Carbine or Rifle?

Question

This is something my friends and I debate a lot. Carbines are shorter and are for shorter range and smaller spaces like urban combat zones, therefore possibly a better chance for a hit whereas the rifle is longer, more powerful, and most often, a template for a carbine. (e.g. the M1 carbine & the M1 Garand or the M-16 and the M-4 carbine) Also, rifles tend to be more accurate than carbines. I stick by my guns (no pun intended) by saying the rifle is the better of the two choices but all my friends all say the carbine is the way to go for an infantryman. Can a veteran or someone currently serving settle this argument?

Answer 1

I think most people have answered this correctly as it depends on the situation...A tool for every job. (Rifles for longer ranges and carbines for cqb or urban combat)

However, to explain the M-16 vs. the M-4 in context of power and accuracy we must understand a few things first.

The M-16 A-2 has a 20 in. bbl. that velocitizes a standard 62 gr. M885 projectile at approximately 3200 f.p.s.

The M-4 Carbine has a 14.5 inch bbl. that velocitizes the
same standard M885 projectlie at about 2800 f.p.s.

It is the same cartridge, but the length of the barrel is longer increasing the velocity of the projectile.

So, to settle this debate pick the 16 inch bbl for general purpose use; you can't barely notice the difference between it and the M-4 length and will also increase the velocity significantly enough to notice the difference. Also, pick a 24 inch heavy bull bbl upper for tacking small water bottles at 300 yards.

Accurracy:

It has been said that accuracy is in the hands of the shooter...that is to say accurracy greatly depends on the skill and expertise of the shooter. With this being said there are some particular choices one can use to their advantage in order to better accurize their particular choice of weapon.

1. The length of the bbl increases velocity.

2. A faster projectile is more accurate.

3. Heavier Barrels/quality construction stabilize projectiles better.

4. Barrel Resonators Recoil Buffers can help absorb some vibration.

5. Muzzle Brakes / Springs decrease recoil.

Now in regards to the light 15-30 shot .30 Cal M-1 carbine vs. the heavier eight shot M-1 Garand .30 Cal. with Two completely different cartridges!

.30 carbine is a 100-110 grain projectile with a muzzle velocity of around 2000 f.p.s.

30-06 is a 150-185 grain projectile traveling at around 3000 f.ps.

A big difference! Don't pick either, but if have to...take the accurized garand. The AK-47 tops the .30 carbine in every way imaginable and unless you want everyone to know your garand is out of ammo when it pings after expending the last round don't pick it either.

If you want to pick a similar engineering model choose theSpringfield M-14/M-1A Rifle. Probably the best large semi-auto rifle design and still in use with our military today. Another choice could be a Ruger Mini-Ranch Rifle in 6.8 SPC (The Best general purpose Round for effective firepower and increased capacity), .

Personally I'd pick the 6.8 Ranch Rifle Out of all of the choices on the market today based on these qualities: Good Cost, Excellent Reliability, Good Weight, Good Magazine Capacity=up to 25, Good Firepower 110 gr at about 2800 fps, Good Range =600 yds. and with legal modifications it's accurracy will increase substantially to being in the range of Good.

Answer 2

An M-16 and M-4 both use the same round so stopping power is not a big issue. The M-16 will be better at long ranges but with optics, the M-4 is very useful from 2-300 yrds if the target isn't dancing around too much. The M-4 definately has advantages in a confined area.

In WWII there were huge differences between the Garand and Carbine. The Garand: 30-06 round. The Carbine: 30 cal. (almost like a souped up .38 pistol round). While the carbine was very acurate, it lacked the penatration and stopping power of the Garand. Audey Murphy, the most decorated soldier of WWII, killed around 100 soldiers by his own estimate. His favorite weapon, the Carbine. He ws a small guy and liked the light weight and less recoil. He said he would usually made his kills with a head shot at fairly close range as they peaked over a log, or around a tree. With the M-1 Garand with it 30-06 cartridge, you could shoot an enemy right through a tree. (I test fired my M-1 at a 30" thick cedar tree and the FMJ Ball rounds went right through it). The Garand's effective range, about 450-500 yards. The carbine, considerably less. In Korea the carbine was only marginally effective against Chinese and N.Korean troops when they dressed in heavy winter clothing. The Garand would would even flinch at the heavier clothing.

The reason you will find different weapons in the same unit is that different situations may call for solutions. SAWs, M-16s, M-4s, pistols, Dragons, 308 cal machine guns or heavier. All can fill an important nich. Or take care of a particular itch.

