The M1 carbine was kind of mediocre. It just doesn't have any stopping power.
>>64220154I guess smgs don't have stopping power either then
>>64220170SMGs typically aren't semi automatic
>>64220154It's an upgrade to the pistol, which was quite useless.
>>64220154it excelled in weight and size
>>64220154And yet it fulfilled its purpose perfectly.
Thanks for the thread OP!
It was perfect in the role for which it was designed. >lightweight>more powerful than a handgun>compact>accurate
>>64220172plenty are select fire like the m2 though. What you should say is that you were wrong about stopping power, because lots of SMGs are chambered in smaller calibers than .30 Carbine.
>+P .357 doesn't have stopping powerHey sport, really cool take but next time you do any thinking keep it to yourself and don't make a thread about it. Sound good?
Pre optics and plastic there is no better combat rifle
What is this mystical stopping power?
>>64220429>What is this mystical stopping power?https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_powerThe stopping power of a condom could have prevented your post
>>64220429It's the factual notion of larger diameter projectiles, or projectiles that penetrate deeper, being more likely to cause central nervous system damage, which causes paralysis and incapacitates the attacker immediately.
>>64220170Correct, they don't.
pfff that pos cant even pen vatniks of zerg rushing chinks and norkspps43 is superior pdw btw :^)
>>64220444>Stopping power is the supposed ability of a weapon>supposed Sounds like bullshit to me
>>64220429It's a perk from CoD4
>>64220444I'm posing my statement as a ridicule of stopping power and its alleged benefits. I guess for infantry it could be useful, since there will be lots of inaccuracy during a battle; You may as well make some decent sized holes in someone.
>>64220170that's why they're full auto
>>64220754If I can only shoot someone once I'd rather it be .303 than .30 carbine
>>64220444>The stopping power of a condom could have prevented your postChecked and keked
>>64220154Agreed. It couldn't even punch through the Chinese soldiers' winter coats. What a piece of junk.
>>64220154Yeah but it's so nifty Light Can pop off 15 roundsLooks comfortable to hold
test
>>64222303mods ban you for test posts now. how hard is it for you to write some nonsense in the thread?
>>64220280AS-44, StG44, Hyde 1944.
>>64222143Literally cope from G.Is who were inaccurate and got pushed back>It was the guns! They can't penetrate coats! Too weak!The Bongs somehow held off thousands of Chinese during Battle of Imjim River with shitty Lee Enfields, Stens and other crap and only got overrun because their 2" ran out of ammo.
>>64220154>stopping powerWhy do you assholes act like a shot that doesn’t immediately separate a man from his soul is useless, and the man is gonna just continue to operate like the Terminator?
>>64222325>Hyde 1944>a fucking MG42 QUICK CHANGE BARREL for a .30 Carbine Now why the fuck would you need a->ROF 1200-1600
>>64222356There were a lot of 'should have been issued' weapons during WW2. Johnson 1941 rifle and LMG. Hyde 1944. Good stuff. Bongs had some great stuff in WW1 and interwar that could have done well too like the Farquah-Hill rifle and LMG.
>>64220280Garand
>>64222377Oh forgot the BSA Autorifle for the Bongs too. 10 round semi-auto rifle that fired .303 British, 7.92×57mm Mauser or 7.62×54mmR.
>>64222347Why do you act like calibre doesn't matter? Yes I'd rather the person I shoot die sooner rather than later
>>64222377Too expensive and or unreliable.
>>64220154Works fine with SPs, doesn't matter with ball because they were all shit until M193.
>>64222417No, the issue is the MIC had invested too heavily into Garand, so despite the Johnson being objectively better and praised by a MoH winner, they didn't do it. It's the same reason the MIC didn't adopt the EM-2 the Bongs developed (or more specifically, .270 British/.280 British) as Garand essentially bribed to keep them around and funded propaganda that you can't risk losing small arms monopoly to the Bongs. Now, 50 years later, we're adopting Fury and Sneedmore is around.
