I admit that I have this a littlw twisted... When I think of pistol calibe carbines I think of MP5s and Uzis and the Storm etc. type deals, not 44 Mag/357 Lever rifles of the old west. ALthough they are absolutely the definiton of a pistol caliber carbine, just not my cup of tea.
Pistol Caliber Carbines?
- Thread starter C.M.9
- Start date
Evil Monkey
New member
the only thing a PCC is good for is if you want a low report weapon for home defense because you cannot legally obtain a suppressor for a rifle.
That's it. There's really no other reason to have a pistol caliber shoulder fired weapon.
no it doesn't. typical 9mm loads out of a 16" barrel are generating about 500-650joules of energy.
common 357mag loads out of a 4-6inch barrel are generating a minimum of around 750joules. Most loadings are 800joules+. Remember, this is out of a handgun.
Firing 357mag out of a 16" barrel should exceed 1,000joules. Far more potent than a 9mm.......
That's it. There's really no other reason to have a pistol caliber shoulder fired weapon.
no it doesn't. typical 9mm loads out of a 16" barrel are generating about 500-650joules of energy.
common 357mag loads out of a 4-6inch barrel are generating a minimum of around 750joules. Most loadings are 800joules+. Remember, this is out of a handgun.
Firing 357mag out of a 16" barrel should exceed 1,000joules. Far more potent than a 9mm.......
For a common bullet weight of 125 grains, it looks to me like the 9mm S2K is putting out more speed than a .357 mag from a 2" or 3" barrel..... agreed, it starts to lose out at a 4"+ barrel, but I did conservatively say "starts to approach .357 handgun power levels".
CLICKY
Where are you sourcing your information from?
Evil Monkey
New member
the same site you posted and multiple others + youtube chronograph videos from a while back.
Anyway, a 357mag from a rifle is better than a 9mm out of a rifle.
not saying I wouldn't trust 9mm in a rifle/carbine, but there are better options.
Consider a Thureon Defense Carbine. Neat little sucker. They now make them Glock Magazine Compatible.
Last edited:
I can think of a few more:
1. Ammo interchangeability with handgun. A major plus for people who only have a couple of guns. Also very valuable in situations like the 2008 shortage. No need to debate over buying pistol or carbine ammo, just buy the one caliber and be done with it.
2. Reloading. Straight wall pistol cases last forever and are stupid easy to reload using carbide dies
3. Cast bullets work very well in pistol calibers.
Evil Monkey
New member
1. This isn't the late 1800's. There's no reason for rifle and pistol to have the same round. Shortage or no shortage, people can afford to buy 9mm/40sw and 223/7.62x39 all the time together.
2. most gun owners do not reload.
3. see number 2
Why not? The reasons for having a pistol and rifle in the same caliber is just as valid today as they were 100+ years ago. People today try to have electronics that take the same type of batteries, be it 123 Lithium or AA. They try to standardize on gasoline or diesel whenever possible. At work we try to standardize the computer hardware we use in various systems. Interchangeability across multiple functions and roles is seen as desirable in every other facet of life, why not ammunition?
I don't know who you hang out with who could afford the shortage prices. Some people I know simply did not have any ammunition, or so little that they dare not shoot it, for their 5.56 or 7.62x39 due to the price and availability at that time. (and I sure as heck was not about to sell any of my stock.) Prices effectively doubled and even then availability was iffy.
Quite a few who already owned, or were able to buy, a PCC that fired the same round as their pistol made them their primary centerfire rifle that they took out shooting. (Not many would SAY it was their primary, but it was the only one they had significant ammo for.) Not to mention that it tended to be the pistol calibers that was both available more often and in greater quantity.
No, but quite a few know someone who does. I didn't, but some area reloaders supposedly made good coin illegally selling reloads. Lots easier to churn out lots of pistol rounds than rifle.
Good discussion.
Evil Monkey
New member
generally speaking many gun owners do not reload and any advantage is lost. They are also the type who enjoy a few worthy firearms that are the most practical to them.
This type of person needs not to waste money on a PCC if he already has a decent semi auto rifle. There are AK's and similar rifles running lower than a grand, and ammo for these rifles are practically the same cost as common handgun rounds (really talking about steel cased practice stuff here...the price on brass cased ammo is devastating
)
Owning and shooting one for fun is a whole different story. I can't argue with that.
Speaking of 100+ years ago, I figure back then people liked the idea of one round for handgun and rifle because of two reasons:
1. Ammo in certain parts of the US were hard to come by. Getting two different types of ammo, especially if one was particularly less popular and therefore, less supplied, was not an option. They also didn't have the massive logistics capability we have now to supply ammunition.
2. Semi autos weren't around yet. You had your revolver and repeater. Shooting a "controllable" round in a revolver didn't make any sense. 99% of these revolvers were single action and even you got back on target quick, you still have to cock the hammer manually.