Answer 3

I was armed with a 1903 SpringfieldM1a1 (advanced inf. training) a Garand M1d (snipers version) and an M2 carbine with an infra red scope upon arrival in germany. Of the three, I preferred the Spring field first, the M1 second and the carbine last.

For accuracy at long distances you want a long gun and a short one for urban warfare where your target is less than 200 yards!

I cannot speak to the effectiveness of the M4 carbine or the M16 and the .223 caliber round. I do notice that when there is some serious shooting going on, in Iraq or Afghanistan, the shooter is has dug up an old M14 from somewhere.

Answer 4

It depends on the rifle and the situation. When operating in an urban setting, mounted in vehicles, or deploying from aircraft, the M-4 is the only reasonable choice. I carried a full-sized M-16 with a grenade launcher in Iraq, and it far too bulky and unwieldy to get into and out of vehicles with, compared to the M-4. Also, the M-4 loses accuracy only at the farthest ranges, ranges that I can't hit with any regularity with an M-16, so for me the choice is again obvious. Given that most gunbattles take place at 25 yards, and the M-4 can be equipped with red-dot or ACOG sights, it's obvious why the M-4 is the go-to weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The other weapon system you mentioned, the M-1? Yeah, that's not a fair comparison. They barely share the same design, and the round chosen for the carbine was too light and underpowered. It was essentially a submachine gun with a full sized stock, except that most weren't even full-auto. It, again, was fine as an airborne weapon or for jungle warfare where ranges are reduced, but the .30 carbine round was inferior in every way to the .30-06, and at about the same size as a tommy gun, it became unpopular really quick.

Answer 5

The carbine is a much better choice for your needs. The difference in velocity will be no more than 100 fps, and the 30-06 has more than enough extra to compensate. Having something you can swing better in the woods will make a big difference where the velocity difference will not. There's actually about the same amount of velocity difference from one rifle to another just on the basis of manufacturing tolerances, and in general most of those are less than a thousandth of an inch! (This brings up the side point that you can't really take ballistics tables to the bank, and if you're interested in minutiae, you need to chronograph your loads.)

Answer 6

A carbine is not necesarilly any less powerful. The M16 and the M4 use the same ammunition, which makes the diference there, but the longer barrel of the M16 stabilizes the round in flight over a longer distance. The two weapons are also just as accurate to an intermediate range (say 200m?), but the M16 will reach aout and touch to a greater distance, about 800m, where the M4 maxes out at about 500. So when you talk about accuracy, you also have to talk about range.

I won't make a statement as to which is better. It all depends, to my mind, on the mission. I'd far rather carry the M4 day to day, but there are situations where I might want that extra 300m.

Answer 7

Well, you've certainly got some crap so far. The accuracy of the M-4 is just about identical with an M-16 out to about 300 meters. You'll be hard-pressed to find any combat situation where you're shooting at distances greater than that. I've done long range courses with both and gotten almost identical results.

The real advantage of the carbine is it's lighter to carry, it's easier to maneuver is tight spots, and it's easier to get in and out of vehicles with it. There is no real practical advantage to having an M-16 over the M-4, other than it's a little easier to shoot because it has a full stock rather than that sliding thing. You can set up an M-16 with a scope and get decent performance out to about 500 m, but that's what snipers are for, and they have real guns.

Answer 8

Better for what? An M40 isn't exactly practical for home defense, or close range urban combat, but if you need to pick someone off at 1,000 yards, it's the weapon of choice. Not to mention, carbines TYPICALLY (Yes I know, there ARE exceptions) use smaller rounds with less kinetic energy. For example, the M4 uses the 5.56 round. The M40 uses the 7.62 round. However, the 5.56 has about half the kinetic energy of the 7.62. So, this is basically like asking who's better, Tom Brady or Lance Armstrong....

ok.....better at what?

Answer 9

I suspect you want a variety to better cover the range of situations.

The accuracy of a carbine is going to drop off dramatically past 100 yards. But there are times you want accuracy much further than that.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want a full rifle when doing a door to door -- I'd take the carbine first, if it's available.

Answer 10

Id have too agree with everyone on the fact its about what weapon meets the needs of the mission, but that being said I would go M16A4. I like the M4 but then again it only has semi-auto & full-auto & the M16A4 has semi-auto & 3 round burst. It can be tactical sized down like a M4 but still have that 3 round burst. Full autos fun but I hear the M4 jams alot in full-auto & without good trigger control some people would panic & spray the mag not hitting a thing. But thats just me, no military but just like to shoot guns.