Lmao it really is. I hit a 2 liter at 100 yards with a 9x18 polish makarov. Took all six rounds and the holdover was rediculous lmao. I wasnt actually aiming more like using the dirt splash to adjust lmao. It really was field artillery with a pistol.
@@basti080891 since you mention it i would like to take my berretta out sometime and try that shot again with both pistols as i did not posses a standard 9mm at the time. The 9x18 cartridge is fairly enemic when compared to 9x19 even though they are simmilar in stature, it would be interesting to see how they stack up side by side.
@@inhumanfilth681 sounds interesting, have no experience with 9x18, but I shot 9x19 out of a cz shadow 2 at up to 200m and at 200 it dropped little more than the height of the front sight, was much less than expected
You guys handle having two people in front of the camera speaking based on a loose script far better than many other youtubers, e.g. TFB-TV. Neither of you seems to talk over the other, or talk the other down, and you keep disagreements more civil. I definitely prefer your presentation style (no offense to anyone else intended).
I think a lot of it comes from genuinely being close friends and knowing each other very well. When you spend that amount of time with someone you can tell when a small movement is an intention to speak or just a small movement. But as mentioned it definitely helps a lot. I'm glad the channel is getting a lot more popular these days. I came from Ian's channel a while back and I'm glad I did. Personally TFB-TV and the like seem to have too many pre-concieved beliefs. We all do, but at least here they feel comfortable disagreeing and giving the counter argument (like AR-15 vs AK strengths/weaknesses) to show that its not a firm truth.
I view the M1 Carbine as more of a precursor to the modern PDW (P90, MP7) than as a "proto assault rifle." The assault rifle is meant to decrease the weight and increase close range firepower for combat troops, the PDW is meant to increase the firepower of support personnel. The M1 Carbine was definitely designed with the second goal in mind.
True in a sense. It was designed to be a better PDW than the 1911. But it uses an intermediary cartridge unlike the current PDWs making it more of an assault rifle. so i wouldn't really regard it as a precursor to modern PDWs since those tend to be more related to submachine guns in general.
@@stephenwatts2879 Like it or not, assault rifle has become the term that military historians use to distinguish rifles like the AK47 and M16 from things like the FAL or G3 (what they call "battle rifles"). If you are using "assault rifle" to refer to a magazine fed, select fire rifle shooting intermediate ammo, you are semantically correct. The big problem is when people use "assault rifle" to refer to "guns that look scary".
If the ordnance board decided to cut the .30-06 cartridge in half, like the Germans did with the 8mm Mauser round, we might have ended up with a round something like the 300 Blackout 70 years ago, and the M1 carbine might have go one to become the first assault rifle......
Or they could have adopted the .276 Pedersen, then gone on to develop a carbine version of the M1, or another design like the Winchester "M2" that was downsized to become the M1 Carbine. (Forgotten Weapons has a recent video on the "M2").
The 7.62x39 came out almost 70 years ago now. I believe the first weapon chambered for it came into production late in World War II. So we wouldn't have beat them to it by much.
They are very comparable in terms of muzzle energy out of similar length barrels. Your comparing data collected from a .357 handgun more than likely less than 6” compared to a 16”+ m1 carbine. That’s the difference. Literally look at a ruger Blackhawk, they are made in 357 and 30 carbine in similar barrel lengths, as the cartridges are comparable
The muzzle energy and velocities are right in the middle of .357 Mag out of rifles. Depending on the manufacturer .357 is either slightly more powerful or slightly less, so it’s really just a slightly smaller diameter, auto loading version of the cartridge due to high chamber pressure
@@DickBumguscomparing 357 out of a pistol to 30 carbine out of a rifle isn’t meant to be fair or not. It’s simply trying equate about the power of the round. Some 357 out of a rifle have pretty crazy energies.
I've watched my Dad consistently smack whistle pigs passed 300 with his. Seen a few dogs chasing elk get it at range too. It's not a bad round, especially for the time. My old shooting instructor was a Korea vet. He always told a story that there only guy he ever killed was trying to put a bomb on their elevated water tank. He fired 3 quick rounds and hit him with all three and the guy screamed all the way to the ground and the fall killed him.
