This year was somewhat interesting in the MN deer hunting woods that I frequent during the season. For the first time there were enough AR15 derivative type carbines and M1 Carbines present to say they really had a presence. At the southern end of the state land there was a group of camping hunters using nothing but these rifles. Does this ever stir up controversy! I believe it shouldn't and add the following to explain the allure of these rifles. As a youth I hunted many days with an M1 Carbine, shooting everything from deer to woodchucks with the gun. I do not choose to do so now, but this is my choice and I support a firearm owner's choice as long as the local game laws support it too.
Please let me define what I mean about the term Military Carbine. I am referring to a firearm that is both shorter and lighter than a full size military rifle and designed to shoot a low power cartridge. The lighter part is the most open to interpretation, the shorter is held to be a barrel at least 4 inches shorter than the standard rifle with other reduced dimensions which should result in a firearm under 40 inches of overall length. Additionally, the carbine must fire a low recoil round, one not requiring a heavy battle rifle to tame its recoil and provide a stable shooting platform.
Along these lines the US military has given the American shooter the M-1 Carbine and the AR15/M16 series of weapons. Both fit the above definition, the AR even in its “rifle” format. Ruger has given the shooter the Mini-14.
The .30 US M1 Carbine:
As a youth, I owned many M1 Carbines, both military issue and civilian manufacturer “improved” types. I fired thousands of .30 US carbine rounds. Finding an unmodified accurate shooter was difficult. Later versions were usually much better than the earlier versions, often this being related to the improved sights on the later guns. Often the recoil plate needed to be glass bedded or held in place with a screw/lock washer combination. The barrel band usually required the later version for a more solid lock in of the rifle mechanism into the stock. The barrel band tightness and the recoil plate position had to be calculated and adjusted by trial and error so tightening of the appropriate screws did not flex the action or barrel to negatively impact accuracy and introduce the tendency of the flexed barrel to walk severely as it heated. This is how the glass bedding position on the recoil plate, correct barrel band screw tightness and/or final recoil plate tightness were established. If one gave this effort the appropriate patient attention, a US M1 Carbine was capable of 2-4 MOA, with most in the 3-4 MOA range, at least in my experience; this of course providing that the barrel and other critical components were within proper specification.
The cartridge has a maximum usable range of 200 yards. This is due to the bullet’s poor ballistic coefficient and the low initial velocity of the round. The 200 yard trajectory is rainbow like and the time to target allows one to actually drop arms before the impact on target sound reaches the shooter. I suppose one could expend many thousands of rounds to deal with hitting running targets at this distance, but I found it to essentially be a 100 yard gun for moving targets and about a 150-200 yard stationary target system. As a hunting rifle it is an inside 100 yard system in my opinion.
The AR15:
The AR series was a distinct improvement over the .30 Carbine. Gone was the wood stock, the warping or swelling of which could render the gun inoperative. The mechanism was attached to the stock in such a way that no negative influence on accuracy was introduced by the design and the possibility of incorrect screw tightening. The sights were quite adequate for the range of weapon employment intended.
I believe the military got it partially right with the 5.56 cartridge as a carbine round. The original M193 load is flat shooting to 300 yards with a very high initial velocity. The bullet has a decent ballistic coefficient due to its shape. However, it does suffer from a low sectional density. This sectional density is a problem for penetration of intervening obstacles between the shooter and the target. In the open this cartridge is a winner, and it is also good for urban dwelling fighting where over penetration can cause “friendly” fire casualties. In wooded areas and areas with vegetative overgrowth, this is a poor cartridge. Why the military did not go for something like the 6.5 Grendel still amazes me. Still, when all is said and done, the 5.56x45 is a pretty fair carbine round; a clear improvement over the little .30 US carbine cartridge. The lead required at 200 yards makes this a hitter on moving targets at this range as the carbine was at 100. The mechanical integrity of the AR assures it will hit stationary targets to 300 yards. In essence you have doubled the hitting range over that offered by the US Carbine. The handling qualities of the little .30 US Carbine are such that it is better for close snap shots than the AR series, at least in my experience. IMO, the cartridge of issue limits the AR15 in 5.56 to varmint hunting.
Enter the Ruger Mini-14:
The accuracy potential of this rifle is better than the US Carbine, but not quite as good as the AR series of weapons. However, this little rifle is as handy for close in snap shooting as the US Carbine. It is the most durable of the three rifles. In many ways, this would have made a better military carbine than the AR15 had it been available in the formative years.
What about the Russian 7.62x39?
This cartridge is an improvement over the little .30 carbine, and in close, it betters the 5.56. However, overall I believe the 5.56 is a better battle carbine cartridge, as it shoots faster and flatter, thus having better long range hitting potential. Additionally, the 7.62x39 recoils more than the .30 carbine and the 5.56; thus its firearms require a little more weight to mitigate this recoil, and we want as light as possible. So, the little Russian is dismissed as my choice for a handy little military carbine. It is a good choice for 100 yard and under deer hunting with the Mini-30 IMO though.
Summary:
If I were forced to pick one firearm to provide the performance needed in a handy little military carbine giving 200-250 yards capability, I would pick the Ruger stainless steel synthetic stock Mini-14. My second choice would be an AR15 platform with embellishments making it more robust, such a monolithic rail system and a free floating barrel. I must state however, if I was to require a range of 150 yards maximum, the little M1 Carbine properly tuned would suffice. Any owner of a Mini-14, AR15 or M1 Carbine can tell you, these are fun to shoot! No recoil and a sight picture that stays through the recoil.
For hunting I would choose an AR fine tuned for accuracy for varmints and a Mini-30 for deer.
Thus, there is a disparity in my mind between military needs and those of the hunter. However, we have as shooters a class of weapon that is fun to own, great to handle and a pleasure to shoot.
