I have a new 16" RRA Middy and another, not so new, RRA (1943  Postal Meter .30 Carbine rebuilt by Rock River Arsenal after WWII).  

I load my .30 Carbine with these 110grn Speer Hollow Points.  
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v726/Coloradoglocker/.jpg

I load my AR with 55grn HPs.

I'm just wondering, with a 30rd mag in each, which is the better HD weapon for <40ft?  55grns @3,200fps or 110grns @ 2,100fps?  How about retention within the building?

Thoughts?

whichever one goes 'bang' everytime.....the M1 will be more than adequate for HD at thaat range

the M1 will have better retention b/c both of your hands hold it on the same plane in a more natural grip....

h/w, the AR is easier to reload imo and is a tad easier to accessorize

By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building.

Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building.

55 gr.   HANDS DOWN!

Plus the 30 carbine has never been highly regarded as a defense weapon.

Quoted: Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building. 55 gr.   HANDS DOWN! Plus the 30 carbine has never been highly regarded as a defense weapon.

Well, it killed a lot of Germans in WW2 CQB.  I fail to see how it would not work today.

But then, the M1 isn't tacti-kool.

The importaint thing to remember is that with either you are worlds ahead of any pistol . As long as both the AR and the M1 are reliable I would go with whichever one you have the most trigger time on.
With my old beater M1 I have found the 30 rd mags to be less reliable than the 15's but that might be my gun.

My solution:


Which ever one I grab first in the dark, groggy night!

Astute observers willnote the 30-06 ammo and bayonet for the off-image '03 Springfield behind the door...just incase of Sasquatch attack.

.22 LRs have killed a lot of poeple too, but that doesn't make it a good HD weapon.
I'm not saying the carbine would be a bad choice, but clearly the AR is a BETTER choice...

And the Correct answer is:

Quoted: The importaint thing to remember is that with either you are worlds ahead of any pistol . As long as both the AR and the M1 are reliable I would go with whichever one you have the most trigger time on. With my old beater M1 I have found the 30 rd mags to be less reliable than the 15's but that might be my gun.

At that range both will serve you well.

5.56 has many more options in defensive loads though, to the point where you can choose what kind of wounding mechanism you want; frag, yaw, expansion, shallow penetration, deep penetration.

Quoted: Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building. 55 gr.   HANDS DOWN! Plus the 30 carbine has never been highly regarded as a defense weapon.

Ballistically, a .30 Carbine with JSP bullets (search on tacticalforums.com for the proper load) is on par with the best of the 5.56, but I presume the 5.56 would penetrate less through walls.  The M4 is the better weapon, caliber aside.

Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building.

oh

I use an AR carbine with 64 grain Power Point Plus. My wife keeps a M1A1 .30 carbine with 110 grain soft points for her primary home defense weapon. She finds the M1A1 more comfortable to use. The .30 carbine is an excellent self defense round with soft points.  Check this out: www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000084#000000

Quoted:  The M4 is the better weapon, caliber aside.

]
Why?  Because all the shit one can hang off one?  Can you give one objective reason why your statement is valid?

The M1 Carbine proved itself in the most brutal conditions imaginable  I'd wager that it will match ANY rifle's reliability with far less need of care than most "modern" firearms.  And if modern optical sights are what you want, there are ways to get it done.  Just look through Fulton Armory's accessories for it.

Listening to some of y'all, one would think that nothing good was invented before the AR15.

It isn't that the M1 is a bad weapon, just that people thought up some new ideas after it was invented.  They made the M4 more ergonomic, put the safety in a better place, made the stock fit better, made mag changes easier, made the weapon easier to service.  There are many more advantages to the M4, I'm just listing the ones that can be realized at 40 ft or less.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building. 55 gr.   HANDS DOWN! Plus the 30 carbine has never been highly regarded as a defense weapon. Well, it killed a lot of Germans in WW2 CQB.  I fail to see how it would not work today. But then, the M1 isn't tacti-kool.

Am I the only one here aware of the .30 carbine's lack luster battle reputation?