My father was a Corsair pilot in the Pacific during the second world war, on the day peace was declared he took the top round off all his firearms as souvenirs so due to the vagaries of family life I have ended up with 3 of the 6 browning 0.5inch cartridges and the 30carbine round from that day. He saw plenty of combat including allot of troop support on landings through the pacific flying from land bases. The carbine would have hung on the wall of his hut just in case. He also carried a 38 revolver he was RNZAF on an American base so had to be very careful as the Americans all wanted to swap their 1911's for the revolver. I am not a handgun sort of guy so have no idea what that gun was? Any trouble though he was more likely to be running to his plane and its 6 Browning machine guns that mucking around with the carbine.
The M1 .30 Carbine is one of the most underrated guns and rounds mainly because people approach it from the wrong direction and compare it to their AR rifle and use lousy cheap magazines and don’t keep their gun clean.
The carbine is fascinating in so much as it was introduced as a light rifle for auxiliary troops in a world of bolt actions. It met the range, ease of use, and weight/handling burden of US military requirements but also provided very high rate of fire with enlarged magazine capacity. Seems like a staggering win when any serviceman can send that volume of fire down range so easily.
That was extremely informative (and very interesting! Yeah, I think both the M1 Carbine and STG-44 were well-designed, effective weapons at the roles/jobs they were intended for. The M1 Carbine was a highly welcome weapon for troops in need of a light, smaller, handier weapon than a full-sized rifle--paratroopers in particular. The STG-44 was meant to be the ultimate front-line infantryman rifle, effective up close and from afar, even if it was heavier, more expensive to produce, and too big to be truly practical for other forces. In short, the M1 Carbine was intended to fulfill a less glamorous, more indirect, and more widespread need than the STG, and did so in a more logistically-friendly way.
On the subject of full auto fire with an M1 Carbine, I too agree that it would be ridiculous. My Grandpa was issued an M2 in Korea (I know there are some slight changes such as stock weight), he said that after his first engagement he never put it back on full auto due to the complete lack of control he had over the gun when running on auto.
the widespread issue of the select fire M2 did effectively muster out the submachine gun in most US Military arsenals, the last hurrah was Vietnam where most infantry units had "that one guy" who 'procured' a WWII era weapon. PM me if you want any pics
ravissary79 do keep in mind, the only other automatic weapon that a soldier might’ve handled that had any similarities to the M2 carbine would’ve either been the Thompson M1928 or the M3 “Grease gun”. Both of which are VERY controllable compared to ANY assault rifle in full auto.
I have always thought it is fascinating that Audie Murphy used the M1 carbine so much towards the latter part of the war. He used others also of course but switched to the M1 when he could. He was even taking out snipers with his!
Somehow I missed this video a year ago. Thanks a ton for answering questions about it. The round was so unique, and seemingly developed out of nowhere - there being no obvious other platforms for it leading up to its use - that I've always wondered 'Why?'
The M1 carbine was very popular with the troops that carried it in combat. I recommend "With the Old Breed " by E.B. Sledge. It was the memoir of a Marine mortarman in the Pacific.
Good analysis. On the 'storm rifle' definition, one important aspect I see people forget a lot is that the stock needs to be in-line with the bore to better control the recoil from the full auto, particularly on the move, while you are 'storming' a position. 1. Intermediate cartridge 2. Select fire 3. In-line stock
The M1 Carbine is one of the most underrated weapons in military history, most definitely in US military history. Arguably the first purpose built assault rifle design (as it was originally intended for and eventually developed into select fire). My favorite WW2 weapon i've shot for sure. So ahead of it's time and gets almost no recognition.
I think the guns great as well, however saying first assault rifle is just wrong. Firstly you have like the stuff Fedarov Avtomat coming decades beforehand secondly it's not an intermediate cartridge so isn't an automatic rifle.
M1 is a great short range rifle. M1 carbine is better than a useless pistol .To compare it to the M1 Garand is comparing apple to oranges. M1 is heavy long distance firearm.
I been in love with the 30 CARBINE since day one I shot it. it's really fun to shoot and a good HD/SD rifle. The 21st century rounds for the carbine like any type of Soft Point or Hornady FTX CRITICAL DEFENSE rds Will do the job, but CORBON DPX RDS Will be good but they tend to not feed right. Also about almost 2yrs now UNDERWOODS AMMUNITION used to make the 30 CARBINE rds but now they do not, alone with that DOUBLETAP AMMUNITION still carry one. All and All best rifle. BLACK RIFLE of military type is too much of over penetration.
