The AC556 (basically a mini in the folding stock) is 7+ pounds.
An MP7 weighs only 4.2 pounds.
An APC9K weighs 6.7 pounds.
An MP5 can weigh 5.9 pounds depending on setup.
A loaded P90 is 6.6 pounds.

So at least the MP7 ostensibly fills the same role, but uses modern materials to decrease weight.

This. As much as people are saying it’s due to an advantage in lower pressure, it’s not just that. It was engineered to be crazy lightweight, where as the M14 and Garand had very little regard to weight.

The AR front sight post is almost a half pound by itself. To me it’s the worst thing about the AR design. Then you add in government barrel profiles and it just gets worse. The AR15 can get crazy lightweight when built right. Just look at the what would Karl Marx do carbine from InRange.

I also have one of those in process, down to about 30 days remaining in the process with Shuff.

You're comparing a pistol to a rifle.  You're also not comparing similar bullet weights either.

If you take that .357M and fire it from a rifle instead, using a 110gr bullet you'll find that their performance is actually quite similar.  This is why most will compare it to a PCC.  

The biggest point in that comparison is the .30 Carbine has absolute shit aerodynamics because the projectile has the profile of a pistol bullet.

I operate in the woods alone quite often.  Out here in the West, we call it "hunting".   Give it a try sometime.

This "punches above its weight" is an old shibboleth.  It's what people say who can't understand physics.  It can defeat plates, at closer range, because of the muzzle velocity.  Once the .22 bullet loses velocity, like beyond 200 yds or so, it behaves on plates just like any other bullet.  It so happens that armor is sensitive to velocity, and it also happens that .22 bullets lose velocity very rapidly.

Look up "ballistic coefficient", compare . 22 and .30 bullets.  BC is based on physics, not feelings.

I'm not crapping on the .223.  It's a fine carbine round.  The effort spent on trying to make it a rifle round is wasted.  It was never meant to be a rifle round, and it will never be a rifle round.  Accept it for what it is.  Physics doesn't care about feelings.

My .mil 15 round mags were 100%.  Couldn't get the 30s to operate reliably.

I do very occasionally go hunting w/ BIgDAM at night on public land, but limited to shotguns, so I have a 12 lb 870 w/ night scope.  That's rather different than "operating".  The SFAR is a pretty decent hunting rifle.

To answer the OP’s question, not carbine vs whatever. The carbine is so light because of the gas piston locking bolt action coupled with the less powerful cartridge. The locking bolt does not require extra mass in the system that a blow back action in a pcc requires. The 30 carbine cartridge has 2/3 the pressure of 5.56 which requires less steel to contain. The majority of the carbines volume is light weight wood.

A close example of a firearm to compare apples to apples in action but chambered in 5.56 is the mini 14. The mini weighs in at 6.4 lbs verses the 30 carbine at 5.5 lbs. So increasing cartridge pressure adds less than a pound.

Lol, 8x63mm was the Swedish "carbine" round.  They chose that b/c it was also their heavy machine gun round, so it was available to the artillery troops.  .223 Remington is a SCHV rifle round in the intermediate class, quite intended to be a rifle round, and has served as such for the last 60 years.  Just b/c you love .308 doesn't mean you get to make up terms to win your argument.

A friend of mine has a couple of those. One is nickel finished.

I've owned AR's much longer than carbines and I can appreciate their usefulness for the role for which they were designed; a frontline battle rifle and they completely dominate competitions such as High Power. But for a purely PDW, which is the reason most of us have the firearms in question, I find the M1 Carbine to be far less cumbersome and heavy and is easily wielded, and even fired with one hand, if necessary. A couple of nights ago I grabbed my 16" AR in 7.62x39 (because it has a scope on it) to go after a boar that was under one of my feeders. At 8 lbs. 12 oz. with a cheap scope mounted on it, and with a 20 round magazine and the pistol grip protruding from the bottom, it was difficult to hold the rifle in one hand and a flashlight in the other. Very UNwieldy.
And to the Carbine's credit. it is very user friendly. When I was working out of town a couple of months ago we were having a problem with a coyote who liked chicken for dinner. I handed my wife one of my Carbines and she quickly and easily understood how to operate it. For her purposes they were only two things with which she needed to be concerned- the charging handle and the safety, both of which are quite easy to spot and operate.