>>64222408caliber DOES matter, but it's not the be all end all factor in lethality
>>64222434>Johnson>goodHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>64222454But it was an important lacking factor in the GUN BEING DISCUSSED
>>64220154>It just doesn't have any stopping power.that doesn't help you when its trained paratroopers putting extra holes in you
>>64222434>invested too heavily into GarandThe Johnson is good, but the Garand was already being mass produced by 1941. Scaling up production was pretty straight forward. They could have introduced the Johnson parallel to the Garand but then you would have another .30-06 rifle and burdening the logistical train. It makes more sense in a war economy to keep pumping out the Garand. The Garand was already the only reliable mass produced mass issued rifle of the war anyway
>>64222626Yeah and how about the 99% of non-paratroopers who used it
>>64222634>The Garand was already the only reliable mass produced mass issued rifle of the war anywayQuite simply not true
>>64222642Okay, the M1 carbine was pretty darn good too
>>64222665Are you saying bolt action rifles weren't reliable
>>64222670Oh you know what? I forgot to say "semi-auto" in that sentence
Have you ever handled it or fired it? It's amazingly light and handy. I had never fired one before. My first time using mine, I used some 130gr reloads that were almost bare minimum to get it to cycle. I shot at some steel targets at 85 yards and it was thumping the fuck out of them. Noticeably more slap to it than 55gr 5.56 from a 20" AR.
>>64222948yeah but is the guy in a winter jacket 200 yards away gonna be laughing at you
>>64220154.30 U.S Carbine can be very roughly comparable to .357 Magnum from a handgun, not a cannon by any means, but not anemic, at least not for its purpose.The M1 Carbine was designed to be a replacement for handguns, a lightweight and easy to carry and use weapon which non-grunt troops could use to defend themselves with a lot better (shooting a handgun good is actually pretty difficult). It has much more range than a 1911 pistol, though it doesn't have really long effective range either, the entire purpose of the gun is to be a defensive weapon at fairly short ranges.It was pretty good at that part, a medic or artilleryman had FAR better odds defending themselves from enemy soldiers when armed with the carbine, than when they were armed with revolvers or pistols.Such as it is, the M1 Carbine ended up with grunts anyway, and they found that the light and handy weight wasn't just nice, but also that 15rds with hardly any recoil was actually pretty good at CQB ranges, hell, it had longer effective range than a .45 subgun. The magazines were pretty shit, but make sure to regularly replace them, and the gun could work pretty well. Everyone wanted full-auto and stendos, but that didn't really become a thing until Korea.In Korea, it gets used more broadly by people, and now an inexplicably less disciplined and well trained army led to people trying to use it at longer ranges, where it obviously didn't fare to well. Add the M2 being frequently used in full-auto (being notoriously jump if bursts aren't kept very short), and it didn't fare any better at long ranges.So, it was a weapon which was pretty good at close quarters, like it was designed for, but then people wanted to use it at long ranges, often in the worst ways possible (full-auto), and then people started giving it shit for something it was never even meant to do.
>>64220154I've owned 3 M1 carbines, just have one now. I agree, they're pretty shitty, but I also can't help but like them.
>>64220280I would take an old Type 3 AK47 over the M1 Carbine for combat any day. It's heavier, but it has way more range and far better reliability.The M1 Carbine is good at close ranges, but if you're a grunt in a war, you can't always count on close range engagements.>>64222377>Johnson 1941 rifle and LMG. Those were used by the Paramarines in the Pacific though, and they thought they were pretty good.>Hyde 1944.Convince me.>Bongs had some great stuff in WW1 and interwar that could have done well too like the Farquah-Hill rifle and LMG.I can think of far better concepts than what the Farquah-Hill was going for.
>>64220429The Taylor Knock Out Factor or TKO. This is a scientifically formulated measure of stopping power by Mr. Taylor, himself.
>>64223380>TKO>AI Overview>The Taylor Knockout Factor (TKO) for a .30 Carbine load is a numerical value that indicates a bullet's stopping power, calculated by multiplying the bullet's mass (in grains), velocity (in feet per second), and diameter (in inches), then dividing by 7,000. John Taylor, a mid-20th-century African hunter, developed the formula to compare the "knockout" effect of different cartridges on large game, particularly when a headshot missed the brain. >The Formula:>The formula to calculate the Taylor Knockout Factor (TKOF) is:>TKOF = (Bullet Weight in Grains × Bullet Velocity in fps × Bullet Diameter in inches) / 7000 >How it Applies to .30 Carbine:>Bullet Weight: A typical .30 Carbine bullet weighs around 110 grains. >Bullet Velocity: Muzzle velocities for .30 Carbine are generally around 1,900-2,000 feet per second. Bullet Diameter: The diameter of a .30 caliber bullet is approximately 0.3 inches. It is VERY scientifical and based in math.
