MAC Tests The Old .30 Carbine & .32 ACP in Ballistics Gel With New Bullets

Capture

A lot of internet knowledge has solidified both .30 carbine and .32 ACP as “inferior” loadings, an assertion that I have vigorously disagreed with but thus far have relied on anecdotal points such as “many Nazis were slain with the .30 Carbine”, etc. While it has a certain ring to it, there is a certain lack of proof when it comes to the terminal effectiveness of the chamberings.

However, modern bullet design has come a long way from taking these “weak” loadings into something that one can truly rely on. Bringing some actual science to the conversation is Tim from Military Arms Channel who tests the two thirty calibers with modern loadings.

Up first is the .32 ACP, a cartridge not commonly mentioned in self-defense circles, but continues to enjoy popularity with the ultra-small and ultra-concealable handgun crowd. In fact, Beretta and others still make semi-automatic handguns today. Loads tested include a Hornady and an Underwood with Lehigh Defense’s Extreme Cavitator machined bullet. The results? Fantastic by modern standards, especially considering the size.

Second is the more powerful .30 Carbine, which likewise is tested using a Hornady and Underwood/Lehigh Defense. The straight-walled cartridge is surprisingly capable, especially when one looks at the temporary stretch cavity.

What say you? Are the calibers obsolete or has modern loads brought them back to “relevance”?



Nathan S.

One of TFB’s resident Jarheads, Nathan now works within the firearms industry. A consecutive Marine rifle and pistol expert, he enjoys local 3-gun, NFA, gunsmithing, MSR’s, & high-speed gear. Nathan has traveled to over 30 countries working with US DoD & foreign MoDs.

Nathan can be reached at Nathan.S@TheFirearmBlog.com

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • JustAHologram

    Almost make you reconsider .32 ACP

    • Marcus D.

      Personally, I am kind of pining for a .32 Federal Magnum…..

      • JustAHologram

        How many would fit in a S & W model 327?

        • Marcus D.

          Both the Ruger LCR and the S&W SP101 carry six. Of the two, I’d go for the S&W. (Not a fan of snubbies.)

          • JustAHologram

            I was thinking of the 4″ model like the 327 TRR8

      • Tim Pearce

        Yeah, I was seriously saddened when Smith dropped the 632 Pro. Stainless steel, six-round capacity, cut for moon clips (IIRC), nightsights. I was going to sell my SP101 in .327 Fed to get it, and then the prices shot up when Smith discontinued the 632 Pro.

  • Hoplopfheil

    Now I want a solid copper lightweight .25 Auto load.

    • demophilus

      Someone made those for a while, IIRC.
      Saw a ballistic vest rating once, showed .25 KTW. Found myself wondering who bought that.

  • Joseph Goins

    “Inferior” is a term that requires a comparison. All MAC did is said these rounds work in ballistics gel. He didn’t compare them to another caliber.

    • Josh

      Well he did shoot a .45 ball round but it would have been nice if it were a comparable bullet design.

      • Joseph Goins

        That’s my point although I am not convinced of the theory of the bullet designs he tested. I have only seen them work well in gel blocks. I shot a dead hog with an 9x19mm Underwood Xtreme Penetrator (115 grain, +P) twice, and it did not perform nearly as good as my tried-and-true Federal HST 124 grain load. That’s not the only thing I shot with the newer designs, but it’s just an example.

  • Pedenzo

    I wish Hornady would release the .30 cal FTX bullet….it would fit perfectly with my plans for my 300Blk….

  • Brian Hert

    The fact that the same sorts of good loads area available for modern calibers means, nope.

    Give me a single stack 9mm or a .380 ACP with modern loads. Neither would be substantially larger than that little gun and both will perform better.

    Take a AR carbine length rifle with modern (non military) ammo for example. It’ll have better ballistics, better accessories, be cheaper, have better ergonomics, and be more reliable than the .30 carbine.

    Its interesting that they’re making better ammo for what are effectively antiques, but it doesn’t make them suddenly something you should seriously consider for defense unless it’s all you’ve got.

    • CourtLively

      Here’s a thought. Perhaps America is soon to go the way of other countries in which not only will there be gun bans but also bans on what ammo you can buy. Neither the .32ACP or .30Carbine are in use by any of the branches. Thus they’d be able to get around this…

      OK now i’ll take my tin foil hat off. There are still production .32 guns being made and it’s a very popular cartridge in other countries. Also the M1 Carbine has quite the following. That being said neither one is the best option as per what you outlined in your comment.