If it was so damned effective, why is it long gone from Mil use?  
Because it's terminal performance was marginal AT BEST.

I don't hate it cuz you can't put rails and shit on it.  I don't put rails and shit on my M4.

If I had something like a quality AR around, I sure wouldn't want to be trusting my life to a .30 Carbine.  Sure, Carbine's are cute, are a fascinating WW II historical item and are fun to shoot----but come on----the newest USGI Carbine is 60+ years old!  And, for those that aren't aware of it, most Carbines are absolutely not reliable feeding anything other than FMJ's.

And, COSteve, that Carbine was probably rebuilt at something like Red River Arsenal or Rock Island Arsenal-----there was no U. S. Government facility by the name of Rock River Arsenal.

if the 55gr fragments then it's going to have better detructive ability than the 30cal hp

The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round.


Something that NATO also has said of the 5.56 NATO round in heavy snow areas during the thick of winter and has advised against such use.  

I think that if both always go bang when you press, that both will serve you well.  
You can mount a light on an M1 Carbine on the barrel, much more choices w/ AR, but you do NEED a light IMO.

My one question though, is what is the muzzle blast in comparison w/ the two choices?  If the M1 is substantially less, it might be worth considering.  Since I have not experienced this, I just wonder.
I know that my AR w/ it's "safer, kinder, gentler" muzzle break is down right uncomfortable to be anywhere but directly behind the weapon when you press.  I would think that it would be something to experience indoors.
My experience to indoor shooting has been training w/ SMG's and pistols, and having the appropriate hearing protection.  Gotta keep those Safety Manager types happy.

Quoted: The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round. Something that NATO also has said of the 5.56 NATO round in heavy snow areas during the thick of winter and has advised against such use.

Also note that in the sub zero degree weather, the velocity of the round would be decreased.

Neither is my first choice for home defense. A nice tactical shotgun makes missing a lot harder to do when you're waking up on adrenalin.

Between the two though, I'd have to say AR if nothing else other than the training factor. For any _____ Defense you should be shooting on a regular basis in environments that mimic your defense plan. That includes ranges to target, light levels, use of cover, and tactical and emergency reloads at a minimum. Doing that with the M4 may prove much more feasible than with the M1 carbine.

With regard to terminal ballistics, I don't think there is a comparison to be made. At the range you specified <40 feet, the .223 will have a high likelihood of fragmenting from any length barrel. Again, shot placement is more important. Can you hit an attacker in low light, moving at the oblique, while you're moving? Maybe. Can you make that shot a CNS shot? Probably not.

Hence, the shotgun.

The AR platform is definitely superior, but I wouldn't feel outgunned with a carbine at 40ft or less.

Quoted: [If it was so damned effective, why is it long gone from Mil use?

We could ask the same about the M1 rifle, M1919 machine gun, and M1918 automatic rifle.

Which is more accurate and feels better for you is the answer...... If you are worried about overpenatration then 5.56mm


Not one of your options but at that range ill take a 12ga with 00buck

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By retention, I was referring to which round will more likely stay inside the building. 55 gr.   HANDS DOWN! Plus the 30 carbine has never been highly regarded as a defense weapon. Well, it killed a lot of Germans in WW2 CQB.  I fail to see how it would not work today. But then, the M1 isn't tacti-kool.

Yes it did kill plenty of Germans, I have also personally seen the carbine in use in Africa where it is highly regarded as a very light, and handy defensive tool that can be carried all day without fatigue on the carrier. They are highly regarded over there, 15 rd. mags are the norm as well as they tend to be more reliable (I am told).

I think the basics have been covered by other posters, use the one that is the most reliable, if they are both equally as reliable than use the one that you are most familiar with, both are great options for HD at less than 40 feet. I do recomend that you practice carrying the one you choose with a flashlight around your house as it can be a wake up call when you try to handle a rifle and a flashlight at the same time. I also suggest professional training in defensive use of a rifle.

Quoted: whichever one goes 'bang' everytime.....the M1 will be more than adequate for HD at thaat range the M1 will have better retention b/c both of your hands hold it on the same plane in a more natural grip.... h/w, the AR is easier to reload imo and is a tad easier to accessorize

It's been specified what he meant by "retention", but I'm going to take this statement to task.