So in a way, the US looked at the intermediate cartridge concept from the pistol calibre upwards instead of the rifle calibre downwards like the Germans did with the M1? That is how it seems to me. Edit: literally what they just began discussing after I commented.
The .32 Win self loading cartridge was the starting point, not made from scratch. I used to own a WW-II M-2 Carbine with a Para stock! I only sold it along with my registered NFA M-14 NM rifle when Slick-Willy got in and the price of NFA guns went through the roof and used the money for a new Ram-Jet 502 for my trans am. It was the single best sub-gun I ever shot! It was lively as you say, but it was also very controllable with a tight grip and by leaning into it. It was easy to get hits at 100-150 Meters at best. Which at the time I used to win more than a few Sub-gun matches in the 80's and early 90's. Most sub guns are hard to get multiple hits with at 100 Meters! The Carbine was easy to get two hits as much as I missed at 100 Meters. Many people decry it's caliber and energy, but The Israelis used them for police forces with soft point ammo and were delighted with the results! My dad had and used a M-1 Carbine in WW-II until he acquired a Garand.
Owning a M1 Carbine I will say they are very underestimated. Paper ballistics do not show the cartridges potential. They in proper use and at reasonable distance out to 150 will cleanly take deer size game, I know I have taken more than a few with mine.
The .327 Federal Magnum needs some recognition here, too. It's a bit hotter than a .30 Carbine, I think, rimmed, so it works well in revolvers and lever actions. Federal factory 100gr SP clock 1541fps in a 7.5" revolver, and 2221fps out of a 20" lever gun barrel, over my Oehler chronograph. I've reached similar velocities with 115gr hard cast LSWC handloads, no pressure signs. This is near .357 magnum punch, even flatter shooting, less recoil, and reloadable cheaper than .buying 22. My poor .22s have been neglected for a couple of years now. Near .357 energy on a .22 frame, this is just WAY too much fun to shoot. I like it a lot. Working on 122grain and 135grain loads, too. Someone (Rossi are you paying attention?) needs to chamber a Model 92 in this caliber. It would sell like hotcakes and really give the .327 a boost as the ideal wandering around out in the woods and deserts round.
MontanaMountainMen from experience with my carbine, I completely agree. The muzzle energy is in the same range as a .357 mag and no one complains about those being under powered.
Yea Jessy if you compare a 357 Magnum 110 grain bullet to an M1 carbine, the same weight bullet, 357 magnum is 1,500 muzzle energy and 30 carbine is 967 just so you know, however I would still take the M1 Carbine because what people forget is with 30 round Magazines you can put down range about 750 rounds per minute with that M1 Carbine. Also at distance I still think the 30 carbine is better due to more muzzle velocity from the longer barrel. I own one, I can hit a guy with a 357 Magnum and hit him accurately before he can shoot me. I used to hold it out with one hand and make a can dance in the air, you won't get that type of accurate follow up shot with a 357 magnum handgun. Either of these weapons will kill you pretty dead. If I needed to travel fast and light and raid something, I would definitely take the M1 Carbine on that mission. For the weight you really can't beat it. You can carry 300 rounds loaded and move fast, you can't do that with most rifles.
I've had my Auto-Ordnance M1 .30 for about three years. I've fired close to 2.000 of mostly steel case ammo through it. And with all that I've had one mishap. A failure to eject. People can debate the issue of the power of the .30 round all day long but I can tell you who won't be here debating with us. The many thousands of German, Japanese, North Korean, North Vietnamese and Viet Cong who were killed with it.
funny that you mention the north vietnamese apart from the vietcong, as to basically recalling your countrys massakers of women and children. I'd like to pose one question to you though, what is the city of Saigon called right now?
The official requirement for accuracy from the M1 carbine in service from the manual which is most commonly available is to keep all of the projectiles within a target which is drawn as a 36" x 36" box, with an 18" radius arc on top of it, at 100 yards. So, while a well set up example of the carbine can achieve much closer to rifle-like accuracy, the Army was willing to accept much less accuracy in a general issue situation. Hence, a functional requirement for a PDW as envisioned by the folks who wrote the requirements, even if the manufacturers were capable of much better performance from the basic design.