>>64223390You should upgrade to a 1 inch bore shooting a 110 grain projectile at 700 fps, it would have a bigger number.
>>64222398>BSA AutorifleThe fucking Thompson design with the Blish lock? That thing was a complete hunk of shit, why do you think they never saw mass production?>>64222434>despite the Johnson being objectively better It's fucking not. The Johnson was a pretty good rifle, but it couldn't take a real bayonet, and it couldn't take a grenade launcher, both things which the M1 could.The Johnson holds two more rounds, but you're loading that with a pair of 5rd stripper clips, whereas the M1 has you load a single 8rd en-bloc which it then spits out for you when finished, locking open to load the next one.The Paramarines liked the Johnson because they couldn't get Garands like they wanted, and it was an ok substitute for that, but replacing the M1 with the Johnson would in ideal circumstances have been a colossal sidegrade. There's literally no good reason to do that.>It's the same reason the MIC didn't adopt the EM-2 the Bongs developed (or more specifically, .270 British/.280 British) The EM2 really isn't as good as you think that it is (and .270/.280 certainly isn't either). Churchill was right to pick the FAL instead.>as Garand essentially bribed to keep them around and funded propaganda that you can't risk losing small arms monopoly to the Bongs. What kind of delusional nonsense is this? The 7.62mm NATO autism was pretty much entirely René Studler's fault.>Now, 50 years later, we're adopting Fury and Sneedmore is around..277 Fury is a retarded cartridge for a retarded weapon's program.
>>64220539m1 carbine is more powerful, lighter and cooler
>>64223399Well, yeah. That just goes without saying. But that's not relevant to the thread, now is it? And that would defeat the concept of the carbine. Which is pronouced Car Bine.
>>64223328>30 U.S Carbine can be very roughly comparable to .357 Magnum from a handgun,>125 gr (8 g) JHP Federal 1,450 ft/s (440 m/s) 583 ft⋅lbf (790 J)158 gr (10 g) JHP Federal 1,240 ft/s (380 m/s) 539 ft⋅lbf (731 J)180 gr (12 g) HC Buffalo Bore 1,400 ft/s (430 m/s) 783 ft⋅lbf (1,062 J)200 gr (13 g) Double Tap 1,200 ft/s (370 m/s) 640 ft⋅lbf (870 J)Test barrel length: 4 in (102 mm) (vented)Source(s): Federal,[1]M1 carbine>110 gr (7 g) FMJ 1,990 ft/s (610 m/s) 967 ft⋅lbf (1,311 J)
>>64223416M1 Carbine does have more range and power than 7.62mm Tokarev (though 7.62mm Tokarev certainly isn't a weak pistol cartridge, from a longer subgun barrel it's pretty spiffy). However, the PPS-43 has a much better magazine with more than twice the capacity of original M1 magazines, and still more than the M2's stendos.
>>64223419How about a 10 inch bore shooting 110 grain projectiles at 70 fps? Think of how efficiently you could stack the cartridges when they're like sheets of paper.
>>64220154>The M1 carbine was kind of mediocre. It just doesn't have any stopping power.yawn
>>64223431I said very roughly. .357 Magnum from a rifle barrel can actually pretty easily overshadow .30 Carbine, even.The point is more that .30 Carbine isn't weak, given you use it within its intended envelope.>>64223455How... how would that even look?
>>64223457sound made by someone shot by the M1
>>64220154It's a lightweight weapon designed for use by rear-line personnel and paratroopers. I'd say it worked damned well.
>>64223593>designed formuch different to how it was used
>>64223405>7.62 autism Actually the correct decision. 7.62x51mm is a PERFECT machine gun and sniper rifle round, and decent general issue round. The .280 was just piss weak 7.62x51mm, and would have delayed 5.56mm adoption.
>>64220154Friend of my dad's killed about 50 bears with one. Mostly brown bears. Shot placementAdd in a bit of modern projectile design and you could have a projectile pretty effective against bipeds. That and improve the magazines for full auto feedingVery handy little carbine, nice and light like the vz58
>>642237427.62mm NATO is indeed a perfect machinegun cartridge, just not ideal for an infantry rifle. Things worked out though, 5.56mm NATO is the perfect infantry rifle cartridge, better than .270 British could ever hope to be.
