...it's a .40 S&W and uses Ruger pistol mags...
Posted on 09/30/2009 9:12:27 AM PDT by Sasparilla
Buy a fine semiautomatic American combat rifle now, before Obama realizes that the Government has turned over actual semiautomatic U.S. military rifles to the Civilian Marksmanship Program to sell to Americans. Obama is busy with other important things now, like going to Copenhagen to bring the Olympics to Chicago.
These make excellent collector's pieces, with the added benefit using them for personal defense at a reasonable price.
A limited number of M1 carbines loaned by us to foreign governments, and just returned to us, are available for sale from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The CMP is the sales agency for this authentic and legitimate government surplus.
Inland, Underwood, Winchester, National Postal Meter, Standard Products, and Saginaw M1 Carbines are available for a limited time for $419.00 to $625.00, depending on manufacturer.
There are the CMP requirements to buy one of these workhorse battle tested classics. Only U.S. Citizens are eligible to buy our own surplus rifles from the CMP. Other than hitting the target every time, this is the only gun control policy that could ever be considered "common sense gun control" because our tax dollars originally paid for these guns, and they should be rightfully returned to American citizens only.
Other requirements are the usual rifle purchase ones. Your application information will be checked against the FBI National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS), but you don't have to fill out the normal 4473 form.
Additionally, you must provide a copy of a U.S. birth certificate(Could Obama do this?), passport, or any other official government document that shows birth in the US. You must provide proof of age, and membership in a CMP affiliated organization. There are many easy to find clubs that you can join online for as little as $25.00. You must show proof of marksmanship or...
(Excerpt) Read more at secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com ...
I wouldn't use a 5.56 for deer either.
I am still pissed off they didn’t make the M1 Carbine in .45 ACP and able to take Thompson mags. I have never wanted one but I would have loved to own one in .45. Dang it! Is conversion to .45 even possible?
Of course, not nearly as furious as when I think about all the surplus arms that monster Clinton had scrapped, melted down and destroyed during his reign of terror. Thousands and thousansd of Garands, Carbines, ‘03s, 1911s. Dirty rotten $#@%$#@!!!!!!111
“Yea I know it’s a dinky little carbine chambered for a pistol cartridge. I know it’s obsolete.
I want one anyway.”
I hope you reload cause that little carbine will eat you out of house and home :-)
But they are fun!
...it's a .40 S&W and uses Ruger pistol mags...
.30 cal carbine round is not a full rifle charge. 5.56mm is. Weight and speed of the round determines wound channel. (greater weight and slower speed equal bigger wound channel) The .30 cal carbine does not bring people down. If given enough time to bleed out you will die from a .30 cal carbine round but it will take awhile. You are correct in your description of deer running and bleeding out, the same thing occurs with people. Especially people drugged up trying to die for mohammed. Knock down power is the ability to put the bad guy down fast, especially at close ranges (urban/jungle combat). We had serious problems with this in Falluejah with green tip ammo. It was too heavy and especially too fast. It creates the ice pick wound - straight and narrow creating a slow bleed out rate. This allows hajhi more time to close and kill. The 5.56mm green tip was given greate weight and higher propulsion in the early 1980s to allow it to be used as belted ammo for the Squad Automatic Weapon. SAW needed performance to 700m so the upped the charge and weight. Result was when ammo used at short range on thin chested bad guys it just spike through the body and the body continued to charge. Big problem. Not being a know it all but .30 cal carbine was never produced after WWII for a reason. We used it in Korea because it was available and our little asian allies found it easier to shoot. It is not a combat weapon, and will get people killed who think it is.
any CMP links?
Add a Ka bar knife to that too!
1. “Knock Down Power” is a myth. It’s a mathematical computation that doesn’t correlate to actual performance on tissue. Greater weight and slower speed DO NOT equal a bigger wound channel. A larger bullet diameter MIGHT, but the hydrostatic effect on tissue (from velocity) and fragmentation is what really makes the permanent wound channel larger.