Great discussion. Thank you for bringing up the point of our "definition" of assault rifle being debatable. I would, and do, argue that full-auto is not only not required on an assault rifle but that it is far less effective than double-taps and single, aimed shots for any distance. Cheers and lets talk more about this. :)
@ Randall Randallman - Re: "I would, and do, argue that full-auto is not only not required on an assault rifle but that it is far less effective than double-taps and single, aimed shots for any distance." Ken Royce, the author of "Boston's Gun Bible" and also a longtime firearms trainer, makes virtually the same points in his book. He argues that "real" firepower is hits per minute, not rounds fired per minute, and he goes on to argue that riflemanship -mastery of aimed, precision rifle fire - has been in decline since WWI. He cites statistics showing that the number of rounds expended per confirmed enemy KIA has been soaring since then, and by Vietnam it reached over 50,000 rounds per confirmed enemy KIA. The assault rifle was invented - at least in the case of the Soviets and Germans fighting on the eastern front - as the next logical step in the firepower battle going on between the two sides in infantry combat. The MP43/StG44 was the German reply to the massed forces of Red Army tank riders armed with fast-firing SMGs. Once the concept took off post-war, militaries around the world adopted mass firepower as doctrine rather than precision fire as had been emphasized in the past. Royce argues, convincingly IMO, that the pendulum swung too far in that direction, and some correction back the other way is needed.
The .30 carbine had extreme penetration of soft tissue and bone. This is because the bullet was not a spitzer like a .30-06. The bullet would not tumble but go straight through a person. When the GIs thought the chinese clothing was stopping .30 carbine bullets the exact opposite was taking place. The bullets were punching straight through without mushrooming, fragmentation or tumbling. Yes a person would eventually bleed out without medical attention but it might be minutes or hours, not seconds. The .30 carbine can penetrate both a steel GI helmet as well as a kevlar helmet. The Kevlar at close range. If you shoot jacketed hollow points I would say it would be effective enough to kill a whitetail deer. Bullet placement is important just like it would be with a larger cartridge.
Love your videos. Everyone should read 'To Hell and Back' Autobiography by Audie Murphy, the Most decorated Veteran of WWII. His favourite weapon was the M1 Carbine. He had lots of kills at 200 yards Magazine are usually the source of poor reliability. Check to make sure the magazine springs are not upside down, or front of spring is flipped. Also magazines were frequently replaced in field as they were easily damaged. Check followers and feed lips. M1 Carbines were also frequently used in Vietnam. The lighter weight and smaller size made them popular with S Vietnamese. Also US advisors (Green Berets). There is a picture of Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf using a short barreled M1 Paratrooper model in VN. Later famous for the 1st Iraq war. As to the effectiveness of 1911 in combat: Everyone should Read 'A Rifleman Went to War' by Herbert McBride. He put down a lot of Germans in the trenches of WWl with his 1911. There was a great demand for 1911s in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and later conflicts. Don't forget Alvin York, He killed 7 Germans taking out a Machinegun nest with his 1911 in WWI. (Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor). 1911s have been preferred backup weapons with frontline soldiers ever since WWI. I know a Vietnam Lurp Vet who killed 3 Vietcong with his 1911A1 when they ambushed on patrol. His XM177 was taken out of action when a VC bullet went through its receiver. 3 shots 3 kills faster than you can say it. He was also wounded. Unfortunately the other 5 members of his patrol were killed at the same instant during the ambush. Some Tunnel Rats preferred the 1911A1 While some others preferred the S&W Model 10 .38 Specials. Soldiers who were not issued 1911A1s figured out ways to get them bribes & trades. ex trades of an SKS for a 1911A1 were common. Also trade of an SKS for a XM177. As you could take an SKS back to the world as a war trophy because they are semi-auto
Just for public knowledge ...the Reising submachine gun fires from a closed bolt and is very accurate for what it is , but it did weigh 7 lbs. It is not a 300 yard gun though. I have shot mine out to 300 and basically you have to just "lob" the bullet out there. Super accurate, way more than the Thompson.
Williams actually only developed the Tappet Gas system while in jail. He actually had very little, to quite literally no, input into the actual development of what would eventually become the M1 Carbine.
This makes me wonder, if instead of considering this an assault rifle, we consider this the first real PDW? It seems to fit the requirements of that very close. In weight, calibre and effective stopping power.
The 1911 is useless? Wow! Admittedly he fought in WW1, but it's a good thing Alvin York didn't know that. And it's interesting that the m1911a1 continued as the standard sidearm for the U.S. military decades after the M 1 carbine.