      • Anonymoose

        M1 Carbines are already banned in Joisey. Expect that to apply nationwide if a certain party gets elected to certain positions next month.

        • Josh

          Really? m1 carbines are banned in Jersey? Is it because the mags are high capacity?

          • Anonymoose

            They make low-cap mags for them, but some crazy Nam vet shot a cop on the side of the road with one once (which is why CCing in your car without a CCW license is illegal in most states) and Malcom X had one when he scared Ronald Reagan and Dianne Feinstein.

          • demophilus

            Been a while since I lived there, but IIRC, mag capacity was capped at 15, maybe 10. As I recall it, the biggest reason was the ’68 race riots in Newark and Atlantic City. Years later CORE (the Congress of Racial Equality lobbied against the AWB. On account someone didn’t want to be disarmed again.

        • CourtLively

          Damn and to think I bought a M1 Carbine this year to hedge my bets. My now obviously flawed thinking was I’ve got ARs & 5.56 may end up on a ammo ban, time to get a AWB proof gun! I suppose I should have bought a deer rifle…. Although i’m sure we’re only moments away from standard bolt guns being labeled as sniper rifles.

          • Anonymoose

            Can’t go wrong with a lever-action in a magnum caliber or .30-30. Hide all the rest.

      • Joseph Goins

        Not to be political, but the Supreme Court said in Miller v. United States and again in District of Columbia v. Heller that the qualifying factor is “what is in common use.” It is very unlikely that .223 Remington, 7.62x51mm, and the like will ever be banned in America.

        See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf as pages 54-56.

        • MarcoPolo

          Oh yeah? Read Satomayor’s dissent. Immediately after the Heller decision she gave a talk about how important it is to carefully lay the groundwork for overturning Heller in the future. Don’t think for a minute that our enemies will tire of chipping away at our freedom, or stealing it wholesale if the opportunity presents itself.

          • Joseph Goins

            The dissent isn’t precedent. It is rare that the Supreme Court overturns its own rulings.

          • Anonymoose

            It will be if a certain someone starts placing her handpicked ideologues on the bench.

          • valorius

            Rare is not synonymous with never.

          • jay

            Be sure to vote Trump. killary will put in people that make sotomayor, kagan and ginsburg look conservative.

    • nadnerbus

      I can’t and don’t CC, but from what I understand, having a smaller lighter pistol is at times desirable, for small framed people, hot weather and light clothes, or just comfort. If one can get a very small and light handgun that is still reasonably effective due to modern ammo, then there may still be a legit market.

    • valorius

      Serious defensive use, like….WWII and the Korean war, you mean?

  • Joel

    30 Carbine has about the same diameter as a .30-06 Springfield (M1Garand bullet). Near the muzzle, 30 Carbine has about the same velocity as a .30-06 at 300 to 400 yards (depending on loadings, etc). Yet somehow, the cult of Garand tells us that their idol is deadly to 1000 yards and the other is worthless at any range.

    Don’t be a cultist.

    • Joseph Goins

      Granted, different loads have different results. When you look at comparable loads (American Eagle FMJ for both), .30 Carbine drops like a rock, hits like a school girl, is slower than Forrest Gump, and sways like the general public after a tragedy.

      .30-06 Springfield
      Energy: 2397 at 100 yards, 1173 at 500 yards
      Velocity: 2683 at 100 yards, 1877 at 500 yards
      Wind Drift: 0.8″ at 100 yards, 22.2″ at 500 yards
      Bullet Drop: +1.7″ at 100 yards, 0″ at 200 yards, and -43.8″ at 500 yards

      .30 Carbine
      Energy: 597 at 100 yards, 172 at 500 yards
      Velocity: 1564 at 100 yards, 839 at 500 yards
      Wind Drift: 3.5″ at 100 yards, 97.4″ at 500 yards
      Bullet Drop: +6.5″ at 100 yards, 0″ at 200 yards, and -190.2″ at 500 yards

      • Trey Heldmann

        I like that instead of arguing for or against a “cult” of anything, and bring emotion into the mix, you just wrote out straight facts and let them speak for themselves. We could use more like you in this day and age… 👍

        • Joseph Goins

          Thanks. The problem is that every caliber will perform in a vacuum. MAC’s video simply showed that about both cartridges: they performed. They need to put into context to be fully understood. It’s like saying “.22LR is a great self-defense round” without looking at almost any other choice.