>>64223436Terrible mp40/akms style folding stock People who came up withit and approved it for production with deserve an olympic pool of piss on his grave
>>64224037edit*their graves
>>64223405>The EM2 really isn't as good as you think that it is (and .270/.280 certainly isn't either). Churchill was right to pick the FAL instead..280 Brit FALs were on the table. >>64223742>significant barrel life gains>significant ballistic coefficient gains>Korea hordes and Nam bore out the folly of M-14 & .308 on capacity grounds alone
>>64220429energy
>>64222143>couldn't even punch through the Chinese soldiers' winter coat>i have an ideayou: in chinese coat & kevlar helmetanon: taking shots at you with m1 carbine
>>64222475no one ever respects hahaha posters
>>64223373>>Hyde 1944, Convince me.Based off Thompson, that should be enough to ignore it.
>>64220154Such a stupid Fudd loreOne of the handiest, lightest and extremely pleasant to shoot rifles I know. It is more than an adequate replacement for .45 in 1911 pistol. At 100m still comparable effectiveness to .357Perfect for the role for which it fully met the requirements.One of the best firearms of WW2 and still used in combat until the 70s.But, NO! OP under the influence of dunning kruger got the impression that it was pointless average junk because it couldn't shoot through a Tiger tank...
>>64220154It did it's job good enough to be assigned other jobs.
>>64224037Thats because it was designed to be fired from vehicles where you could rest the hook on the barrel on the side. It's perfect for what they designed it for.>>64220154It's the best firearm of WW2 and was the best in existence until the AR-15 came out. We shouldve exited WW2 by disposing of the garand and going all in on M2s. M14 never should have been adopted either.
>>64226165Looks fast.>>64224344280 brit is 5 different cartridges with the best attributes of each variant being attributed to it to own the burgers. In reality it was the worst of everything.
>>64226266Why not make a solid folding stock with only one hinge and solid butt surface? Like soviet later with aks74. Not this crap of wobbly sticks and loose joints
>>64226266>It's the best firearm of WW2 and was the best in existence until the AR-15 came outScreaming The carbine is a handy little gun, but the calibre is entirely insufficient as a main infantry rifle. If the enemy is behind any kind of cover whatsoever, more than 150 yards away, or if you actually want them to die immediately from being shot then you don't want an M1
>>64225085At 150-200 yards that wouldn't be such a bad bet
>>64220154>>64220170Completely mogged by a pencil barrel 11.5 AR
>>64224037The mp40 stock isnt that wobly...
>>64220154Let me shoot you with one then.
>>64227597>A knife wouldn't be so useful in war>oH yEaH wElL hOw AbOuT i StAb YoU
>>64227719You said the M1 lacks stopping power.I posit that you would stop if I shot you with one.
>>64227869How about if I were 200 yards away wearing thick winter clothes you uninformed dork?
>>64228019The M1 carbine would still be sufficient
>>64226165>reddit spacing>furfagKill yourself.
>>64228580It has been documented it was in fact not sufficient in that scenario, I suggest you learn more about the subject
>>64228620No, it’s been documented that GIs missed and blamed the weapon.
>>64228019.30 carbine at 200yrds +/-900 ft-lbs.357 at 50yrds +/- 700 ft-lbsWould you really trust a thick coat?You have the same energy as the old fuck fudd who argued with my friend hysterically that the .223 is such a weak and incompetent caliber for hunting, that, like you he claimed that he would not be harmed at 150m with a thick coat.A fundamental sign of intelligence is using available information in context and perspective. Why are most of the people in this thread/board who undoubtedly have access to the internet incapable of constructive critical thinking, are asking questions and arguing like 6 year olds?>>64228588But he still has an M2 and you don't
>>64227193>entirely insufficient as a main infantry rifleSame ftlbs as 5.45. The round was superior to anything available until SCHV rounds came out. Just look at the size and weight comparisons between it and a 7.62x39 or worse, 8mm kurz. 30 carbine mogs them.
>>64227331This guy gets it, both the M1 and a 733 clone are just under 6 lbs, the AR is better in every other way so it's a straight upgrade
>>64228019.30 carbine has the same energy at 100y as .357 does at the muzzle of a 6" barrel, do you actually believe that a winter coat is stopping that at 200?