2. It isn’t perfect, but there are plenty of people who use the same reasoning for the 5.56mm, which you call a “full rifle charge”. It isn’t. It’s an assault rifle cartridge (med power round). I could easily argue that Lake City isn’t making 30.06 any more, but that wouldn’t prove a thing. We moved on from the M-1 Garand as well. Doesn’t mean it was particularly bad, does it?
3. Green tip (M855) is acutally slower than the previous M913 55gr round. You’re correct in the “ice pick” effect, because while the M855 isn’t really “armor piercing”, it didn’t fragment as well as the M193. For that matter, 7.62mm FMJ doen’t fragment like the M193 and, as far as terminal ballistics go, relies 100% on the 37% greater bullet diameter. It’s really only better at much longer ranges and for shooting through cover/armor. Inside common combat ranges (under 100m), the 5.56mm has greater terminal ballistics on the body. Velocity and fragmentation.
Again, there are THOUSANDS of stories about people taking 5, 10 or even “41” rounds to go down. That alone should make any reasonable skeptic say, “WTF?” and rethink the story.
I’ve been told, “I fired the entire magazine and he didn’t go down.”
To which, I immediately reply, “You missed.”
Not to be disagreeable but I disagree. There is such a thing as knock down power - it’s best representative is the .45 ACP round. It was designed to specifically put down drugged up asian muslims who used hemp rope as torso bullet protection. The round did exactly what is was designed to do-put down bad guys fast. The round saw real world testing from Phillipines, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. The first time we had close combat with the 9mm in room to room engagements we had problems (7 to 9 hits to enemy personnel before they were down). Two rounds, similar size, big difference in effect due the speed of rounds; 9mm supersonic, .45 subsonic. Likewise with 5.56mm. when we weighted it up for SAW and added more propellant we got ice picks at short range. The original specs on 5.56 represented a very light round with an effective range of 300m max. By design it was supposed to tumble when entering flesh, thus causing a larger wound channel. As we added weight to the round (first to improve rifle range scores at 300-500yds, and second to use as a machinegun round at 700m) and propellant we lost the designed tumbling (instability) properties of the round. Thus it lost its knock down power. See cavitation and bleed out rates. Or just go read the 1930s Pig Board report. This is a recurring conversation with Army/Marines, the argument always ends with the recognition of the size of our ammo war reserve quantities and cost to change round/rifle. Personally, would prefer a 6mm or 6.5mm round for combat, but we are stuck with 5.56mm for a long while.
The Beretta CX4 storm is a .45 acp carbine, but it’s not an M1 carbine.
Think of how much easier logistics would have been with a .45 ACP M1 carbine. You could avoid the production and distribution of an entire round. It is one less type of ammo to run out of. With only .45 in both the carbine and sidearms, if you reduced the chance of being caught with a case that only works in either the sidearm or the carbine. I refuse to believe the effectiveness of the .30 carbine exceeds that of the .45 ACP. The effective range of the .30 carbine is probably greater than the .45, but that was not the intent, not being a main battle rifle.
I think we really screwed up chambering these carbines for a unique round only they could fire. You would have the Thompson, 1911 and carbine all able to fire the same ammo, leaving either .30 06 or 45 to distribute widely. Too simple and I am not seeing a downside to a .45 caliber M1 carbine.
If the human body were a steel plate, and absorbing the energy of the round was the only factor, then “knock down power” and the resulting calculations would be the end of it.
But taking a person down is more about placement and the resulting organ, CNS or bleed out than the mass of the larger/slower projectile.
IIRC, the one-shot-stop statistics between .45ACP and 9mm were within 5% of eachother, with the .45ACP getting the edge.
The adoption of the SAW and the M955 preceded the M-16A2. We got the additional range for the SAW, then the USMC project team came up with a revised rifle to chamber and accurately fire the 62gr bullet. What we lost was the fragmentation (and the larger permanant would canal) that the thin-cannalured M193 provided (upon initial yaw/tumbling).
Agreed, logistics are what keeps any new cartridge in the “wishful thinking” stage, but logistics is also what ensures that we have a shitload of ordnance.
