Talk:.30 Carbine/Archives/2014/June

Frozen Soldiers

Can someone actually find primary source documentation that the .30 carbine failed to kill frozen soldiers? Am refutting, but removing.

Use in Hanguns included the Kimball Semi automatic pistol.

I have heard various arguments about stoppong power, including suggestions that some of the complaints were based on missing the target. no primary doc refs though, sorry

I've heard firsthand stories from Korean War vets about the .30 Carbine's lack of immediate stopping power after multiple direct hits. As with most anecdotal evidence, there is probably a substantial amount of truth behind it, padded with hyperbole and exaggeration, reinforced by the anecdotal evidence of others. That's a good point about missing the targets. I wouldn't want to be hit by multiple .30 Carbine slugs from an M1 or M2 Carbine, even if I were wearing a heavy ChiCom jacket. Twalls 15:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

But in Iraq some of the Insurgents took narcotics and a burst of 5.56 ammo didn't stop them. The .30 carbine is more muzzle power than most semi-auto pistol rounds. That heavy jacket would'nt stop any common millitary round unless it was kelver but that was the 50's Uber555 15:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Anecdotal: A military veteran pointed out that (a) the carbine was an effective killer in the tropics and (b) Military intelligence who searched dead North Korean soldiers for maps etc. claimed carbine bullets penetrated the winter coats and the bodies. Most of the complaints were in wintertime in Korea or during the Battle of the Bulge in Europe, which implies winter cold restricts circulation meaning less bleeding.Naaman Brown (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

While the source of complaints of the round failing to stopped "heavily clothed" troops is repectable there are other sources that observe the opposite. For expample Lt. Col. J. George of the famous Merrill's Maraudes stated that the round was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helment. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_6_47/ai_74033105/pg_2/ The "heavily clothed" aspect of the complaint implies the round does not penetrate well just looking at the round's muzzle velocity and sectional density it seems much more reasonable that George's assessment is more accurate especially comparing the round to the 9mm NATO. I am not saying that penetration is more important than bore diameter (especially with FMJ's) but the complaint citation implies that penetration is poor. Effectiveness in stopping troops is a subject of heated debate however the rounds penetration ability should be much less of a mystery. Actually it is actually well established that there is body armor that stops 9mm but not this round. Level III-A for example stops 9mm but not .30 carbine. Level III is rated to stop .30 carbine. Even Level II is rated to stop some loads of 9mm. Citing the complaint in Wikipedia seems like it promotes a univerally accepted falsehood such as John Crapper inventing the flushable toilet.Halconen (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the reports on the 'ineffectiveness' of the .30 carbine comare it to either the .45 ACP or .30-06... being the only two other calibers generally serving side-by-side with the .30 carbine. The anecdotal reports can be largely discounted as just that, anecdotal. The .30 carbine was more accurate and had greater range than the .45 but less so on both accounts than the .30-06, particularly at longer ranges. The .30 carbine is not any different than the sum of physics involved. I find that the vast majority of anecdotal evidence is worthless. Emperical data always supports the fact that the .30 carbine did exactly what it was designed to do, provide a cheap and effective replacement for the .45, Thompson, 1903, Garand, and BAR for those troops who didn't need to carry one of the bigger ones. I suspect that the vast majority of these 'failures' of the .30 carbine to stop people resulted directly from people MISSING THE TARGET. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dominican Republic's Model 2 Cristobal carbine

Perhaps we should mention the Dominican Republic's Model 2 Cristobal selective-fire carbine that is chambered for the .30 Carbine. Detailed information is available in the 1989-90 Jane's Infantry Weapons. I can post information from said book as necessary. 66.191.19.217 04:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencingand appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

