive combat weapon.
Thanks for this! And, unless the black was a meter wide or more, I thought that was fine shooting from this gun. That aperture is pretty big. I'm using my carbine in the upcoming Woodland Brutality (classic division), and it's nice to have confirmation that the longer range shots are at least doable. I'll be doing my own testing shortly.
Had similar results in the Texas National Guard in the 60's. Unit shot at Camp Maxie in Paris, TX. Up to 200 yards it was a straight shooter, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way.
Many seem to forget that the USA fought two completely different wars during WW2. 300 meters in the jungles of the South Pacific, a rare day indeed. Many carried the carbine as a primary weapon - lighter weight and quick handling. Features which could help keep one alive while fighting in endless dense foliage against a fanatical enemy who had spent years digging tunnel defenses. Not unlike areas of Vietnam. A better test of the rifle might be a timed comparison between a European battle rifle and a 30 carbine - low carry to a snapped to shoulder, instant fire at 75 to 100 yards. It would be interesting to see. If a miss occurred, how quick is the follow up? Anyone failing the test is likely a dead man. I have always felt that the AKs and ARs built on a principle began by the 30.
I love this comment and your way of thinking. This was my thought too when watching this video. Open fields with tree lines a couple hundred yards apart , I'd much rather have the stopping power and accuracy at range of the Garand. But in short line of sight engagement within a hundred yards id much rather have the low recoil to remain on target to place a few rapid shots. Plus a wave of Tojo coming down a hill in the jungle I would rather have the extra rounds so I could be a little quicker in the trigger. I could carry almost 3 times the amount of 30 carbine compared the 30-06. I would prefer the lighter and more accurate 30carbine over the Thompson anyway walking threw the high heat and dampness of the jungle
I looked up the numbers and that is correct, for carbine barrels. When fired from a handgun the .357 is substantially less powerful but it picks up a lot of extra velocity from a longer barrel, more than most other pistol rounds do. It can actually exceed the power of the .30 Carbine by sending a 125 grain bullet at the same velocity as the 110 grain M1 ball round.
@@davidcolter This is one of the main reasons I would really like to get a .357 lever carbine someday to go with my revolvers. I like the .357 round anyway, and it seems it would be great fun out of a carbine.
About 15 years ago I had a Plainfield M1 carbine, one of the companies that back in the 1970's took original parts, slapped them together and made guns out of them, slapped their own name on them and sold them. It actually shot really well and one of our local ranges had a military match and I brought that gun out to it. The last target of the match was a swinging gong, about 18 inches around and it was at 250 yards. You had five shots, if you hit it on the first shot, 5 points, second shot, 4 points and so on. I remember aiming about six inches over the target (the Plainfield had the earlier style rear sight) and got it on the second shot. There was definitely a slight delay from when the gun was fired until it hit that metal target and it really didn't move it a heck of a lot, but it was noticeable. I was using white box UMC ammo that day which was what the gun really liked. So, it can be done but the power certainly isn't there compared to a full power round.
Yes looks iconic/Kool, always wanted one, but practical me says get a Ruger mini 14 for similar looks and affordability or just stick with the ar-15 I have for cost, you've convinced me m1 would be a headache(Karl has never found one that works for him,Ian can blast all day with it,hand it to Karl and it starts malf)
Is the mag one of the South Korean jobs? They seem to have fairly mixed reputation here in the states, GI ones are easy enough to find that I don't bother with them.
Considering the facts of war-time production, and the weak magazine design, the old girl danced for the guy who brought her to the party! Biggest thing is not to expect the performance we'd demand from a modern rifle, and find mags that feed reliably...was surprised when I learned we built more Carbines than Garands during the war.still a fun, useful piece out to 200-250, but pistol ranges is where it shined.
Best video kind.... Into the essential, no waste of time, no bla bla ends with a wisdom phrase ......i will watch all this channel videos that i missed.
Now to find a couple of magazines that are reliable, always a question w/the carbine... more trust in the original "flip" rear sight, the adjustable slider is too easily bumped up and down. Hits much easier at 150, maybe 200.
Nice Shooting Mike , Sound was not too bad at the Range . I used to Have an Early Postal Meter Carbine . Underwood Barrel and the Stock was made by Trimble Baby Furniture company . The Sight was a Flip up Peep just 2 positions .
My wife's favourite. So light, handy and soft-shooting. The rd is better than it gets credit for. 110 gr projectile at 2,000 fps is fairly decent out to 200 yds.
That's really a lot better than I expected, the bullets are barely supersonic at that distance. Though I can see why there's a lot of caveats on this being a replacement for a standard issue rifle, but it's SO close. If only this had been issued with a armour-piercing spitzer bullet as standard, with possibly an improved twist rate.
Gi magazines are the best, I bought 5 of them still in the wax wrap last year, aside from those the new reproduction mags can be made to be fairly reliable, push the follower down and look for binding on any dents, usually the follower is sticky all the way down, you can stone the front and rear of the follower and deburr the edges, this usually makes them 99 percent reliable, but another way is to just replace the follower with a gi follower. Hope that helps as originals are expensive and few and far between here, likely worse it Switzerland.
very fun and a confidence builder for small framed folks. it is comfortable to shoot and quick handling. too bad they want so much for one and that original mags were not up to par. id say they are a good truck gun or farm gun, and could handily take deer at under a hundred yards.
I'd love to see gel tests of the carbine @ 300, although you'd likely have to put a lot of blocks together to make sure you could hit something reliably :D
Very likely isn't going to be all that impressive. At 300m it will be doing 303m/s (994 fps), and delivering 328j (241 ft-lbs), or roughly equal to a .380 FMJ or a 9x18mm Mak at their muzzle. Smaller diameter, but more penetration. Probably penetrate an 18" block with clothing in front of it if using FMJ. Small temporary cavity, with a small hole drilled the rest of the way. HP or SP might expand a little, but likely not much. Overall, definitely still lethal, but it won't be doing anything really "impressive" at those ranges.