    • tiger

      wrong rifle comparison. Try Winchester 92 of old vs. The semi auto M-1 carbine. Equal in range, power and purpose. The Garand is a whole other class.

    • yodamiles

      I don’t understand your point. Diameter and muzzle velocity have little to do with anythings. While both rounds share the same diameter, .30-60’s bullets are heavier. longer, and have significant higher ballistic coefficient compare to stubby .30 carbine’s bullet. Energy difference is also significant too.
      I’m not Garand cultist and I would probably take a M1 Carbine if I have to shoot something within 200 meters (lighter recoil/weight and more ammo for the win) But any farther than that or need penetration/ stopping power, the .30-60 would win.
      Different rounds with different purpose.

    • Chris

      30 Carbine = .308 dia. bullet@ 110 gr. @ around 1900 fps……
      30-06 = .308 dia. bullet 180gr.@2700 fps…..:
      So at 300 + yards the 30-06 180 gr. is still moving faster and packing two times the muzzle energy of the 30 carbine .
      No cult , just the difference between a rifle round and a (very nice ) Pistol round ! In fact , the .327 mag Speer 115gr. Gold Dot in 18 inch barrel hits almost 1900 fps. ; for very similar ballistics to .30 carbine !

      • Giolli Joker

        I guess that .30 Carbine was supposed to be a carbine round… 🙂

      • I see the .30 Carbine round as the first intermediate round in service, predating the 7.92 x 33 Kurs

        • User

          Kurz*

  • PJ

    There are always more effective calibers than these fairly uncommon ones. It doesn’t mean that these ones don’t have merits or a place in the world.

    .32 has a much lighter, more controllable recoil impulse than .380 or 9mm in smaller guns, and generally .32 guns are smaller than .380 and especially 9mm ones if you are trying to maximize concealability. This is a great benefit to most shooters looking for a sensible concealed carry solution.

    Recoil sensitive people, Women, and disabled people especially benefit the most from these types of calibers. As easy as an AR15 is to shoot, an M1 is even easier. I know that my sister would never enjoy shooting or carrying an LCP, but doesnt mind my P32 at all.

    • Trevor

      I don’t see why a woman can’t handle .380 or 9mm recoil just fine. My GF weights 104 pounds, is 5’6 and shoots a gov 1911 ,45 in matches. Get that bull crap out of here.

      • Josh

        Then your gf kicks ass not every woman can, hell my wife has a bad shoulder and has a hard time holding a gun up in that hand now, a lighter weight gun might help

      • Cameron Bissell

        Recoil is subjective for one, while the 1911 and the 45 are a pretty mild combo compared to let’s say the XDS 45.
        Props on finding a partner who can shoot.

      • Tim Pearce

        I used to sell guns for years and it was so irksome when a couple would come in and the husband would insist on his wife only looking at the .22 LR or .380 ACP pistols “because she’s a woman.” It’s sexist nonsense, and unfortunately, some women have allowed themselves to come to believe it.
        Women can handle any firearm that men can. On the individual level, there are women that have recoil tolerance issues, but there are also men that have recoil tolerance issues. In both cases, a good deal of the time, those issues are entirely in their heads.

        • billyoblivion

          Given the difference in felt recoil between a blowback .380 and non-blowback 9mm, a good single stack 9mm would be *better* for a small framed woman.

          My wife can handle a CZ75 just fine two handed, but we’re going to be testing out the M&P, the Glock 43 and the Springfield XDs tomorrow to see which one will work better for her.

        • Tom Currie

          My wife, daughter, and grand-daughter each started shooting with a 1911 in .45ACP; I never told any of them that it kicked too much for a girl to handle so they didn’t know that. None of them chose the 1911 as their favorite. In my wife’s case carpal tunnel convinced her to switch to a .380 later in life. Meanwhile my daughter will happily fire any of my guns, but if we are just having fun on the range her choice is a Mossberg 590 (and she will happily rip through all 8 rounds in about 6 seconds and will keep it up as long as I’m paying for the ammo). Meanwhile my grand-daughter prefers a Taurus 85Ultralight and is comfortable shooting anything the gun is rated to handle including Corbon +P loads that I find a bit too snappy for my wrist.