And, disagreeing isn’t necessarily “disagreeable”. We haven’t resorted to name-calling.
yet ;)
The Thompson was substantially heavier to lug around than a carbine, and even out of a longer barrel, the .45ACP's trajectory is nowhere near as flat as .30 Carbine. Initial runs of Thompsons (M1928A1) were very expensive until they streamlined the production process with the M1 and M1A1 variants. What you're suggesting (i.e. a .45 ACP with the weight and production cost advantages of a carbine) basically took shape in the M50 and M55 Reising submachine guns, and the M3 Grease gun. Granted there was a good bit of overlap, but not enough, IMHO, to dispute that they did not fill distinct niches.
We seem to have similar backgrounds - my point is simply that a slower larger round will do more damage to people than a smaller faster round. All things equal in size (9mm to 45 cal) the slower speed of the bullet will cause greater flesh damage (wound channel) and will communicate more energy to the victim if a bone is contacted. If you want range, you need greater speed, this is a given, but most killing done by grunts with individual weapons occurs inside of 300m, and most of it inside 100m. Given that, I would prefer a rifle that shoots a good size (mass) round barely over supersonic speed. Lets not go into shooting through auto glass and concrete block, this is where the services get hijacked by the belly shooters. Give me a round that will hit hard within 200m against a human being. I want big sucking chest wounds at that range. If I can knock them down fast, I can do double tap to the head to finish things after I have neutralized the threat.
Just between the two of us, if you could carry a .45 or 9mm pistol in combat, which one would you choose?
That's why they were issued, to give officers and support troops something besides that .45. Most people can't hit anything with a pistol, the .30 carbine was a fairly hot pistol round and easier to hit with than the .45 for the average officer, artillery, cooks and other personnel who didn't need an M1 Garand but needed to shoot now and then.
I don’t see much one-shot-stop difference between the .45 and the 9mm, but I get 15rnds out of my Glock 19 and SIG P226, and 17 out of my Glock 17. I’d have to go with the 9mm.
I only meant that logistically ammunition production and distribution could have been simplified by eliminating a unique round in the .30 carbine. The cartridge pressure is not that great, so all the M1 carbine would need is a larger barrel which would add minimal weight. I already addresed the effective range of the .30 carbine. The weapon was intended as a last-ditch defensive weapon for non-combitants that was something more than a sidearm. The longer barrel and sight radius of a .45 carbine would have made it suitable to the role intended for the M1 Carbine in .30 carbine, and would reduce the logistical problems. No need to make a unique cartridge. One less chance that your supply depot will have a bunch of .45 for Thompsons but no .30 carbine for the M1.
I think it was a win-win. I don’t see why they went with a unique, low powered cartridge that was no more effective than a pistol round. Why not chamber in something already produced in quanity and simplify your supply problems.
Again, I’m just not seeing a downside if the .30 carbine didn’t exist and if M1 carbines came in .45 ACP. If this weapon was intended for offense, then yes, and even then the aenemic choice of round is not suitable. For a close contact last-ditch defensive weapon for truck drivers and cooks, I just don’t see why .30 carbine is any more effectiev in that role than .45 ACP would be.
He can’t. The CMP was established by an act of Congress and Congress has set the rules and the zero has no say so.
First, it goes to weight. The Thompson weighs right about twice what carbine weighs...it's not just a matter of barrel weight, but a substantially heftier bolt merely to accomodate a much fatter round. Even the stamped metal grease gun weighed on the order of 2 pounds more than a carbine...add to that the amount of .30 ammo that could be carried on a pound for pound basis compared to .45.
Second, even with a longer, carbine length barrel, the carbine has a much flatter trajectory making it far easier for a novice shooter to hit targets out to 200m.
Certainly, having another caliber in the arsenal made for some logistical considerations and compromises, but it seems to me we still did ok in WWII, and that does make the .30 carbine somewhat of a historical enigma, as the greatest mass produced, *non-standard, standard-issue* weapon ever. I really doubt we'll ever see such again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.