The M1 is definitely not going to help your retention. The reason the AR is such a pointable rifle is because of that nearly-perpendicular pistol grip, which is a FAR more natural (biomechanically optimal) configuration. It also affords you a LOT better resistance to your gun being taken away. Playing tug o' war, would you rather have a rope, or a handle on the end? Perpendicular is better than parallel.

Quoted: The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round.

The Box O Truth busted that myth:
www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

At that range I would go with the bigger round.

I also use my M1 Carbine for Home Defense

Quoted: And, COSteve, that Carbine was probably rebuilt at something like Red River Arsenal or Rock Island Arsenal-----there was no U. S. Government facility by the name of Rock River Arsenal.

I stand (well, actually I'm sitting right now) corrected.  Dumb mistake.  I meant Red River Arsenal, not Rock River.

BTW, about the 30 Carbine's effectiveness, let us not forget what it was designed for.  It was to be a replacement for the 1911 .45s as an intermediate range weapon.  It never was meant to be a front line battle rifle, but rather a weapon that supporting troops could have more faith in than a pistol.  They viewed it as a 100 - 150 yd max weapon to be used primarily by officers and rear echelon troops.  The airborne troops commandeered it and developed a folding stock because it was light and you could carry much more ammo than it's larger brother, the M1.  

I have owned my 30 Carbine for close to 35 years now and only started shooting it in the last couple of years.  It is in remarkably good shape, high wood stock, no cracks or dings, great finish, no damage, barrel checks at a '1' and the only thing I've done is get a new extractor (just in case), a new recoil spring, and replaced the type 2 slide with a type 3 (so that the cycle timing was slowed a bit and now the brass flies at 3:00 o'clock rather than a 5:30 like it use to do.  

A friend and I bought 2 carbines from the NRA, rebuilt by Red River Arsenal, and updated with the newer sight, mag release, and bayonet lug, packed in a crate with two sets of the following: leather wrapped bayonets, 5-15rd mags, slings, oilers, cleaning rods, canvas cases, cleaning supplies, gas piston wrenches, cans of ammo (yep looked like over-sized spam cans), and even canvas covers for the muzzles to keep the mud out.  In short, everything 2 GIs needed to go fight with.  They were wrapped in cosmoline paper(?) and looked new.

(You don't want to know that we paid $58 each for them, do you?  I thought not.)

Anyway, it is great fun to shoot, but as was said earlier , MOA is about a 'coffee cup' at 100yds.  I reload for all my weapons and I shoot light loads (110grn at 1,525fps) most of the time so as not to overstress the old girl. That said, I've clocked my Speer HP loads as high as 2,103fps, but for HD I keep them about 1,900fps (14grns H110).  With my bayonet and some USGI M2, 30 rd mags I picked up about 30 years ago, the thing will scare anyone at HD ranges.  As far as reliability goes, it has been completely reliable even shooting the Speer HPs and using the 30rd mags.  Guess I just got a good one.

Quoted: Quoted: The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round. The Box O Truth busted that myth: www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

First off, the Koreans were wearing more clothes than a few layers of Levis lol.  Second, im sure it could hamper the effectiveness at 100-150 yd ranges that our boys were dropping squinty eyed chinese troops.  

I have never shot anyone and hope that I don't, but I have shot a Coyote with a .223, 62 or 64 gr hollow point, I forget which. The bullet fragmented leaving a very large wound cavity. I hit the Coyote straight on in the center of the chest, when I picked him up by the back legs to carry him back to the truck, lots of stuff poured out of his chest. I kid you not it was pretty impressive. A .30 carbine is not going to do that. Also the .30 will penetrate sheet rock while I am told .223, depending on the round of course, is less likely to. The .30 carbine is really a pistol round and the .223 is of course a rifle.  YMMV

Why does eveyone worry about sheetrock?  Dont fucking miss!!

Quoted: Why does eveyone worry about sheetrock?  Dont fucking miss!!

