The M1 Carbine is the standard by which all PDWs are measured.

[stanc]

While we may have difficulty in putting ourselves in the minds of the M1 carbine designers, there is some logic to assuming that a low velocity (by rifle standards) pistol substitute would have round nosed bullets like the pistols it replaced.

The assumed effective range was close enough that a spire point would not have been judged to add enough to velocity retention to be useful. The the spire point round nose would have been seen as drilling through the target so would have been viewed as equal from a wound ballistics perspective.

1. The M1 carbine was NOT intended to be a "pistol substitute." It is a RIFLE, and was meant to be a much more effective weapon than a pistol. I see no logic to handicapping its performance by using a round nose bullet.

2. You seem to have misread my post. I said SPITZER. Not "spire point," and definitely not "spire point round nose."

3. The assumed effective range was 300 yards. With MV of 1970 fps, I'd think that the difference in retained velocity between a bullet with ~0.16 BC and one with ~0.26 BC would be quite "useful" and very desirable.

4. A flat base spitzer bullet like that below exhibits early yaw after impact, producing superior wound ballistics compared to the round nose .30 Carbine bullet.