Being a long time fan of Carbines

FS2K · July 22, 2007, 04:27 AM

I've had quite awhile to think about what it is that I like about them, and what qualities make for a great Carbine.
There was a post on the NFA section about the MP5 lately that got me thinking. In it, the M4 (AR15/M16) design was mentioned and how many law enforcement agencies worldwide seem to be switching over to them from MP5's. Fact or not, it does seem like there has been a definate rise in the popularity of the M4 in recent years.
I suppose the most obvious difference between the two designs is the fact that one uses a pistol cartridge and the other uses a mid range rifle round. The benefits of the rifle caliber over the handgun round seems clear-cut at first, but at closer inspection the benefits of the M4's ammunition aren't so plain to see. Why? It all comes down to the M4's round itself. While the 9mm's bullet design has undergone an explosion of developments to aide performance in CQB situations over recent years the same cannot be said about the .223 Rem. or 5.56 X 45mm. Sure, the M4's round has seen some changes, but nothing close to what is offered in 9mm Parabellum. One of the performance benefits of the M4's ammunition is it's ability to fragment in the rounds that were designed to do so, however, reliable fragmentation remains at the threshold of approx. 2700 fps velocity.

So why should this matter?

Because in barrels less than 16" in length rounds like the XM193 (55 gr.) and the M855 (62 gr.) are NOT able to perform reliably in the way they were designed to. With that in mind, ammunition choice should be critical in the M4's being used by Special Forces and Law Enforcement with barrels that only measure 10.25" or 11.5", the very configurations that are most popular now.

So is that to say that these short barreled Carbines are somehow inferior in any way? In my humble opinion NO. Bullets are still bullets and a well placed shot WILL work everytime...however allot of people disagree with my view, especially long time haters of the 5.56mm round. On the flip side of that is the fact that HK's MP5 offer an improvement in velocity in the 9mm round due to their longer (than handgun) barrels. This, coupled with the many advancements in expanding bullet design in 9mm makes the MP5 appear to have an advantage over a carbine length M4.

But there are other things to consider when assessing a weapon/calibers performance. There have been tests proving the 5.56mm/.223 Rem. bullet less prone to over penetration and collateral damage within an indoor situation compared to the 9mm. A very important thing to consider when selecting a weapon for indoor use, as is flash surpression. Many Law Enforcement personel have to go into situations where there are potentially explosive gasses and vapors present like in Meth labs. So while the M4 gets the nod for it's lower potential for hurting innocents in other rooms, the MP5SD's almost legendary supression abilities gives it the advantage here.

There have been numerous discussions about the MP5 vs. the M4, and to be honest each gun has its good points and bad. On a more personal note, I don't own an MP5 or an HK 94 but I do own a Bobcat BW89 PDW along with a couple of Shorty AR15's. Of course since I can't get a SBR licence here all of my carbines have 16" barrels due to barrel extensions, but I do notice a difference in how each gun handles. While both types are fun to shoot and have their good points they aren't the only 2 kids on the block as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes down to overall performance in a less restrained enviroment than within a building.

Enter the M1 Carbine, and the M92 Krinkov. Even after all of this time the .30 cal Carbine is still one hell of a gun. Out of the 4 guns I mentioned, the M1 Carbines is (in my opinion) the best balanced of the bunch. It's light, smooth, easy to pack and carries a good punch. Then there's the Krink. The most powerful gun of the group (being that the Yugo M92 is chambered in 7.62 X 39mm) The Krinks are being used in the niche' where us "Westerners" use the MP5 and M4 by the Commies with no major issues.

Both the M1 Carbine & M92 Krinkov use more powerful rounds than the MP5.

Neither Carbine's ammunition is dependant on a minimal Velocity to work.

So technically either design could utilize shorter barrels than any M4 effectively.

So, one is OLD and the other comes from a former Soviet state...thats no reason to exclude them. LOL! I like Shorter versions of almost every modern gun I know of with the exception of the FN FS2000/F2000 which by the way is another excellent choice in Carbines that addresses the "5.56mm/.223 Rem lack of nessesary velocity due to short barrel" syndrome.

gak · July 22, 2007, 10:15 AM

Good analysis and yes to the M1. For the 40 years in my hands and the previous 23 or so in my father's, my Inlands have been amazingly reliable, accurate and comfortable - not to mention just plain fun - shooters with a wide-range of usefulness. And the newer ammo choices have upped that usefulness quotient for HD/SD - and I would think some LE applications - by a fair leap as well.