 As to power of the cartridges, at the ranges at which one would typically use a PDW, say <100 yds., it's probably a wash when FMJ vs. FMJ or expanding bullets vis a vis. I doubt anyone hit with either would know or care which was which.

 Regarding the M1 Carbine and its cartridge, I had a couple of surprises when I really started developing loads and wringing some of them out.
 The first was that they're plenty accurate out to 200 yds. should one need/want to use them that far our. Even my most heavily used/worn examples will group ~6" at the range day in and day out. The two commercial examples I own occasionally group around 5", which I find quite remarkable notwithstanding the lack of bedding in the stocks and the coarse sights. But the second surprise was when I accidentally hit my 100 yd. target frame which is made of 1 1/4" 14 gauge steel square tubing-



So much for underpowered....

Attached File

The production - export M16A1 Carbine weighed approximately 5 pounds.  Replace the polyvinyl-coated aluminum stock with the lighter plastic "N" stock and you shed a few more ounces.  You don't have to use a rail system.



The current M4A1 has the SOCOM medium-heavy taper barrel and a KAC RAS, adding a little more weight (but still lighter than a 20-inch M16A1 rifle).

I’m guessing you’re an older dude who likes older equipment that he’s used to (nothing wrong with that), but your issues are more easily attributable to outdated and less than ideal equipment, not the M1 being an overall better platform.

For starters, why are you utilizing a handheld light with an AR when weaponlights have been a thing for 30+ years?  If you want a more “handy” weapon, that is a fairly easy thing to do with the AR platform.  You don’t have to deal with a 16” heavy barreled (guessing since you apparently don’t have any accessories mounted aside from an optic and it still tips the scales at nearly 9lbs) monstrosity.  

Get a light profile shorter barrel, a lighter weight handguard, a weaponlight (because it’s going to be easier to use and manipulate than a handheld light, with an AR or an M1) and a more suitable optic and you’re set.  Pistol gripped long guns are also generally easier to hold on target one handed than long guns with traditional stocks, given similar weights/balance, simply due to the mechanics, weight distribution, and grip angle.

Essentially, you’re taking a weapon built around a specific set of requirements, saying it sucks at doing something 180* from those requirements, then declaring an older outdated weapon as being the entire platform’s better, when there are readily built AR pattern rifles that are much better suited to the task, which can be had chambered in more modern and versatile cartridges, all in a smaller, more compact, and lighter weight package. There’s a reason professional end users of PDW type weapons aren’t carrying around M1 carbines for the task.  It may work for you, but it is in no way close to being comparable to modern AR pattern (and other similar) weapons.

ETA:  For reference, my 6.75” and 5.5” .300BLK guns throw 110gr .30 projectiles at basically identical velocities as the 110gr out of an M1 Carbine with an 18” barrel (5.5” a bit below, 6.75” a bit above).  They do this with a much more aerodynamic projectile, meaning better trajectories and a vastly increased effective range from a much more compact and handy weapon system.

The M1 Carbine is without a doubt a cool little firearm.  I’ve shot a few and they are fun and easy to shoot.  I’ll likely pick one up someday as the smaller twin to my M1 Garand just for nostalgia’s sake.  Outside of that, though, they can’t hold a candle anywhere closer to more modern weapon systems for any real, serious use.

Would someone who owns both an M1 Carbine and some 5.7x28mm ammo see if the ammo fits reasonably well in M1 Carbine mags? They look like they'd fit and feed, but you can't really tell that sort of thing without actually putting some rounds in the mag and seeing if the length and tolerances work out.

I'd love a 5.7x28mm M1 Carbine.

Yes please

Most Americans are bigger (heavier), than their WW2 counterparts…so the little bit of extra weight of a rifle shouldn’t really matter.

The Thompson is a WW1-era SMG that relied upon physics (Blish Lock) that turned out to not exist. The Uzi is among the best SMGs that could be built using late WW2 tech. The MP5 is the ultimate masterpiece of WW2 era mass-production technology and knowledge combined with years of testing and experience after the war.

