Post by volkssturm on May 16, 2013 15:10:01 GMT -5
I'm retired, which means I have too much time on my hands and access to Google to waste it. ;D Anyhow, after reading some comments about the M1 carbine in another military blog I got to thinking. The M1 carbine has long been considered a pleasant little gun to carry, but totally inadequate in terms of hitting power. So, I'm wondering, how did it actually stack up, just looking at velocity and muzzle energy, because it's easy to find that on Wikipedia. There's other factors involved, like sectional density of the bullet, but that's beyond me.
So, the .30 M1 Carbine cartridge (7.62x33mm): Bullet weight 110 grains, muzzle velocity 1990 feet per second, muzzle energy 967 foot pounds.
The discussion on the blog had wandered off into a comparison of the issue of M1 carbines in a US division versus the issue of the Sten gun in a British division.
So, the 9mm (9x19mm): Wiki listed two loadings, not sure which was the WWII issue. Bullet 115 gr. Muzzle velocity 1300-1400 fps, muzzle energy 420-519 ft-lbs.
On paper, at least, somebody with carbine is better off than with a Sten gun, except that the Sten gun can make up with volume what it lacks in individual cartridge power.
I noticed that the carbine cartridge case is the same length (33mm) as the 7.92 Kurtz used in the STG44.
So, 7.92x33mm. Bullet 125 gr. 2250 fps. 1,408 ft-lbs.
Definitely superior to the M1 Carbine.
And the .45 ACP: Bullet 230 gr. 850 fps. 352 ft-lbs.
This was from a pistol barrel, so the longer barrel of the Thompson would probably have boosted the muzzle velocity, and therefore the energy, a bit. At close ranges the .45 would probably be more effective because of other factors, but as the range increases the M1 would have an edge.
The M1 was originally intended as what would now be called a Personal Defense Weapon that would replace and be more effective than a pistol. The cartridge was based on the obsolete .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge. If US Ordnance had had more imagination, they might have accepted a slightly heavier (probably no more than a pound) carbine chambered for a souped up .351 Winchester cartridge. (There were some experiments in the interwar years with a Thompson chambered for this round, but it went nowhere).
So, .351 WSL, Bullet 180 gr. muzzle vel. 1870 fps. muzzle energy 1400 ft-lbs.
The muzzle energy is almost the same as the 7.92K, though withthe lower velocity it would drop off faster. But going to a higher pressure loading and perhaps changing the bullet design could possibly boost velocity and produce a carbine that would perform closer to the STG44.
As soon as I perfect my time machine I'll go back and tell them.
So, the .30 M1 Carbine cartridge (7.62x33mm): Bullet weight 110 grains, muzzle velocity 1990 feet per second, muzzle energy 967 foot pounds.
The discussion on the blog had wandered off into a comparison of the issue of M1 carbines in a US division versus the issue of the Sten gun in a British division.
So, the 9mm (9x19mm): Wiki listed two loadings, not sure which was the WWII issue. Bullet 115 gr. Muzzle velocity 1300-1400 fps, muzzle energy 420-519 ft-lbs.
On paper, at least, somebody with carbine is better off than with a Sten gun, except that the Sten gun can make up with volume what it lacks in individual cartridge power.
I noticed that the carbine cartridge case is the same length (33mm) as the 7.92 Kurtz used in the STG44.
So, 7.92x33mm. Bullet 125 gr. 2250 fps. 1,408 ft-lbs.
Definitely superior to the M1 Carbine.
And the .45 ACP: Bullet 230 gr. 850 fps. 352 ft-lbs.
This was from a pistol barrel, so the longer barrel of the Thompson would probably have boosted the muzzle velocity, and therefore the energy, a bit. At close ranges the .45 would probably be more effective because of other factors, but as the range increases the M1 would have an edge.
The M1 was originally intended as what would now be called a Personal Defense Weapon that would replace and be more effective than a pistol. The cartridge was based on the obsolete .32 Winchester Self Loading cartridge. If US Ordnance had had more imagination, they might have accepted a slightly heavier (probably no more than a pound) carbine chambered for a souped up .351 Winchester cartridge. (There were some experiments in the interwar years with a Thompson chambered for this round, but it went nowhere).
So, .351 WSL, Bullet 180 gr. muzzle vel. 1870 fps. muzzle energy 1400 ft-lbs.
The muzzle energy is almost the same as the 7.92K, though withthe lower velocity it would drop off faster. But going to a higher pressure loading and perhaps changing the bullet design could possibly boost velocity and produce a carbine that would perform closer to the STG44.
As soon as I perfect my time machine I'll go back and tell them.