It is possible to see in the development and issue of the M-1/M-2 carbine an implied criticism of the M1911 45 ACP sidearm, but that's a mistake - as you point out quite well. The real issue wasn't the effectiveness of the M1911 as a weapon, or its cartridge, but the fact that - for most individuals - it is easier and quicker to master a carbine-length rifle than to become proficient with a combat pistol. As for the M1911 45 ACP, its greatness is assured and has long-since been proven. If top-tier special ops forces like the Navy SEALS and Mar-Soc still use them with all of the other alternatives which are available today, that's all the endorsement anyone could want. Reminds me of the scene in the film "We Were Soldiers" where Lt. Colonel Moore (played by Mel Gibson) asks Sgt. Major Plumley (played by Sam Elliott) if he wants an AR-15, and Plumley says "I'll just stick with my pistol" - which is of course his M1911A1. And he does. He fights the whole battle from start to finish using just his side-arm. Heck of an endorsement coming from a legendary soldier like that!
Good show. I have heard that this weapon got a bad rep in the Korea war. Not enough knockdown power, ect. I have one and use Hornady higher power rounds in it and I love it.
The .30 carbine cartridge was one of the great military cartridges. Yet there is this consistent whining about it....I can only presume it doesn't kill quick enough in computer games.
M1 Carbines were issued to officers and some non-coms in WWII. My dad (staff sergeant) was issued a carbine when he was sent to Germany. He said he immediately 'upgraded' to a Springfield. His favorite was a B.A.R. though.
I wish people would quit calling the 30 carbine round was a handgun round originally. It never was. It was developed from the .351 Winchester rifle round. It was used eventually in pistols and revolvers. I hear people say that a 9mm round is a better round and more powerful than the 30 carbine round in a carbine length weapon. This is totally wrong. The 30 carbine round is far more powerful than the 9mm. I wish people would do some reasonable research on this subject before spewing mis-information about this subject.
Ranger Up: I always thought of the M1 Carbine as a rimless 357 magnum. To this day I think an MI Carbine with a GI 15 round mag would make a dandy home defense gun for anyone. Be it woman, children, or men as long as the've had the proper taining. They even make MI Carbines with lights/lasers/scopes, but give me my old amalgamation of five pound wood and metal and I'm set.
Correct, the .30 carbine is way more powerful than 9mm is at any range. For some reason, googling ballistic charts is hard for some people! Just a few minutes on google people, try it.
Love the M1 Carbine!!! Love the concept, execution, and final result. I feel it was way ahead of its time, what with the popularity of PCC's like the Ruger, any AR-variant in 9mm, etc. I also love the nostalgia of it-Band of Brothers, etc.
Ummmm I have a .30 with a scout mount and scope and hit a man size target (18" plate) at 300 yrds while on a rest all day long! Standing I can do it more or less 70% of the time or better. .30 is no joke in the hands of someone capable.
TiredOfApathy Great Comment. Ditto. Mine are in the Choate solid PG stock with the Ultimak upper handguard and red dots. I put sling & bipod studs on the bottom centerline and got rid of the bayo mounts as well. I lapped the tight spot (at the shrink-fit gas block) out and both of them are amazing shooters. On the 300 yd line of the KD range at Cp Swift, from prone with a Harris bipod I stayed on a steel E silhouette for a 30 rd mag full as fast as I could break the next shot. All hits. SQUAD AUTOMATIC CARBINE, Y’ALL! Before my first agency finally got ARs, I carried one of these hot rodded Carbines with a handload of Hornady 110 gr JHP over H110 and never felt undergunned. One of my sons took his first deer with that Carbine and load. Full penetration, destroyed both lungs & the heart. Same load is in those two Carbines as our home defense rigs.
It's the statistics, the average soldier (and average has at least three different meanings that would give the same sort of answer here). Alvin York was maybe a one-in-thousand soldier, and the M1 was for the other 999.
When my dad served in Europe during WW II at the division HQ level he had an M1 Carbine. When I asked how it handled, it was clueless, as he never fired it for familiarization. So, he had no idea if it would fire if that need arose. He also recalled that the 1911 pistol was the status symbol of weapon carry among the officers at the division HQ level.
The 1911 was never meant to be a main line weapon it was a backup weapon for close range and it does well in that mode. And I guarantee more Germans were killed with it in WW2 than they attribute.
the first full auto firearm i ever fired was a 30 carbine. that was an interesting day for me. because i also had a bolt action pistol placed into my hands to fire lol an old XP in 223.