I remember a few years back during a 3-gun match, we had one person using a .30 caliber carbine. Needless to say, he didn't do too well during the rifle portions when we started shooting out to distances of 300+ yards at pencil poppers. Don't get me wrong, they're really cool rifles, but the caliber leaves a lot to be desired imo.
I’ve shot an m1 carbine at 300m before, and it is surprisingly accurate. I wasn’t posting one inch groups, but I was comfortably on the target every time.
I look at it like this, firing at an enemy at 300 meters it usually isn't going to matter if you actually hit them. Just that you get close enough to make them more interested in finding cover or a way out of there than shooting at you
That was good shootin. I found an article/instruction on seating the action into the stock. It is supposed to improve the accuracy of the carbine. If you haven't done it, I would be willing to bet you could keep them all in the black. It would likely eliminate the change in your zero while you were shooting. Just a thought, still good shooting.
In theory, 'section fire' from a bunch of M1 Carbines employed in a defensive overwatch position might cause some serious inconvenience to any enemy foolish enough to present themselves as a man sized target at ranges 300m and 'slightly beyond'. I'd even go one better and opinion that they might even go all right if you quit using the sights to aim directly at the target and used a spotter to track the swirl and first strike to bring you on target. But even then you'd need a fair wack of a 30rnd mag before the fun started.
Thanks. I've had a cple carbines, but shot at 100 or closer mostly. Even at 200 it was good. I think that's pretty good considering. Find a good handload and I bet ur in the black consistently . People bad mouth the 30-30 lever action also, but my Marlin will make a believer outta ya with good ammo. Shoots flatter than people believe also.
There was a guy here in the United States on RUclips that was hitting steel plates out to 400 yards with his M-1 Carbine and making them plates sing, after he scavenged the bullets that hit the plate, Flat as copper coins can get, Ide say it is still quite lethal at 400. So, at 300, Oh yeah. I not only own one myself but during deployments we encountered a lot of folks armed with the Carbine, mostly M-2s. Great gun for taking feral hogs too.
I have a 1944 Saginaw with a Marlin barrel that had an over turned. Makes wonder if the factory head spaced them, test fired and then shipped them to the war.
Remember how Captain Kirk did against the Gorn in Star Trek? He used a bamboo pole, homemade gunpowder, and rocks. That's a yesteryear's firearm used in the future. If it still shoots, it's still good.
Amazing that you can own such an assault rifle. My grandpa have me my inland when I was 15 and I bought a Plainfield from a college kid in a walk mart parking lot a couple years ago. Good bless America. So joking aside, this has to me my favorite rifle of all time. Way handier and lighter than the scary black guns.
I've pondered the idea of making a small gas-operated rifle similar in function to the M1 carbine, but using AR15 magazines and a 6.5mm cartridge like 6.5TCU. There are some excellent 6.5mm bullets in the 100- too 120-grain range, which would suit middle distances. The challenge would be getting the gas system to function so the rifle is accurate at 200+ meters.
The carbine was never intended to be a long range weapon. With the WWII veterans I grew up with, it was the gun that everyone wanted to have. The round was developed from the 32 winchester self loading: .32 Winchester Self-Loading (also called .32SL, .32SLR, or .32WSL) is an American rifle cartridge. Contents ' It was a little more powerful than a 32-20 rifle: 165 gr (11 g) 1,392 ft/s (424 m/s) 710 ft⋅lbf (960 J. The 30 US Carbine has a 110 gr bullet at about 1900-2000 fps. wiki' It is a good 50 yard cartridge. Little recoil in semiauto mode. Light wt, very trim, ergonomic, and good magazine capacity. Most combat is more at closer ranges than it is at longer yardages. It was the most produced US small arm of WWII
I had a WW2 made M1 carbine which I believe was made by Inland Manufacturing and came from Weller and Dusty plus also picked up a handful of 15 and 30 round mags plus ammo for next to nothing. It shot very well and was great fun and I had no problems even with reloaded rounds. It was plenty good enough for it’s intended use, certainly more useful than a pistol for less experienced troops. If you can sort out that mag or pick up some genuine issue mags I’m sure you’ll have a lot of fun.
I still think a scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56 with 10rnd original style clips would sell like mad in the US. It would be 50 state legal, and still very very capable in the hands of a proficient shooter.
First with a well worn and problems with both sights and other issues good shooting. While it isn't target accurate, just about every one of your shots would have hit a human torso. Considering that Most people during both the second world war and Korea had little to no experience with a pistol and the training they did get was classic one hand type shooting and unless they went out of their way to practice shooting the 1911 (getting extra ammo, finding range time, and having a good instructor) most soldiers were lucky to hit the barn door. They are one of the most difficult firearms to just pick up and fire accurately. Most soldiers who grew up in America during WWII had however learned to shoot a rifle and could hit what they aimed at. M1 carbines were to fill a void where people needed to defend themselves with a weapon that wouldn't take them away from their real task. The fact that they were almost 1/2 the weight of a Garand is why they were liked. Those who learned how to shoot them could at least protect themselves.
My grand dad carried a M1 Carbine in WWII and in Korea. He proclaimed at 300 yards the Carbine was good enough to hit a man and kill him if hit in the torso or belly. He'd know he killed enough Germans and North Koreans with one.
Well, reportedly 300 yards/meters were extreme ranges even with an M1 rilfe because potential targets used cover and camouflage. You couldn't see them over the iron sights. So, the M1 Carbine is doing more than well enough.