So it makes plenty sense to fire the biggest round you can handle in a revolver that you can also use in a rifle. That my best guess on the subject.
This type of person needs not to waste money on a PCC if he already has a decent semi auto rifle. There are AK's and similar rifles running lower than a grand, and ammo for these rifles are practically the same cost as common handgun rounds (really talking about steel cased practice stuff here...the price on brass cased ammo is devastating
)Owning and shooting one for fun is a whole different story. I can't argue with that.
Speaking of 100+ years ago, I figure back then people liked the idea of one round for handgun and rifle because of two reasons:
1. Ammo in certain parts of the US were hard to come by. Getting two different types of ammo, especially if one was particularly less popular and therefore, less supplied, was not an option. They also didn't have the massive logistics capability we have now to supply ammunition.
2. Semi autos weren't around yet. You had your revolver and repeater. Shooting a "controllable" round in a revolver didn't make any sense. 99% of these revolvers were single action and even you got back on target quick, you still have to cock the hammer manually.
So it makes plenty sense to fire the biggest round you can handle in a revolver that you can also use in a rifle. That my best guess on the subject.
pistol caliber rifles
Pistol caliber rifles especially the in calibers as the .357 Mag, 44Mag, and 45 Colt have a good and useful purpose. They give a beginning shooter a step from the 22LR and a comfidence builder before moving on to a hi-power rifle in a more traditional rifle caliber. Also in the case of the 44mag and 45 Colt the longer barrel better utilizes the power of the these pistol calibers. In the really heavy loads the 44 mag equil and in some loads surpasses the 30-30 Win. And the 45 colt hand loads can comes close to equiling low-end 45-70 Govn't loads. Even the little 357 Mag can come close to equiling the 30-30 in power with a lot less recoil. and this is great for a beginning shooter and cost less round per round which is good so the beginner (son and/or daughter) can practice with out driving you into bankruptsey. The 357 Mag in a rifle is great for varmit control on varmits that are a little too large for the 22LR.
The trainning, practicing, confidence-building and entertainment at an ecomnomic cost, to the common shooters, and the beginner shooters, and geriactric shooters is more than self evident, and clearly obvious to anyone to anyone who really into shooting. These bennifts definatly out-weigh any negative objection some shooters may have.
V/R
J. Budd
Pistol caliber rifles especially the in calibers as the .357 Mag, 44Mag, and 45 Colt have a good and useful purpose. They give a beginning shooter a step from the 22LR and a comfidence builder before moving on to a hi-power rifle in a more traditional rifle caliber. Also in the case of the 44mag and 45 Colt the longer barrel better utilizes the power of the these pistol calibers. In the really heavy loads the 44 mag equil and in some loads surpasses the 30-30 Win. And the 45 colt hand loads can comes close to equiling low-end 45-70 Govn't loads. Even the little 357 Mag can come close to equiling the 30-30 in power with a lot less recoil. and this is great for a beginning shooter and cost less round per round which is good so the beginner (son and/or daughter) can practice with out driving you into bankruptsey. The 357 Mag in a rifle is great for varmit control on varmits that are a little too large for the 22LR.
The trainning, practicing, confidence-building and entertainment at an ecomnomic cost, to the common shooters, and the beginner shooters, and geriactric shooters is more than self evident, and clearly obvious to anyone to anyone who really into shooting. These bennifts definatly out-weigh any negative objection some shooters may have.
V/R
J. Budd
brian45auto
New member
this is about the dumbest thing i have seen on a gun sight in a while.
it is only a set or two away from just about any of the anti gun rights arguements.
fail x2.
Evil Monkey
New member
In terms of having a versatile weapon, I am not wrong. There's practically no use for SMG's or PCC's anymore other than simply having them for fun.
Evil Monkey
New member
I will agree that smg/pcc's are especially suitable for home defense for their stated attributes.
However, a 12-16in barreled bullpup rifle with a suppressor can also be short, handy, and easy on the ears for indoor use, yet fires a far more potent round than pistol cartridges.
If a person has the option of buying a $700 beretta cx4 storm or a $700 high quality arsenal AK for HD, hunting, etc, the choice is obvious....at least to me.
thedaddycat
New member
They are not too common, but Calico made a semi-auto 9mm carbine. And with either a 50 or 100 round magazine you are probably not going to run out of ammo....
http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/calico-e.html
http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/calico-e.html
Pistol caliber carbines I have personally owned and relied upon for home defense are the HiPoint, the Marlin camp, and a semi UZI. The Marlin I owned was not reliable. The other two worked perfectly. The UZI, in particular, was ferocious with a 32rd mag...I would go to my club and run the steel plates we have. It was a simple matter to rapidfire through a mag, working the plates back and forth, hitting them easily and quickly and repeatedly at 40yds. 100yds was childsplay. With the stock folded, the UZI was very compact to store, and to maneuver through the house...plus the folder was extremely fast to deploy.