How insightful.

Quoted: The muzzle blast/concussion from a 5.56 round inside a closed room is horrendous .

Having once fired an SBR in a box the size of a footlocker, I would have to agree.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round. The Box O Truth busted that myth: www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm First off, the Koreans were wearing more clothes than a few layers of Levis lol.  Second, im sure it could hamper the effectiveness at 100-150 yd ranges that our boys were dropping squinty eyed chinese troops.

It went through the layers of levis, a jug of water, 3 pine boards and lodged into a cinder block. The 30 carbine was never meant to be a long distance gun. The troops were probably missing them, not hitting them.

Quoted: Neither is my first choice for home defense. A nice tactical shotgun makes missing a lot harder to do when you're waking up on adrenalin. Hence, the shotgun.

I'm just wondering what magical properties of the shotgun allow it to be aimed more easily.  Could you say what they are?

Quoted: My solution: home.comcast.net/~csehmel/guns.jpg Which ever one I grab first in the dark, groggy night!

the middle the middle!  

I vote shot placement on either.

Time to dismiss some myths and explain a few things.

As was said, the .30 Carbine was intended as a replacement for the M1911A1 handgun, not the infantry rifle.  Second, all the stories you've heard have been with the FMJ round.   This thread started out asking about it with the 110gr JHP, not the FMJ.  Det. Jim Cirillo with the NYPD Stakeout squad shot a lot of bad guys.  And a lot of them went down with the .30 carbine and 110gr JHP loads.  His practical experience, at probably the same distances posed in this thread, is evidence that it works just fine.

With regards to reliability, there is a difference between the M1 and M2 magazine catches.  The M1 is semi-automatic.  When the M2 select fire was developed, they also developed a 30 rd magazine.  The reports of 30rd mag unreliability arose when they were used in M1s with the original mag catch.  The M2 catch has another contact point on the magazine that is absent on the M1 catch.  They found that the M1 catch didn't always retain the heavier magazine at the proper angle, hence the malfunctions.  So if you want to use 30rd mags in your M1, just make sure you have an M2 mag catch and that you are using original GI mags, not cheap commercial knockoffs.

Going back to the reports on battlefield effectiveness.  The Carbine performed fairly well in most European theatres.  Shorter ranges, house to house.  In the Pacific, also shorter ranges, lightly clothed Japanese soldiers.   When you get to Korea, you had longer ranges, more heavily dressed Chinese troops, at least in winter, plus inexperienced troops in the early part of the war.  If you read any of the histories of how badly our guys performed when the N. Koreans first invaded, it is pitiful.  With round nosed ammo, velocity drops off rapidly.  Add inexperienced troops with poor skills (budget cuts by the Truman administration almost eliminated training time) and there was a hell of a lot more missing than there was hitting.  If you go forward a few more years to the early part of Viet Nam, the carbine worked quite well and was well liked.

To answer your original question, at home defense distances of 40ft and less, I think either one will serve you well.  Grab whichever one you want.

Quoted: Why does eveyone worry about sheetrock?  Dont fucking miss!!

easier said then done

30 carbine is lighter, handier and opperates at lower pressure so will be less unpleasant to fire indoors. 5.56mm is much less likely to exit the home assuming the home is a standard stick and sheetrock type construction.  30 carbine with a JHP or JSP is far more effective than a standard mil-ball load.

That being said, for home defense I look to Mr. Mossberg.

Damn right Zamo...



Same shotty.



Personally, I have an SKS ready for my home defense utensil until I get my AR built.... reason? I have more family members between me and the front door. Incase an intruder grabs one I don't want to hit them too while blowing the a**hole's head off.

Quoted: The M1 Carbine was phased out after Korea after GIs complained about lack of stopping power against heavily clothed Chinese bum rushing the UN lines north of the 39th Parallel.  The heavy amout of clothing helped decrease the power of the round. Something that NATO also has said of the 5.56 NATO round in heavy snow areas during the thick of winter and has advised against such use.

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm

Read this. Scroll down a bit to where he does the test with the .30 carbine.