References for "Civilian use" section

The first statement of the section is attributed to a reference. Several other statements are not, including what I assume to be expert opinions: "is considered", "are considered", "causing little tissue damage". My attempts to tag these inline have been reverted twice, so I'll leave my concern here. The reverting editor, Asams10, claims references support the statements so I don't understand the reluctance to explain which reference. There are several references listed and the online references do not support the statements. Since these are (apparently) expert opinions, and possibly contentious, our readers require the ability to verify the statements presented as facts. Please cite accordingly. Thanks. --Ds13 (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Every sentence does not require an inline citation, otherwise every article would be 90% citations. The references listed support the statements. If you disagree, read the references and then remove the material that is both dubious and uncited. Until then, your spam merely serves to cast doubt on referenced and verifiable information. That they are possibly contentious is your conclusion also not supported by the statements that you tagged. These are common knowledge, echoed in and verifiable by the references. When I find time, I will cite two other references in my library. There is no 'citation emergency' that would require the tags as the text are neither dubious nor disputed. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no "citation emergency" (your words). The inline {{fact}} template is considered good practice, and let me remind you why I'm using it here: This template is used in articles to identify sentences or short passages which are incomplete without an inline citation. ... Editors frequently use this template to "tag" material which they see as questionable or weak, but not obviously invalid. The date field in the template allows editors lots of time to respond with reliable sources before anyone should reasonably delete it. I consider this the polite way to raise the verifiability issue while still giving it enough visibility that a passing reader or editor will see the need for action and contribute a solution. I'm sorry you see this as "spam" because I see it as a fine way to ensure everything in an article is verifiable. It would be fantastic if you could find sources in your library. In the mean time, I will tag them again. Take your time and don't take it personally... nobody is going to delete the unverified facts. I don't believe your "common knowledge" argument is sound in a niche article like this; effectiveness of ammunition is not common enough knowledge to let statements like this slip by without pointing to a reliable expert source. --Ds13 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I 100% disagree that what's printed there -- echoed in the REFERENCED MATERIAL -- is weak or qustionable let alone invalid. You, sir, difer wildly in opinion than the VAST majority of writers on this subject. That you disagree is not bad, but your fact tags are SPAM, pure and simple. A rose, by any other name... --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's echoed in the reference material, just supply a citation to it and be done with this discussion. The tags simply request reliable sources for those statements and you're reluctant to name and cite them, yet you claim they exist. It doesn't matter if my opinion (or yours) agrees with the vast majority of writers on a topic or not. Majority belief and true facts aren't what qualifies material for Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for any material that is challenged. --Ds13 (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, four of the 6 support the statements, haven't read the other two. It's REFERENCED, just not inline. If you doubt the statements, read the references or provide your own to refute them. I'm not going to do the research again for you. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As you suggested, I've just re-read 3 of the 6 references (#1: Winchester Ammunition, #4: The Box O Truth, and #6: The .30 Carbine Blackhawk). Those are three I can read right now. None support either of the tagged statements: 1) full-jacket ineffectiveness for self-defense, or 2) hollow-point effectiveness for self-defense. You're claiming that at least one of those three I read supported the statements and they don't. As a result, I've removed the unsourced statements. --Ds13 (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Next time read all of the references. SJSA 19:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ballistics

Running the given bullet weight (110 grains) and velocity (2000 feet per second) through my calculator gives an energy of 977 foot-pounds, not 880 as stated in the info box. Also, the usual velocity cited for most .30 carbine ammunition from an 18.5" barrel is 1950 fps with a 110 gr bullet for 929 ft-lb energy. (880 ft-lb is correct for 1900 fps velocity as noted in the Comparison section.)Naaman Brown (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Apparently this this article was written with the use of POV sources. If this is true, according to User:Nukes4Tots then all statements need to be readdressed and cited properly SJSA 19:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The main issues I had were with the particular paragraph in mind. It cites Dunlap to prove a point about a firearm that did not exist at the time the book was written and, therefore, one cannot extrapolate. This goes against verifiability. Other statements by Dunap, even within the book, are contradictory. Conclusions are not well supported and, again, contradicted elsewhere in the work. While Dunlap relates stories accurately, there is no authoritative edge to his work as he is a secondary source. Consider "Shots Fired in Anger" first as this is a primary source. Instead of Dunlap's, "reports suggested this", George says, "I saw this". Further, Dunap, IMNTBHO, was using reports to support his opinions rather than analizing the reports to reach a conclusion. I'll have to dust off my copy to cite examples. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Focus

I think that the article focuses too much on the traits of the weapons, and not the cartridge itself. Certainly, weapons can be named as examples of the cartridge's past and current use, but the article veers off into minutiae about the weapons. For instance, how is the cold weather performance of the M1/M2 Carbine relevant to the cartridge? Or how is the reliability of the Magal related? These problems would only be relevant to the cartridge's article if they were tracked back to a fault of the cartridge. Problems with the weapons themselves should be limited to the weapons' own articles. --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in most instances, however the M1 Carbine is a bit of an anomoly in that the VAST majority of firearms made were of two types, the M1 and M2 carbines. A few M3's, some pistol versions of the Carbine, a few obscure foreign models, and a Blackhawk model hardly begin to make a reasonable dent. Therefore conclusions drawn about the cartridge are really only applicable to the M1 Carbine. --Winged Brick (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the M1 and M2 carbines are by far the primary platform of the cartridge. However, how are problems related to the weapons themselves related to the cartridge? Nothing in the article so far indicates that the cartridge was blamed for the functional problems of the M1/M2 or the Magal. Thus, it is not particularly relevant to this article. What is relevant to the cartridge is its history, usage, and performance. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've removed the offending info. --Winged Brick (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions diagram

Would it be possible to get a dimensioned drawing of the .30 carbine cartridge and ball? Most of the dimensions are listed in the specs but rim thickness and extraction groove dimensions are absent. Anyone got the CIP or SAAMI specs on hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.180.141 (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

SAAMI specs with detail drawing

For whomever was asking about the SAAMI specs http://www.saami.org/PubResources/CC_Drawings/Rifle/30%20Carbine.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-Town Yankee (talk • contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)