Then a specialized AP round in 6.8 from an XM7 could reliable pierce armor, but we don't know the details yet. A 7.62x51/308 is equivalent to the 30-06 in the M1 Garand, and AP cartridges in that caliber can reliable pierce armor on infantry. Otherwise, you would target the lower body, limbs, head, neck, face, and so on.
>Then a specialized AP round in 6.8 from an XM7 could reliably* pierce armor
Which was the whole notion of upgrading the caliber in the first place, seeing as nations like Russia and China have armor.
This is true, I'm just lamenting the fact that there has been a permanent downgrade in firepower among front line infantry since Vietnam, which was a war that did not pan out nearly as well as the two world wars.
I don't think it's too radical a notion that the general standard of marksmanship among infantry is raised to further ranges as optics and manufacturing make these rifles much more accurate, but the intermediate cartridge has been the standard since M16 based on the AR-15, a modification of the fully powered AR-10.
I think you have that backwards 357 magnum has as much energy at the muzzle as 30 carbine does at 100 yards. Atleast that's how I have always heard it.
I hike with my Carbine because it's very light. Garand is a more fun range toy though.
I feel like people always defend the ballistics of .30 carbine more than they should. Sure its not bad but it requires an 18 inch barrel to achieve those mediocre results. A mini draco with an ~8 inch barrel still has a slight edge over the m1 carbine with an 18 inch barrel. Granted the AK mags weight a lot more but the guns weigh about the same. Not saying there is no reason to own a M1 carbine I want one they are fascinating as a piece of history and a proto-assault rifle but if you want a compact carbine there are much better options. Pic related. Not the point of the thread and all but oh well.
Depends on where I am and what I'm doing
When they were first introduced, I'd still take a Garand over a Carbine, I might feel differently in Korea.
From what I've heard from combat veterans of WW2 they had notoriously unreliable magazines.
Better at what? They are both cool WW2 surplus guns, and I'm glad I snagged my M1 from the CMP, but if you really want something practical you should buy something made in this century.
I prefer the M1 rifle, the carbines I've owned weren't very reliable (an IBM and a Winchester). I know I could hold my own with both, but I prefer the rifle.
In drubk rn but in buying a fal next tax seasfin i already git the wooden furnite IS A LONG WAY TO MUKUMBHRTA
Op but a fal like that one screenqcap where all the gets were trips telling the moron to gheryt a fal
Depends on the role.
Now here's a question for you: was the M1 carbine actually replaced by the M14? I doubt it actually was even though the M14 was intended to do so.
>twice the magazine capacity of a Garand with just standard magazines, nearly four times with a 30 rounder >lighter >more easily stored in confined spaces such as within a vehicle >effective range of 200 meters (most firefights statistically take place >300) >comes in paratrooper (M1A1), full-auto (M2), and night vision (M3) variants >doctrinally closer to what future infantry weapons were going to wind up being (intermediate caliber, compact, pistol grip, select fire, compatible with a number of accessories, etc.)
I’d take the m1.
>way lighter
>much less recoil
>higher capacity
>actually suitable for home defense
Carbine 100% for anything under 200 yards. It's a nice little piece
Considering that most combat is 200yds and under, yep.
Garand cause it go ping
M1 Carbine
Carbine. I can't think of a situation today where I would prefer the 30-06 unless I was sniping an enemy from long range with a scope
What if you're up against armored opponents?
Then a specialized AP round in 6.8 from an XM7 could reliable pierce armor, but we don't know the details yet. A 7.62x51/308 is equivalent to the 30-06 in the M1 Garand, and AP cartridges in that caliber can reliable pierce armor on infantry. Otherwise, you would target the lower body, limbs, head, neck, face, and so on.
>Then a specialized AP round in 6.8 from an XM7 could reliably* pierce armor
Which was the whole notion of upgrading the caliber in the first place, seeing as nations like Russia and China have armor.
Just buy both
WW2 combat vets all just about favored the carbine, thompsons and garands were traded to replacements quickly.