The bullet drop on the round nose 30 cal bullet is 48 in at 300 yds. If you aimed the 30 cal at a person's head without adjusting sights the bullet would hit their knees. And high drag slowing from 2000 ft/sec to 1000 ft/sec over 300 yds. Energy has dropped below a 9 mm round at the muzzle. So it would hurt but not necessarily a man stopper. At close ranges the round has much more energy than a 357 magnum or 45 acp. That would put you down. The 30-06 bullet drop is around 13 inches. The velocity loss is much less from 2900 ft/sec to 2260 ft/sec over 300 yds. This and the modern .308 still have more energy at 500 yds than the 30 cal at the muzzle.
The most important part of the M1 are the magazines, they were considered disposable and if you intend to shoot it regularly you just buy some until you find good reliable ones. Sadly the unopened/unused surplus magazines are nearly all gone by now and lots of people are selling the unreliable ones. The best pick would be to buy some at an estate sale from people who collected them, they usually have matching magazines that work without problem.
@@BlokeontheRange Not officially. So many mags were available that soldiers tested a few mags and only kept the ones that worked. If one started to go wonky they would throw it away and look for another one. I recall there being a project where somebody designed 3D printed ones that were allegedly more reliable, but never followed it up.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"Wouldn't want to stand there" is a superb summary of the Carbine at 300 yards and almost exactly what one veteran I knew was told when he was issued the then new 300-yard sight on the M1 Carbine. It was not expected for him to hit a man at 300 yards, but close enough that they should figure out that they didn't want to still be there when he sent his second shot.
A Marine morter man that started with a 45, recalled he had just watch the enemy advance ...unable contribute. Once he got a Carbine... engagement could be made way before pistol ranges. Great weapon for it's job.
that's not true he can shoot some rounds in the air and say "get em brothers! yee haw!"
40 years ago I discussed the M1 carbine performance at 200 and 300 yards. Joe was a World War Two drill sergeant and he said that the Carbine was okay at 200, might work at 250, but was mostly useless at 300. Considering that a well-trained pistol shot could possibly hit at 50 and the average effective pistol range was 10 yards maximum, the Carbine was a good replacement for a pistol.
Aye, i dislike when people start comparing this weapon to other ww2 weapons for the same role. Especially the STG44 and i always went "Did the STG44 replaced the P38 in service or the k98? Because as far as i remember, the M1 carbine replaced the 1911 .45 Pistol" i would then often quote the Army request "a compact, lightweight defensive weapon with greater range, accuracy and firepower than a handgun, while weighing half as much as the Thompson submachine gun or the M1 rifle."
And some at the range would still try to compare it to an STG44....bloody wehraboo's. From 20 y old videogamers to 60 y old men at the gun range
I shot a never issued Remington WW2 production .45 a couple of years back, at 25m I was all over the place while solidly missing the middle. 😆
@@F4Wildcat the role it fulfilled is much more comparable to the Sten for the British and the Ppsh for the Soviets.
@@marcusott2973 I would disagree. The Sten and PPSh were frontline weapons. The M1 Carbine was designed to be issued to support personnel as a PDW
@@F4Wildcat Funny thing about US Army "replacing" weapons--most of the replacements failed. Example One--the M1 Rifle according to contemporary sources such as the 1940 Infantry ROTC manual (4 volume set) and the 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual said that the M1 Rifle (Garand) was going to replace the Browning Automatic Rifle in rifle platoons and the few submachine guns in service as well as the M1903 service rifle. The M1 Carbine was supposed to replace the submachine gun as well as the pistol, and arm second-line troops who would have otherwise been armed with the M1903 rifle instead of a pistol. Fast forward to 1957 when the M14 Rifle was developed to replace the M1 Rifle, BAR, M3 submachine gun and M2 Carbine. More pistols found their way into rifle companies because the M14 was too much for a grenadier armed with the M79 or machine gun and mortar and bazooka and recoilless rifle crews could deal with--and platoon commanders who were armed with the Carbine during WW2 reverted to the pistol. Also reverting to pistols were signalmen who had a primary job of lugging around a back-pack radio set, those laying telephone wires, and other service troops who were behind the front lines. The Carbine was adopted in part because of Fifth Columnists, paratroopers, commandoes and guerrillas. The submachine gun had a niche--which wasn't shooting enemy personnel at 300 meters--and tank crews retained the M3 and M3A1 submachine guns through the 1990's. The M2 Carbine almost replaced all submachine guns in infantry regiments but training to use the automatic feature was minimal--and that resulted in soldiers pushing that magical rock-n-roll switch when they panicked. The M2 Carbine was actually replaced by the M16A1 Rifle. The best laid plans of mice and military brass often don't work out at first contact with the enemy.
As a lark I talked my CO into letting me tackle the USMC rifle qualification course with my M9. With someone spotting my rounds it wasn't difficult to keep 'em in the black. The Old Man left the range as we cleared the 300 yard line & the XO told me to pack it in. I told him the OM had approved my game but he was adamant & I followed orders, naturally. I'm sure I would have qualified since I was on track to do so with ~50% hits on the rest of the course but I realized later that a number of Leathernecks would need days of remedial shooting/coaching/shooting (& maybe some cheating from another Marine) in order to just qualify, so having Doc do it with a pistol might be pouring salt into a wound for them. With someone spotting for me I don't care what distance you set for an M1 Carbine, my second shot, or the third at most would 'score' on a man-size target.
DOUGout
Dude: a) the first 2 shots were flyers; b) you made a quick adjustment to the sight; c) you then proceeded to put 7 of the remaining 8 rounds into the black including a bullseye at 300 meters (328 yards) with iron sights on an M1 carbine. I call that 100% success. I bet you couldn't do that at 75 yards with any pistol.
A fair number of people would be hard pressed to do that at _30_ yards with a pistol
@@PhycoKrusk I've had a soldier show up to a steel challenge match and he couldn't do that at 10 yards with a pistol most of the people I see at the range cand do it at 10 feet.