        • Marcus D.

          I have to agree. When my daughter finished college, I bought her a 9mm compact, which she can shoot acceptably well, even if, with its short barrel, it is rather loud. Last Christmas she asked for and got an FNX .45, which she tells me she shoots better than her 9. For her, recoil is just another challenge.

      • Anonymoose

        If you want a gun that you will actually practice with, don’t get a little .380 if there’s a .32 version. The same gun in .32 will kick a lot less less and hold an extra round, so you will want shoot it more at the range. On a side note, I would kill for an LCP II in .32.

      • demophilus

        He didn’t write about your GF, he wrote about your sister. UIM, they’re different people.

      • valorius

        shooting a 1911 is thought to be easier than shooting many types of pocket pistols.

    • Tim Pearce

      “.32 guns are smaller than .380” Few (modern guns) are, and they’ll be from the sorts of brands you generally don’t see on gun shop shelves, like North American Arms and Seecamp. In terms of modern production, most companies have dropped the round, and most that used to make .32 ACP pistols, recently, were simply making them in the same frame as a .380 ACP, such as CZ and Bersa.
      Kel-Tec’s .32 ACP, which is going to be the overwhelming majority of the .32 ACP pistols being sold today, isn’t all that much smaller than their .380 ACP.

  • AC97

    Let’s not forget that gel is less elastic than tissue, therefore it tears more easily, and pistols don’t have the velocity to cause the temporary stretch cavity to contribute to wounding in any significant way, unlike rifles.

    I wouldn’t use anything like the Xtreme Cavitator, the Xtreme Defender, the Xtreme Penetrator, or the ARX unless they’re actually proven to be more effective than hollow-points in actual tissue, which I highly doubt will happen.

    • valorius

      To me xtreme penetrator is by far the best choice in .380 auto, which is my carry round of choice.

      • AC97

        If you want to pay extra for FMJ performance, suit yourself. Until there’s actual evidence that it produces better wounds than FMJs in actual tissue, which I doubt will happen, I’m going to think of that as a pointless gimmick round.

        • valorius

          From my little LCP underwood .380+P extreme penetrator punches right through .5″ thick polycarbonate bullet proof glass.

          .45 ball wont.

          Sold.

          • AC97

            Are you planning on shooting through bulletproof glass? Why would going through something that .45 ACP can’t be a selling point for you when .45 ACP is one of the easier pistol rounds to stop due to its slow speed and fatness?

            Anyway, has anyone tested the 9mm Xtreme Penetrator against IIIA armor (please just tell me the name of the channel if so, because mod limbo sucks)? I might consider grabbing some if it goes through IIIA armor, but I’ve only seen it go through IIA armor. I know that 9mm Fort Scott Munitions 80 grain Solid Copper Spun 9mm goes through IIIA if its like a 4 inch barrel or greater.

          • valorius

            I may very well need to shoot through car doors, windshields, 2×4’s, or any of a number of other barriers. Absolutely. And cheap-o IIA armor is an absolute possibility in today’s world.

            The extreme penetrator doesnt rely on expansion or any mechanical action, It works the same way every time.

            From any target aspect i WILL get excellent through and through penetration.

            Sign me up!

          • valorius

            If you’re interested in a 9mm+P+ round that will penetrate some IIIA vests, i have personally tested Buffalo Bore montana gold 115gr+P+ ammo vs a Safariland IIIA, it blasted right through. My US Armor IIIA stops it though.

            The Buffalo Bore montana gold bullet was loaded back during the Gold Dot shortage. I’m sure you can get some on gunbroker or elsewhere if you look a little.

          • Joseph Goins

            Well we can tell which YouTube celebrity you day dream about.

          • valorius

            I’m not really sure what you’re hoping to accomplish by insulting me, but if it makes you feel better, by all means…

  • Joel

    I don’t smoke, thanks anyway. But I do read and write carefully.

    Weakly 30 Carbine, muzzle: 1990 FPS.
    Ultimate .30-06, 400 yards: 1928 FPS.

    • Joseph Goins

      Put up or shut up. Where are your sources? I showed you mine (which you clearly disregarded when you listed both numbers as my .30 Carbine was weaker than yours and my .30-06 was more “ultimate” than yours).

      • Joel

        I used Federal. Please reread my points.
        30 Carbine at muzzle: 1990 (AE30CB)
        30-06 at 400 yards: 1928 (AE3006M1)
        1990 is kind of similar to 1928.