>>64224037The stock really isn't that great (and they kinda made it worse on the PPS-43), but it's also meant primarily to be a more compact weapon for tank and vehicle crew, where it being able to stow out of the way better is a good thing, something the MP40 style of underfolder does well.>>64227103The original purpose of the stock on the MP38 and MP40 was that it would be really compact, it adds very little width to the gun when it's folded up. It sacrifices some comfort and durability, but it's just a 9mm gun so it's not too harsh.>>64227438On the MP40? Not too bad, but the Russians like it so much they put it on the AKS47, the Yugoslavs also copied that onto their various own AK carbines, and the gassy Kalashnikov action with 7.62x39mm cartridge makes the felt recoil pretty uncomfortable with that stock. You really feel each shot rattle all your teeth through your cheek.The recoil will shake the stocks loose slowly over time as well. It's much less bad with the East German and Romanian AKs in 5.45mm and 5.56mm.
>>64226266>It's the best firearm of WW2Not even remotely. It does exactly what it needs to do, but people wanted the thing to do way more than that as soon as they got it.>>64228019A winter coat would probably make minimal difference at that distance, you're looking at a round-nosed bullet past its practical effective range.>>64228666There's definitely a lot of missing, particularly when you blast it in full-auto trying to get hits in that range, but it's also past its intended envelope.After all that air resistance making its way over there, you're probably looking at ballistics which would be way outclassed by a .32ACP pistol's ballistics within 25yds, and that's just the consequence of trying to use a gun for something it was never meant to do. The M1 Carbine and M2 Carbine were good at CQB, but people shouldn't have tried taking them past those ranges.
>>64230808>It does exactly what it needs to do,Kill people at 150yds> but people wanted the thing to do way more than that as soon as they got it.Irrelevant because even among trained troops you weren't engaging anyone at longer ranges.WW2 is the most studies conflict in human history. The M1 carbine fits the engagement envelope and has attributes no other weapon of the entire war has. It's half the weight of the nearest assault rifle competitor and offers significantly more range than a PPS-43.There's a reason racks of garands and 03s got left on the ground while the Germans grabbed any M1 carbine they could get their hands on and used it post war along with the Austrians.
>>64230808>After all that air resistance making its way over there, you're probably looking at ballistics which would be way outclassed by a .32ACP pistol's ballistics within 25ydsdelusional
>>64231671I haven't done the math, but I really don't expect the old style of roundnose ball to have good terminal ballistics at that distance.
>>64228588Nobody respects your opinion when you bitch about "muh Reddit spacing." It's not even a Reddit thing. I can't believe you have me defending a furry AND Redditors. Fuck you.
>>64230834>It's half the weight of the nearest assault rifle competitorSee >>64229972
>>64230834>There's a reason racks of garands and 03s got left on the ground while the Germans grabbed any M1 carbine they couldNow THIS sounds like fudd
>>64232912There were no Colt 733s back in the 1940s or 1950s, anon, that's what he means by nearest.The M16 alone made the M1 Carbine and M2 Carbine almost completely obsolete, the CAR15s were the final nail in the coffin.
>>64232937Good thing we don't live in the 40s or 50s!
It wasn’t the best, but it wasn’t the worst, but that’s irrelevant. What matters is we produced over 6 million of them during world war 2… and while they don’t have specific numbers for 30 carbine… we produced 41 billion rounds of small arms ammo during ww2…. In 1945 the entire global population was 2.3 billion and we made enough ammo in the previous 5 years to shoot everyone 17 times and have some extra…. Meanwhile in the same time frame Germany managed 1.1 million mp40’s and about 2.1 billion rounds of small arms production with some extra captured…. The m1 carbine being good was never a requirement to win, it just had to work reasonably ok, and we buried the axis under sheer numbers of them.
>>64220154a bullet is a bullet anon.
>>64233048Tank is tank
>>64233030What the fuck is with all these ellipsis
>>64233072These are bullet points
>>64220280The M1 carbine was basically the single closest rifle you could get to an AR15 in 1940. Post war it was still the best semi small rifle you could use as a civilian, just like the best semi pistol was still the 1911. Well armed as a USA citizen c1940 would have been:M1 Garand.30-06 or .270 Win American bolt action rifleM1 carbine1911.38 Spl revolver12ga pump action shotgun
>>64226165>>64228588>>64232119No, he's right. The fur fag's opinion is immediately discardable. That's the reasonable and necessary outcome of geeks and fetishists revealing themselves
>>64232934It's not fudd it's well documented in actual literature like "war baby" where they interviewed civilian looters as well as German soldiers. The most desired gun on the western front was the carbine hands down. Think about it. What gun did the Germans use after WW2 out of anything they couldve been given? Garand no, 03 fuck no, Mauser nope, 1911 no, hmmm what was it? Oh yeah from the word go on the "border patrol" armament they ran M1 carbines. Shit the us essentially armed the entire Austrian military with them post WW2. Plus the French dragged them all over Africa and Asia.Anyone trashing the carbine is historically illiterate and is hyping bullshit about the garand being the greatest battle implement ever designed which IS fuddlore.