@@CenlaSelfDefenseConcepts Pistol shooting is _hard_
I can hit a 2-liter bottle with my Hi Power at 100 meters 10-11 times with a 13-rd mag. So can any other good shot with practice on a good pistol.
@@christianlibrul Wow. That's really good, dude. I'd love to see a video of that.
My dad swapped his 303. In Korea for an M1 Carbine, he loved his 303.’s in WW2 (North Africa and Italy) , but said in the hills of Korea at close quarters the M1 was a handy bit of kit
Which nation did he serve with?
@@tallman2210probably Britain? Apparently they used American guns too and served with Americans, or someone is having a stroke.
@@TheTimbs_ yea britain would have still had pretty good stocks of american equipment from the lend lease program in ww2
Pretty much minute-of-man.
Considering that most shooters (cough*me*cough) couldn't do that well at 300m with a tackdriver, your results are actually pretty impressive! Good show!
I actually thought that was pretty impressive at 300 metards
Ahh an imperwanker
Lol - "metards", fuckin metric users
Yeah, not bad for product from the colonies 😉
@Joshua Grahm I could see that being the case in the Pacific, having something smaller and lighter in a close quarters jungle setting would certainly be a benefit over the Garand, mind you an M3 Greese Gun would most likely be even better. As an Aussie though I'm partial to the Owen gun if we're talking SMG's in the tropics haha
“Metard”
I saw the thumbnail and title and immediately thought, "Now here is a worthwhile investigation into the efficacy of a historical firearm. Let's see what this fella decided."
Edit: I was not disappointed. It's very clear, when you consider the value of artillery, armor, and logistics, exactly why the US built more of these during WWII than it did the M1 Garand. This was just too good of a supplement for those types of troops not to produce in mass quantity.
My father carried one from North Africa to France and into Germany. He loved it.
I wish a range near me had cameras and scoring like this video shows. Great video.
Thanks, but there's no cameras. It's acoustic shot detection.
I mean if you can hit the circle at 300m you can hit a person at that distance. I think it shows it is capable of engaging targets at that range. Remember that soldiers of WW2 had only their clothes and no armour so this would be enough to kill and you have 15 rounds which is 10 more than average Axis bolt-action rifle at that time.
At 100 yards the M-1 Carbine bullet has the energy of a .357 Magnum at point blank range.
The Korean War story about .30 Carbine not being able to penetrate winter clothing was supposedly because of "bad" WWII surplus ammo. The powder when fired at sub-zero temps often resulted in incomplete powder burn and potential loss of around 2/3 the velocity.
@@jarink1 I think it had more to do with "It _can't_ be that I missed him, this stupid gun is just a pea-shooter"
@@ErwinPommel Were you there?
The M1 Carbine might be one of the best looking firearms I've ever seen
1903, 1917 and krag are much more beautiful. kar98k is a pretty one too.
The 7.62 x 33 round is certainly a large improvement on the 9 mm rounds uswd in the smg 's like the STEN etc. Given the option between those two I shall choose the M1 carbine every time.
I'm a fan of another 30 cal PDW round: 7.62x41. in many popular loads, it's the same data as 357 mag, but gets higher pressure and a lot more energy.
@@GunFunZS Never heard of 7.62x41. Other than as a very early cartridge the Soviets used before shortening it 2mm to become 7.62x39mm. What....exactly do you mean by 7.62x41mm?
Cool Video, looks much like the standard Swiss range, shot with the club in Derindingen many years ago, as well as with the Biel club, and at the big 1995 shoot in Thun.
I have a few Carbines and have read that they can reach out to 300. The old timers told me they were 100 y/m guns and that the rear receiver lug interface is important for accuracy. I am happy to see your video.
The recoil plate is _verry_ important for accuracy. A type three barrel band doesn't hurt either.
@@bbb462cid also adding an aluminum hand guard over the barrel will definitely increase accuracy and stability
@@burtonkephart6239 never tried that but as a practical matter my own 1943 Inland M1 carbine will ten-ring a 50 yard pistol target at 100 yards, which translates to perfectly acceptable accuracy to 200 yards. That's with an M2 stock, a nicely fit recoil plate, and an original type 3 barrel band. Original 2-rivet USGI forward guard. So chasing the last bit of accuracy out of the old girl really isn't worth it- it already does what it always was meant to do. I feel available ammo is more limiting than the hand guard, as well.
@@bbb462cid yes if you have an original USGI carbine I would leave it alone for sure. I have an USGI carbine that stays in case and an auto ordnance new production one I shoot occasionally and have all tricked out with choate folding stock and metal hand guard with rail etc etc that is my go to gun . My red dot hits spot on at 50 yards Also. I agree that quality ammo is the main issue.
@@burtonkephart6239 great little rifle though!
How wide is the black circle? You put at least seven rounds into it. If it's the size of a human head, then... job done, no?
I'm not clear on the size of the target either. Googling ISSF A10 target returns a result that is 17cm x 17cm total (all rings) which is quite small.
The black aiming mark is 60cm wide.
@@BlokeontheRange Ah! Much bigger than it looks.
You are right, it was/is a PDW. I find it great that the mass produced adjustable rear sight works as well as it does. Those adjustments are really designed to be angle of man and as you illustrated, it works. Thanks for the video.
I love my WW2 production Winchester M-1 Carbine. It runs smoothly if "wet" (well lubed). Magazines are critical to good feeding. Originally the mags were considered an expendible. In WW2 the troops ditched magazines after two or three uses. The best mags are South Korean military surplus. Recent commercial mags are total crap!