While I never served in Korea, I may be able to shed some light on rumours of 7.62x33 being unable to penetrate quilted Chinese uniforms. Given the topography of Korea, combat ranges were at both extremes of the spectrum. It was possible to engage advancing Communists at hundreds of meters while they were advancing in droves or at five feet after over-running a position. The wide open, mountainous terrain of Korea made 300+ yard engagements a possibility. .30 Carbine has much more in common with a pistol cartridge than a rifle round and pistol cartridges just don't have the energy to be sufficiently effective at rifle distances. While its far more likely that soldiers missed thier targets, 7.62x33 FMJ bullets certainly lack effectiveness at distance. At close range, the Carbine was certainly effective. It went on to be very successful in Vietnam and in South America.

This fact concerned NATO and a study was done about the effectivess of 5.56 projectiles in mountainous terrain. NATO eventually concluded that 7.62x51 would give its forces a large advantage over both 5.56 and 5.45 projectiles. They concluded that engagement ranges would exceede the effectiveness of small caliber rounds and NATO soldiers with 7.62x51 could engage Warsaw pact soldiers and thier BMP's without them being able to return fire. This report was cited when some member countries resisted the adoption of a second caliber. This phenomenon was demonstrated in Afghanistan necesitating the re-introduction of the M14 and other interim solutions.

I think the M1 carbine would be an effective HD weapon, but far from ideal. I believe modern 5.56 bullets like TAP have much more to offer than current and even some custom 7.62x33 rounds. I am also concerned about possible over penetration with .30 Carbine, at least more so than certain 5.56 bullets. An AR15 carbine would be a much better choice, or atleast a Mini 14. I personally don't see the logic in choosing a carbine over a shotgun for HD/CQB, but "run what you brung".
While its not ideal or without fault, I believe the M1 Carbine firing 7.62x33 is an effective and adequate HD weapon.

Quoted: While I never served in Korea, I may be able to shed some light on rumours of 7.62x33 being unable to penetrate quilted Chinese uniforms. Given the topography of Korea, combat ranges were at both extremes of the spectrum. It was possible to engage advancing Communists at hundreds of meters while they were advancing in droves or at five feet after over-running a position. The wide open, mountainous terrain of Korea made 300+ yard engagements a possibility. .30 Carbine has much more in common with a pistol cartridge than a rifle round and pistol cartridges just don't have the energy to be sufficiently effective at rifle distances. While its far more likely that soldiers missed thier targets, 7.62x33 FMJ bullets certainly lack effectiveness at distance. At close range, the Carbine was certainly effective. It went on to be very successful in Vietnam and in South America. This fact concerned NATO and a study was done about the effectivess of 5.56 projectiles in mountainous terrain. NATO eventually concluded that 7.62x51 would give its forces a large advantage over both 5.56 and 5.45 projectiles. They concluded that engagement ranges would exceede the effectiveness of small caliber rounds and NATO soldiers with 7.62x51 could engage Warsaw pact soldiers and thier BMP's without them being able to return fire. This report was cited when some member countries resisted the adoption of a second caliber. This phenomenon was demonstrated in Afghanistan necesitating the re-introduction of the M14 and other interim solutions. I think the M1 carbine would be an effective HD weapon, but far from ideal. I believe modern 5.56 bullets like TAP have much more to offer than current and even some custom 7.62x33 rounds. I am also concerned about possible over penetration with .30 Carbine, at least more so than certain 5.56 bullets. An AR15 carbine would be a much better choice, or atleast a Mini 14. I personally don't see the logic in choosing a carbine over a shotgun for HD/CQB, but "run what you brung". While its not ideal or without fault, I believe the M1 Carbine firing 7.62x33 is an effective and adequate HD weapon.

Good to know I am not alone out here lol.  

Quoted: Quoted: Neither is my first choice for home defense. A nice tactical shotgun makes missing a lot harder to do when you're waking up on adrenalin. Hence, the shotgun. I'm just wondering what magical properties of the shotgun allow it to be aimed more easily.  Could you say what they are?