        Those who argue that the 06 is God’s sledgehammer out to 1000 yards ought to admit that the 30 Carbine is similar at the muzzle (to the 06 at 400).

        • Joseph Goins

          That’s a horrible analogy. Do they have comparable velocities? Sure. Do they have comparable energy? Hell no. Even using your rounds:

          .30 Carbine, AE30CB
          1990 ft/sec x 110 grains = 967 ft. lbs.

          .30-06 Springfield, AE3006M1
          1928 ft/sec x 150 grains = 1238 ft. lbs.

          Just for comparison sake:

          5.56x45mm, XM855BK150
          3020 ft/sec x 62 grains = 1255 ft. lbs.

          Why shouldn’t people ditch the .30 Carbine altogether and just move on to the 5.56? It’s is still better in terms of velocity, energy, bullet drop, and wind drift.

          • Joel

            You keep changing your post. My initial data remains the same. My initial post, to which you seem to have strongly objected, said that the diameter and velocity of a 30 carbine at the muzzle are similar to diameter and velocity of an 06 at 400 yards. I stand by this. However, I think you are somehow misreading my point as 30 Carbine at the muzzle versus 06 at the muzzle. If so, it’s a shame. I ask again that you try to understand that which you seem to violently object to.

            Like I said a while ago, I do read and write carefully.

          • Joseph Goins

            I never disagreed with you that they have similar velocities at those yards you listed. Go back and reread.

            You incorrectly assume that velocity is what really matters when it comes to “the cult of Garand tell[ing] us that their idol is deadly to 1000 yards and the other is worthless at any range.” The key is energy. The .30 Carbine is lacking in that department.

            By the way, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I don’t own a Garand, M1 Carbine, .30-06 Springfield, or .30 Carbine.

          • Joel

            I never mentioned energy in my initial post. If you want to debate energy, you should have chosen someone else to rant at, someone else to reply to. I mentioned diameter and velocity. I stand by my initial post. The diameter and velocity of a 30 carbine bullet at the muzzle are fairly similar to those of an 06 at 400 yards.

            Like I have said before, I do not smoke. I do read and write carefully.

            So, my initial post, the one which describes diameter and velocity was not “disproven.”

          • Joseph Goins

            You subtly mentioned it when you used the word “deadly” which is not based exclusively on velocity or diameter. Don’t try to back away from it and say it didn’t happen.

          • valorius

            Some people just REALLY like to argue man.

          • valorius

            900 pounds of energy is lacking?

            That’s almost triple the muzzle energy of .45 acp ball ammo.

          • Joseph Goins

            900 pounds of energy is lacking?

            Compared to .30-06 Springfield at his distance of 400 yards (the original commentor’s arbitrary rule) with 1238 ft. lbs. of energy? Absolutely.
            Compared to M855 at 0 yards with 1255 ft. lbs. of energy? Absolutely.

            I never said .30 Carbine doesn’t perform. (Just read my other posts.) I merely stated that:

            #1. MAC erred by talking about how good a round is in isolation. That’s like saying “.22LR is the best self defense round on the market” simply because one doesn’t know the market. It’s asinine.

            and

            #2. The original commentator equivocated “velocity” with “lethality.” He tried so hard to push the .30 Carbine, but he failed miserably even when he got to cherry pick the rounds that would be most advantageous to him.

          • valorius

            You didnt say “compared to other rounds”. You said 900 lbs is lacking.

            It’s not.

            I think, honestly, the only one failing miserably is you.

          • demophilus

            Because the .30C drops more and loses velocity quicker inside 200m, so it poses less of a threat to gen pop?

            Because someone left a .30C to you in their will, and you like to shoot it now and then?

          • valorius

            It’s a reasonably sound comparison.

          • Joseph Goins

            No. It isn’t.

          • valorius

            Sure it is.

        • Chris

          Only if you disregard energy, since the .06 carries (180 gr.Soiroccou ) twice the energy at 400 yds. as the .30 carbine (Underwood load ) at the muzzle !
          Like comparing a HK 5 to a Bolt action in 30-06 each has it’s uses !

      • valorius

        you should probably pay attention to the other guys posts, so you can see what he actually said.

        • Joseph Goins

          I can read. Can you?

          • valorius

            No. I’m illiterate.