Good show, made excellent point it's a PDW I could of beatent
the STG to the punch if it weren't handicaped by the Army's choise of a round If they had used something like a 115 gr spitzer bullet it would of been better for intended useage And a better rifle for general useage as well Imagine they stuck with the oringinal requirement for selective fire, better cartridge and bang (yes intended) the first assault rifle ( I apologize for spelling been up along time) Have a great day
How would that carbine do at 200? My local CMP does everything at 200 yards and closer, with "further" distances just at 200 with smaller targets.
Last I fired a CMP Carbine match (2010) the range was 100 yards for all positions.
Not CMP match, but at 200 yes man size silhouettes are not a problem. typically chest size group for me at least.
Two local ranges here run CMP, Garand, M1 Carbine, High Power matches. One at 100y the other 200y. The War Babies do well at both ranges. Since most rifle in the matches use either the M1907 sling or the web sling and both are capable of being used as looped shooting slings, the M1 Carbines sling you have to use in the Hasty sling method. so suffers.
lookup the expected MOA grouping of a carbine at 100 yards. that's it.
ruclips.net/video/AzKS8dT3e0o/видео.html
1945 Inland carbine. Coffee can hit repeatability 280 yds no matter what. Love the M1 Carbine.
Argue all everyone would like, it’s hits that count. Long live the M1 Carbine.
The original concept was that the mags would be disposable and thus made from very thin sheet steel. The army would have none of that, they don't dispose of anything. Yet, didn't go back and have the mags made of heavier steel either. That's always been the weakness of the M1 carbine. Owners know the mag lips can be tweaked with some needle nose pliers and work until they need to be tweaked again (which won't be long). I happened onto a Korean brand of carbine mags called RWB (Red, White, Blue) that are made of heavier steel. They generally aren't reliable out of the box, but once tweaked the heavier steel stays tweaked and you have permanent reliable mags. Just a tip for carbine shooters.
i love shooting my carbine out here in the states. mine seems happiest with this korean surplus 30 carbine that flooded in a year ago for very cheap.
My local market wasn't flooded with it, lol. Should of be looking on line I guess
It would be interesting to see how another M1 Carbine would do with the same ammunition, same distance and range, and with the same shooter. Would another gun with not such a mixed pedigree perform the same?
For my sins lol I bought a Chiappa M1 22lr . Being a shooter in the UK it was the closest I could get to a real M1 carbine.
I moved it on after a short while. Ha ha Good shooting Bloke.
What do you mean by "the barrel was over-rotated"?
I've watched a few gun videos, but I haven't heard that term before.
Screwed in too far so that it was rotated past the point where the sights were vertical
Unique use of a PDW. I like it when you stretch the legs on various firearms. I agree it isn't stellar at 300m but as you said, I wouldn't want to be down range because a lucky shot could ruin your day.
It will most likely hit you.
I'm impressed. Nice shooting.
It is refreshing to see someone ‘Across the Pond’ shoot, and shoot well!
You hit a bulls eye at 300 meters-that is a high standard set for the rest of us “Blokes” over there or here in the former colonies.
The US designed the M-1 Carbine to replace the pistol, but many a soldier and Marine carried and used it effectively as a primary weapon in the 1940s.
Great video!
When I was in high school in 70s a friend and I were experimenting with a hallucinate substance. We were at his parents house shooting pool. His dad was a deputized vigilante on the drug task force. His dad came in slapped a magazine in his M1 Carbine and told us to keep our noses clean. M1 Carbines have freaked me out ever since. lol
That accuracy plus the fact these were issued to guys that are less than stellar marksmen, and you can see why myths like the “frozen coats” came about in the Korean War. They actually just missed
I suspect that a lot will have been inadequately zeroed too, which will compound that problem. But my view of the "frozen coats" myth is the same: there was an awful lot of missing going on.
@@BlokeontheRange When Forgotten Weapons did a Q&A with Larry Vickers on the AK, I asked why the AK has a reputation for poor accuracy. He gave a similar response, use by poorly trained marksmen and the fact that few AKs have ever been zeroed after leaving the factory
All of my AK's actually do have poor accuracy though, even after me zeroing them. They're all Chinese, to be fair, but even so.
@@BlokeontheRange How "poor" is poor accuracy? Could you keep it in the 5 ring at 300? I'm thinking of getting a Type 81, and internet lore has it that the Chinese adopted it because they wanted the "accuracy of the SKS in an AK" but reports are that it's a 3moa gun at best
The best one probably keeps it in the 5-ring at 300m. It's "wouldn't want to stand there" accuracy, not "I can guarantee a torso shot if I do my bit" accurate.
love the M1 carbine. that rear sight being far off to one side isnt abnormal. The one I have also has it over to one side and the reciever portion of the dovetail staked. fun shooter, and does its job as a PDW well.
Great video. Didn't know it could fire that far.
Hey bloke, thanks for the video! Always liked the look of M1s, they look like a .22lr in scale.
Totally out of context idea - I'd love to see you do a mad minute with your WWSD rifle, just to show what modern rifles are capable of. I know the number would be staggering and ammo costs are a thing, but it would make a great point of comparison!
I'd settle for Stang. 5 rounds per mag keeps the cost down and won't embarrass the other weapons as much.
Maybe do 30 or even 15 seconds.
too unfair, they're not even the same caliber. You could do a ishapore vs a ar(lr308 actually)10 though and rapid fire the hell out of the two at 50 yards. the ar platform is gonna have a 25 round maximum unless you get a drum mag.
Another think you could do to make it way more fair is to do a m14 vs a ishapore. Then do the m14 again but with only using stripper clips. If the recoil of the 303 and 7.62 are the same then a regular smle can be used instead.
@@jason200912 it was never meant to be fair, it's meant to show how much things have changed.
@@jameshealy4594 what's the point though we already know the modern ones is gonna perform 3-6 time better
For center-of-mass (Torso) shooting, it is fine. It is a 100-150 meter carbine.