SKS, the Soviet M1
>falls apart after 100 rounds
good engineering
The M1 Carbine is more for personal defense among offices and rear echelon troops.
The M1 Garand chambers a fully powered 30-06 cartridge and is for killing motherfuckers.
The beloved 30-06 was replaced with the 7.62x51mm NATO over time, or the civilian .308.
>The M1 Carbine is more for personal defense among officers* and rear echelon troops.
The full size M1 was too heavy for many support troops, but was beloved by front line nazi killers
.30 carbine is a serious round, it's almost a 7.62x39. You don't need the extra power of 30-06 to put someone down
This is true, I'm just lamenting the fact that there has been a permanent downgrade in firepower among front line infantry since Vietnam, which was a war that did not pan out nearly as well as the two world wars.
If battle rifle calibers are now considered high power, they weren't such specialized rounds before.
In fact, they are standard rifle rounds in some NATO countries, and function well for precision shooting and high capacity machine guns.
And the 5.56 is a seriously lethal round, but lacking in terms of armor piercing power in range relative to a fully powered cartridge.
I don't think it's too radical a notion that the general standard of marksmanship among infantry is raised to further ranges as optics and manufacturing make these rifles much more accurate, but the intermediate cartridge has been the standard since M16 based on the AR-15, a modification of the fully powered AR-10.
M2 ball is not full power 30-06 and 30 carbine has as much energy at the muzzle as 357 mag does at 100 yards. Both are adequate for dropping fools
The garand is a weak action and couldn't handle M1 or full power 30-06, M2 is loaded at 7.62x51 specs which shows just how oversized and weak it is.
I think you have that backwards 357 magnum has as much energy at the muzzle as 30 carbine does at 100 yards. Atleast that's how I have always heard it.
I feel like people always defend the ballistics of .30 carbine more than they should. Sure its not bad but it requires an 18 inch barrel to achieve those mediocre results. A mini draco with an ~8 inch barrel still has a slight edge over the m1 carbine with an 18 inch barrel. Granted the AK mags weight a lot more but the guns weigh about the same. Not saying there is no reason to own a M1 carbine I want one they are fascinating as a piece of history and a proto-assault rifle but if you want a compact carbine there are much better options. Pic related. Not the point of the thread and all but oh well.
Depends on where I am and what I'm doing
When they were first introduced, I'd still take a Garand over a Carbine, I might feel differently in Korea.
From what I've heard from combat veterans of WW2 they had notoriously unreliable magazines.
Better at what? They are both cool WW2 surplus guns, and I'm glad I snagged my M1 from the CMP, but if you really want something practical you should buy something made in this century.
I prefer the M1 rifle, the carbines I've owned weren't very reliable (an IBM and a Winchester). I know I could hold my own with both, but I prefer the rifle.
M1A
>made in Illinois
>illegal in Illinois
Same with the FAL
In drubk rn but in buying a fal next tax seasfin i already git the wooden furnite IS A LONG WAY TO MUKUMBHRTA
Op but a fal like that one screenqcap where all the gets were trips telling the moron to gheryt a fal
THE TRIPS APPEAR AGAIN
OP, GET A FUCKING FAL YOU moron
not again
Carbine because pog life
Garand has the most sex appeal. Carbine has the most practical utility.
I hike with my Carbine because it's very light. Garand is a more fun range toy though.
if you take the bait shame on you
Depends on the role.
Now here's a question for you: was the M1 carbine actually replaced by the M14? I doubt it actually was even though the M14 was intended to do so.
M1 Carbine
>twice the magazine capacity of a Garand with just standard magazines, nearly four times with a 30 rounder
>lighter
>more easily stored in confined spaces such as within a vehicle
>effective range of 200 meters (most firefights statistically take place >300)
>comes in paratrooper (M1A1), full-auto (M2), and night vision (M3) variants
>doctrinally closer to what future infantry weapons were going to wind up being (intermediate caliber, compact, pistol grip, select fire, compatible with a number of accessories, etc.)
They're both fun but it's the Garand for me.
>full power round but still pretty soft shooting
>more reliable and accurate
>it goes ping