          • Joseph Goins

            And ignorant to boot.

          • valorius

            Just admit you’re wrong and move on.

  • Tim Pearce

    A.) I’d like to see the .32 ACP tests compared to a FMJ load.
    B.) The Underwood .32 ACP load is listed as a +P load. There is no SAAMI +P spec for .32 ACP, which means it’s above max SAAMI pressure and thus is going to be very abusive to shoot it through the small carry guns that are really the lifeline that keeps the round from disappearing entirely. I.E. if you practice with it or test its reliability in your pistol, you’re going to shorten or even end the life of your pistol. The Beretta Tomcat would be an example of the latter, as they can’t even handle the upper ranges of SAAMI spec.

    • Joseph Goins

      I’d like to the Underwood .32 ACP Xtreme Cavitator up against a modern hollow point round. It looks great in ballistic gel, but how does it work on real targets? I’m not sold on it from what I saw. I shot a dead hog with an 9x19mm Underwood Xtreme Penetrator (115 grain, +P) twice, and it did not perform nearly as good as my tried-and-true Federal HST 124 grain load did. That’s not the only thing I shot with the newer designs, but it’s just an example.

    • Anonymoose

      I thought newer Tomcats fixed that issue with their thick slides? I’ve seen people load up light .308 bullets in .32 cases to shoot out of Tomcats before.

      • Tim Pearce

        Sadly not. The thicker slides have helped, but all they’ve achieved is extending the lifetime of the gun. The frames always crack eventually. I know someone that went through three of the thicker INOX Tomcats, until Beretta stopped being willing to replace them for free. He bought the manufacturer-cost replacement, and then sold the gun. The experience soured him such that he won’t buy Berettas any longer, viewing them all as junk, no matter how much I’ve tried to convince him otherwise.

    • valorius

      All +P rounds exceed normal SAAMI max pressure.

      • Tim Pearce

        Yes and no. There are separate pressure specs for 9mm Luger +P, .38 Special +P, .38 Super +P, and .45 ACP +P. Modern manufacturers make their guns to handle pressures even higher than the +P specs, as a mixture of desire for police/military contracts where higher pressure rounds are more common and a desire to avoid getting sued because Jim Bob’s Extra Hot Handloads blew up his gun.

  • Tom Currie

    Yes, modern bullets can make .32ACP and .30Carbine usable defensive rounds — in exactly the same way that the last generation of “modern” bullets made 9mm a usable defensive round. BUT the bottom line remains two simple facts:

    1. Bigger and Faster combine to beat smaller and slower every time when considering any “defensive” round. Note: when the choice is bigger OR faster, then there is room to argue (although personally I come down on the side of bigger and fast enough)

    and

    2. Any gun is better than no gun at all.

    So, yes, I suppose if the choice is .32ACP or nothing, I’d carry a .32ACP – but I cannot conceive of needing to face that choice when I can get a 9mm that is VERY nearly as small and light as any production .32ACP.

    As for .30Carbine… If I owned a rifle or pistol in .30Carbine, I would certainly want to have at least a few rounds of “modern” “defensive” ammo on hand — especially if that was the “best” defensive gun that I had available. BUT again, I can barely imagine that happening considering that an acceptable quality AR costs less than any functioning .30Carbine, has no more perceived recoil, and arguably better ergonomics. About the only way I can imagine having nothing better than a .30 Carbine available would be to have inherited the carbine as a family heirloom.

    • Marcus D.

      .32 ACP is a belly gun round. How fast and powerful does it have to be at point blank range? The .30 Carbine is acceptably effective out to a maximum 200 yards–but 200 yards is not a “defensive” range, typically defined–at least against pistols and knives–as 7 to 25 yards. And it makes a light, handy varmint gun at less than 6 lbs. Unless you live out in a rural area, who needs a rifle for SD?

    • gunsandrockets

      I’m not saying an AR isn’t superior but…

      A) .30 carbine generates less muzzle blast than 5.56mm. Which could be very important when firing indoors.

      B) 5.56mm M193 fired from a 16 inch barrel at close range has almost no advantage in bullet energy compared to .30 carbine.

      C) 5.56mm fragmentation reduces penetration depth of urban cover (such as light cars/trucks).

      For certain very limited and very specific purposes I could see the advantage of using an M1 carbine.

    • valorius

      Did WWI and WWII happen in your alternate history world?