The 1911 was a perfectly fine side arm. But it was intended as a weapon to be used when all else fails. The Thompson submachine gun, in standard trim, weighs 12 pounds. But the M1 carbine was a fairly confident cartridge. As a matter of fact when the Germans capture groups of American gi's, their preferred weapon to borrow that we used was the M1 carbine. During the development of the M1 carbine they actually experimented with the same cartridge necked down to 25 caliber. It was an interesting concept. The 30 carbine was never a pistol cartridge. In actual description is it's an abbreviated rifle cartridge because they maintained 30 caliber. That also means that the 30 carbine may very well have been the world's first assault rifle when they designed it to be select fire capable. Although it was not issued that way till later in the war. At least that's my understanding.
Brilliant. Loved this. I mean this topic specifically, but also generally, you guys' down-to-earth conversational presentation style is unsurpassed on all of RU-vid.
Our Govt took, our M1 carbines off us😣 I owned 3 at one time, very under rated little rifle. I loved mine for CQB pig hunting 😁 great to about 100 m. 115gr soft nose hollow point, great little weapon. I now use a Win 92 in 357mag, similar role but not as good stopping power as the carbine.
The M1 carbine was supposed to be a sidearm, therefor this should have been chambered for a .45 caliber. It boils down to penetration versus stopping power.
@@johnc8910 Because a modern rifle, with a new magazine design that isn't flimsy would be nice? I mean, why do people keep making new pistols chambered in 9mm, or .45?
Note Ian’s use of the word “statistically”. Bringing up highly unusual outliers like York and/or one particular/peculiar single incident is irrelevant when you are trying to prepare and equip an army. Oh, and commenter Brian Anderson wrote the same thing two years ago, btw. So you can look through some of the 38 responses to his comment for details.
+InRangeTV I honestly have no clue of the advantages of the P90, besides being compact and using a high-penetrating round. I don't believe you've made any videos on the P90, know anywhere else I can check for practical information on it?
If they made an AR chambered in M1 carbine I'd buy one right away. Would be cool having .30 carbine in a gas impingement operated rifle instead of the short stroke piston like the M1 carbine is. Although I have no problem with the original style M1 carbine, I love them.
I take exception to some of the historical statements about the concept of the .30 US carbine round. In WWI the military had designed a device to allow the use of what was a .30 cal pistol round in the springfield rifle. This round was very similar to the 7.65mm Longue used in the MAS Pistol. But more telling is that Americans have always had an attraction for low powered pistol/carbine rounds like the .32-20. Winchester had a similar round for their early self loading rifles the .32 Winchester self-loading cartridge see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.32_Winchester_Self-Loading Not so different from the .30 us Car round other than a slightly larger bore size.
It is interesting whether, if the Royal Navy had considered this question in the context of a boarding or shore-party weapon in the pre-WW1 era, they might not have chosen the 8.5mm or 9mm Mars. As a pistol cartridge it was brutal (to the user); as a shoulder-fired or rifle-stocked weapon, it might have been a different matter.
From what I know, the Soviets did pretty much the same thing with calibers while designing the 7.62*25 for the tokarev and ppsh. Same with the sks/ak round. Using the same bore size meant easier production using existing tooling, which was more important than designing the perfect bullet
I loved the video. You guys are REALLY knowledgeable.................... right up until the last comment where you insinuated that the M1 wasn't reliable. Really? That has never been my experience. Thanks anyhow.
I would be willing to give up a reasonable pile of cash and a testicle if I could get a UMP or LWRC's spiffy little SMG-45 concept blaster chambered in .30 Car, with a decent brake on the end I mean, I'm not really doing anything with either testicle at this point in my life anymore, and all they do is get caught on things at inopportune moments.
I always wondered what would have happened if they made the 30 carbine round into a spitzer projectile rather than a round nose projectile. Could it have extended its effective range? Increased lethality? Or maybe the opposite?
Since the cartridge apparently was developed first, before any gun existed to fire it, I'd be interested to know what gun, if any, Winchester used to test the cartridge during development. I imagine there might have been some interim solution used just for development purposes, much like the German Tankgewehr originally just was meant to be a test bed for the new anti-tank rifle cartridge until the machine gun became available that it was originally meant to go into.