Bloke: today we have a carbine
Hickok45: Hickok45 here. And today we have the m1 carbean. Carbine. Carbean. You can say it how you want. I respect people when they are wrong. Just kidding. 😅😅
Good work mate. The m1 carbine is an absolute gem of a firearm. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🔥🔥💪💪
Very interesting, and not bad results, considering that service specs are 4 mos at 100 yards, you did real well at 300 m imo! Thanks for showing some love to my favorite gtw pew!
That rifle is good enough to provide meat for you in the jungle. I was really surprise how good is that rifle at 300m.
We are all spoiled by our modern 1 MOA, optic sighted, straight line stocked wonder guns that can reach out to 600y. But consider that this weighs less than a naked WWSD carbine despite being steel and wood instead of polymer, aluminum and carbon fiber.
The Garand was big and heavy. It was deadly at at 1000 yds/m. The carbine was more convenient for some troops and as you as showed, it was deadly at 300 m. The M2 is easy to control on full auto.
Great and instructive video! BOTR is hitting a 60cm circle with rounds still carrying about 211 ft lbs... that would really spoil my day if I was his target!!
Good to see you Mike
Yes, it can. I’ve done it a dozen times or more on the known distance range (KDR) on Marine Corp Base Quantico .
Always an under-rated firearm, it shines 200 yards and under, 300 is stretching it to it's extreme, interestingly unless you are fighting in a desert, most combat engages at 200 yards or less in our modern world. So, it's still a viable weapon in 2022
Timothy Bagrowski This is essentially a "magnum" pistol round so it has plenty of punch and hits hard even at 300 yards but at 200 yards or less the M1 .30 Carbine has virtually the same muzzle energy as a .223/5.56 AR15M4. Not velocity but energy. Yes it shines at 200 yards and under. Effective accurate range is indeed stretching it at 300. I would not feel under gunned at all with it against an AR15M4 up to 200 yards. The AR15M4 would beat it in velocity but not energy on target nor ammo capacity.
What is the diameter of that target though? Is it wider than a man's upper torso/chest area? If not then the accuracy is fine at 328 yards for the purpose intended. It is a combat weapon.
The aiming mark is 60cm wide.
@@BlokeontheRange There you go, nothing wrong with that, surprised it performed so well actually, especially as it was a bitzer, absolutely fine for the purpose intended, primarily as a close range defence weapon in contrast to an offensive combat weapon.
Thanks for this! And, unless the black was a meter wide or more, I thought that was fine shooting from this gun. That aperture is pretty big. I'm using my carbine in the upcoming Woodland Brutality (classic division), and it's nice to have confirmation that the longer range shots are at least doable.
I'll be doing my own testing shortly.
Had similar results in the Texas National Guard in the 60's. Unit shot at Camp Maxie in Paris, TX. Up to 200 yards it was a straight shooter, and I wouldn't want to stand in the way.
Many seem to forget that the USA fought two completely different wars during WW2. 300 meters in the jungles of the South Pacific, a rare day indeed. Many carried the carbine as a primary weapon - lighter weight and quick handling. Features which could help keep one alive while fighting in endless dense foliage against a fanatical enemy who had spent years digging tunnel defenses. Not unlike areas of Vietnam. A better test of the rifle might be a timed comparison between a European battle rifle and a 30 carbine - low carry to a snapped to shoulder, instant fire at 75 to 100 yards. It would be interesting to see. If a miss occurred, how quick is the follow up? Anyone failing the test is likely a dead man. I have always felt that the AKs and ARs built on a principle began by the 30.
I love this comment and your way of thinking. This was my thought too when watching this video. Open fields with tree lines a couple hundred yards apart , I'd much rather have the stopping power and accuracy at range of the Garand. But in short line of sight engagement within a hundred yards id much rather have the low recoil to remain on target to place a few rapid shots. Plus a wave of Tojo coming down a hill in the jungle I would rather have the extra rounds so I could be a little quicker in the trigger. I could carry almost 3 times the amount of 30 carbine compared the 30-06.
I would prefer the lighter and more accurate 30carbine over the Thompson anyway walking threw the high heat and dampness of the jungle
Very popular here in the lowlands. There is even a specific 100m competition for the M1s.
M1 Carbine has the same power as the .357 Pistol....more power than most realize....nice video.....cheers from USA, Paul
I looked up the numbers and that is correct, for carbine barrels. When fired from a handgun the .357 is substantially less powerful but it picks up a lot of extra velocity from a longer barrel, more than most other pistol rounds do. It can actually exceed the power of the .30 Carbine by sending a 125 grain bullet at the same velocity as the 110 grain M1 ball round.
@@davidcolter This is one of the main reasons I would really like to get a .357 lever carbine someday to go with my revolvers. I like the .357 round anyway, and it seems it would be great fun out of a carbine.
About 15 years ago I had a Plainfield M1 carbine, one of the companies that back in the 1970's took original parts, slapped them together and made guns out of them, slapped their own name on them and sold them. It actually shot really well and one of our local ranges had a military match and I brought that gun out to it. The last target of the match was a swinging gong, about 18 inches around and it was at 250 yards. You had five shots, if you hit it on the first shot, 5 points, second shot, 4 points and so on. I remember aiming about six inches over the target (the Plainfield had the earlier style rear sight) and got it on the second shot. There was definitely a slight delay from when the gun was fired until it hit that metal target and it really didn't move it a heck of a lot, but it was noticeable. I was using white box UMC ammo that day which was what the gun really liked. So, it can be done but the power certainly isn't there compared to a full power round.
Yes looks iconic/Kool, always wanted one, but practical me says get a Ruger mini 14 for similar looks and affordability or just stick with the ar-15 I have for cost, you've convinced me m1 would be a headache(Karl has never found one that works for him,Ian can blast all day with it,hand it to Karl and it starts malf)
Is the mag one of the South Korean jobs? They seem to have fairly mixed reputation here in the states, GI ones are easy enough to find that I don't bother with them.