>>64233134>Shit the us essentially armed the entire Austrian military with them post WW2Because it was a big surplus of cheap rifles
>>64233140And they performed good and were modern style rifles (small caliber, detachable mag including 30 rounders before 1945, >36" OAL still used by modern AR15s, select fire available), they were actually the first mass produced modern style semi rifles.
>>64233140Yeah and they were picked over every other cheaps surplus rifle out there. The French had nearly 300k carbines post WW2 alone.
>>64233134BGS used K98 and whatever else they could get their hands on.https://www.veko-online.de/archiv-ausgabe-06-2017/geschichte-hauptsache-billig.html
For the ballistics fags, the M1 wasn't actually that bad. Common loads not hand loads. Minimum velocity to reliably defeat lvl 3 pistol soft armor regardless of caliber is about 2,050 fps (the best pistol length penetrator of lvl 3 with a 5" barrel on the market is ironically .22 TCM, 100% defeat rate at 10 yards).PCC 9mm 16" carbine115gr1,350 fps465 ft lbs75 yard very rough maximum supersonic rangeM1 Carbine110gr1,990 fps967 ft lbs287 yards very rough maximum supersonic range.357 Magnum (16" barrel, many modern pistol loads actually start losing velocity by 10-16")125gr2,000 fps1,110 ft lbs290 yards very rough maximum supersonic range (possibly lower due to larger bore)Common .223/5.56 load (a lot of commercial loads are slower than this)55gr3,200 fps1,250 ft lbs683 yards very rough maximum supersonic range (unless it's windy out lol)Stg44, 7.92x33 Kurz (equivalent to modern .300 Blk)123gr2,250 fps1,382 ft lbs373 yards very rough maximum supersonic range.300 Blackout125gr2,215 fps1,361 ft lbs362 yards very rough maximum supersonic range7.62x39123gr2,400 fps1,573 ft lbs423 yards very rough maximum supersonic rangeNotice that the .30 carbine is actually closer to the "sturmgewehr" class than the PCC's. And that the AR15 in .223 can function as both a PDW and a sturmgewehr.
>>64233125And what exactly is your point?How does your imaginary buthurt relate to the topic of the .30carbine / M1 being powerful enough even at about 300 yards?Or how does it change the fact that furfag is having an M2 and you are not?If only the performance of ammunition were available to the general public somewhere...
>>64233249wow that's dogshit, might as well use a 22 or something
>>64220154Nice post!So many took the bait. You've outed a bunch of retard who think it was a bad weapon and know nothing about what .30 does when it impacts intended targets.
>>64220154If the Grease Gun existed, the M1 Carbine would never have been made.It filled a stopgap role that only existed because the US's first two SMGs sucked bad.
>>64220154This is the downside of letting ANYONE post here. This thread is retarded and so are you
>>64220280Once they got the 30 round mags they were essentially a proto AR-15
>>64233134>Anyone trashing the carbine is historically illiterate True.>and is hyping bullshit about the garand being the greatest battle implement ever designed which IS fuddloreNo it isn't, there was no better infantry rifle in any common use until the Stg-44, and even then that rifle had all sorts of problems and limitations.
>>64224037It really is such a dogshit stock design.
>>64233312The US military in modern times engages unarmored personnel at 300-600 yards with similar ballistics, pistol caliber energy and velocity on impact. Every rifle round icepicks as it approaches the supersonic cutoff. US citizens successfully hunt 500-2,000lb animals with 3 times the drop of .30 carbine at 300 yards. And US citizens have successfully hunted deer within about 100-150 yards with .30 carbine. .30 carbine will still kill a man at 300 yards with a clean hit. Western US hunters have far more experience pushing cartridges to their max and wildcatting, and they regularly hunt big game past 500 yards with short action and small caliber rifles (both large and small primer class) eg being dropping a 500lb elk at 600 yards with a 90-105gr .243 win.
>>64222377The Hyde would have been shit. That ROF is retarded for a box mag.