OAL is good.  5.7x28mm is shorter.

When H&R comes out with complete M16A1 style uppers, I'm going to put one on a KE Arms lightweight poly lower and I bet it'll be close to M1 Carbine weight but still having the 20" barrel, excellent sights, and the excellent .223 round which is among the most ideal light rifle rounds out of a 20" barrel.

I have two usgi carbines myself.

I've been shooting them for 20 years. I've broken 3 bolts, ive seen many more. Yes it scommon

You overestimate how many carbines how many carbines are "in active use". The magazines are easily the single weakest part of the carbine. They don't handle abuse well and it doesn't take long before the locking lugs on the mag deform and break off.

Why would you need a 30 round mag?  Cool, I'm talking to a fudd. You DO need good magazines and it's a hell of a lot easier to find good AR mags, regardless of capacity.

You can easily build an AR that is handier than a carbine and in reality the AR is just as intuitive to a new shooter.

20 round USGI mags are fine, unless you put the spring in backwards.

Look...you don't have to come here seeking validation for your preference in firearms. You prefer the AR, I get it. We're all aware of the differences in ballistics, etc., no need to beat that dead horse. To each his own. So go in peace and be happy.
I was merely stating the differences I've found in each and why I prefer one over the other in certain instances. And I have no desire to throw money at my AR's to make them more like Carbines.

I understand ballistics well enough. I say things like "punches above its weight" because unlike you, i am trying to avoid shitting up this thread (M1 carbines vs M4 carbines) unlike you, who has been talking about .308 and .30-06 for some reason.

5.56 at 200 yards is doing much better than .30 carbine.

 So you're basing your assertion that Carbines break LOTS of bolts based on the two you've owned and the generalization that "I've seen many more"?
 Come one man, you obviously prefer and shoot AR's far more than Carbines, yet we're to believe you are an expert on their magazines and bolt breakage??

 

Id kill for a p90 or an mp7 in .30 carbine

I'm not sure about that.  With the operating parts exposed, it's easier for a noob to understand what's going on & when the gun is loaded.  A lot of folks (not here) seemingly treat the M-16/M-4 as magic.  Put magazine in (sometimes backwards), rack charging handle, pull trigger.

If you are seeking the easiest weapons to train in a given class, DAO revolvers, double bbl shotguns, the M-3A1 submachinegun, and the M-1 carbine are arguably the fastest to teach someone to handle safely.  Not the most mud resistant, not the most effective, but the fastest to teach to a safe handling level.

.30 Carbine is longer than 4.6 or 5.7, so that's gonna take some rengineering.

It's easy to see there's a pattern of behavior when NOS bolts shear lugs on guns with springs that only have maybe 1,000 rounds through them.

Guns that have been looked over by fulton

It's easy to see why. The carbine was an afterthought. Winchester had no intention of developing the M2 rifle into the carbine. Ww2 prevented any long term tests and trials before it was issued.

It's a credit to Winchester that it's as good as it is.

You make many assumptions. I love WW2 US firearms. I love shooting them. I get bored of AR's very easily, but I also live in the real world and know that when practicality matters, the carbines day and age has passed.

The P90 was based on a firearm chambered in 9mm para.

It can be done. It may not be cheap or easy to design, but it's not like you're trying to chamber .50G in it or something.

The M1 is a locking bolt design. Not sure how the cartridge would work in the P90's blowback setup, especially without that magic coating FN puts on the 5.7 to delay unlock.

The original M-16 and M-16A1 were fairly light compared to modern ARs

The M-4 feels heavy compared to them.  


May not actually be heavier than the A-1 but the weight is distributed over a wider area making it feel lighter and more balanced

At least to me and others who have handled both

Exactly. Visually, it's quite easy to see how a Carbine is operated, even to the uninitiated. Hand an AR to someone who's never fired one, tell them to charge it, and watch the look on their face. This is NOT to say a Carbine is superior to an AR, just more simple in its operation.