As far as I have seen, all the magazines are trash. There is something wrong with the design.
@@Seth9809 IIRC its not the mags are flawed, its that they were designed to be disposable. So problems arise when they are used and re-used.
I love my little handy M1 carbine. It's not a target rifle by any means but makes a great little ranch rifle.
Not bad for 300m, never tried anything further than 50m with mine. Keep up the good work, I enjoy your videos.
Considering the facts of war-time production, and the weak magazine design, the old girl danced for the guy who brought her to the party! Biggest thing is not to expect the performance we'd demand from a modern rifle, and find mags that feed reliably...was surprised when I learned we built more Carbines than Garands during the war.still a fun, useful piece out to 200-250, but pistol ranges is where it shined.
Best video kind.... Into the essential, no waste of time, no bla bla ends with a wisdom phrase ......i will watch all this channel videos that i missed.
If you want one that shoots like an original get a Plainfield or a universal
Now to find a couple of magazines that are reliable, always a question w/the carbine... more trust in the original "flip" rear sight, the adjustable slider is too easily bumped up and down. Hits much easier at 150, maybe 200.
So it can reach out to 300 meters - thanks for letting us know
Thanks! Good shooting with a PDW!
Nice Shooting Mike , Sound was not too bad at the Range . I used to Have an Early Postal Meter Carbine . Underwood Barrel and the Stock was made by Trimble Baby Furniture company . The Sight was a Flip up Peep just 2 positions .
My wife's favourite. So light, handy and soft-shooting. The rd is better than it gets credit for. 110 gr projectile at 2,000 fps is fairly decent out to 200 yds.
To think this is one of the first mass issued PDW. Love it.
What would happen if you milled (U.S. measurements) .002 inch off of the top of the front sight. Would that bring on to the black?
Sounds like a project for Chappie!
That's really a lot better than I expected, the bullets are barely supersonic at that distance. Though I can see why there's a lot of caveats on this being a replacement for a standard issue rifle, but it's SO close. If only this had been issued with a armour-piercing spitzer bullet as standard, with possibly an improved twist rate.
Gi magazines are the best, I bought 5 of them still in the wax wrap last year, aside from those the new reproduction mags can be made to be fairly reliable, push the follower down and look for binding on any dents, usually the follower is sticky all the way down, you can stone the front and rear of the follower and deburr the edges, this usually makes them 99 percent reliable, but another way is to just replace the follower with a gi follower. Hope that helps as originals are expensive and few and far between here, likely worse it Switzerland.
I love my Underwood M1 Carbine barrel dated 11-43
With the sights now set, wonder what the 10-round group does.
Great video I've always wanted to see a 30 carbine shot at further than 100 yards
very fun and a confidence builder for small framed folks. it is comfortable to shoot and quick handling. too bad they want so much for one and that original mags were not up to par. id say they are a good truck gun or farm gun, and could handily take deer at under a hundred yards.
haven't busted many caps....but the Carbine was my favourite even one handed......Brilliant!
I'd love to see gel tests of the carbine @ 300, although you'd likely have to put a lot of blocks together to make sure you could hit something reliably :D
Very likely isn't going to be all that impressive. At 300m it will be doing 303m/s (994 fps), and delivering 328j (241 ft-lbs), or roughly equal to a .380 FMJ or a 9x18mm Mak at their muzzle. Smaller diameter, but more penetration. Probably penetrate an 18" block with clothing in front of it if using FMJ. Small temporary cavity, with a small hole drilled the rest of the way. HP or SP might expand a little, but likely not much.
Overall, definitely still lethal, but it won't be doing anything really "impressive" at those ranges.
The M 1 Carbine has the highest round fired to casualty rate of ANY rifle fielded by the US Military, ever.
I remember a few years back during a 3-gun match, we had one person using a .30 caliber carbine. Needless to say, he didn't do too well during the rifle portions when we started shooting out to distances of 300+ yards at pencil poppers. Don't get me wrong, they're really cool rifles, but the caliber leaves a lot to be desired imo.
I’ve shot an m1 carbine at 300m before, and it is surprisingly accurate.
I wasn’t posting one inch groups, but I was comfortably on the target every time.
I look at it like this, firing at an enemy at 300 meters it usually isn't going to matter if you actually hit them. Just that you get close enough to make them more interested in finding cover or a way out of there than shooting at you
I have one and I love it. It's a fantastic 50-200yd rifle.
That was good shootin. I found an article/instruction on seating the action into the stock. It is supposed to improve the accuracy of the carbine. If you haven't done it, I would be willing to bet you could keep them all in the black. It would likely eliminate the change in your zero while you were shooting. Just a thought, still good shooting.
In theory, 'section fire' from a bunch of M1 Carbines employed in a defensive overwatch position might cause some serious inconvenience to any enemy foolish enough to present themselves as a man sized target at ranges 300m and 'slightly beyond'. I'd even go one better and opinion that they might even go all right if you quit using the sights to aim directly at the target and used a spotter to track the swirl and first strike to bring you on target. But even then you'd need a fair wack of a 30rnd mag before the fun started.
IMO, if the M1 Carbine had been built to use a round close to the 7.62×39 we might still be using it.
Thanks. I've had a cple carbines, but shot at 100 or closer mostly. Even at 200 it was good. I think that's pretty good considering. Find a good handload and I bet ur in the black consistently . People bad mouth the 30-30 lever action also, but my Marlin will make a believer outta ya with good ammo. Shoots flatter than people believe also.
Surprised it did that well.
