Bullet penetration myth busted

I'll add a penny.

Instead of comparing the penetration of a .30 carbine to that of main battle rifles I think it more historically accurate to compare it to that of a 1911 with ball ammo. Which is more related to the intent and design with which the .30 caliber carbines were made. Carbines were designed and intended for close quarters combat as an alternative to the 1911 for those who, for a variety of reasons, didn't carry a main battle rifle.

I have the report on the carbine freezing up at low temperatures in Korea. Odd how that part of the report seems to get extracted from the context of the entire report. Every gun was freezing up with one exception. The BAR.

One thing I haven't heard is why the carbines were issued in lieu of a main battle rifle during the war in Korea. Or maybe they weren't.

Jim

I went looking for more information about penetration of the .30 Carbine cartridge against North Korean forces during the Korean War, and found information to support both sides of the debate. I think members here may find the reports interesting.

In "U.S. Infantry Weapons in Combat - Personal Experiences From World War II and Korea," by Mark G. Goodwin, published by Scott A. Duff Publications in 2005, I found the following...

An account by Jack Walentine, who served in the 25th Infantry Division in Korea, indicates penetration was not an issue. Here is a quote from page 90. "You hear stories about the Chinese being shot with carbines in their winter clothing and they just brushed it off. I have shot Chinese in all their winter gear with an M2 carbine, and those rounds had gone completely through them, in the front, and out the back. I know because I had to search them for maps and documentation after I shot them. At 100 to 150 yards that sucker was bad news."

On page 153, Win Scott, who served in the 1st Marine Division in Korea voiced his disdain for the carbine. He said, "The carbine wasn't good in cold weather; we didn't like it, I wouldn't give you 10 cents for the carbine. I did not have any confidence in that weapon. First of all, if you could get it to fire you couldn't stop anybody with it. We had a lot of close combat and a carbine hit didn't seem to faze them much unless you hit them in a vital spot. The M1 (Garand) would knock them flat."

I also consulted "Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons (Korean War)," by S.L.A. Marshall, published by Desert Publications in 1984. The book, which is a compilation of many after incident battlefield accounts of various weapons, was extremely critical of the carbine. On page 51, it relates an account by 1st Lt. Joseph R. Fisher of the 1st Marine Regiment, during a defensive action at Hagaru-Ri. He stated "But the main reason my men lost confidence in the carbine was because they would put a bullet right into a (Chinese racial slur removed) chest at 25 yards range, and he wouldn't stop. This happened to me. The bullet struck home; the man simply winced and kept on coming. There were about a half dozen of my men who made this same complaint; some of them swore they had fired 3 or 4 times, hit the man each time, and still not stopped him."

I read all the Korean War accounts in the Goodwin book, and most of the encounters related occurred at short ranges, under 50 yards. Most engagements were at night, and defensive in nature, firing against many charging enemy at close range. It seems unlikely that carbine bullets would not penetrate.

So, I'm somewhat conflicted on the subject of whether thick layers of clothing might have stopped carbine bullets. I still think it's plausible, particularly at longer ranges, but it seems most engagements were close in. Perhaps adrenaline and opium had something to do with the perception. If an enemy soldier charges you, and you fire repeatedly and accurately at him with a carbine, but they still keep coming, I imagine one would speculate that clothing layers stopped the bullets, even if they didn't. But maybe they did...I think there's more to this story...

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

David, 

As the original poster, and having performed this test myself, I have little doubt on the subject. I realize I fired at point blank range, but penetration was thru 72 layers of folded PADDED mats (2 feet stacked), plus two 1X6 boards, and then the drywall (but not the brick on the other side of the drywall LOL). I saw the chart for bullet trajectory/speed/energy and agree that distance makes quite a difference, but for close-in combat, as it was mostly intended, I have a hard time believing a padded winter issued wartime jacket would prevent penetration. Could be wrong but won't be convinced Would love to see additional research and opinion.

Reed

colreed,

Yes, as I mentioned previously, I thought your evidence was compelling. I'm still very conflicted on this "myth." I think very different results would happen at longer range, but many, if not most engagements described in the complaints about Carbine penetration were during engagements under 50 yards.

I also think the M2 had something to do with the myth. One soldier indicated he never saw anything but M2 Carbines in Korea. Accounts from soldiers who stated they fired multiple shots without taking down an enemy soldier might have presumed they had fired accurately, but perhaps they did not, and did so with an M2.

Intriguing subject...

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

David, 

Great test methods!  Looks like we're waiting on winter. 

I fired an FMJ carbine round through an old Kevlar helmet from about 10 yards. Doesn't prove anything here but it did pass through both sides of the helmet.

Are there any similar widespread stories of communist bullets, such as the 7.62x25mm, not penetrating frozen GI clothing during the Korean war?

