January 4, 2003, 04:56 AM
For a 9mm carbine, I like to learn if there are significant differences in terms of "effective range--velocity--stability" among these choices:
* a plain 16" barrel
* 14.5" barrel with a 1.5" brake
* 10.5" barrel with a 5.5" brake
Given the optimal length for 9mm is 8" or less, would the above actually diminishes the overall effectiveness?
January 4, 2003, 06:45 AM
All I noticed shooting my uncles pre-'89 ban UZI, is the 16" barrel is REAL quiet- sounds close to my 10/22 or lever-gun with .38's at the indoor range!
January 4, 2003, 08:54 AM
I dont really see the point of the pistol caliber carbines when you can get a better round in a package the same size. In a SMG size package, they have their uses, and are more effective, but these are more "special purpose" in their uses. I have a MP5 that was converted from a HK94 with a 16" barrel. I didnt notice any loss of accuracy in the gun when the barrel was whacked to 9". I can still make headshots on sillouhette targets at 100 yards with it, with the right ammo, but its not something I'd probably choose to do. Ammo does make a big difference too. Realisticly, the 9mm to me anyways, is a 50 yard or less( and preferably less), gun. Its effectiveness comes in the full auto mode with fast multiple hits. In a gun thats as big as a rifle, this type anyway, I'd rather have a rifle caliber. Then again, if its just a plinker, have at it, nothing above matters. :)
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.