  • WPZ

    I can’t understand how anyone could advocate for the ridiculously overpowered .32 ACP. For heavens’ sake, we have the internet now, and we know that the .355″ 125 gr bullet of the 9×19 has the same efficacy as the 230gr bullet of the .45.
    Why even mess with the excess of the .32 when the .25 ACP is available and has exactly the same power to stop as the .45? With less recoil and more capacity?
    Just be sure to be attacked by ballistic gelatin, and not people.

  • WELLS SHANE

    I HAVE BEEN ASKING WHY DO YOU NEED 300 BLACK OUT. USE THEM IN M4 OR AR.THEY MAKE TO MANY DIFFERENT ROUNDS.

    • jay

      Stop yelling.

      • WELLS SHANE

        i am an old man CAN NOT SEE SCREEN VERY WELL I WHERE GLASSES THAT ARE AS THICK AS COKE BOTTLES .thank you

        • jay

          I’m old, and have bad eyes too. But you did alright in your response to me. You are Welcome. ;-}

          As an aside. Ctrl and + makes the font larger on all web pages.

          • WELLS SHANE

            you are welcome

          • jay

            Why Thank You, right back! Glad to be of service. Peace and tranquility!
            And Thank You for your Service!

  • jay

    I’d like to see a M1 carbine in .40sw or .10mm. That would bring back it’s relevance.

  • Darren

    Have you tried the Xtreme Cavitator in other 32 ACP pistols and also was wondering if you’ve tried the normal 32ACP version? I pocket carry an old Savage1907 and also have an FN1910. I have been following the XC round since it was announced since I’ve been looking for a good non-ball round for the Savage. Curious as to how reliably it feeds in older pistols.

    • Tim Pearce

      I was actually surprised that little Mauser fed those things correctly, but, assuming the round below the one that was fired was another Xtreme Cavitator round, we only saw one take of two successful feeds. It could have been one of twenty takes where it misfed the other nineteen times, though.

  • Madcap_Magician

    .30 Carbine with JSP or modern HP ammo is highly effective within its range envelope. Past 200 yards or so less so, but it’s hard to complain about inside its designed range.

  • valorius

    Regular ole’ .30 carbine soft point ammo is extremely lethal ammo in it’s own right.

    • gunsandrockets

      I’ve heard that many M1 carbines can be fussy when feeding plain jane SP ammo. The Hornady bullet probably evades that problem.

      • valorius

        I wonder if that is the problem of the ammo, or the guns…or the magazines.

        I think a lot of the M1 carbines bad rap came from aftermarket 30rd magazines. Which are terrible.

        • gunsandrockets

          probably all three

  • Independent George

    My big worry about .32 ACP isn’t the stopping power, but the (perhaps unreasonable) fear of rimlock.

    • Tim Pearce

      That’s mostly a magazine design issue, and an old one. Back in the old days, many guns had grips closer to perpendicular to the barrel. If the magazine matched that slant, the rims could be close enough to lock, especially when dealing with short-loaded hollow points.
      I actually used to have a double-stack .32 ACP pistol (and really wish I hadn’t sold it after being given a Tomcat). I was often worried about rimlock with that thing, since the rims would be closer due to the staggering. Never happened, though, through about 500 rounds.

  • Archie Montgomery

    One can get a 9×19 in the same size pistol as a .32 ACP, but the recoil of the 9×19 is seriously greater. Those with arthritic – or just sensitive – hands tend toward the lighter recoil.

    The ‘Cavitator’ bullet only weighs 50 grains? So the effectiveness is totally based on velocity (high velocity gives high kinetic energy). I suppose the counter argument is all handgun encounters are close range.

    I note the .30 Carbine was tested at the same ‘couple yards’ as the handguns. Whereas the Carbine is not a long range arm as a shoulder weapon, it is a bit further than a typical handgun. Perhaps 30 to 40 yards would be appropriate?

    The Hornady .30 Carbine round made more of a reaction on the gelatin block than the Cavitator. The Cavitator penetrated more, which seems to act like a FMJ relative to an expanding bullet. I noted the Cavitator bullet was 85 grains; so the energy is highly dependent on velocity. And a light bullet looses velocity sooner than a heavier.

    In conclusions you re-emphasised your desire for penetration. (I appreciate you trying not to ‘dictate’ opinions, by the way.) However, I think very few of us are going to be hunting hogs or much anything with a .32 ACP pistol. Probably not .30 Carbine either, now I think of it.