It would seem like this story would go both ways.

Interesting reading.  Pic is impressive.  Note to self - Treat O2 tanks with respect and never shoot one.  

There are plenty of photo's on the internet of the winter uniforms being worn by the Chinese during the Korean War. The opinions of this first page below aside, the uniforms speak for themselves.

------------------------------------------------------


https://johnreisinger.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/getting-it-wrong-the-menace-of-the-quilted-uniforms/

-------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------

Someone else may get to it before I do but will try to find and post the source(s) of the information making the claims of this often quoted myth.

From personal experience I'll add a note about the ability of cloth/wool/etc to inhibit the performace of a bullet.

Best example is Kevlar. Though not invented until after Korea it's construction provides the basic concept of clothing construction and material that can impede bullet performance. With Kevlar being the extreme no uniforms were made too during the 1950's. The key is the make up of the fibers and the weave.

Who sets the standards in the USA for the use of Kevlar as body armor is the National Institute of Justice. Stories claiming varying qualities of Kevlar don't apply to U.S. manufactured Kevlar clothing for use as body protection.

Here's an article from the Scientific American on how it works.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-kevlar-so-stro/

We were issued Level II Kevlar vests for both uniform and non uniformed duties. They were fitted to us at a police equipment tailor and retailer. Some of us opted to pay the extra cost for the added protection of Level IIIA. I was assigned to narco in 1987. Before the money seizures bought all the toys. One incident in particular motivated me to purchase a Level IV jacket with steel trauma plates front and back.

Our rangemasters conducted a number of tests on the various Kevlar vests we used that was the excuse for the decision of Level II being issued. Not trusting the bean counters who failed to comprehend the number of beans to repair or bury a shot cop in comparison to the number of beans it took to acquire Level II vests, more than a few of us took it upon ourselves to do our own tests.

Vests, like a pair of socks, are not a reissuable item. From those who didn't make probation we acquired the vests we needed. As did others at our agency and fairly commonly done by officers at other agencies.

Rather than explain what we learned have a look at https://www.safeguardarmor.com/support/body-armor-protection-levels/.

What the info doesn't include is distance makes a difference. The level rating standard test distance is 100 yards. My Level IV Jacket and trauama plates indicated at a distance equal to or greater than 100 yards.

Bringing this back around to the War in Korea, when they didn't have this technology or level of protection, it takes a Level III or IV Kevlar rig to stop a standard factory .30 carbine round nose bullet. The addition of steel or ceramic trauma plates stopped the carbine rounds we tested on a Level IIIA vest. Our tests were done at 25 yards given the environment we worked in, not 100 yards.

The National Institute of Justice, for good reason, has to be conservative in their ratings.

We didn't conduct our tests on Kevlar soaked in water and frozen to any degree. Things get complicated with the addition of water to Kevlar.

I'm no expert on any of this. Just have some limited life experiences.

Since I first heard these stories of the carbine failing to put Chinese and Korean soldiers down I've dismissed these accounts as they are absent very important key elements and a number of elements that may have contributed.

There are no accounts providing distances or circumstances. No accounts include information on if the person shot failed to drop but dropped x number or yards or seconds later. Or weren't seen after having been shot given the circumstances. No accounts include where the bullet struck the person or examination of the person who had been shot. Not always possible but enough examples existed in that environment where it could have been done at some point in location and time.

No information has been included on the clothing, where on the clothing and anything that may have been in the path of the bullet as it penetrated the clothing (i.e. that flask of distilled alcohol). Did it hit leather, wet leather, the belt buckle?

Most of the stories I've heard have been a U.S. soldier was given a Garand in exchange for the carbine they carried. With a story that the carbine was deficient in one way or another.

In a combat environment rather than risk anyone until tests could be conducted I think it a very good idea to hand out M1 Garands as replacements if a rifle was even suspected of being deficient. If the problem with the carbines was to the degree the stories have grown since we'd see some kind of documentation on tests and recomendations. What we do know is some of our soldiers carried them in Vietnam. To include SF.

------------------------------------------------
My daughter's husband was infantry by choice in the 27th Infantry Regiment. During a tour in Iraq he and others were armed with the M4 rifle. Their operations varied from urban to rural. None were armed with a rifle capable of more distance than the M4 in 5.56.

Based on their experiences in Iraq, before his second deployment he was armed with the then modern version of an M14 in 7.62. His second deployment was to Aghanistan. In the time between he married my daughter who was pregnant with their first when he deployed.

He, and his buddies who carried M4's in Afghanistan, were glad he had that M14 in the valley they were operating out of.

No one gun fits all environments and jobs at hand. Yet. How long have military forces been trying to find that one?

..


Edited by firstflabn - May 23 2021 at 10:27pm