He said a shotgun makes missing harder, not aiming easier. With a shotgun you have many projectiles in a wider radius as opposed to one projectile in a very small radius.

Quoted: if the 55gr fragments then it's going to have better detructive ability than the 30cal hp

Actually no its not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Neither is my first choice for home defense. A nice tactical shotgun makes missing a lot harder to do when you're waking up on adrenalin. Hence, the shotgun. I'm just wondering what magical properties of the shotgun allow it to be aimed more easily.  Could you say what they are? He said a shotgun makes missing harder, not aiming easier. With a shotgun you have many projectiles in a wider radius as opposed to one projectile in a very small radius.

If it's semantics, fine.  But how big is the house?  Ever pattened a shotty at inside-home distances?  The shot will spread about an inch per yard.  And if you're worried about overpenetration or other friendlies, that shot spreading is a liability, not an asset.
It sounded to me like he was buying into the "you don't have to aim a shotgun" myth.

Quoted: Time to dismiss some myths and explain a few things. As was said, the .30 Carbine was intended as a replacement for the M1911A1 handgun, not the infantry rifle.  Second, all the stories you've heard have been with the FMJ round.   This thread started out asking about it with the 110gr JHP, not the FMJ.  Det. Jim Cirillo with the NYPD Stakeout squad shot a lot of bad guys.  And a lot of them went down with the .30 carbine and 110gr JHP loads.  His practical experience, at probably the same distances posed in this thread, is evidence that it works just fine. <snip> To answer your original question, at home defense distances of 40ft and less, I think either one will serve you well.  Grab whichever one you want.

+1

I spent a lot of time as a kid walking the woods with an M-1 carbine loaded with surplus ball ammo. This was a carbine that was "liberated", by my great-uncle,  from service in the south Pacific in WWII. It was (is) a fun little gun to shoot.....light and handy.....accurate enough for small game out to 25-30 yards or so (at least in my hands and blessed with 12 year old eyes!).

My experience killing critters with the GI ball ammo was mixed. I probably shot 20 or so groundhogs with it . I found that center of mass hits on them killed them pretty well though they almost invariably were able to run a bit after being hit. The GI ball punched a nice hole but created little wound cavity. Granted, the original poster ups the ante considerably by using handloads with a better bullet than the old ball ammo.  

In any case, it's worth remembering that the M1 was intended to replace a handgun for second echelon troops, as others have mentioned. Comparing it to an infantryman's rifle doesn't really seem fair.

From world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm The M1 carbine is an interesting little weapon. The original request for a compact and lightweight shoulder arm to replace service handguns for second-line (non-fighting) troops was first issued by US Army in 1938. The idea behind this request was that a shoulder arm, such as carbine, firing ammunition of moderate power, will have more effective range and will be much simpler to train the users to fire it accurately, than the standard .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol or revolver. This request was probably the first recognition of the need in the Personal Defense Weapon in the modern sense. Request was shelved for some time and re-issued in 1940. It included the new cartridge of .30 caliber but of power far less than of US general issue .30-06 ammunition. The cartridge, officially named the "cartridge, ball, .30 caliber, M1", was developed by the Winchester company. It was a straight-case, rimless design with round-nose bullet weighting 110 grains (7.1 gram) and muzzle velocity of 1860 fps (~ 570 m/s). Muzzle energy was about 2 times more than of .45ACP pistol cartridge but still almost 3 times less than of .30-06 rifle cartridge. In the modern sense the .30 carbine cartridge can be called an "intermediate" but the lack of the muzzle energy and round nosed bullet limited the effective range to about 200 meters or so. Anyway, it had still much longer range than any pistol round of its time, along with moderate recoil.

IMO, the M1 carbine is an adequate HD arm. Its merits probably come out a little bit more when compared to other arms chambered for "intermediate" cartridges. My experience shooting small game with GI ball (I know--hardly the perfect "test" of a HD round ) doesn't exactly warm my heart when I think about HD scenarios. But if you can hit the target--once, twice, three times-- with the M1, but can't with the M4, then the M1 is far superior. Overall, though, I think I'll stick with my M4.