July 22, 2007, 04:27 AM	#1
FS2K Senior Member Join Date: September 9, 2006 Posts: 1,853	Being a long time fan of Carbines I've had quite awhile to think about what it is that I like about them, and what qualities make for a great Carbine. There was a post on the NFA section about the MP5 lately that got me thinking. In it, the M4 (AR15/M16) design was mentioned and how many law enforcement agencies worldwide seem to be switching over to them from MP5's. Fact or not, it does seem like there has been a definate rise in the popularity of the M4 in recent years. I suppose the most obvious difference between the two designs is the fact that one uses a pistol cartridge and the other uses a mid range rifle round. The benefits of the rifle caliber over the handgun round seems clear-cut at first, but at closer inspection the benefits of the M4's ammunition aren't so plain to see. Why? It all comes down to the M4's round itself. While the 9mm's bullet design has undergone an explosion of developments to aide performance in CQB situations over recent years the same cannot be said about the .223 Rem. or 5.56 X 45mm. Sure, the M4's round has seen some changes, but nothing close to what is offered in 9mm Parabellum. One of the performance benefits of the M4's ammunition is it's ability to fragment in the rounds that were designed to do so, however, reliable fragmentation remains at the threshold of approx. 2700 fps velocity. So why should this matter? Because in barrels less than 16" in length rounds like the XM193 (55 gr.) and the M855 (62 gr.) are NOT able to perform reliably in the way they were designed to. With that in mind, ammunition choice should be critical in the M4's being used by Special Forces and Law Enforcement with barrels that only measure 10.25" or 11.5", the very configurations that are most popular now. So is that to say that these short barreled Carbines are somehow inferior in any way? In my humble opinion NO. Bullets are still bullets and a well placed shot WILL work everytime...however allot of people disagree with my view, especially long time haters of the 5.56mm round. On the flip side of that is the fact that HK's MP5 offer an improvement in velocity in the 9mm round due to their longer (than handgun) barrels. This, coupled with the many advancements in expanding bullet design in 9mm makes the MP5 appear to have an advantage over a carbine length M4. But there are other things to consider when assessing a weapon/calibers performance. There have been tests proving the 5.56mm/.223 Rem. bullet less prone to over penetration and collateral damage within an indoor situation compared to the 9mm. A very important thing to consider when selecting a weapon for indoor use, as is flash surpression. Many Law Enforcement personel have to go into situations where there are potentially explosive gasses and vapors present like in Meth labs. So while the M4 gets the nod for it's lower potential for hurting innocents in other rooms, the MP5SD's almost legendary supression abilities gives it the advantage here. There have been numerous discussions about the MP5 vs. the M4, and to be honest each gun has its good points and bad. On a more personal note, I don't own an MP5 or an HK 94 but I do own a Bobcat BW89 PDW along with a couple of Shorty AR15's. Of course since I can't get a SBR licence here all of my carbines have 16" barrels due to barrel extensions, but I do notice a difference in how each gun handles. While both types are fun to shoot and have their good points they aren't the only 2 kids on the block as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes down to overall performance in a less restrained enviroment than within a building. Enter the M1 Carbine, and the M92 Krinkov. Even after all of this time the .30 cal Carbine is still one hell of a gun. Out of the 4 guns I mentioned, the M1 Carbines is (in my opinion) the best balanced of the bunch. It's light, smooth, easy to pack and carries a good punch. Then there's the Krink. The most powerful gun of the group (being that the Yugo M92 is chambered in 7.62 X 39mm) The Krinks are being used in the niche' where us "Westerners" use the MP5 and M4 by the Commies with no major issues. Both the M1 Carbine & M92 Krinkov use more powerful rounds than the MP5. Neither Carbine's ammunition is dependant on a minimal Velocity to work. So technically either design could utilize shorter barrels than any M4 effectively. So, one is OLD and the other comes from a former Soviet state...thats no reason to exclude them. LOL! I like Shorter versions of almost every modern gun I know of with the exception of the FN FS2000/F2000 which by the way is another excellent choice in Carbines that addresses the "5.56mm/.223 Rem lack of nessesary velocity due to short barrel" syndrome. __________________ Just a big fan of guns.

July 22, 2007, 10:15 AM	#2
gak Senior Member Join Date: February 28, 2005 Posts: 1,542	Good analysis and yes to the M1. For the 40 years in my hands and the previous 23 or so in my father's, my Inlands have been amazingly reliable, accurate and comfortable - not to mention just plain fun - shooters with a wide-range of usefulness. And the newer ammo choices have upped that usefulness quotient for HD/SD - and I would think some LE applications - by a fair leap as well.