That has not been my experience. A truly new shooter will take to (almost) anything equally well. I've taught lots of kids who have grown up playing call of duty, battlefield, etc

The carbine does have an advantage as a step up from a 10/22, and some may find it less scary due to appearances.

Yeah, that statement might have been true a few decades ago, but video games and movies have shown enough of the AR that basic use should be at least somewhat easy to figure out.

The video gamers specifically will take to it quickly. Not because the game gives them any level of skill, but because they've seen certain actions repeated thousands of times and will mimic what they've seen.

It shouldn't be too hard to put a locking or actual delaying mechanism into something thats the same, or similar size to a p90.

A few weeks ago i was helping a grandfather and his grandson learn to shoot. The grandfather couldn't quite take to the AR, but the grandson (who had never shot before) could work the charging handle, safety and mag release.

Plus it's extremely easy for a new shooter to use a red dot, abd it's much easier to put one on an AR than a carbine

Not saying it can't be done, but that there's a lot more redesign than just widening the mag/gun to accommodate the longer cartridge.

Yes, i know. I've said as much. But if FN can take a 9mm sub gun and make it into 5.7, they could (if they wanted) make it in .30 carbine

Disingenuous comparison.

Compare the M1 carbine and it's 110gr round to an 18" lever action running readily available 110gr .357 magnums.

Hint: You will be well over 2000fps with the .357.

Comparable rounds are Comparable.

@Old_Painless

Old Painless has done serious work regarding .30 carbine ballistics.

IIRC it will punch through three layers of water-soaked and frozen quilted material at 300 meters.

Looks like there are dudes loading 55gr .223 bullets in sabots in the carbine and flinging them at ~2400fps, which is pretty comparable to the 5.7, but with heavier bullets.

Sure.  But unlike 4.6 or 5.7 in a M1 Carbine action, .30 Carbine isn't gonna fit in a P90 mag.

Obviously you cant just stick a .30 carbine in a 5.7 mag, but there's enough unused space to make enough room.

You can make it fit. Attached File

We've gone from talking about putting 5.7x28mm in an M1 Carbine (relatively easy) to putting .30 Carbine into a P90 (relatively hard).  If you're going to quote my posts to show I'm wrong, quote the post where I'm talking about what you're talking about.

In addition to the Carbines I own, I also own, handload for and hunt with a '92 Rossi in .357. One of my hunting loads is a 170 gr. jacketed HP running 1700 fps. CLEARLY the .357 out of a carbine length barrel can reach 2000 fps with a 110 gr. and probably even a 125 gr. bullet. The problem with your comparison of the two cartridges is a 110 or 125 gr. .35 caliber bullet has a low sectional density compared to a 110 gr. .30 caliber bullet. While numbers on paper appear to be the same, the reality is a .35 caliber bullet weighing 110 gr. will exhibit far less penetration than the same weigh in .30 caliber. (The same could be said in comparing a 110 gr. bullet fired from a .308 W and a 25-06) So we're back to numbers on paper.



I think one of the most valid comparisons, cartridge to cartridge, is the .30 Carbine vs. the 7.62x25 Tokarev, from a pistol, since both fire similar diameter bullets of similar construction and weight. The difference is the power of the 7.62x25 Tok at 25 yds. is roughly the same as the .30 Carbine at 150-175 yds. i.e.- a bullet from the .30 Carbine at 150-175 yds. has the same velocity as a bullet from the Tok at 25 or so yds. SO, if you believe the Tok is effective at point blank range or even 25 yds., then it would go without saying that the .308 Carbine is as effective at 150 yds. or so, as the Tok is at close ranges.

There were problems with the XM177. It was when the US was leaving Vietnam, so the problem was never pursued. (Ammo/powder? Mechanical? Who knows. Colt wanted a half million to figure it out.)

My point was mainly that the common, standard M-16/AR-15 for decades was the 20 inch version. Nobody even wanted anything shorter because of the loss in velocity. (Not saying I agree with the latter, but it was there.) If you went to the store, unless you were shopping an NFA shop, it was 20 inch ARs.

Do you think it has a little to do with mass?
The BCG can't be that much smaller than the carbines action. I think there's more steel than what people think are in the AR.