Good shooting. 👍🏼
There was a guy here in the United States on RUclips that was hitting steel plates out to 400 yards with his M-1 Carbine and making them plates sing, after he scavenged the bullets that hit the plate, Flat as copper coins can get, Ide say it is still quite lethal at 400. So, at 300, Oh yeah. I not only own one myself but during deployments we encountered a lot of folks armed with the Carbine, mostly M-2s. Great gun for taking feral hogs too.
I have a 1944 Saginaw with a Marlin barrel that had an over turned. Makes wonder if the factory head spaced them, test fired and then shipped them to the war.
It's interesting to see what the firearms of yesteryear can do.
Remember how Captain Kirk did against the Gorn in Star Trek? He used a bamboo pole, homemade gunpowder, and rocks. That's a yesteryear's firearm used in the future. If it still shoots, it's still good.
That's far better than I can even see, even with corrected vision.
Amazing that you can own such an assault rifle. My grandpa have me my inland when I was 15 and I bought a Plainfield from a college kid in a walk mart parking lot a couple years ago. Good bless America. So joking aside, this has to me my favorite rifle of all time. Way handier and lighter than the scary black guns.
I've pondered the idea of making a small gas-operated rifle similar in function to the M1 carbine, but using AR15 magazines and a 6.5mm cartridge like 6.5TCU. There are some excellent 6.5mm bullets in the 100- too 120-grain range, which would suit middle distances. The challenge would be getting the gas system to function so the rifle is accurate at 200+ meters.
good video, PLEASE make more videos on the M1 Carbine...
if the opposition was at 300 you'd get him no problem...me not so much...
The carbine was never intended to be a long range weapon. With the WWII veterans I grew up with, it was the gun that everyone wanted to have. The round was developed from the 32 winchester self loading: .32 Winchester Self-Loading (also called .32SL, .32SLR, or .32WSL) is an American rifle cartridge. Contents ' It was a little more powerful than a 32-20 rifle: 165 gr (11 g) 1,392 ft/s (424 m/s) 710 ft⋅lbf (960 J. The 30 US Carbine has a 110 gr bullet at about 1900-2000 fps. wiki'
It is a good 50 yard cartridge. Little recoil in semiauto mode. Light wt, very trim, ergonomic, and good magazine capacity. Most combat is more at closer ranges than it is at longer yardages. It was the most produced US small arm of WWII
I had a WW2 made M1 carbine which I believe was made by Inland Manufacturing and came from Weller and Dusty plus also picked up a handful of 15 and 30 round mags plus ammo for next to nothing. It shot very well and was great fun and I had no problems even with reloaded rounds. It was plenty good enough for it’s intended use, certainly more useful than a pistol for less experienced troops. If you can sort out that mag or pick up some genuine issue mags I’m sure you’ll have a lot of fun.
I still think a scaled down M1 Garand in 5.56 with 10rnd original style clips would sell like mad in the US. It would be 50 state legal, and still very very capable in the hands of a proficient shooter.
It would probably be a 3k rifle. Old world manufacturing would cost a lot.
@@tomross2666 I think that's okay. Look at what people pay for cars and houses, etc.
First with a well worn and problems with both sights and other issues good shooting. While it isn't target accurate, just about every one of your shots would have hit a human torso. Considering that Most people during both the second world war and Korea had little to no experience with a pistol and the training they did get was classic one hand type shooting and unless they went out of their way to practice shooting the 1911 (getting extra ammo, finding range time, and having a good instructor) most soldiers were lucky to hit the barn door. They are one of the most difficult firearms to just pick up and fire accurately. Most soldiers who grew up in America during WWII had however learned to shoot a rifle and could hit what they aimed at. M1 carbines were to fill a void where people needed to defend themselves with a weapon that wouldn't take them away from their real task. The fact that they were almost 1/2 the weight of a Garand is why they were liked. Those who learned how to shoot them could at least protect themselves.
My grand dad carried a M1 Carbine in WWII and in Korea. He proclaimed at 300 yards the Carbine was good enough to hit a man and kill him if hit in the torso or belly. He'd know he killed enough Germans and North Koreans with one.
Well, reportedly 300 yards/meters were extreme ranges even with an M1 rilfe because potential targets used cover and camouflage. You couldn't see them over the iron sights. So, the M1 Carbine is doing more than well enough.
Was this more of a limitation of the carbine itself or does the round itself have poor external ballistics at range?
Both in my opinion.
The bullet drop on the round nose 30 cal bullet is 48 in at 300 yds. If you aimed the 30 cal at a person's head without adjusting sights the bullet would hit their knees. And high drag slowing from 2000 ft/sec to 1000 ft/sec over 300 yds. Energy has dropped below a 9 mm round at the muzzle. So it would hurt but not necessarily a man stopper. At close ranges the round has much more energy than a 357 magnum or 45 acp. That would put you down.
The 30-06 bullet drop is around 13 inches. The velocity loss is much less from 2900 ft/sec to 2260 ft/sec over 300 yds. This and the modern .308 still have more energy at 500 yds than the 30 cal at the muzzle.
@@earlyriser8998 I wonder how the 5.7 compares at 300 meters, being the modern analogue and all.
Go figure I would be led to the bloke to answer a question that randomly popped in my head.
The most important part of the M1 are the magazines, they were considered disposable and if you intend to shoot it regularly you just buy some until you find good reliable ones. Sadly the unopened/unused surplus magazines are nearly all gone by now and lots of people are selling the unreliable ones. The best pick would be to buy some at an estate sale from people who collected them, they usually have matching magazines that work without problem.
I've never seen anything official stating that the mags were considered disposable...
@@BlokeontheRange Not officially. So many mags were available that soldiers tested a few mags and only kept the ones that worked. If one started to go wonky they would throw it away and look for another one. I recall there being a project where somebody designed 3D printed ones that were allegedly more reliable, but never followed it up.