    Most of the use for either of these two rounds and arms is self-defense. Human beings do not typically measure fifteen or sixteen inches ‘thick’. There are some, but I don’t see hugely fat people as predators often.

    To be open, I’m a ‘heavy bullet’ sort. (I carry a .45 ACP as a sidearm.) So I am typically not impressed with light bullet, high velocity loadings. Still, this is a heads up comparison. Probably the Carbine should feature a bit more range.

  • Glock twentyone

    The M-1 carbine was designed to replace the 1911-A1, not the Garand. They issued it to radiomen, heavy weapons, clerks, cooks, as a means of personal defense and be more effective than a pistol. You can’t compare a 30 carbine to a big bottle 30.

    The M-1 carbine was designed to be lightweight and effective out to 300 yards, which it is. The 30 carbine will defeat level 3 body armor in its off the shelf ball loadings and is as effective as m193, within 100 yards.

    You have a rifle that weighs 5 lbs, holds 15 to 30 rounds of ammo, and is effective out to 300 yards… That was with the ball ammo from the 40’s. Now bring in modern loadings such as the federal gold dot and hornady critical defense and its even more effective at social encounter distances.

  • David Christensen

    I suspect there are a lot of dead Germans that really don’t care which gun took them out. Each has it’s place. The Garand is HEAVY. It is indeed a lot to get used to in an all day carry, but it is accurate. The standard M1 Garand is hard to maneuver in a Sherman tank, but a carbine works fine. (They did manufacture a Garand Tanker model) Carbines were also used by officers, who preferred something a bit beefier than their 1911. At 200 yards, both will kill. Each gun worked for what it was designed for.

  • whamprod

    I don’t own a Garand, but I do own a little jewel of a nearly mint 1943 Inland M1 carbine. I thoroughly enjoyed the video, and as it happens, I already have my M1 mags stoked with the Hornady Critical Defense cartridge. This is the first test in gelatin I’ve seen of that load, so I’m gratified to know that it performs very well for what it is. I had based the purchase on nothing more than the fact that I use Critical Defense ammo in a couple of my handguns and have a reasonable amount of confidence in its performance in pistols.

    Yeah, I own several ARs in 5.56 and .300 Blk, and at least one “handy” bolt gun in .308, but it strikes me that even after all these years, the M1 Carbine is still an ideal “truck gun/ranch rifle”. The primary reason I don’t use mine in that capacity is that there are reasons for why this specific example has sentimental value to me, and I’d hate for it to be stolen (or confiscated). But maybe I’ll pick up another one some day that doesn’t have that attachment for me and use it in that capacity.

  • scaatylobo

    THE point that many ignore about the .30 caliber carbine is that YOU CAN SHOOT IT UNTIL YOUR TOO FEEBLE TO BREATH.
    That means that if you can shoot a .22 carbine,you can shoot a .30 carbine.
    As far as home protection,and close quarter defensive shooting = the carbine ROCKS IT.
    IF you plan on aging,think about getting one of those “old timers” or a newbie that works.
    Then get a few hundred rounds of the expanding carbine rounds.
    That is my 00.02 cents

  • KentuckyProud

    Hi. all.
    The question is this… In a home for a 96 year old Aunt the .32 works just fine… along with the 410 double barrel she has shot since she was a kid …. ” I aims for the face, or for the nuts! (her words!) ”
    Audie Murphy did just fine with the .30 and so did a bunch of Marines in the Pacific…
    Each weapon and caliber has its use – but in a pinch – better than a
    I love Hillary bumper sticker… lol!

  • Paul Labrador

    I get a giggle when people call the .30 carbine “inferior”. Inferior to what? .30-06? Of course it’s inferior to that. .30-06 is a full sized battle rifle cartridge intended to push a bullet out to 800m and beyond. When making comparisons, people forget what the intended role of the M1 carbine was. It wasn’t intended to replace the M1 Garand. It was intended to replace the M1911A1 pistol. The M1 carbine is essentially a shoulder fired pistol intended for close range self-defense, and in that role it works very well. Ballistically, it is a tad more powerful than .357Magnum, and no one says that round is weak. Inside 150m it gets the job done. Where the problems come with the .30 carbine is when you try to push it outside of the envelope parameters it was designed for.